[Flak]

Not exactly just Christian i'd say. Marriage has been the norm in many other cultures, including those that has otherwise nothing to do with Christianity, just look at those Asian traditions in which most of them are neither Christian, Muslim, or Jew. It isn't a 'Christian Idea'.

[Luis Dias]

I've long argued that the best solution is for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely.  Allow couples to apply for a benefits license and force that process to occur separately of any religious marriage ceremony.  Marriage simply becomes a term without any legal weight.  Then whomever wants to call themselves married can do so, and meanwhile the legal/social/economic coupling becomes a separate matter that is merely applied for.  Of course, this WOULD dilute the meaning of marriage because anyone could call themselves married if they chose to.  Then again, if you object to this then you would seem to also be rejecting the notion of granting legal status to homosexual relationships, something that has tangible social benefits.

No nono ononono, I completely agree with this assessment. I also think the government should get out as much as it can from the "marriage" thing. I don't think it can "completely" for it is for the benefit of society the family institution, which is unparalleled in its ability and competence to create new generations in the best way possible, IMHO.

Polygamy's hardly alien, humans have been known to practice it.

Wat da hell. What kind of discussion is this? Humans have also been known to practice slavery, is that an argument *at all*? I don't agree with polygamy one bit for a variety of reasons, and I don't think the government should condone the practice, but to say "we've been known to do it"... I mean come on.

One wonders then why the government allows straight marriages, seeing how unnecessary they are.

It would solve a lot of problems regarding divorces.

[Herra Tohtori]

Humans have also been known to practice slavery, is that an argument *at all*? I don't agree with polygamy one bit for a variety of reasons, and I don't think the government should condone the practice, but to say "we've been known to do it"... I mean come on.

Now I'm curious. Are your reasons to oppose polygamy based on ethics, morality, religion or none of the above?

I'm asking because it's easy to show that slavery violates basic human rights on a conceptual level and that's a good reason to oppose every possible implementation of slavery.

Meanwhile the concept of polygamy does not in itself contain any violations of basic human rights, and as such I don't see any reason why it would be a bad thing in itself, so I think comparing polygamy to slavery is a bit too much like a strawman argument for my liking (although more likely it's just a faulty analogy).

Implementations of polygamy have an unfortunate tendency to be problematic, but I'd like you to clarify whether your opposition is directed toward the concept of polygamy itself, or some specific implementation of it.


Also I don't think it the "humans have practiced polygamy" is so much an argument for polygamy as simply evidence provided that polygamy is just as much a natural occurrence in human species as monogamy is.

Which basically nullifies the argument that (heterosexual) monogamy would somehow be THE natural basis for human societies to build on. It doesn't take any stance whether monogamy or polygamy is better, it just states that both have occurred so you can't make an argument that monogamy is the only "natural" relationship while polygamy would be "un-natural".

[Meneldil]

Polygamy's hardly alien, humans have been known to practice it.

Wat da hell. What kind of discussion is this? Humans have also been known to practice slavery, is that an argument *at all*? I don't agree with polygamy one bit for a variety of reasons, and I don't think the government should condone the practice, but to say "we've been known to do it"... I mean come on.

I apologize for causing a misunderstanding, but that was a joke.
The point of which was that like the others who commented on this topic I don't find the idea of polygamy abhorrent, nor do I think alien is a right word to describe it.

One wonders then why the government allows straight marriages, seeing how unnecessary they are.

It would solve a lot of problems regarding divorces.

... and the point of this was that the same-sex marriages are just as (un)necessary as straight marriages are. So that can hardly serve as grounds for legal discrimination.

[Luis Dias]

Meanwhile the concept of polygamy does not in itself contain any violations of basic human rights, and as such I don't see any reason why it would be a bad thing in itself, so I think comparing polygamy to slavery is a bit too much like a strawman argument for my liking (although more likely it's just a faulty analogy).

Example =/= Analogy. The logic was bad, and I explained why with an example. Now your logic is also bad, I'm getting tired of this.

Implementations of polygamy have an unfortunate tendency to be problematic, but I'd like you to clarify whether your opposition is directed toward the concept of polygamy itself, or some specific implementation of it.

