Define "Marriage"

[BigBallinStalin]

The slippery slope continues. Best to just keep a vital institution like marriage simple. The discussion we have seen so far show exactly the reasons why we should not be running social experiments on national scales, and also why these issues should not be politicized.

Does interracial marriage make marriage as an institution more complex?

[PLAYER57832]

I would rather focus on finding someone that supports gay marriage but does not support marriage involving three or more people

That would be me, though I could change my mind. First, I want to put forward that a lot of unmarried people today are essentially polygamist/polyandrists. The problme with unmarried people having multiple kids from different partners is partly the same as with polygamy/ployandry, but not entirely.

I will start with the difference. The difference is commitment and, usually, consent. (For this debate, I will exclude the Warren Jeffs type scenario, becuase I believe that is an aberration. Kids should not be engaging in sex. Most of those actually wanting legalized polygamy see that as abhorrant as well). That makes a big difference, since the fundamental historical reason for marriage is "legitimacy" of children and securing inheritances. Polygamy/Polyandry do that as well as any other kind of marriage. However, biologically, there is a huge difference in Polygamy. One man having a hundred kids is, biologically and socially very different from one man having 12- 20 kids from the same woman. Today, there is some question emerging on whether having that many kids from one woman is really a moral choice. (note, I said, "there is a question/debate" on this and that it is "emerging".. I am NOT saying I have this opinion!). That is still an emerging debate with many complications, but society has already declared a problem with polygamy and the idea of the power one man can have by having 100 kids is very much a part of the issue.

This multiple children bit is also part of the problem with umarried individuals, though in that case, it is often tinged with a failure to support or take responsibility for the progeny.

Interestingly, polyandry would not pose this problem, but is more universally rejected. I think that gets into the roles and views of women. Many anthropologists point to the fact that while men absolutely require women to have and raise children, the need is nowhere near as great in the reverse. The needs that are established are historic, based on the need for protection and security.. and those needs are not necessarily the same today. That may be part of what can make polygamy now a more viable option, ironically. However, the fact that more men can easily support multiple women now does not negate the problem of multiple births.

[natty dread]

why not a baseball bat and the number four?

One is non-sentient, and the other is an abstract concept. Neither can give full consent.

You're just a filthy bigot.

Nope, I'm a clean spigot.

By your own definition of bigot, you are clearly a bigot. You are imposing your own morals on someone else (namely AoG who would like to wed a baseball bat and the number 4).

Oh, so you'd say it's bigoted to be against forced marriages? Would you also say it's bigoted to be against people using children as sex slaves?

[daddy1gringo]

Polygamy is the act of one man having multiple wives, or one woman having multiple husbands. The wives that are married to the same man are not married to each other.

Not so,one woman having multiple husbands is polyandry,just sayin'

... Polygamy/Polyandry...

Semantic note: Technically, "polygamy" is a general term comprising both. {poly=many+gamos=marriage} The word specifically referring to a man having multiple wives is "polygyny" {gynai=woman} The term polygamy has come to be associated primarily with polygyny, since it is much more common than polyandry.

[thegreekdog]

Oh, so you'd say it's bigoted to be against forced marriages? Would you also say it's bigoted to be against people using children as sex slaves?

No and no, with the caveat that my definition of "bigotry" is different than your definition.

[bedub1]

as far as government acknowledgement goes, only a Civil Union between two adults should be allowed

Why only two? If three or more people want to marry each other why shouldn't they?

They can. You can marry whoever or whatever you want. Marriage should not be dictated by the government. Government should butt out of the marriage business. However, they can recognize a Civil Union between two people.

You can marry as many people or things as you want, but you can only choose one (and must be human) to have a Civil Union with.

What is so special about keeping it to just two people? Aren't you discriminating against all the triples or quadruples of people that want to share the same thing that two people can? Why can't I use a multiple civil union with many people to get the benefits that only couples can enjoy? What if I'm the third one in my happy triangle of love? Why am I being discriminated against.

