LGBT Civil Rights and Activism

How does it dilute intimacy? Lets say I marry 2 spouses, does loving one decrease the love I have for the other? Does having a kid mean that suddenly I lose that intimacy I had with my spouse? Kids also take away from attention. Should we outlaw kids?

If a whole town was deeply in love with each so what? Of course, that example is absurd and guilty of a slippery slope fallacy.

"Well then I guess one can make a lot of non-comparable positions sound a lot alike--even if some of them have 3X as many syllables and ignore concepts like love and attraction, which on this topic is a whopper so I have to congratulate you for trying so hard."

I think they are very comparable. In both cases the argument is trying to exclude someone one type of marriage because you have access to this other type of marriage. Its trying to use a technicality to deny someone the ability to marry another consenting adult.

"As for your comment about the 'hassle', I personally don't find your glib dismissal of the mountain of legal and financial confusion resulting from legalized polygamy to be particularly conscientious or apt. On top of that, there is the insensitivity of putting millions of otherwise monogamous couples into a situation where a person can try to pressure their spouse to accept a third person into their sexual, emotional, legal and financial life... and do so legally. "

It wasn't glib. I have thought about it before. Its like someone arguing against gay marriage because it would cost the taxpapers more money in benefits. In NZ, its going to take 4 months before the marriage equality takes place because they have to change infrastructure. There are hassles that will have to be addressed here as well. Are they as big of hassles as it would be with polygamy? No. But they are still hassles.

So going by the it would be a hassle logic NZ should not have passed legalized Gay Marriage because of the legal and financial confusion? I don't think something being a hassle should be a reason to deny someone their rights, and to the polygamist thats exactly whats happening. Im not saying it will be easy to get the legal issues settled, but I dont see that being a good reason to oppose polygamy.

As for being insensitive, that situation would only happen if one of the couple wants to have multiple spouses, in which case opposing it would be insensitive to the person in the monogamous relationship who wants to get a 2nd spouse and the person wanting to become a part of that relationship. Opposing it would also be insensitive to those in love triangles who can't make up their minds.

The only person its being insensitive to is the person who does not want to share a spouse. So whats the bigger folly? Being insensitive to that one person or the other two?

Either way I would imagine most monogamous couples would simply say no to the third wheel.

"Marriage is about intimacy, attentiveness and exclusivity."

How is this different than the conservative argument:

"Marriage is about having children."

In both arguments the purpose of marriage is conveniently made to exclude whatever type of marriage that person opposes. Historically, both polygamy and monogamy have both existed. Many countries still recognize polygamy. Marriage has been about political power in some societies, and making sure that children were legitimate in others. Call me crazy, but I think of marriage being about love between consenting adults.

What is it about in the US exercising the religious aspects? Seems to me to be about promoting families and the rights of those who get married. So long as no one is getting hurt why not extend that to polygamists and group marriage? Those types of families are forming whether or not its legal, just like same sex couples are making families whether or not their state recognizes it. By denying it we are hurt those families.

"Finally, the law in many places didn't define marriage as being only heterosexual. But it has indeed defined marriage as monogamous. Gays aren't trying to alter the established structure of marriage in our society, while polygamists are."

No. This is inaccurate. Polygamy has existed in many countries throughout history (Remember King Solomon and his hundreds of wives?) and is still legal in many countries (Saudi Arabia). Further, that is exactly what conservatives are arguing. That Gay Marriage will alter the structure of marriage. Its the same argument!

If you can show me evidence that polygamy always leads to abuse or actually hurts people in a similar manner I will oppose it. But if its between consenting adults and wont hurt anyone then i dont see a reason why not.