I have yet to see any "implementation" of polygamy that doesn't create problems with the other values we consider worth having, such as equality, for instance.

Also I don't think it the "humans have practiced polygamy" is so much an argument for polygamy as simply evidence provided that polygamy is just as much a natural occurrence in human species as monogamy is.

Except that I have *never* made the argument that monogamic marriage is the "natural state of affairs". Can you stop misreading me.

Which basically nullifies the argument that (heterosexual) monogamy would somehow be THE natural basis for human societies to build on. It doesn't take any stance whether monogamy or polygamy is better, it just states that both have occurred so you can't make an argument that monogamy is the only "natural" relationship while polygamy would be "un-natural".

Whatever, forget it. Why did I even bother.

... and the point of this was that the same-sex marriages are just as (un)necessary as straight marriages are. So that can hardly serve as grounds for legal discrimination.

And that's precisely the kind of reasoning that numbs my criticisms down sufficiently so that I don't have an axe to grind, if it had been referended I wouldn't have voted "no". Wouldn't have voted "yes" too...

[Herra Tohtori]

Meanwhile the concept of polygamy does not in itself contain any violations of basic human rights, and as such I don't see any reason why it would be a bad thing in itself, so I think comparing polygamy to slavery is a bit too much like a strawman argument for my liking (although more likely it's just a faulty analogy).

Example =/= Analogy. The logic was bad, and I explained why with an example. Now your logic is also bad, I'm getting tired of this.

Yep, that is a pretty commonly used backdoor to withdraw from a discussion when you run out of argumentation...

...or you could tell me why my logic is bad, in your view.

Implementations of polygamy have an unfortunate tendency to be problematic, but I'd like you to clarify whether your opposition is directed toward the concept of polygamy itself, or some specific implementation of it.

I have yet to see any "implementation" of polygamy that doesn't create problems with the other values we consider worth having, such as equality, for instance.

That's exactly why I asked whether you oppose polygamy as a concept or some specific implentation of polygamy.

The concept of polygamy itself does not have any bias towards inequality. It simply means a relationship with more than two people in it. If you want to go into specifics you can have either polyandry or polygyny variants, but there's also nothing that could prevent having an equal gender distribution in a polygamous relationship.

If your opposition is based on the assumption that there are no implementations of polygamy that don't create problems - and you make this argument just because you haven't seen a non-problematic implementation - that's not good enough to show that the concept of polygamy is flawed. You can cite examples of why this or that implementation of polygamy causes problems, but then you would have to show that these problems are something fundamental to polygamy itself.

Also I don't think it the "humans have practiced polygamy" is so much an argument for polygamy as simply evidence provided that polygamy is just as much a natural occurrence in human species as monogamy is.

Except that I have *never* made the argument that monogamic marriage is the "natural state of affairs". Can you stop misreading me.

Which basically nullifies the argument that (heterosexual) monogamy would somehow be THE natural basis for human societies to build on. It doesn't take any stance whether monogamy or polygamy is better, it just states that both have occurred so you can't make an argument that monogamy is the only "natural" relationship while polygamy would be "un-natural".

Whatever, forget it. Why did I even bother.

You wrote this earlier in the thread:

The most common argument is that there are a lot of gay people who can't do what other heterossexual people can, namely marry, so they should be able to do this. While I recognize the emotional appeal to the argument, I do not find it logical. To agree with it would force us to agree with a much more alien generalization of the definition of marriage, that would allow polygamy, harems, and other strange things.

Alien, strange, un-natural... whichever word you want to pick, that's the argument you're making here. You're saying that polygamy is strange (among other things), and my logical conclusion from that is that you consider monogamous marriage to be at least less strange, if not "normal".

I don't really care what words you're using and I might paraphrase you incorrectly, but I strive to go into the crux of the matter regardless. If you think there's a fundamental difference between the comparisons "strange/normal" and "unnatural/natural", fine - I'll go with that.

... and the point of this was that the same-sex marriages are just as (un)necessary as straight marriages are. So that can hardly serve as grounds for legal discrimination.

