Gay marriage

[phuqueue]

Sure, beheading people is more serious than denying insurance benefits or allowing employment discrimination, but I don't think that in the pursuit of freedom, we should say, "Well, we don't threaten to cut homosexuals' heads off, so good enough."

This concept doesn't solely apply to homosexuals. Any group of people could be denied insurance benefits or employment for a variety of unjust reasons.

Oppression doesn't imply severity, it refers to unjust treatment.

Then a whole lot of other groups are oppressed also.

Oppression doesn't imply exclusivity either. Our society still has a long way to go on a lot of fronts. Luckily for Christians, they are not among the oppressed, except in (some of) their own minds.

[FangKC]

Whether or not one believes it's a choice or not, excluding gays from the rights and privileges of marriage, not providing basic job discrimination protection, and legal rights to inherit and own property together, adopt, provide parental leave, medical visitation, etc., is a form of punishment of a specific group of citizens that is solely based on religious doctrine--one that was made centuries ago, and might not be shared by all Americans. A doctrine mostly written by people who were less educated and enlightened than many people today.

Religious groups claim marriage is a bond between a man and woman that is blessed and created by their God. However, one can turn the argument back around on religious groups and ask: "Why do you discriminate and punish a group based on a CHOSEN belief system based on your faith that a God exists?" There is no definitive proof. Just because one believes something doesn't make it true. "Why do you take an uncertainty, and use it to impose your will on a specific group?"

Despite what most Americans believe, the United States of American was not created to be a Christian nation. Yes, Christianity is the majority religion, but the founding fathers wrote a Constitution that established NO state religion, but a country that allowed citizens freedom of religion, lack of religion, and various other innate freedoms. Some of the founding fathers were deists, and not necessarily Christians. They weren't so much tied to religious dogma as the idea of a creator. The Constitution protects minorities, and limits the ability of the majority to impose its' will on minorities in certain areas. The founding fathers also sought to separate church and state in political affairs--mostly to avoid becoming a theocracy and creating a situation where the majority religion imposed its' dogma and will on the minority.

Joining a religious faith is also a choice. One is not born religious. It is usually imposed on one by parents, culture, or geography.

Even if one is a member of a certain religion--say Catholicism, that doesn't mean that all members of that religion agree on dogma or church teachings. One should be free to disagree. However, just because a certain religion holds an opinion--and that's what it is, an opinion--on church teaching or doctrine, that doesn't mean they have the right to impose that view on the basic rights of others. The Catholic Church has opposed divorce, but that doesn't mean that Catholics, or non-Catholics, cannot legally divorce.

I think the founding fathers also accepted that religious affiliations and majorities within a country can change over time. Thus, it was better to set up a political culture that didn't favor any religion--for no other reason than to promote domestic tranquility. History had shown that a lot of turmoil and wars were based on religious conflict. The Roman Empire went from being a nation with multiple gods to a single god. In Europe, many countries went from a Catholic majority to a Protestant majority. Now in some European countries, like the Czech Republic, the majority is non-Christian and atheist or agnostic.

Our freedom of religion provision also means that members within religions aren't punished in civil law in areas of that particular belief system that they disagree with, or don't adhere to themselves. Thus, Catholics can divorce their spouse in civil court.

It also means that the State can prosecute members of a religion based on civil law of the nation, despite religious law or church teachings. Polygamy is an example.

It was a smart move by the founding fathers. The United States has only really had one civil war, and it wasn't a religion-based conflict, but a political one. Yes, we have conflict among religions. However, we resolve most of them based on civil law, and not dogmatic theocratic law.

Most gay oppression and civil rights imbalances in the United States stem directly from religious teachings, and prejudice based on ignorance. Some religious scholars will argue that these teachings really aren't based on the correct interpretations of Christ's teachings. Using the example of Christianity since it's the majority religion here, Christ said nothing on the topic of homosexuality. All references to it are in the Old Testament, and Christ's teachings in the New Testament basically rendered most of the Old Testament mute anyway. The other troubling problem for religious scholars is the length of time between Christ's death and the recording of his teachings. Many years passed before most chapters of the Bible were written down. They were second- and third-hand accounts.