I can understand keeping it to two people if you are looking at how traditional families work or looking at the reproductive science where it takes one of each to reproduce; but if we are just talking about enjoying civil protection among living wills, hospital rights, insurance rights, etc, why do you wish to hold the third leg of the triangle away from being part of the union? Union surely isn't defined as a joining of two, and only two, entities, is it?

Bump. Can anyone help me understand why we are choosing to limit marriage or civil unions to two people? I understand if we limit it to one man and one woman as that is for reproductional, "standard" family structure. But if two men are ok. Why not three men? Can't three men all love each other? Shouldn't the third one be entitled to what the first two are? Or is a pair somehow greater than a triple?

Yes three men is okay. Yes I'm sure they can all love each other. Yes the third should be entitled to what the first two are.

[Symmetry]

I won't get into debating my beliefs of why 1 man, 1 woman is understandable. I know for some, that is not understandable. Let's agree to disagree on that point.

But nobody is disagreeing with you. You're trying to raise objections to an argument people aren't making to justify your irrational opposition to gay people marrying.

We understand why 1 man and 1 woman should be allowed to get married. You think that people who argue for same sex marriage object to that?

Same sex marriage won't hurt heterosexual marriage. You're not interested in defending your beliefs because they aren't rational. You can't defend them, and you know you can't.

Same sex marriage advocates understand why 1 man and 1 woman is understandable in a marriage. Why you think they don't is weird. Why you don't want to talk about is odder still.

[natty dread]

Oh, so you'd say it's bigoted to be against forced marriages? Would you also say it's bigoted to be against people using children as sex slaves?

No and no, with the caveat that my definition of "bigotry" is different than your definition.

But you just said you consider it bigoted that I don't support forcing two entities unable of granting consent to be married. So... explain!

[patrickaa317]

Polygamy and polyandry are both subsets of polyamorous relationships.

I won't get into debating my beliefs of why [restricting marriage only for] 1 man, 1 woman is understandable. I know for some, that is not understandable. Let's agree to disagree on that point.

So, you admit that the idea is indefensible, then?

I would rather focus on finding someone that supports gay marriage but does not support marriage involving three or more people

Why? Why do you specifically want to find this supposed person who supports gay but not poly marriages? Is there a point you're trying to make with this line of argument?

Does it matter if there does exist someone who is against poly marriages but not against gay ones? Most people here who support gay marriage also support poly marriages, as far as I can tell. So what's the point?

No my idea is not indefensible, I just was discussing it for days in the NC thread, I'm looking for an answer on my questions not trying to discuss your positions or mine, or whose are better or whose are worse.

I'm cool if people support both as it seems consistent.

I see Player actually may have answered my question so I'm going to go read that.

[patrickaa317]

I would rather focus on finding someone that supports gay marriage but does not support marriage involving three or more people

That would be me, though I could change my mind. First, I want to put forward that a lot of unmarried people today are essentially polygamist/polyandrists. The problme with unmarried people having multiple kids from different partners is partly the same as with polygamy/ployandry, but not entirely.

I will start with the difference. The difference is commitment and, usually, consent. (For this debate, I will exclude the Warren Jeffs type scenario, becuase I believe that is an aberration. Kids should not be engaging in sex. Most of those actually wanting legalized polygamy see that as abhorrant as well). That makes a big difference, since the fundamental historical reason for marriage is "legitimacy" of children and securing inheritances. Polygamy/Polyandry do that as well as any other kind of marriage. However, biologically, there is a huge difference in Polygamy. One man having a hundred kids is, biologically and socially very different from one man having 12- 20 kids from the same woman. Today, there is some question emerging on whether having that many kids from one woman is really a moral choice. (note, I said, "there is a question/debate" on this and that it is "emerging".. I am NOT saying I have this opinion!). That is still an emerging debate with many complications, but society has already declared a problem with polygamy and the idea of the power one man can have by having 100 kids is very much a part of the issue.

This multiple children bit is also part of the problem with umarried individuals, though in that case, it is often tinged with a failure to support or take responsibility for the progeny.