And that's precisely the kind of reasoning that numbs my criticisms down sufficiently so that I don't have an axe to grind, if it had been referended I wouldn't have voted "no". Wouldn't have voted "yes" too...

Well, abstaining from voting is sometimes the right thing to do if one does not have a strong position for or against the issue at hand. Personally though I don't see the issue very complicated at all - it's discrimination vs. equality, and to me the choice is quite clear: If marriage has secular benefits, then everyone should have the right to marry.

Also, making the argument that it "dilutes" marriage as an institution, you would have to
a. show that this actually happens, and
b. convince me why this is a bad thing.


Personally, I think dilution of marriage as an institution - ESPECIALLY as a religious institution - is a GOOD thing, simply by the virtue of reducing the influence of churches and religions on our everyday life.

[Apollo]

So your basic argument is that changing the meaning of marriage to any degree whatsoever could lead to bestiality?

No, that's not "my basic argument". You'd know that if you read what I said and not skimmed what I said.

I said that the argument for gay marriage is weak. And that, in logical terms, it would mean that such things can theoretically come into play. I did not say that I oppose it, for I also fail to see strong arguments against it that make me really rally against the idea.

One thing is certain, the definition of marriage is being diluted slowly.

That seems to be your primary potential objection.

My primary objection is the dillution of the institution of marriage. Bestiality is *not* the focus of the objection, it's a simple example of a reductio ad absurdum, which I even think there's a chance it won't be considered "absurd" 30, 40 years from now.

Look, people already leave assets to animals nowadays. Marrying animals isn't unimaginable, even if it might be disgusting to 2013's tastes (and that's the point, since gay marriage would have been depicted as disgusting 50 years ago if anyone had the "bad taste" of bringing that kind of stuff out then).

The point is that this dillution will cripple the meaning of marriage to a point where marrying animals and other crazy things won't be seen as a big deal, since the institution won't have much of a "status" of itself anyway.

It would take a pretty goddamn extreme dilution for that to happen.

Gay marriage is one of the simplest and most clear-cut issues ever. It would grant same-sex couples equal legal benefits, and we would be one step closer to removing religion from our legal system.

That's the point I addressed, and you would know it if you didn't skim me. I don't think these rights should even be granted only for married couples. I am not married and I have most priviledges / rights a married couple has, since the state recognizes automatically that I am in a "joint - relationship". This is a conversation worth having in itself, but it is decoupled from marriage.

As long as marriage is a government institution it needs to be available to heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Why go to the trouble of creating an equivalent institution just to prevent gay marriage? What would be the point in that?

[BloodEagle]

Gay marriage is one of the simplest and most clear-cut issues ever. It would grant same-sex couples equal legal benefits, and we would be one step closer to removing religion from our legal system.

That's the point I addressed, and you would know it if you didn't skim me. I don't think these rights should even be granted only for married couples. I am not married and I have most priviledges / rights a married couple has, since the state recognizes automatically that I am in a "joint - relationship". This is a conversation worth having in itself, but it is decoupled from marriage.

As long as marriage is a government institution it needs to be available to heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Why go to the trouble of creating an equivalent institution just to prevent gay marriage? What would be the point in that?

Wait. What? Your reply (as above) has nothing to do with what you quoted.

Actually, from an outsider's perspective, you guys are jumping all over Luis without actually reading his ****.  This is turning into noise.

[Apollo]

His argument is that we could grant same-sex couples the same rights without letting them get married, so my reply has plenty to do with what I quoted.

[bobbtmann]

My primary objection is the dillution of the institution of marriage. Bestiality is *not* the focus of the objection, it's a simple example of a reductio ad absurdum, which I even think there's a chance it won't be considered "absurd" 30, 40 years from now.

Look, people already leave assets to animals nowadays. Marrying animals isn't unimaginable, even if it might be disgusting to 2013's tastes (and that's the point, since gay marriage would have been depicted as disgusting 50 years ago if anyone had the "bad taste" of bringing that kind of stuff out then).

The point is that this dillution will cripple the meaning of marriage to a point where marrying animals and other crazy things won't be seen as a big deal, since the institution won't have much of a "status" of itself anyway.