Even religions, and sects of specific religions, cannot agree on God's word, and interpretation of God's, or his messengers', teachings.

Thus, we shouldn't use them to craft civil rights and civil law.

Setting religion aside, there are even anthropologists and biologists that can make the argument that homosexuality has a purpose in human behavior, and evolution. Some might call it the "spare" theory, which means that nature acknowledges that for purposes of survival and evolution of the species, humans require extra adults that aren't encumbered by their own procreation needs, or parenting responsibilities. These "extras" have time to devote to other things like helping feed children through hunting and agriculture, babysitting, or to take over a parenting role if the parents die or are killed. These "spares" have the time and energy to devote to other needs for the species, and not just child rearing or basic survival needs.

Lastly, the final argument about using religious doctrine to craft civil rights, policy, and law is the obvious. If one accepts the premise that God is all-powerful, as many religions do, why hasn't God communicated directly with humans in over 2000 years? Why hasn't there been an update and correction in God's will? We live in a time of mass communication. Why can't God deliver a message directly by using powers to broadcast directly on TV, radio, and the Internet, outlining laws governing human behavior?

An all-knowing God would certainly have been able to anticipate all the changes in human behavior, culture, and technology that would have presented as time went by. There are certainly many aspects of human existence that Christ, Mohammed, and various other religious teachers didn't anticipate. Like the change in attitudes about slavery, and that women and children were the property of a family patriarch, or father/husband.

There is certainly no better time to communicate this information to practically everyone on the planet.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Don't forget, God has communicated to us. That is according to a few preachers.

[aknowledgeableperson]

US law was rather silent on the marriage issue. Marriage, by tradition, is regulated by the individual states. Laws denying interracial marriage were by individual states, not the federal government, and were quite prevalent - not just in the south.

Don't forget, a woman was once considered a piece of property in these marriage laws. A man could initiate divorce proceedings but a woman couldn't.

Laws change and society norms also change over time. Not sure what will happen in the future and if allowing gay marriage is the slippery slope but we are in the here-and-now. As the place of a woman in marriage has changed with the times the idea of who can marry can also change.

[chaglang]

Someone mentioned earlier that they had not heard one compelling argument against gay marriage.

That was me.

Marriage under American law has always been between one man, one woman.

True. And before that there was no race-mixing allowed. Definitions of marriage change. The age of consent isn't even consistent from state to state. It's a less monolithic institution than you make it out to be.

That's ridiculous -race marriage laws were set up in a few individual states/jurisdictions and never applied to the US as a whole.
The US has always limited marriage and set rules of who could marry, if you are already married, you cannot marry another at the same time, etc.

I think this was addressed by Loving v. Virginia, but someone more legal than I am should weigh in on that.

Overturning these laws and changing the definition and claiming "marriage is a right for anyone" and everyone to marry whomever they want is insane, impractical and will cause a multitude of civil and legal issues. Using the "marriage is a right for everyone" argument allows for anyone to marry anyone or anything else they want to.

This absolutely misstates what I said. I said that gays should be allowed to marry. That's very different from saying that everyone should be allowed to marry. I haven't seen anyone here argue for that, certainly not in the terms you are suggesting.

Polygamists will be allowed to marry.

Couples can marry: (example) 5 men can marry 8 women.

Some people will have secret families in other cities/states that they have to spend their limited resources to maintain.
This will break up families and cause even greater dependency on the govt.

Brothers, sisters, cousins all can marry each other.

Any of those changes could happen whether gay marriage is legal in all 50 states or not. Polygamy is a completely independent set of laws, as is intermarriage of cousins. They're totally irrelevant to the discussion of gay marriage itself. But even after you strawmanned the argument, your reasons aren't rational or compelling.

Secret families? Really?

