Gay Marriage

[Upchurch]

Well, I was mostly just yanking your chain. It just seems to me it's another issue that must be dealt with if polygamy were to be legalized. If it was decided against, it would cause little additional problem. But the complications get fierce if it was allowed.

There are lots of different kinds of apples in the world, but ultimately, there has to be some defining characteristics of what makes something an "apple".

What is "marriage"? I think "the melding of separate parts into a unified whole" is a pretty good first approximation. I'm open to other ideas.

 

[Rasmus]

What is "marriage"? I think "the melding of separate parts into a unified whole" is a pretty good first approximation. I'm open to other ideas.

That is something I might write on a wedding invitation. But nothing I would use to define a marriage. Moving in with a boyfriend or girlfriend and just having one fridge would fit the defintion. Sex would. Lego pieces no less.

Also, since there have been different kinds of marriages throughout the ages and in different places I fail to see the significance of finding a broad enough definition for everything that might be seen as a marriage.

Does anyone know what the laws are like in areas where polygamy is legal?

 

[Thanz]

What is "marriage"? I think "the melding of separate parts into a unified whole" is a pretty good first approximation. I'm open to other ideas.

Well, that also describes baking a cake, so maybe we need to be a little more specific.

Further, the definition is (intentionally I'm sure) fudgy on the number of parts that go into that whole. The law of marriage is fundamentally designed for 2 people and is ill suited for more than that. Trying to fit a polygamous marriage into the framework is like trying to ram a square peg into a round hole.

 

[Upchurch]

That is something I might write on a wedding invitation. But nothing I would use to define a marriage. Moving in with a boyfriend or girlfriend and just having one fridge would fit the defintion. Sex would. Lego pieces no less.

That is why I would call it a first approximation. Working in, I would narrow it to people and, given our social norms, consenting adults.

Thus, I would say that marriage is the union of consenting adults into a unified whole.

Also, since there have been different kinds of marriages throughout the ages and in different places I fail to see the significance of finding a broad enough definition for everything that might be seen as a marriage.

How about a reasonable definition of marriage for this day and age?

 

[Upchurch]

Further, the definition is (intentionally I'm sure) fudgy on the number of parts that go into that whole. The law of marriage is fundamentally designed for 2 people and is ill suited for more than that. Trying to fit a polygamous marriage into the framework is like trying to ram a square peg into a round hole.

To artificially narrow it to only 2 people is equally as forceful to a pre-assumed conclusion. If we are to narrow it to only 2 people, there should be a reason to narrow it to only 2 people.

And the law of marriage is not fundamentally designed for 2 people. It is designed for 2 people out of tradition. If it were fundamentally designed for 2 people, it could not be adapted otherwise, and I think there have been a number of valid suggestions of just how that could be done.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

And the law of marriage is not fundamentally designed for 2 people. It is designed for 2 people out of tradition. If it were fundamentally designed for 2 people, it could not be adapted otherwise, and I think there have been a number of valid suggestions of just how that could be done.

Marriage in the tradition of the USA and the UK was fundamentally designed for 2 people, it was a civil contract between two parties, some would say the father of the bride and the groom, I don't go that far I say between the bride and the groom.

The fact that you can take some aspects of that contract and apply it to polygamous marriages does not alter what is was fundamentally designed for.

 

[Rasmus]

And the law of marriage is not fundamentally designed for 2 people. It is designed for 2 people out of tradition. If it were fundamentally designed for 2 people, it could not be adapted otherwise, and I think there have been a number of valid suggestions of just how that could be done.

Can we agree that, as of now, it is designed for 2 people?

I doubt you could argue it has ever been designed for people of opposite sexes, or the same colour. (Was it Hawaii that actually had no such provisions and where therefore same sex marriages have been witheld from those seeking them without reason?)

Those entry barriers have been tagged on to marriages and they can be removed jsut as erasily without changing the marriage itself.

 

[Upchurch]

Marriage in the tradition of the USA and the UK was fundamentally designed for 2 people, it was a civil contract between two parties, some would say the father of the bride and the groom, I don't go that far I say between the bride and the groom.

The fact that you can take some aspects of that contract and apply it to polygamous marriages does not alter what is was fundamentally designed for.

Touche.

eta:
going way back, we have records of men with many wives and concubines (indicating that there was a difference between someone you were married to and someone you kept around for the sex). How does that figure into it?

 

[Miss Anthrope]

I would love it if just one of the gay marriage threads here would quickly dismiss the slippery slope arguments and NOT go into a debate about polygamy...........and they never seem to get split, either?

 

[Thanz]

To artificially narrow it to only 2 people is equally as forceful to a pre-assumed conclusion. If we are to narrow it to only 2 people, there should be a reason to narrow it to only 2 people.