Why does it matter if marriage is meaningless? It already is pretty meaningless, maybe a bit more meaningful than common-law relationships. In the end, those terms just define who you're allowed to have sex with. If it can be proven that you're not in a sexual relationship with your partner, it can really change the meaning of the relationship, in the eyes of the law. That means that all considerations of property rights and money all hinge on banging someone.

Saying it's meaningless doesn't mean it has no impact, though. That sexual exclusivity (and the social dynamics within such a relationship)  is a form of possession, and can be used to control one member of the party. In our society, marriage is definitely a product of our patriarchal and prudish culture. Working mothers and stay-at-home dads are still deviants of the norm. Two husbands or two wives are still deviants from the norm. Polygyny is a deviance from the norm, and polyandry is even more of a deviance from the norm. Marriage just gives people and society a vehicle for excluding these relationships from being normal.

My prediction is this:  Human\Non-Human marriages will never come into existence, because marriage will cease to be in existence.

[deathfun]

Meanwhile in Canada...

Seriously. The States could learn a thing or two from their neighbors and allies

[Apollo]

Indeed.

[Luis Dias]

Meanwhile the concept of polygamy does not in itself contain any violations of basic human rights, and as such I don't see any reason why it would be a bad thing in itself, so I think comparing polygamy to slavery is a bit too much like a strawman argument for my liking (although more likely it's just a faulty analogy).

Example =/= Analogy. The logic was bad, and I explained why with an example. Now your logic is also bad, I'm getting tired of this.

Yep, that is a pretty commonly used backdoor to withdraw from a discussion when you run out of argumentation...

...or you could tell me why my logic is bad, in your view.

The original argument was that polygamy is something that mankind has been known to do for millenia so why be against it. The counter example of slavery just proves that the argument is silly. He agreed immediately with this point, and you strawmanned it as if I was saying that slavery had something to do with polygamy.

That's exactly why I asked whether you oppose polygamy as a concept or some specific implentation of polygamy.

The concept of polygamy itself does not have any bias towards inequality. It simply means a relationship with more than two people in it. If you want to go into specifics you can have either polyandry or polygyny variants, but there's also nothing that could prevent having an equal gender distribution in a polygamous relationship.

If your opposition is based on the assumption that there are no implementations of polygamy that don't create problems - and you make this argument just because you haven't seen a non-problematic implementation - that's not good enough to show that the concept of polygamy is flawed. You can cite examples of why this or that implementation of polygamy causes problems, but then you would have to show that these problems are something fundamental to polygamy itself.

The problem isn't "polygamy" itself (couldn't give a toss about what people do with their private lives), but with its legal possibilities, which are nowhere near clear in their consequences (should we limit the amount of elements? if not, is it possible to marry a thousand people? And to what purpose this kind of "marriage" would exist? How would we deal with its legalities? If yes, isn't that "descriminatory"?) Too many loopholes and too much silliness to the point of stupidity. Marriage would then cease to exist as a concept. There are people like you who would see that as a win, but to say that those who do care about that institution shouldn't oppose you is not even silly, it's outright bigotry.

Personally, I'm not deeply invested in the concept per se, but I admire and respect those who do. So if my perspective is somewhat numbed to the concept, I won't fight it, I won't try to dilute it. I'll just "not marry" myself.

Alien, strange, un-natural... whichever word you want to pick, that's the argument you're making here. You're saying that polygamy is strange (among other things), and my logical conclusion from that is that you consider monogamous marriage to be at least less strange, if not "normal".

By strange it's ****ing clear I mean arrangements that we are not even considering and aren't tested in the big lab that is life and society at large. By "alien" I don't mean "unnatural", which would entail that there's anything "natural" about a legal contract between two people. I don't see things that way, I don't recognize "natural laws" and so on, but I do recognize the importance of the experience of tradition, in the sense that the institutions and solutions that lasted so long are to be respected: they probably lasted so long because they are ****ing good at its job. Not to mean they aren't ever to be changed: I said *RESPECTED*. That means that no ****ty new comer gets to have his comment about how marriage being diluted is a good thing be respected whatsoever.

You are the one who must prove the changes proposed won't destroy the good we have and are for the better.