I've heard people say the law change won't allow that but under "marriage is a right for everyone" WHO ARE you to argue against that and judge? If you are using the "marriage is a right for everyone" argument then you must use it across the board for everyone - who are you to judge?

Again, nobody here is arguing for that. You invented that argument. But if you want to talk about judgement, let's talk about dictating to gays and lesbians that they can't get married because you believe in a temporal definition of marriage somehow carries more weight than any of the myriad versions we have discarded.

I will now put my head back in the sand.

[FangKC]

Illinois approves gay marriage. Now 15 states have gay marriage.

The Hawaii legislature is in special session to consider gay marriage there. Hawaii House Judiciary and Finance committees have wrapped up testimony today.

The Hawaii Senate approved legislation last week, though the bill may have to be reconsidered if it's significantly amended in the House. If the "Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013" passes out of the House Judiciary and Finance committees, it goes to the House floor for a second reading and full vote. If the bill, which includes religious exemptions, is passed by both chambers, same-sex couples in Hawaii could begin marrying November 18.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/poli ... full.story

[KCMax]

The SC in New Mexico will also take up a gay marriage case this week. Gay marriage is actually not illegal per se there, so it has already been legalized by some cities and counties.

Congressman Mike Michaud has come out as openly gay. He is a good favorite to win the Maine Governor's race next year, which would make him the first openly gay governor in America. Gay marriage is already legal in Maine.

Also significant is ENDA, the bill in Congress that would end workplace discrimination against gays. It passed the Senate with bipartisan support including Kelly Ayotte, Orrin Hatch, Dean Heller, Pat Toomey and sponsor Susan Collins. Some Republicans filibustered, but no one was willing to give remarks on the floor, and the filibuster was overriden. It almost certainly faces defeat in the House.

[chrizow]

same sex marriage is now available to 37% of the population of the U.S., and much of our allies abroad. the world hasn't ended yet. the onus shouldn't be on same sex marriage proponents to "prove" why gay folks should be permitted to marry - the onus is on those who wish the government to limit the rights of others and intrude on their personal relationships.

the slippery slope argument of "what's next? polygamy? dogs? inanimate objects?" is just inane. if slippery slope were a valid argument, it would cut against "legalizing" marriage in any form.

besides, the polygamy argument is goofy b/c the gravamen of why same-sex marriage should be legal is that two consenting adults should be able to enter into a legally recognized marriage. polygamy, as its most often practiced by religious wackos, has very serious issues with "consent," as i do not believe that 15 year old girls can really "consent" to being married to 50 year old men who have 10 other wives. maybe "legitimate" consenting polygamists are agitating for legal marriage somewhere, but i am not aware of it.

instead of throwing up straw men/slippery slope arguments as to what wild-assed idea may come next, just deal with same-sex marriage itself. why should the government ban it? it's not like churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages if they don't want to. the arguments against it boil down to "it's icky," "it's against my religion," and "it goes against how humans have traditionally considered marriage." none of which are valid reasons to prevent others from living their lives the way they see fit. the instant someone comes and tries to force you into a same-sex marriage, let me know.

either way, gay marriage is going to be legal nationally in the US pretty soon. may as well get used to it.

[chaglang]

+1, emphatically.
The tradition argument is always problematic because "the way we have always done it" is usually just the last remaining reason not to do something. And that trends to be a reflection of the timeline in which society changed it's mind on an issue. It's happenstance that race or one of the other discarded limitations on marriage isn't currently considered "the way we have always done things."

[phuqueue]

True. And before that there was no race-mixing allowed. Definitions of marriage change. The age of consent isn't even consistent from state to state. It's a less monolithic institution than you make it out to be.

You are wrong, see this is why one cannot argue with deliberate liars that have anonymity on internet forums.
Some (FEW) states/jurisdictions had those laws, I already pointed that out. You cannot use the race laws to claim we've "changed" marriage before.

Who's lying? "Few" states had anti-miscegenation laws? Forty states have had such laws on the books at some time or another. Loving only overturned those that were still in force, affecting sixteen states, but two dozen other states had those laws at some point and eventually repealed them (hey, that looks a lot like the same process gay marriage is undergoing right now).

