Same-Sex Marriage Will Not Lead to Polygamous Marriage. Really?

[Bill Mattocks]

The argument that opening our minds to same sex marriage might lead to opening our mind to other options has some merit.

That's pretty much my point in this thread.

Imagine a time-honored apple pie recipe. No one disagrees that if you follow the recipe, you get an apple pie.

Now someone comes along and tweaks the recipe. They use pumpkin instead of apples. However, they insist that it still be called an apple pie.

The apple pie traditionalists object, complaining (among other things) that if you make apple pie with pumpkins instead of apples, it's not apple pie anymore; and that once you start redefining what apple pie is, you open it up to ongoing redefinition forever. It's a Rubicon; once you cross it, it's crossed. You can't unring that bell.

The fans of apple pie made with pumpkins pooh-pooh that notion, insisting that this one redefinition is all that will happen. It would be crazy to let any further redefinition of apple pie take place, they solemnly swear.

So we end up with two kinds of apple pie. Made with apples and made with pumpkins.

And finally, someone else comes along and wants to use grapes instead of apples or pumpkins.

The people who prefer the traditional recipe object, saying "Apple pie is traditionally made with apples. Making it with something else is not apple pie." And the people who want to make it with grapes respond, saying, "You didn't stop it when apple pie was made with pumpkins. So you can't use that argument now. Too late. I'm going to make it with grapes, call it apple pie, and you're just going to have to accept it."

Once that redefinition takes place (as it has in Canada apparently), then the door is opened. Those who said this would happen were right. Those who said it would not happen now don't want to think about it; they want to change the subject or argue that polygamous marriage isn't such a bad idea after all.

And if someone suggests that this will lead to further redefinition of marriage yet again, they once again claim that no, it won't, that would be crazy talk. Yet here we are; everything those of us who were against the redefinition of marriage said would happen has happened.

That's the nature of making exceptions. Once you make the first one, you can no longer refuse to make exceptions on the basis that there are no exceptions. Clearly there are, once the first exception has been made. The argument then is only over which exceptions are OK and which are not OK, not whether the exception can be made at all.

"No exceptions" is a strong argument against change until you make the first exception. Then it's worth nothing. Some of us said this; we were laughed at. We were right.

 

[Blade96]

who gives a eff again if someone didnt admit some people were gonna act stupid.

and your apple pie thingy doesnt make any sense. if you add pumpkin your changing the pie completely there is not apple pie. if you add same sex marriages its still two people. It doesnt fly.

and there lots of reasons I dont believe in polygamous marriages. One, they're sexist. Two, i can see cat fights down the road between people who may get jealous they have to share their husband with other wives.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

who gives a eff again if someone didnt admit some people were gonna act stupid.

It goes to the base argument. If a group says "I don't think that will happen if we do X," and it does happen, I'm not going to be listening to them anymore. They're either incorrect or lying.

and your apple pie thingy doesnt make any sense. if you add pumpkin your changing the pie completely there is not apple pie. if you add same sex marriages its still two people. It doesnt fly.

If you change apples to pumpkins, it's still fruit (I think. Is pumpkin a fruit?) Well anyway, the point here is that YOU define marriage as being between two people, but that is NOT the traditional definition, as you well know. The traditional definition is two people of opposite genders. At no time in our history has it meant two people of the same sex. So saying it hasn't changed because it is still 'two people' is choosing not to take note of actual facts.

and there lots of reasons I dont believe in polygamous marriages. One, they're sexist. Two, i can see cat fights down the road between people who may get jealous they have to share their husband with other wives.

Sure, but now they have just as valid an argument in favor of legalization of their multiple marriages as same-sex couples do - the right to be happy and to enjoy the legal benefits that marriage brings. Before, Canada could say no, because it invalidated the traditional definition of marriage. Now they can't say that anymore.

Opening the door for one meant that argument can no longer be used for any.

 

[Makalakumu]

Sometimes I feel like this slippery slope has run the wrong way down hill. With polygamy, we have children, we have families, we have men and women living together, and we have plenty of religious precedent (if you care about those things). In many ways same sex marriage is a leap farther then polygamy. It's really strange to see same sex marriages almost accepted and polygamy as such a deep taboo when you think about it. Is it because homosexuals are more vocal about their rights? Or is there a deeper aspect of polygamy that I am missing that puts it in a category that is more "deviant" then same sex marriage?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Sometimes I feel like this slippery slope has run the wrong way down hill. With polygamy, we have children, we have families, we have men and women living together, and we have plenty of religious precedent (if you care about those things). In many ways same sex marriage is a leap farther then polygamy. It's really strange to see same sex marriages almost accepted and polygamy as such a deep taboo when you think about it. Is it because homosexuals are more vocal about their rights? Or is there a deeper aspect of polygamy that I am missing that puts it in a category that is more "deviant" then same sex marriage?