Also, making the argument that it "dilutes" marriage as an institution, you would have to
a. show that this actually happens, and
b. convince me why this is a bad thing.

na bro, it's the other way around. You want to change society, you prove to me it's a step forward, not backward.

Personally, I think dilution of marriage as an institution - ESPECIALLY as a religious institution - is a GOOD thing, simply by the virtue of reducing the influence of churches and religions on our everyday life.

This is the kind of crappy **** people (usually too young) who have no respect for history might tell us. I'm completely fine with atheism, it's my own sea. I'm completely fine and approve of sharp and "strident" criticisms towards it, Christopher Hitchens is a late hero of mine. What I really don't approve is this kind of despise and disrespect towards a very deep social tradition.


edit: And this last point is probably why I find myself so much in the middle of the conversation. Either the argument goes to the "benefits" that married people have (which is a completely farcical and opportunistic point: people marry for money now? Is that really the point? And if so, shouldn't we discuss instead if these benefits shouldn't be applied to other kinds of social "contracts"?), or they are about the redefinition of the concept of marriage. And I find it quite unsettling and telling that those who argue the second point are usually the same kind of people who hate the concept of marriage itself and don't mind its destruction.

[Herra Tohtori]

The original argument was that polygamy is something that mankind has been known to do for millenia so why be against it. The counter example of slavery just proves that the argument is silly. He agreed immediately with this point, and you strawmanned it as if I was saying that slavery had something to do with polygamy.

I don't think that was the original argument. That was your interpretation on the matter.

If it was a case of defending polygamy on the basis that it happened before, then I would definitely agree with you and say that something having happened before is not an argument either for or against it. But you were the one who drew a comparison to slavery, even if it was just for the sake of example.

I merely pointed out that the very concept of slavery is against basic human rights while the concept of polygamy isn't. There is no need to be upset.

The problem isn't "polygamy" itself (couldn't give a toss about what people do with their private lives), but with its legal possibilities, which are nowhere near clear in their consequences (should we limit the amount of elements? if not, is it possible to marry a thousand people? And to what purpose this kind of "marriage" would exist? How would we deal with its legalities? If yes, isn't that "descriminatory"?) Too many loopholes and too much silliness to the point of stupidity. Marriage would then cease to exist as a concept. There are people like you who would see that as a win, but to say that those who do care about that institution shouldn't oppose you is not even silly, it's outright bigotry.

No, it's democracy.

As long as there are people who prefer the current definition of marriage, it will exist as an institution to them just as it exists now. It isn't something that can or should be taken away. But why would their concept of marriage be more valid than other people's concept of marriage?

Some people think marriage by definition excludes same-sex couples or polygamous relationships. Some people think marriage can inlude same-sex couples but not polygamy. Some people think polygamy is ok but same-sex marriages aren't.

Considering the deep personal effect of these definitions on people, I don't think it's a good idea to insist that there should only be one type of marriage in a society and the other types of relationships would have no way at all to officiate that relationship. Socially, marriage is just an agreement with people to live together in a relationship. No one can prevent people from agreeing that they're married, it's just up to them.

The legal benefits and obligations, however, should be EQUALLY AVAILABLE for all relationships.

Religious affirmation of marriage should be available to relationships who desire it, with the discretion of the church of choice. But it should be completely separate from the social and legal aspects and it should NOT make the marriage valid in the eyes of law.

By strange it's ****ing clear I mean arrangements that we are not even considering and aren't tested in the big lab that is life and society at large. By "alien" I don't mean "unnatural", which would entail that there's anything "natural" about a legal contract between two people. I don't see things that way, I don't recognize "natural laws" and so on, but I do recognize the importance of the experience of tradition, in the sense that the institutions and solutions that lasted so long are to be respected

Why? I don't see any reason to give respect to an institution just because it's old.

they probably lasted so long because they are ****ing good at its job. Not to mean they aren't ever to be changed: I said *RESPECTED*. That means that no ****ty new comer gets to have his comment about how marriage being diluted is a good thing be respected whatsoever.

This is a bad reason to respect an institution.