That is stupid, illogical, stop lying and grasp reality. The main point is "one man, one woman" that has always been the definition.
NOT a few desparate laws about race, class, etc. You are confusing the definition with adjunct limitations that have nothing to do with the main definition.

That something has "always" been one way is sufficient reason to leave it that way? Man we'd better repeal the Thirteenth Amendment then, which unfortunately stamped out an illustrious history of human slavery running back to the very origins of European settlement in the Americas, and thousands of years before that.

This absolutely misstates what I said. I said that gays should be allowed to marry. That's very different from saying that everyone should be allowed to marry. I haven't seen anyone here argue for that, certainly not in the terms you are suggesting.

Again, you are the one not reading with comprehension. The arguement for gay marriage is that it should be a "right" for everyone and it's unfair to exclude gays (discrimination). That exclusion also polygamists, incestuous relationships, etc.)
You cannot say gays alone should have that "right" and then exclude everyone else, that's stupid X 2.

Well this is patently false. The problem with prohibiting gay marriage is that it is an essentially arbitrary restriction. There are clear policy reasons to prohibit other types of relationships like incest.

Any of those changes could happen whether gay marriage is legal in all 50 states or not. Polygamy is a completely independent set of laws, as is intermarriage of cousins. They're totally irrelevant to the discussion of gay marriage itself. But even after you strawmanned the argument, your reasons aren't rational or compelling.

Polygamy has seperate laws but they all are about the definition- polygamy is outlawed because of the definition - "one man, one woman."
It's the same subject - it's about changing the definition. If gays are allowed to marry because it is a "right", then you have to allow polygamists the same privilege to marry also. They are Americans and should be able to marry whomever they want to.

Polygamy is not analogous to gay marriage. Changing "one man and one woman" to "two people" doesn't entail the same sort of difficulties that come with changing it to "any number of people." Even setting aside the very real issues that exist in practice that chrizow alluded to, like underage or coerced brides (this is illegal in marriage as we currently conceive of it, so would still be illegal even if polygamy were permitted), polygamous marriages create inherently unequal relationships between the husband and his various wives with potentially deleterious effects on those wives and their children (eg studies showing that women in polygamous marriages are at higher risk of depression than women in monogamous marriages). Wives are explicitly not of equal stature even among each other, to say nothing of the fact that they're all subservient to their husband, which makes plenty of sense -- it's a basic fact that you just like some people more than others and presumably that holds true whether we're talking about your circle of friends or your harem of wives. Abuse is obviously a danger in any interpersonal relationship, but subjugation is not intrinsic to monogamous relationships, whether they're opposite or same sex.

Secret families? Really?

Yes silly, how do you NOT know that even now there are thousands of men in the US that have seperate families that do not know about the other family.
There are polygamy conviction(s) every day somewhere in the US.
If you legalize polygamy, this will increase 10X.

Why? It's funny that conservatives who rail so much against government excess also so readily advance these arguments that only the penal code can save us from ourselves. Even if we accept your unsupported proposition that "thousands of men" have secret families around the country, don't you think there are plenty of pragmatic reasons that this practice won't become more widespread? Many -- I would guess most -- people in America simply aren't interested in entering into polygamous relationships. Those that want to will still face practical constraints, for instance the financial ability to support each family. Moreover, the legalization of polygamy means that these separate families no longer need to be "secret" because the man is no longer engaging in any sort of criminal activity. They can now all live together in a more traditional polygamous family arrangement -- and if any of the wives are unhappy with that, this is America and they can sue for divorce.

Oh, wait, scratch all that, we're not arguing about polygamy in the first place. Nice try with the strawman though, however flimsy it may have been.

[mean]

The main point is "one man, one woman" that has always been the definition.

You seem to be saying that as long as we call it anything besides marriage, you're ok with it?