There are many aspects, including religious, cultural, and historic. Then you have to look at the many flavors of polyamory, including polygamous (more properly called polygynous, since it refers to one male with multiple female spouses) and situations that involve multiple partners of both sexes. There are also looser affiliations of 'family' that involve polyamory but not complete sharing of finances and other traditional aspects of 'family' and groups that allow open entry and exit from a larger 'group' as if the family were a corporation, gaining and losing employees; even larger situations that might not involve sexuality at all, but more of a group-wise construct resembling a religious cult - even some which resemble that but are not religious, such as utopian compounds, kibutzes, and extended definitions of what family is.

All of these happen; all of them are supported in one way or another by law in the USA. No one stops six guys and four girls from living together in the same house and doing whatever comes to mind when the lights go out. It's the institution of marriage, which confers some legal benefits, which is being put to the test, not their right to cohabitate in whatever way their minds can come up with.

And by the way, if you really want to have your mind blown, read some of the last science fiction novels by Robert Heinlein. He really challenges many notions, including whether or not the taboo of siblings and parents marrying each other should still exist. And again, once you open the door to redefining what marriage is, someone is going to say "Hey, those other guys got what they wanted, WHY NOT ME?" And there just isn't much we can say in response.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

All of these happen; all of them are supported in one way or another by law in the USA. No one stops six guys and four girls from living together in the same house and doing whatever comes to mind when the lights go out. It's the institution of marriage, which confers some legal benefits, which is being put to the test, not their right to cohabitate in whatever way their minds can come up with.

And herein lies the problem. A married couple enjoys rights under the law - rights that are denied to people who bat for other teams (some of which might have more than the traditional number of players).

Our tradition of liberty in the US is pretty clear that you should not have rights suspended unless you're actively hurting somebody. The situation, as it currently stands, does exactly that.

I'd be perfectly happy to see the definition of marriage expanded. I'd be even happier to see a "domestic alliance" provision in the law - and leave "marriage" to the religious institutions that want to see it narrowly defined.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And herein lies the problem. A married couple enjoys rights under the law - rights that are denied to people who bat for other teams (some of which might have more than the traditional number of players).

Our tradition of liberty in the US is pretty clear that you should not have rights suspended unless you're actively hurting somebody. The situation, as it currently stands, does exactly that.

I'd be perfectly happy to see the definition of marriage expanded. I'd be even happier to see a "domestic alliance" provision in the law - and leave "marriage" to the religious institutions that want to see it narrowly defined.

I agree that there is a difference between the rights of those who are married to each other versus those who are joined in some other way, from casual relationships to recognized civil unions.

We can fix that which does not involved redefining what marriage is.

One way would be for the government to get entirely out of the marriage business for everyone. Let churches define what marriage is and is not; if a person wants to argue it, it's between them and their church, not between them and the government. For those who are not religious, fine, let them simply declare themselves married and that's that. Most states that have common-law marriages allow that now anyway; any man and woman that hold themselves out as husband and wife are.

Another way would be to grant civil unions the same rights and benefits as married couples enjoy. End of problem.

I fail to see why the institution of marriage must be destroyed in order that no one be denied their rights. They can and should have their rights respected; the same rights as married couples enjoy. There is no need to destroy marriage as an institution to do that.

 

[elder999]

I agree that there is a difference between the rights of those who are married to each other versus those who are joined in some other way, from casual relationships to recognized civil unions.

We can fix that which does not involved redefining what marriage is.

One way would be for the government to get entirely out of the marriage business for everyone. Let churches define what marriage is and is not; if a person wants to argue it, it's between them and their church, not between them and the government. For those who are not religious, fine, let them simply declare themselves married and that's that. Most states that have common-law marriages allow that now anyway; any man and woman that hold themselves out as husband and wife are.

Another way would be to grant civil unions the same rights and benefits as married couples enjoy. End of problem.

I fail to see why the institution of marriage must be destroyed in order that no one be denied their rights. They can and should have their rights respected; the same rights as married couples enjoy. There is no need to destroy marriage as an institution to do that.

With a 52% divorce rate, I'd say "The institution of marriage"(Why is marriage an institution? Because you have to be committed! :lfao: ) is pretty well broken, if not destroyed.

I've posted this before, but all government sponsored marriages are "civil unions": the public commingling of property rights, inheritance, child custody, personal responsibilities and liabilities. The government will never be out of this business, as it affects tax revenue in many ways.

Simply make all govenment marriages "civil unions." Allow an option for polygamy.

The government will hardly ever (hate to say "never") get involved in the business of religious marriage......at least, no more than it does now: for example, I have a state issued seal to certify marriage licenses at the conclusion of a wedding.

