Romney: Marriage is between one man and one woman

[_Shulem]

How in the world can someone argue that gay marriage is okay but polygamy is not?

Can you count to two? Marriage is a contract between two persons. Two persons come together to form a life together. Surely that's not too hard to understand.



Paul O

[_KevinSim]

Can you count to two? Marriage is a contract between two persons. Two persons come together to form a life together. Surely that's not too hard to understand.

Paul, I understand completely. All I'm saying is, why does it have to be two? Why can't it be three?

The biggest foe to polygamy was the Victorian value system. But defining marriage as a contract between two persons, regardless of their gender, was also entirely opposed to the Victorian value system. It makes no sense to tear that system down when it has to do with gay marriage but uphold it when it has to do with the number of people getting married.

[_Equality]

Why is Romney taking this social issue bait? He can probably win the Presidency by articulating two words, "the economy", and yet he's willing to take up this fight in order to nail down the conservative right that's going to vote for him anyway.

Evangelicals have proven themselves to be significantly unenthused as a group with voting for him. They might not vote Obama, but he's got to work to prevent a good chunk of them not voting at all. Every few % who don't represent a decent blow to his election chances.

This is especially true of evangelical leaders who just don't vote, but also drum up donations and use their social organizational skills to turn out votes.

The problem for Romney is this: yes, he will win all or almost all of the Southern states where evangelicals predominate. So he doesn't need to be strong on the social issues on those states. If states like Georgia and South Carolina and Alabama and Mississippi were all he was worried about, he could safely tack to the middle on issues of importance to religious conservatives. But he needs to win Florida. And Ohio. And North Carolina. And Virginia. In a general election. Florida, especially, is a problem. The electoral math is such that Obama could possibly win without Florida. But Romney can't. And the key to winning Florida is to get enough of the conservative base to turn out to counter not only the liberal base (which is not as big as the conservative base, but is bigger there than any other southern state) but also to counter all the independents along the I-4 corridor who will be turned off by someone who is too conservative. It's a very sticky wicket for him to get through. he has a similar demographic problem in all the "borderline" states. He needs to excite the base and hope that their turnout overwhelms the turnout of the folks in the middle he turns off by not tacking to the center. It's basically the Karl Rove strategy that worked for Bush (arguably) in 2000 and (without question) in 2004. Problem is, the demographics have shifted a bit since 2000 and 2004, the EV distribution is not precisely the same, Barack Obama is no Kerry or Gore, and Romney is no GW Bush. Nevertheless, it's probably the best strategy for Romney to follow. The folks Obama needs to turn out are, quite frankly, not as reliable from a GOTV standpoint as religious conservatives are if they are fired up. Even though the "Obama is the antichrist" faction is "only" about 40% of the general population, if Romney can motivate them in the key swing states, he can win the election, just as GWB did in 2000 (arguably). I think it's Obama's election to lose, but it's no mystery whu Romney is concerned about tacking too far toward the center.

[_Equality]

Mormon scripture, historical practice, and current temple sealing policies appear to contradict your answer. Can you explain?

There, see, Beastie said it was a simple question. You, Equality, are complicating it. Or perhaps it was complicated from the outset, and Beastie was wrong to assert it was a simple question.

I find myself leaning toward the second alternative. The assertion "marriage can be one man and more than one wife" seems simple, but in reality it depends on whether you're talking about marriage for this life or marriage in the eternities. In the former case the answer is, as I stated, no; in the latter case the answer is yes.

In this rare instance, I disagree with beastie. It's not so simple a question.

[_Shulem]

Paul, I understand completely. All I'm saying is, why does it have to be two? Why can't it be three?

The biggest foe to polygamy was the Victorian value system. But defining marriage as a contract between two persons, regardless of their gender, was also entirely opposed to the Victorian value system. It makes no sense to tear that system down when it has to do with gay marriage but uphold it when it has to do with the number of people getting married.

Because if you don't put a number on marriage the limits become limitless. Can a rich man have a harem of 1000 wives? If so, there would be less women to go around and good men everywhere wouldn't be able to find a decent wife because they have all been bought up and put in harems. Rich men everywhere would have all the pretty girls in their harems and everyone else is left with the dogs.

Marriage is between 2 persons. I'm sure you can see the wisdom in that.



Paul O

[_KevinSim]

Because if you don't put a number on marriage the limits become limitless.

That's why I said three. There's a big difference between limitless and three.