And, if that's the case, as bafflingly stupid as that line of thinking seems to me--the nature of language is that words inevitably change meaning over time--can we compromise and make up a new word or something to refer specifically to gay marriage? I mean, they can and will be free to say they're married all they want, but if Christians are going to throw a tantrum over something so inane as fucking semantics on this, is it really such a bad idea to just have a new word to appease them?

[longviewmo]

For what it's worth, we're already not calling it marriage. We're calling it gay marriage.

[mean]

Yeah, but that's obviously not different enough to not make people freak out over what seems to me, at least, to be absolutely meaningless semantic shit. What I'm wondering is, does conceding to a compromise / name-change somehow devalue the institution? I don't really see how it does, but I would also have a hard time not at least being sympathetic to the notion that calling it something different is conceding that it's less. I wouldn't necessarily agree with that assessment, but I'm also not in a position where I am likely to ever be something-besides-married to another man.

[mean]

The only reason you can't see that this is ultimately a semantics game is, I guess, because you think there's something to "marriage" beyond being a word in the dictionary. Like it has some meaning other than the meaning we collectively decide it has. It doesn't. Maybe someday you'll get it. I doubt it, but I have hope.

[mean]

I only see it as gays/left are trying to change the definition of (redefine completely) the Judeo-Christian religious institution that is the very foundation of our entire culture and society.

I'm actually far more libertarian than "left" but certainly I do not care how Christians define marriage for themselves, or what they believe constitutes marriage, and I have zero desire to tell them what to believe or what to accept, endorse, or allow in their churches.

But I do have an issue with Christians essentially saying, "Marriage is our word, we own it, and we decide what it means for everyone else in the country forever, whether they are Christians or not."

I've tried to be clear, I don't think it's about the alphabetical formula we use. It's about marriage, which is simply one man, one woman, families, children.

But it is, and is only, about the alphabetical formula we use, to me, because there is nothing else to it! It's literally just a word in a dictionary. It means whatever we all agree that it means. Whatever "omg this is sacred" stuff you folks have going on with it, I mean, that's cool! I don't want to take away your sacred word or whatever, and by all means you can keep right on believing marriage is one man, one woman. Seems to me, that's a church's decision. They can decide they believe marriage is one man, one woman for their church and refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for any other couple configuration. Other churches will, I'm sure, decide marriage can be both, and will perform ceremonies for anyone.

Point is, it's a semantic debate that only applies if you're a Christian, and only if you're a particular kind of Christian who believes in a certain way. I'm confident that we as a society aren't going to let these linguistic hooligans hold the word "marriage" hostage to their personal doctrinal beliefs.

[chrizow]

an increasing number of churches/clergy support same-sex marriage and in fact perform same-sex marriages (or other union ceremonies in states where same-sex marriage is not legal yet, such as MO). surely harbinger911 does not think conservatives have a lock on what constitutes "judeo-christian" beliefs? plenty of christians are performing same-sex marriages - and, believe it or not, many LGBT folks are christians (or jewish or whatever other religion).

so, basically, it is YOUR view (and other conservative christians' view) that the faith cannot abide same-sex marriage. like Mean says, that's cool you believe that, but why should you get to choose what your fellow christians do? i would think you would want to afford other christians the freedom to practice their faith as they see fit.

[phuqueue]

Marriage is a religious institution founded on Judeo-Christian teaching.

No it isn't. "Marriage" exists in virtually all cultures all around the world and long pre-dates Judaism.

Another response' whole logic was to claim that I had the number of states that had race-based marriage laws wrong.
I actually didn't claim a certain number.
I said those laws were limited to certain states/jusrisdictions and were not universal in scope like "one man and one woman" IS and always HAS BEEN in this country since before it's founding.
The real point is no one cares since none of that has anything to do with the topic.
You are only using anecdotal, vague claims trying to deflect from the argument you are losing.