Interestingly, polyandry would not pose this problem, but is more universally rejected. I think that gets into the roles and views of women. Many anthropologists point to the fact that while men absolutely require women to have and raise children, the need is nowhere near as great in the reverse. The needs that are established are historic, based on the need for protection and security.. and those needs are not necessarily the same today. That may be part of what can make polygamy now a more viable option, ironically. However, the fact that more men can easily support multiple women now does not negate the problem of multiple births.

Take reproduction out of the equation, are you ok with three men or three women all marrying each other then?

[patrickaa317]

I won't get into debating my beliefs of why 1 man, 1 woman is understandable. I know for some, that is not understandable. Let's agree to disagree on that point.

But nobody is disagreeing with you. You're trying to raise objections to an argument people aren't making to justify your irrational opposition to gay people marrying.

We understand why 1 man and 1 woman should be allowed to get married. You think that people who argue for same sex marriage object to that?

Same sex marriage won't hurt heterosexual marriage. You're not interested in defending your beliefs because they aren't rational. You can't defend them, and you know you can't.

Same sex marriage advocates understand why 1 man and 1 woman is understandable in a marriage. Why you think they don't is weird. Why you don't want to talk about is odder still.

Again, this question wasn't meant to discuss my beliefs, I want to get a better understanding of everyone's view of what marriage should be. Call my beliefs irrational if you wish, I disagree but that conversation all happened in a different thread a few days ago, this is a time to discuss your ideas about different situations.

So you are not disagreeing with me, so you are cool with marriage being re-defined to not only be between same sex couples but you are also ok with 3 people marrying, or even 5 people, is that correct?

[patrickaa317]

Why only two? If three or more people want to marry each other why shouldn't they?

They can. You can marry whoever or whatever you want. Marriage should not be dictated by the government. Government should butt out of the marriage business. However, they can recognize a Civil Union between two people.

You can marry as many people or things as you want, but you can only choose one (and must be human) to have a Civil Union with.

What is so special about keeping it to just two people? Aren't you discriminating against all the triples or quadruples of people that want to share the same thing that two people can? Why can't I use a multiple civil union with many people to get the benefits that only couples can enjoy? What if I'm the third one in my happy triangle of love? Why am I being discriminated against.

I can understand keeping it to two people if you are looking at how traditional families work or looking at the reproductive science where it takes one of each to reproduce; but if we are just talking about enjoying civil protection among living wills, hospital rights, insurance rights, etc, why do you wish to hold the third leg of the triangle away from being part of the union? Union surely isn't defined as a joining of two, and only two, entities, is it?

Bump. Can anyone help me understand why we are choosing to limit marriage or civil unions to two people? I understand if we limit it to one man and one woman as that is for reproductional, "standard" family structure. But if two men are ok. Why not three men? Can't three men all love each other? Shouldn't the third one be entitled to what the first two are? Or is a pair somehow greater than a triple?

Yes three men is okay. Yes I'm sure they can all love each other. Yes the third should be entitled to what the first two are.

That's cool and consistent. Out of curiosity, do you think there is any limit that should be put in place on how many people can be intermarried? I know you said three is cool. What about 5? 10? Or even as many as 20? Just curious as to if there is any limit that should be imposed.

[thegreekdog]

Oh, so you'd say it's bigoted to be against forced marriages? Would you also say it's bigoted to be against people using children as sex slaves?

No and no, with the caveat that my definition of "bigotry" is different than your definition.

But you just said you consider it bigoted that I don't support forcing two entities unable of granting consent to be married. So... explain!

Your definition of bigotry is imposing one's viewpoint on another. You're imposing your viewpoint on AoG. This isn't really hard to follow. You can make some lame argument like "a baseball bat can't consent" or some bullshit, but then you sound as ridiculous as someone saying, "But God said I can't marry another guy." Again, this is your definition of bigotry, not mine.

[Army of GOD]

Should people be allowed to marry animals? I'll say it's a sexless marriage so that we don't get into a complicated "HURRDURR ANIMALS CANT CONSENT". [insert joke about all marriages being sexless]

[Haggis_McMutton]

Should people be allowed to marry animals? I'll say it's a sexless marriage so that we don't get into a complicated "HURRDURR ANIMALS CANT CONSENT". [insert joke about all marriages being sexless]

marriage as in state recognized civil union -> No.
marriage as in Church Y in Bumfuck Bumfuckington pronounces you man and pudel -> Sure, knock yourself out.