 

[CoryKS]

I agree that there is a difference between the rights of those who are married to each other versus those who are joined in some other way, from casual relationships to recognized civil unions.

We can fix that which does not involved redefining what marriage is.

One way would be for the government to get entirely out of the marriage business for everyone. Let churches define what marriage is and is not; if a person wants to argue it, it's between them and their church, not between them and the government. For those who are not religious, fine, let them simply declare themselves married and that's that. Most states that have common-law marriages allow that now anyway; any man and woman that hold themselves out as husband and wife are.

Another way would be to grant civil unions the same rights and benefits as married couples enjoy. End of problem.

I fail to see why the institution of marriage must be destroyed in order that no one be denied their rights. They can and should have their rights respected; the same rights as married couples enjoy. There is no need to destroy marriage as an institution to do that.

The problem with that is, the proponents of gay marriage don't want anyone to argue about it. None of this is about allowing them to be married, it's about compelling everyone else to recognize them. That's why a civil union is insufficient.

 

[granfire]

Somehow your otherwise keen skills are misted over on this subject.

There are many things I see flowing into your argument and some of them getting jumbled up.

We are talking legal contract here. Signed sealed and delivered, not commune. So the Kibutz is somewhat out, or the Hippy commune...

We are left with tradition:
If we go back 2500 years we find a lot of different traditions: The Middle eastern one, having the wife subordinate to the husband (AKA chattel) and also to a certain extent polygamy (with several women) were as the Germanic/Keltic background is more emancipated (dog gonnit, the romans screwed that up for us). That is just the pale faced western tradition. Let's not forget that homosexuality was almost celebrated by the Helenistic culture and subsequently by the Romans as well. And those are the hailed cultural roots of the west.

Not much really changes until the Middle of the last century, minus the same sex aspect becoming demonized.

So when we are talking tradition, which do we pick?

With the bigger families, the tribes breaking apart in the last 200-300 years or so (actually probably more around 1000, rough estimate) the core family becomes the economic necessety. Let;s not forget there is a long tradition of the couple having to proof they have the financial means to start a family before they can engage into the contract of marriage. (Prussian soldiers or their brides had to proof they had in excess of 30.000 marks to get permission to marry, pretty much up until the end of WWI)

So, we are left with the economic unit. It used to take a woman and a man to have a child and for them to stay together to raise it. Not to mention the parents needed the children to care for them when old age made it impossible for them to earn their way.

But these things have changed.

We don't need to be married and have children to support our old age
We don't stay together til death doth us part
We don't have children at all many times.

So all those core elements of the traditional marriage are gone.

We are left with the rest of the bag. insurance possessions and the right to make the decisions on behalf of the other. It's legalese.

Considering it does not affect me if John Smith is marrying Jane Doe, it also is of no consequence to me if Adam and Steve get hitched.

A lot of the problems they law faces with the pervert polygamists would be rooted out if some things would be changed and enforced: The age of legal conscent (and in many states the age at which a person can be married of with parental conscent. In some states it's a shocking 14! )

And there: I don't see a single reason why same sex marriage is a slippery slope for anything.
I don't see homosexuals particularly unqualified to raise children, heaven knows, having a pair of matching reproduction organs is no guarantee...(that was another 'slippery slope' argument)

Let's see, what else is there....

 

[elder999]

Let's see, what else is there....

A man who obtains a sex change legally have his birth certificate changed to reflect "her" new "gender."

And legally marry a man.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

With a 52% divorce rate, I'd say "The institution of marriage"(Why is marriage an institution? Because you have to be committed! :lfao: ) is pretty well broken, if not destroyed.

I can't disagree with that. But I can disagree that a broken institution is best addressed by smashing it up some more. One only has to look at the blighted neighborhoods in Detroit to see that setting abandoned and decaying buildings on fire doesn't improve the neighborhood.

I've posted this before, but all government sponsored marriages are "civil unions": the public commingling of property rights, inheritance, child custody, personal responsibilities and liabilities. The government will never be out of this business, as it affects tax revenue in many ways.

All they have to do is drop the moniker 'marriage' and go with 'civil union'. For everybody. Then they get to continue as before.

Simply make all govenment marriages "civil unions." Allow an option for polygamy.

The government will hardly ever (hate to say "never") get involved in the business of religious marriage......at least, no more than it does now: for example, I have a state issued seal to certify marriage licenses at the conclusion of a wedding.

And interestingly, most states don't require clergy who perform marriages to be licensed in any way. If you say you're a preacher, you are. If you say you're legal to marry two people, you are. But if you say you're married, the state has to recognize it. Eh? I think we're in agreement here, get the government out of the marriage business.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The problem with that is, the proponents of gay marriage don't want anyone to argue about it. None of this is about allowing them to be married, it's about compelling everyone else to recognize them. That's why a civil union is insufficient.