I'm not sure you know what those words mean. That forty states (no, you didn't specify a number, but "few" has never meant forty) had anti-miscegenation laws is a fact, not an anecdote. There has never been a "universal" definition of marriage. The federal government didn't define marriage at all until 1996. The states have always had different definitions. The oldest statute on the books prohibiting same sex marriage traces its long and storied history all the way back to 1973. Many of these laws were passed after same sex couples attempted to get married because it wasn't strictly illegal; county clerks refused to grant licenses, but there was no statutory basis for their refusal until these laws were enacted.

That something has "always" been one way is sufficient reason to leave it that way?
Man we'd better repeal the Thirteenth Amendment then, which unfortunately stamped out an illustrious history of human slavery running back to the very origins of European settlement in the Americas, and thousands of years before that.

Human slavery has been around forever and in every culture...and that applies here...how?

I'm genuinely incapable of making this analogy any more obvious than it already is.

Marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman.
If you want a different type of covenant go ahead, just call it something else.
Homos want to claim validity and normalcy - they are neither valid nor normal.
They could easily call it something else and be done with it already, but in fact they deliberately fight to change the definition!
It is a gay agenda.

"Separate but equal" is inherently unequal and unconstitutional.

This absolutely misstates what I said. I said that gays should be allowed to marry. That's very different from saying that everyone should be allowed to marry. I haven't seen anyone here argue for that, certainly not in the terms you are suggesting.

Hypocrite. If you argue it's a right for homos, it should be a right for everyone.
You don't see the blatant idiocy of your claim?

Is your position then that nobody should be able to get married? If you argue it's a right for heterosexual couples, it should be a right for everyone.

Polygamy is not analogous to gay marriage.

The analogy is to expose the hypocrisy in the basic argument for gay marriage, that it is a "basic right" for all and that not allowing gays is "discrimination."

You don't know what "analogy" means.

Changing "one man and one woman" to "two people" doesn't entail the same sort of difficulties that come with changing it to "any number of people."

And now you're squirming in your own hypocrisy, just as Chrizow did. You are making a moral judgement about the "difficulties" of one versus the other....shame on you you judgmental twits. Who are you to judge? One could easily argue that polygamist unions would/could be as functional and any homo union, and the polygamists wouldn't even need dildos to achieve that functionality.

I'm not making a "moral judgment." I have no opinions on the morality or immorality of polygamy. It is, however, a fact that polygamy is completely different from gay marriage. It's interesting that you didn't bother responding to the part of my post in which I briefly touched on what some of those difficulties are. You quote only the first line, so as to make it appear as though I've made an unfounded assertion (that's your forte and I would never take it away from you). I welcome whatever argument you can make in favor of polygamy here. Please give it your best shot.

Oh, wait, scratch all that, we're not arguing about polygamy in the first place. Nice try with the strawman though, however flimsy it may have been.

No we're not, we're arguing over changing the definition of marriage, which in it's logical evolution will also defer to polygamists eventually. You know that, stop deceiving yourself and others.

Don't throw around words like logic if you aren't prepared to properly apply them.

People and dictionaries have redefined things throughout history.
Marriage is not one of them, because until very recently, it was obvious to everyone what marriage is.

Until very recently, marriage was a purely economic contract. It was made between a man and a woman because the man had the social/financial means to support the woman, and the woman had the biological means to provide him with children. Now women can support themselves and we get married to people because we love them, often without any intention of producing children. Marriage has already been fundamentally redefined in the past century. If we're going to let anyone get married to the opposite sex partner that they love just because they want to, there's no good reason (your own warped view of history is not a good reason) to deny that same privilege to those who want to marry same sex partners.

[mean]

No it isn't. "Marriage" exists in virtually all cultures all around the world and long pre-dates Judaism.

This is true, but early marriages--and even some marriages today--are/were not really what we'd consider "marriage". More like a family selling off their daughter. Indeed, marriage as we understand it today (marriage for love, as the nucleus of a, well, nuclear family) seems to be a pretty recent innovation all things considered, and possibly (although I don't know this for a fact) rooted in Judeo-Christian thought.