A good reason to respect an institution is if you actually think they are good. I have no problem with people respecting something they think is good, but I really disagree with the way some people think something needs to be respected because it's always been that way.

You said it yourself. Slavery was an institution for thousands of years so presumably it did a good job... but we don't approve of it any more because it conflicts with our values and world view.

Just as well if marriage proves to be an antiquated insititution that conflicts with our values and world view, it should either be changed or abolished. Simple as pie.

You are the one who must prove the changes proposed won't destroy the good we have and are for the better.

So now you're asking me to prove a negative. That's not how it works.

I have demonstrated that the changes to how marriage is handled in society would make it more flexible and less discriminating, and I consider those to be benefits. I have yet to see any valid arguments to why these changes would be a negative thing - all you've used so far are variations of slippery slope argument.

na bro, it's the other way around. You want to change society, you prove to me it's a step forward, not backward.

Again, I've shown why I think the proposed changes would be an improvement and have yet to see any coherent counter-argument.

This is the kind of crappy **** people (usually too young) who have no respect for history might tell us. I'm completely fine with atheism, it's my own sea. I'm completely fine and approve of sharp and "strident" criticisms towards it, Christopher Hitchens is a late hero of mine. What I really don't approve is this kind of despise and disrespect towards a very deep social tradition.


edit: And this last point is probably why I find myself so much in the middle of the conversation. Either the argument goes to the "benefits" that married people have (which is a completely farcical and opportunistic point: people marry for money now? Is that really the point? And if so, shouldn't we discuss instead if these benefits shouldn't be applied to other kinds of social "contracts"?), or they are about the redefinition of the concept of marriage. And I find it quite unsettling and telling that those who argue the second point are usually the same kind of people who hate the concept of marriage itself and don't mind its destruction.

Respect of history? What does that even mean? All you need to do is know the history and understand it. I don't respect social traditions just for their sake, no matter how many people think they're important. If I agree with the content of the tradition then I would agree with it.

For example I think celebrating midwinter is a great tradition, regardless of the name we call it. It's a good thing to spend time with family and give and receive gifts, eat good food, and generally have a good time and relax.

On the other hand I think there are a lot of deep-set social traditions that have glaring negative aspects - such as the traditional division between "men's jobs" and "women's jobs", or nationalism. I will damn well not respect traditions that I disagree with. I hope we're clear on this now.


Let me elaborate on my personal view on marriage in particular.

Marriage is an institution that has social, legal, and religious aspects.

I don't see any point in having all of them bundled together, and I especially oppose how religious organizations use religious arguments to prevent people from benefiting from the social and legal aspects of marriage.

As far as I'm concerned churches should only be responsible of the religious aspect of marriage and leave the social and legal aspects up to society and legislation. If people want to have religious affirmation for their marriage, they go to their church and get it if the church is willing to give it, but that should be between the couple and the church they want to deal with.


The reason why I think it would be better to separate the religious aspect of marriage from legal and social aspects is that now we got this crazy situation where religious arguments are used to deny the social and legal aspects of marriage from people who might or might not give a **** about the religious aspect. I don't have anything against religious people practicing their religion and valuing marriage as a religious institution. I have a problem when the religious aspects of marriage start influencing people who don't particularly agree with religion. That's why I think it would be a good thing if marriage did not automatically have religious connotations - it's already different in all the different religions but the same in the eyes of the law, isn't it?



As far as non-monogamous marriages go, you're again using a slippery slope argument that allowing polygamous marriage between three people will lead to allowing it between four people which will allow marriage up to N people. It's the same argument that if you start reducing the voting age, you'll eventually allow infants to vote.

Allowing polygamy does not mean there can't be any limits to it. It would be up to legislators to come up with some arbitrary non-two number that a polygamous relationship could contain as far as the legal aspects of marriage go. And no, defining an arbitrary limit is not any more discrimination than saying that the age of majority if 18. Legislation is full of such arbitrary limits.

Whether the legal benefits (and responsibilities) of marriage should be extended to all parties in a polygamous marriage is a question I don't really have well formulated opinion on. Shared ownership of things I have no trouble with. Tax benefits are a bit fuzzier, but I don't really see why a polygamous marriage could not file their taxes as one entity - tax breaks could easily be decided by economical experts, for example on the basis of numbers of people in the marriage.

