Kasz216 said:
bluesinG said:
Kasz216 said:
bluesinG said:
1. I'm not assuming it's unequal. Three women and one man is unequal by definition. 3 doesn't equal 1.
2. As I replied to Kaz, the chances of those 10 people all being equally in love with and committed to each other is 0%, which is why it wouldn't be an equal partnership. This also seems like a moot point, since groups of 10 bisexuals are not lining up to get married.
3. As I said in my previous post, then children should not be at risk for a negative outcome *that is not shared by the parents*. So people with heart disease etc. would meet the criterion.
|
1. 3 doesn't equal 1, however there is a huge flaw in the arguement that 1=1 in regards to "love and time spent." Unequal level of affection is highly likely, and honestly probably more likely then not. In most relationships one person tends to give up far more then the other to make the relationship work. Or, not work for that matter.
I'm reminded of a short story. I want to say Ernest Hemmingway... maybe Stephen King I dunno, I read it in a class. Describing himself as a man who didn't see himself as a cheater because he had an overwhelming love for all women.
To just assume people married share equal levels of love is a bit naive.
2. I'd disagree with your statistics here. It's unlikey, but is totally possible. Also, I'm actually pretty sure there are some groups that would like to be communally married. It's just less popular then gay marriage is. I mean gay people werent lining up to get married in the 1940's.
Outside of worries of legal fraud, who cares if people are polygamists. There are some abusive polygamists, but it seems like you should be targeting the abusive people. The parrelels with the anti-gay marriage stuff is fairly stirking.
3.
|
1. It was a mistake on my part to say that the partners should be equally in love with each other. Of course that's almost never going to be 100% true. But almost all polygamous relationships are *unequal by definition* (e.g., 1 woman and 3 men, or vice versa). Same-sex marriages are not unequal by definition.
2. That may be possible, but can we agree that it's beyond the scope of this thread? As far as I know, neither Obama nor Romney supports 10-way bisexual marriage. :)
|
Except that's COMPLETELY untrue.
It's not unequal by definition anymore then gay marriage is unequal by definition because gay marriage is a 2-0 ratio.
I know more then one bisexual group of three people that live together as if they were married and would get married if they had the option.
Your just drawing a really unreal definition on the basis of gender which is ridiculious for someone who supports gay marriage.
|
Ok, you've convinced me somewhat. We were clearly thinking and talking about different forms of polygamy. I was thinking of polygamy as several heterosexual women marrying one heterosexual man (or vice versa), which *does* create a partnership that is unequal by definition. But I acknowledge that a group marriage between bisexual adults (or, for that matter, a same-sex group marriage) *does not* necessarily create a partnership that is unequal by definition.