Tangentially, as far as I can tell, a lot of conservatives seem to think that the state of the country during a period between the end of WW2 and approximately 1955 represents the entire history of the United States all the way back to 1776 rather than being an extremely anomalous period of (almost exclusively white) middle class prosperity and hegemony. I find this fascinating.

I welcome whatever argument you can make in favor of polygamy here. Please give it your best shot.[/quote[

I'm happy to tackle this, actually: if they're all consenting adults, who cares? I would go so far as to apply this to whatever minuscule number of consensual incestual relationships might be out there. If the government can legislate that two consenting adults can't get married because they have increased odds of producing children with congenital defects, it isn't a huge leap to say that they should be able to legislate that two consenting adults can't get married because they can't produce offspring, whether because they're gay or too old or whatever. Considering that the odds of having kids with Downs goes up after 40, should people over 40 not be allowed to be married?

Personally, I don't think it's the government's place at all. Let the churches decide what they think is "moral" and keep the government out of it entirely. My only prerequisite for marriage of any number of consenting adult humans is that they're all consenting adult humans. I'm probably in the minority on this one, but that's OK.

[phuqueue]

No it isn't. "Marriage" exists in virtually all cultures all around the world and long pre-dates Judaism.

This is true, but early marriages--and even some marriages today--are/were not really what we'd consider "marriage". More like a family selling off their daughter. Indeed, marriage as we understand it today (marriage for love, as the nucleus of a, well, nuclear family) seems to be a pretty recent innovation all things considered, and possibly (although I don't know this for a fact) rooted in Judeo-Christian thought.

I mean, I made the same point later in the post, that marriage for love is something that has developed pretty much in the past century. Marriage in prehistoric times surely didn't look much like marriage as we know it today (which only further undermines his argument that marriage has been an unchanging institution since time immemorial), but to the extent that people were pairing off to create families, they had "marriage" long before Judaism (much less Christianity) existed. I have no idea what basis there is to assume that marriage as we now think of it is rooted in Judeo-Christian thought. I'm not a marriage expert but I would be surprised if Western religions have significantly informed conceptions of marriage in countries where those religions don't predominate.

I welcome whatever argument you can make in favor of polygamy here. Please give it your best shot.[/quote[

I'm happy to tackle this, actually: if they're all consenting adults, who cares? I would go so far as to apply this to whatever minuscule number of consensual incestual relationships might be out there. If the government can legislate that two consenting adults can't get married because they have increased odds of producing children with congenital defects, it isn't a huge leap to say that they should be able to legislate that two consenting adults can't get married because they can't produce offspring, whether because they're gay or too old or whatever. Considering that the odds of having kids with Downs goes up after 40, should people over 40 not be allowed to be married?

Personally, I don't think it's the government's place at all. Let the churches decide what they think is "moral" and keep the government out of it entirely. My only prerequisite for marriage of any number of consenting adult humans is that they're all consenting adult humans. I'm probably in the minority on this one, but that's OK.

Well, a couple things. First, I guess this might have been a little vague, really the part you quoted is only qualified by the nebulous "here," but I was referring specifically to the assertion that a polygamist marriage could be as "functional" as a same sex marriage, not looking for a defense of polygamy in general.

That's because secondly, I actually don't care about polygamy either way, so while I appreciate your position (that sounds sort of condescending or dismissive, but it's not meant to be either), I was really just trying to get harbinger to argue something he was boxing himself into but clearly doesn't actually believe in. I've actually had people make the "if we allow gay marriage, we'll have to allow polygamy" argument to me before and I go back and forth between pointing out the obvious differences between the two, as I've done in this thread, and saying so what. I wouldn't extend that to incestuous relationships because I think you have to presume coercion there, but polygamy: so what? I do think polygamy is an inherently unequal arrangement for the wives (or I guess for the husbands, but polyandry is extremely uncommon) and so I'm not a fan of it for that reason, but I don't really care if a fully informed adult wants to enter into that situation. I do, however, think that is at least a persuasive enough reason for the government not to treat polygamy and same sex marriage as similar things, no matter how much conservatives like harbinger want to link them.

[pash]

.