Thread: This gay marriage thing is blowin' up

It is an issue of state's rights, the federal government has no business mandating an issue like this. Different regions have different values, everyone knows this. Let them decide on a state by state basis is what I say.

To be clear on my stance, though, I think the term 'marriage' is the problem. I think the institution of marriage should be reduced to a purely religious institution, governed by religious institutions and distributed as they see fit. As far as the government is concerned I think that all peoples wishing to partake in the state and federal benefits of cohabitation and commitment should be issued unions by the state. Let the religious keep their sacred marriage, but completely separate the word from government mandate and just make unions legal between anyone. It is a win-win situation, everybody concedes just a little while still getting what they want.

However, I also think the legalization of gay unions could pave the way to the legalization of polygamous and polyamourus unions, and any rational human being can see the down side to those.

One more thing to tack on, I disagree with your assessment of the lack of a polar nature to sexuality Syme. I think bi-sexuality is a purely social creation only partaken in because of the social expectation of child production and heterosexuality, and that all bi-sexuals are actually just homosexuals who aren't willing to commit sue to fear or due to nurture.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

However, I also think the legalization of gay unions could pave the way to the legalization of polygamous and polyamourus unions, and any rational human being can see the down side to those.

Really?

Originally Posted by Mr. E

One more thing to tack on, I disagree with your assessment of the lack of a polar nature to sexuality Syme. I think bi-sexuality is a purely social creation only partaken in because of the social expectation of child production and heterosexuality, and that all bi-sexuals are actually just homosexuals who aren't willing to commit sue to fear or due to nurture.

Uhh, you can dream up whatever theories you want about bisexuality; if you think they're all just closet gays (?) then that's your business. But the spectrum nature of human sexuality isn't "my" assessment, I'm just stating the conclusions that have been reached by actual researchers who study human sexuality. With all due respect, I will take their word over yours. Also, bisexuality--like homosexuality--is commonplace in nature, many non-human species exhibit bisexual behaviors, so I think that undercuts your personal theory a bit.

As for polygamous/polyandrous unions and other forms of group marriage, no, I don't view them as problematic. I think they should be permitted as well.

As for the idea of making "marriage" a purely religious term, I see the goal that you're trying for with that idea and I agree with it, but to me it doesn't make any sense to talk about "letting religions keep" marriage; as simonj and ephekt have pointed out, marriage never was and certainly is not now a purely or even largely religious institution; why should society surrender the term "marriage" to religious institutions which have no claim to originating it or being the sole purveyor of it? Marriage is a secular and civil institution; it is now, and it was throughout most of European history, let alone the history of the rest of the world. Religion's claim that marriage is "theirs", in that it's somehow a fundamentally sacred or spiritual institution, is utterly bogus. Marriage isn't fundamentally religious, it isn't sacred by definition, and religion needs to accept that fact and deal with it. So again, I see no reason that secular society should stop using the term "marriage" and surrender it to religious groups.

It's easy to presume that polygamy (specifically polygyny, one husband with multiple wives) would lead to overpopulation, but I don't think it's a realistic concern; do you have any evidence indicating that each individual woman in a polygynous marriage will produce more kids than she would in a monogamous marriage? Obviously the marriage unit as a whole can easily produce more kids than a monogamous couple would, but that's not what matters when it comes to overpopulation, what matters is the per-woman birth rate. E.g., if you have a polygynous marriage with one man and three women, and each woman bears two children, then the marriage unit as a whole has produced six kids, which is obviously more than most monogamous couples produce. But if each of those women was in a separate monogamous relationship, and each one had two kids (which is about normal), then those three women haven't produced any fewer kids than they would have in the polygynous marriage despite the fact that the number of kids produced by each marriage unit in the second case is much smaller. Basically, to support your point, you would have to demonstrate that an individual woman in a polygynous marriage is likely to become pregnant more often than she would be in a monogamous marriage. Contraception usage has a far greater impact on the population growth rate than does marriage type, I think. Not that population growth concerns are a valid reason to restrict group marriages in any case.

Plus, polygynous marriages are not the only type of polygamous marriage. There's also polyandry (one women, multiple men) and several other types as well. As for "selfishness", that seems like a personal value judgment that doesn't have any bearing on anything, certainly not on questions of legality. Ensuring that everyone has the maximum number of available potential mates, by banning marriage forms that take more than the minimum number of people "out of circulation", strikes me as bit beyond the purview of appropriate government. If some dude can convince multiple women to shack up with him, more power to him. He doesn't have some social responsibility to minimize the number of women he's with for the sake of "making sure there's enough to go around", or whatever, for other men. Of course the same holds true for any woman who can convince multiple men to cohabitate with her.

EDIT: As for the idea of making the term "marriage" purely religious, again, I see what you're trying to do--remove one of the religious right's main objections to the whole issue of gay marriage--but I guess I'm just not comfortable with the idea of the concession having to be made by the side that's opposed to bigotry and fighting for equality. Plus, getting society as a whole to abandon such a well-established term is just not going to happen, so I think it's a dead-end suggestion anyhow. Maybe non-religious couples shouldn't care what the term is, but they will care none-the-less; they will not be happy if you try to tell them that only people who get married in a church are really "married" and everyone else isn't.