It is not narrowed to 2 people. It just is 2 people. You are seeking to expand it beyond 2 people. If you want to get get all flowery with definitions, I can say that marriage is the lifelong committment to another person, foresaking all others. It is the ultimate expression of monogamy.

And the law of marriage is not fundamentally designed for 2 people. It is designed for 2 people out of tradition. If it were fundamentally designed for 2 people, it could not be adapted otherwise, and I think there have been a number of valid suggestions of just how that could be done.

With a big enough hammer and enough whacks, a square peg can be pounded through a round hole. That doesn't mean that a round hole is not fundamentally designed for a round peg, not a square one. The fact that you have to adapt it at all illustrates that it is fundamentally designed for something else.

 

[Upchurch]

Can we agree that, as of now, it is designed for 2 people?

Sure.

I doubt you could argue it has ever been designed for people of opposite sexes, or the same colour.

I don't understand. Why not?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Those entry barriers have been tagged on to marriages and they can be removed jsut as erasily without changing the marriage itself.

When you look at the history of marriage what you actually find is that many of the past "entry barriers" have already been removed, for instance marriage without the consent of the father (or your lord to go back a bit further) was not allowed. Indeed in what is now the UK marriage did not exist even as a civil contract for most of the people - it was reserved for the aristocracy.

___________________________________

Marriage is nothing more then a social convention and marriage has always just been what society "wants" it to be - so looking at what it "traditionally" means is useless as way to determine what it should be today.

 

[Upchurch]

I would love it if just one of the gay marriage threads here would quickly dismiss the slippery slope arguments and NOT go into a debate about polygamy...........and they never seem to get split, either?

Sorry.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

going way back, we have records of men with many wives and concubines (indicating that there was a difference between someone you were married to and someone you kept around for the sex). How does that figure into it?

Wives produce legitimate heirs. I think that about sums it up.

 

[Upchurch]

It is not narrowed to 2 people. It just is 2 people. You are seeking to expand it beyond 2 people. If you want to get get all flowery with definitions, I can say that marriage is the lifelong committment to another person, foresaking all others. It is the ultimate expression of monogamy.

Actually, I was trying to work from something akin to first principles. Rather difficult in language, but that's what I was doing.

With a big enough hammer and enough whacks, a square peg can be pounded through a round hole. That doesn't mean that a round hole is not fundamentally designed for a round peg, not a square one. The fact that you have to adapt it at all illustrates that it is fundamentally designed for something else.

You make it sound as if there was never such a thing as a legal polygamous marriage. (see the old testament side. Jebus was a big fuddy duddy.)

 

[Soapy Sam]

I would love it if just one of the gay marriage threads here would quickly dismiss the slippery slope arguments and NOT go into a debate about polygamy...........and they never seem to get split, either?

Depends which you think is the important bit;- gay marriage , or gay marriage.
Not being gay, I see the nature of marriage (or equivalent socioeconomic contract) as the important bit, with gay marriage as a subset- a step along the way if you like.
(And a step that raised consciousness that marriage did not have to be 1M + 1F. )That thinking will lead into a discussion of other types of marriage. I can see how to a gay person the opposite might be the case- and that thinking will lead into a discussion of gay relationships in society.

Each is valid.

 

[Upchurch]

Marriage is nothing more then a social convention and marriage has always just been what society "wants" it to be - so looking at what it "traditionally" means is useless as way to determine what it should be today.

I can live with that.

 

[Upchurch]

Wives produce legitimate heirs. I think that about sums it up.

and probably had multiple contracts with multiple daddies, as per Darat's post.

Kinda blows my take on bigamy as a breach of contract all to hell, doesn't it?

 

[Rasmus]

I don't understand. Why not?

I will try this again.

A lot of laws only apply to you and one other person if you are married. None of these laws care who is the man and who the woman. They could all apply to a marriage between two men or two women without any alteration.

Hence, if it wasn't for a law restricting access to marriage for same sex couples, the marriage would be just the same as between a man and a woman.

there is nothing about marriage that makes it more suitable for opposite sex couples. There is nothing that makes it less shuitable for mixed-race couples as opposed to same sex couples. So it is not "designed" for opposite sex couples alone.

But it is designed for groups of two people. Rules would have to be changed and adopted into something new if you wanted to have a marriage for 3 or 4 people.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

You make it sound as if there was never such a thing as a legal polygamous marriage. (see the old testament side. Jebus was a big fuddy duddy.)

The problem with past instances of legal polygamous marriage is they were not the kind of marriage the polyamorous (by my understanding) want today. They were not equal partnerships of multiple people. They were one man and his many subordinate wives (or, much more rarely, one woman and her many subordinate husbands). In a very real sense, it was more like one man being involved in many different 1M/1F pairings than a 1M/XF group.

Of course, equal partnership in two-party marriages is also a pretty modern idea.