Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
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.
You're not wrong, I just think that society should make the concession so we can get this mess over with. Non-religious people shouldn't even really care what the word is. If the religious want it, let them have it so we can get this mess over with.

Also, I agree with ephekt when he said polygamists would be getting preferential treatment were they allowed to do what they do. Even beyond that though, if polygamy were legalized and actually caught on there could be overpopulation issues that spring up real quick. Plus it is selfish. Those are really the only two things I have against it.