Guardianship of children could also be an issue, but I would think primary guardianship would automatically fall on the biological parents, but I'm sure other members of the relationship could just as well have a secondary guardianship role - sort of like godparents but a step above that, I think.

All in all I don't see any show-stopper issues to why polygamy would be a bad thing per se. The notion that it would lead to erosion of the definition of marriage is, in my view, absurd.

[deathfun]

Unlike Canada, the U.K. doesn’t have marriage for same-sex couples. Rather, in 2004, it introduced civil partnerships for gay and lesbian couples as a form of relationship recognition that is materially the same as marriage in everything but name.

Hey look, they're married but not really!

[Luis Dias]

The original argument was that polygamy is something that mankind has been known to do for millenia so why be against it. The counter example of slavery just proves that the argument is silly. He agreed immediately with this point, and you strawmanned it as if I was saying that slavery had something to do with polygamy.

I don't think that was the original argument. That was your interpretation on the matter.

Yes, it was and yes it was my interpretation. That's all I got when I read ****, my interpretation.

No, it's democracy.

As long as there are people who prefer the current definition of marriage, it will exist as an institution to them just as it exists now. It isn't something that can or should be taken away. But why would their concept of marriage be more valid than other people's concept of marriage?

Sheer blatant relativism. I am really appalled that I have to side with the ****ing pope Francis and even Benedict on this one. No, you don't get to define concepts and words like you please, there is an inherent "contract" in our society where the meaning of words is sufficiently universal and stable so as we are able to communicate properly between us, let alone devise laws, mores, moralities and so on. This "contract" is more conservative than not.

Some people think marriage by definition excludes same-sex couples or polygamous relationships. Some people think marriage can inlude same-sex couples but not polygamy. Some people think polygamy is ok but same-sex marriages aren't.

Considering the deep personal effect of these definitions on people, I don't think it's a good idea to insist that there should only be one type of marriage in a society and the other types of relationships would have no way at all to officiate that relationship. Socially, marriage is just an agreement with people to live together in a relationship. No one can prevent people from agreeing that they're married, it's just up to them.

The legal benefits and obligations, however, should be EQUALLY AVAILABLE for all relationships.

Sophistry. Polygamy should never have the same "benefits" and is impossible to even guarantee the same "obligations" than monogamous relationships. Same-sex marriages are even incompatible with many heterossexual marital laws, since they are not gender equal in many details.

Religious affirmation of marriage should be available to relationships who desire it, with the discretion of the church of choice. But it should be completely separate from the social and legal aspects and it should NOT make the marriage valid in the eyes of law.

This crap again?

Why? I don't see any reason to give respect to an institution just because it's old.

JFC. Marriage isn't just "old", it's probably the most important institution that got us where we are today.

Slavery was an institution for thousands of years so presumably it did a good job... but we don't approve of it any more because it conflicts with our values and world view.

See? That's where you go awfully wrong. I know, that fairy tale has been spoonfed to us since we were born, but alas it isn't exactly true. What is true is that once technology reached a point where we could "outsource" slave work to machinery, we reached the epiphany that it is morally wrong. Until then it was something we deemed "necessary", and we rationalized it by dehumanizing slaves (they aren't really human like us anyway...).

I have demonstrated that the changes to how marriage is handled in society would make it more flexible and less discriminating, and I consider those to be benefits. I have yet to see any valid arguments to why these changes would be a negative thing - all you've used so far are variations of slippery slope argument.

The slippery slope argument isn't fallacious. You have to show that you haven't stripped the meaning of the concept so much that it becomes meaningless. Recognizing polygamous marriages will be the final punch to it.

The reason why I think it would be better to separate the religious aspect of marriage from legal and social aspects is that now we got this crazy situation where religious arguments are used to deny the social and legal aspects of marriage from people who might or might not give a **** about the religious aspect. I don't have anything against religious people practicing their religion and valuing marriage as a religious institution. I have a problem when the religious aspects of marriage start influencing people who don't particularly agree with religion. That's why I think it would be a good thing if marriage did not automatically have religious connotations - it's already different in all the different religions but the same in the eyes of the law, isn't it?