If so, there would be less women to go around and good men everywhere wouldn't be able to find a decent wife because they have all been bought up and put in harems. Rich men everywhere would have all the pretty girls in their harems and everyone else is left with the dogs.

I would support a law that would make marriage legal for two or three adults of any gender combination. There will be no harems because two wives hardly make a harem. There really wouldn't be that much danger of all the pretty girls being married up because a marriage of a woman and two men would be just as legal as a marriage of a man and two women, so over the total population it would have the potential for evening things out.

Also, just because my law would make polygamy legal would not make it mandatory. A man couldn't marry two women without both women consenting, and that's not going to happen all that often; just as making gay marriage legal isn't going to effect the majority of the population. Even with my law passed, the vast majority of marriages would be straight and monogamous; the effect of one or two percent being gay couples and perhaps a hundredth of a percent being polygamous, wouldn't have much of an effect on the general population.

Marriage is between 2 persons. I'm sure you can see the wisdom in that.

And there's the problem. You say that marriage has to be between two persons without explaining how you've come to the conclusion that two persons is inherently better than three persons. (Don't take it to four or higher; I'm not arguing for four or higher.) Are you appealing to my intuition to tell me that two is inherently better than three? But that's precisely the attitude of those who oppose gay marriage. They have no argument for why heterosexual is inherently better than homosexual; it just feels wrong to them. They "see the wisdom in" leaving marriage heterosexual.

[_Darth J]

KevinSim, thanks for illustrating how you can't understand the difference between arbitrarily discriminating against a group of people and placing limitations on the number of people who can participate in something.

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal to discriminate against black people in a place of public accommodation. Logically, this means that we must abandon fire codes that limit how many people can be in a movie theater. If we let in one black person, we have to let in 10,000 black persons, even if the theater is only designed to hold 500 people total.

Truly, your reasoning is inescapable.

[_Shulem]

This business of polygamy is debatable from many points of view, I agree. If a 3 party marriage is approved it will certainly cause a problem for people who demand 4 party rights. Why not one more? And the 5 party people will be screaming for their rights to marry too. So, keeping it to a 2 party system nips it in the bud. Let the other parties screw each other on the side.

Then there is the question about a woman wanting to marry 2 men. It may become difficult to keep track of the children and who belongs to who. I think marriage is best served as a two party contract. Anything else calls for sex on the side. That's their business.

There.

I feel great!

I won the argument!



Paul O

[_KevinSim]

This business of polygamy is debatable from many points of view, I agree. If a 3 party marriage is approved it will certainly cause a problem for people who demand 4 party rights. Why not one more? And the 5 party people will be screaming for their rights to marry too. So, keeping it to a 2 party system nips it in the bud. Let the other parties screw each other on the side.

Slippery slope argument. I've never been impressed by the slippery slope argument.

Is it the right thing for the nation to let a group of four people marry? Either it is or it isn't. If it is, then make it legal. If it isn't, then keep the limit at three. I could say the same thing for a group of five, or six, etc.

The really important question is, why nip it in the bud with a two party system? Why not reduce it to one? If the whole idea is to make marriage as simple as possible, then why not outlaw marriage altogether? That would get rid of all the complexity entirely.

The reason that reducing the number down to one is a bad idea is because there's something good about letting two people marry. All I'm asking, Shulem, is how you know there isn't also something good about letting three people marry.

[_Darth J]

This business of polygamy is debatable from many points of view, I agree. If a 3 party marriage is approved it will certainly cause a problem for people who demand 4 party rights. Why not one more? And the 5 party people will be screaming for their rights to marry too. So, keeping it to a 2 party system nips it in the bud. Let the other parties screw each other on the side.

Slippery slope argument. I've never been impressed by the slippery slope argument.

Is it the right thing for the nation to let a group of four people marry? Either it is or it isn't. If it is, then make it legal. If it isn't, then keep the limit at three. I could say the same thing for a group of five, or six, etc.

The really important question is, why nip it in the bud with a two party system? Why not reduce it to one? If the whole idea is to make marriage as simple as possible, then why not outlaw marriage altogether? That would get rid of all the complexity entirely.

The reason that reducing the number down to one is a bad idea is because there's something good about letting two people marry. All I'm asking, Shulem, is how you know there isn't also something good about letting three people marry.

It's a matter of social utility. I'm sorry to rain on your parade and inform you that most of the time, law is about social order, not grandiose ideas of right and wrong.