[natty dread]

Oh, so you'd say it's bigoted to be against forced marriages? Would you also say it's bigoted to be against people using children as sex slaves?

No and no, with the caveat that my definition of "bigotry" is different than your definition.

But you just said you consider it bigoted that I don't support forcing two entities unable of granting consent to be married. So... explain!

Your definition of bigotry is imposing one's viewpoint on another. You're imposing your viewpoint on AoG. This isn't really hard to follow. You can make some lame argument like "a baseball bat can't consent" or some bullshit, but then you sound as ridiculous as someone saying, "But God said I can't marry another guy." Again, this is your definition of bigotry, not mine.

Oh look, it's greekdog making a strawman argument again. I guess it's easy to argue when you invent an argument and argue against it.

Ok, let me try. Your definition of bigotry is everyone who has red hair. You think all red-haired people are bigots, for some reason. Man, greekdog, you're really silly for thinking all red-haired people are bigots!

Secondly, please don't use ableist slurs like "lame", that's bigoted.

Thirdly, consent is not some esoteric, trivial issue. It's not bigotry to hold everyone to the standard where they have to respect other people's consent. In fact trying to frame the argument the way you're doing is at best disingenuous trolling and at worst, apologetics for bigotry. Make your pick.

[Phatscotty]

Natty, Greek is saying the same thing I have been pointing out about you for a while. You have it just as ass backwards as a few other people around here. It's no secret why this happens. You try to overlap your leftist European views onto American values. It's a poisonous practice, and it usually just leads to you bashing people.

That's what happens when you start creating your own definitions.

[natty dread]

American values.

[Phatscotty]

Could you possibly be more ignorant?

[natty dread]

Could you BE more ignorant?

[patrickaa317]

Natty - you better watch out, Symmetry will be in here in only a few minutes to tell you how childish you are for using pictures for your posts.

[Symmetry]

So you are not disagreeing with me, so you are cool with marriage being re-defined to not only be between same sex couples but you are also ok with 3 people marrying, or even 5 people, is that correct?

It's not correct. I don't think heterosexual marriage caused polygamy either. Why you think people are arguing that same sex couples being married is redefining marriage as between same sex couples is weird.

What made you say all this. You do know that even if marriage is being redefined, straight folks will still get married.

[patrickaa317]

So you are not disagreeing with me, so you are cool with marriage being re-defined to not only be between same sex couples but you are also ok with 3 people marrying, or even 5 people, is that correct?

It's not correct. I don't think heterosexual marriage caused polygamy either. Why you think people are arguing that same sex couples being married is redefining marriage as between same sex couples is weird.

What made you say all this. You do know that even if marriage is being redefined, straight folks will still get married.

Right. I'm just wondering what makes a relationship between two people so special that three people can't share same thing. Not polygamy, marriage between more than two people. Polygamy is one person to many, with the many not committing to each other.

[Phatscotty]

Natty - you better watch out, Symmetry will be in here in only a few minutes to tell you how childish you are for using pictures for your posts.

nah, they are hypocrites like that.

[Symmetry]

So you are not disagreeing with me, so you are cool with marriage being re-defined to not only be between same sex couples but you are also ok with 3 people marrying, or even 5 people, is that correct?

It's not correct. I don't think heterosexual marriage caused polygamy either. Why you think people are arguing that same sex couples being married is redefining marriage as between same sex couples is weird.

What made you say all this. You do know that even if marriage is being redefined, straight folks will still get married.

Right. I'm just wondering what makes a relationship between two people so special that three people can't share same thing. Not polygamy, marriage between more than two people. Polygamy is one person to many, with the many not committing to each other.

No you're not, and you're special pleading not to be asked about your beliefs. I think we both know what your beliefs are, why you don't want to explain them, and why you know you can't.