Again, I haven't mentioned religion at all in this thread and you keep bringing it up.

As far as non-monogamous marriages go, you're again using a slippery slope argument that allowing polygamous marriage between three people will lead to allowing it between four people which will allow marriage up to N people. It's the same argument that if you start reducing the voting age, you'll eventually allow infants to vote.

****ing ridiculous. There is ZERO arguments you can make where you go from "3 people can marry now" to "4 people can marry now", etc., that will have allowed you to get to "3 people can marry now" in the first place.

Allowing polygamy does not mean there can't be any limits to it. It would be up to legislators to come up with some arbitrary non-two number that a polygamous relationship could contain as far as the legal aspects of marriage go. And no, defining an arbitrary limit is not any more discrimination than saying that the age of majority if 18. Legislation is full of such arbitrary limits.

If the argument for polygamy is that it is discriminatory to limit marriage to 2 people, then you can *always* make that same argument for *N* people, and you will always fail to oppose it in court, because unlike majority age there is no actual "natural limit" to these things: while it is obvious 4 year olds are not "adults", it is not obvious 6 people should marry and 7 shouldn't.

Whether the legal benefits (and responsibilities) of marriage should be extended to all parties in a polygamous marriage is a question I don't really have well formulated opinion on. Shared ownership of things I have no trouble with. Tax benefits are a bit fuzzier, but I don't really see why a polygamous marriage could not file their taxes as one entity - tax breaks could easily be decided by economical experts, for example on the basis of numbers of people in the marriage.

Guardianship of children could also be an issue, but I would think primary guardianship would automatically fall on the biological parents, but I'm sure other members of the relationship could just as well have a secondary guardianship role - sort of like godparents but a step above that, I think.

All in all I don't see any show-stopper issues to why polygamy would be a bad thing per se. The notion that it would lead to erosion of the definition of marriage is, in my view, absurd.

The fact that you don't see isn't an argument either... lack of imagination isn't an argument. The ****fest that a divorce would be, who would get the children, the possibilities of endless kinds of abuses, the cults that would arise, the harems... this is about the destruction of the marriage institution, and I for one am deeply conservative about **** that has the possibility to ruin the social fabric of our society. The levity to which many people discuss these things astonishes me.

[The E]

Sheer blatant relativism. I am really appalled that I have to side with the ****ing pope Francis and even Benedict on this one. No, you don't get to define concepts and words like you please, there is an inherent "contract" in our society where the meaning of words is sufficiently universal and stable so as we are able to communicate properly between us, let alone devise laws, mores, moralities and so on. This "contract" is more conservative than not.

Hi, Linguistics called, they said you're pretty much wrong on that one. Words and their meanings shift over time, and trying to prevent that is futile (See also: the usage of the word "gay").

Also, Luis, you are the one who brought religion into this, since your religious devotion to the One True Meaning Of Marriage brought us into this mess.

[deathfun]

What is true is that once technology reached a point where we could "outsource" slave work to machinery, we reached the epiphany that it is morally wrong

Hi, History called, they're wondering where you got the facts on this one
(Totally stole your thing there The E, but I couldn't resist)

[Luis Dias]

Sheer blatant relativism. I am really appalled that I have to side with the ****ing pope Francis and even Benedict on this one. No, you don't get to define concepts and words like you please, there is an inherent "contract" in our society where the meaning of words is sufficiently universal and stable so as we are able to communicate properly between us, let alone devise laws, mores, moralities and so on. This "contract" is more conservative than not.

Hi, Linguistics called, they said you're pretty much wrong on that one. Words and their meanings shift over time, and trying to prevent that is futile (See also: the usage of the word "gay").

They change conservatively. I said *SUFFICIENTLY*, and also *MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN NOT*. Perhaps next time I'll underline and bold and megasize the key words I use so you won't constantly miss them.

Also, Luis, you are the one who brought religion into this, since your religious devotion to the One True Meaning Of Marriage brought us into this mess.

Derp.

[Nuke]

WANK WANK WANK

too much WANK in one thread!
i most destroy!