I have trouble disagreeing with you on this. It does seem to me that *some* (and certainly not all) gay people not only want the rights and benefits that heterosexual married people have, but they want to 'be accepted' by everyone. Meaning that they're not happy if *I* don't approve of their union. That's going to be a hard thing to legislate; freedom being what it is, I don't have to approve, I only have to accept the law.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Somehow your otherwise keen skills are misted over on this subject.

There are many things I see flowing into your argument and some of them getting jumbled up.

We are talking legal contract here. Signed sealed and delivered, not commune. So the Kibutz is somewhat out, or the Hippy commune...

I was responding to a different question. I'm sure you're aware of that. So please.

We are left with tradition:
If we go back 2500 years we find a lot of different traditions: The Middle eastern one, having the wife subordinate to the husband (AKA chattel) and also to a certain extent polygamy (with several women) were as the Germanic/Keltic background is more emancipated (dog gonnit, the romans screwed that up for us). That is just the pale faced western tradition. Let's not forget that homosexuality was almost celebrated by the Helenistic culture and subsequently by the Romans as well. And those are the hailed cultural roots of the west.

We have only one marriage tradition in the West at the present time. End of argument.

Not much really changes until the Middle of the last century, minus the same sex aspect becoming demonized.

So when we are talking tradition, which do we pick?

The one we have.

With the bigger families, the tribes breaking apart in the last 200-300 years or so (actually probably more around 1000, rough estimate) the core family becomes the economic necessety. Let;s not forget there is a long tradition of the couple having to proof they have the financial means to start a family before they can engage into the contract of marriage. (Prussian soldiers or their brides had to proof they had in excess of 30.000 marks to get permission to marry, pretty much up until the end of WWI)

So, we are left with the economic unit. It used to take a woman and a man to have a child and for them to stay together to raise it. Not to mention the parents needed the children to care for them when old age made it impossible for them to earn their way.

But these things have changed.

We don't need to be married and have children to support our old age
We don't stay together til death doth us part
We don't have children at all many times.

So all those core elements of the traditional marriage are gone.

We are left with the rest of the bag. insurance possessions and the right to make the decisions on behalf of the other. It's legalese.

Considering it does not affect me if John Smith is marrying Jane Doe, it also is of no consequence to me if Adam and Steve get hitched.

A lot of the problems they law faces with the pervert polygamists would be rooted out if some things would be changed and enforced: The age of legal conscent (and in many states the age at which a person can be married of with parental conscent. In some states it's a shocking 14! )

And there: I don't see a single reason why same sex marriage is a slippery slope for anything.
I don't see homosexuals particularly unqualified to raise children, heaven knows, having a pair of matching reproduction organs is no guarantee...(that was another 'slippery slope' argument)

Let's see, what else is there....

All you're doing is arguing that marriage doesn't mean anything except what you want it to mean. But marriage has a distinct cultural, society, and historical meaning in OUR SOCIETY. The one that you and I both live in now, today, right here and now.

This is not theory, this is fact.

I'm sorry you don't like it. Redefining marriage as something it is not is exactly what I said it was - opening the door so that marriage can be whatever you wish it to be.

So when a man wants to marry his daughter, or all his daughters, and his dog too, please please please don't complain; and don't call me ridiculous for suggesting it might happen. You yourself have decided to define marriage to fit whatever definition YOU choose; he'll do the same. And the argument will be just as reasonable.

Marriage has one cultural, social, and historical definition in our society. Just one. It's not the one you like - sorry, but too bad.

 

[CoryKS]

What a coinkydink, I found this old Newsweek article: I Don't, citing the traditional reasons for marriage from a female perspective and why those reasons no longer apply. Tellingly, they offer no reason why a man should get married at all, other than this one very relevant statement:

As one 28-year-old man told the author of a new book on marriage: “If I had to be married to have sex, I would probably be married, as would every guy I know.”

Bottom line, we don't need each other anymore. Or rather, the few things we do need from each other have been "liberated" from the bonds of matrimony. The institution is defunct, and that to me suggests that the increasingly vehement push for same-sex marriage has less to do with offering gays the equal right to make each other miserable than it does with using the legal framework to compel others to accept them.

 

[elder999]

I . That's going to be a hard thing to legislate; freedom being what it is, I don't have to approve, I only have to accept the law.

And, in fact, there are quite a few people that don't accept my ("interracial") marriage, and I'd defend their right not to..........
.......but it's not the law.

 

[granfire]

I was responding to a different question. I'm sure you're aware of that. So please.

While I was typing the conversation went merrily along. The post I responded to is much further up

We have only one marriage tradition in the West at the present time. End of argument.



The one we have.

Ah, but the tradition you refer to is very young. Like I said, we have had many changes. All pretty much for the better.

All you're doing is arguing that marriage doesn't mean anything except what you want it to mean. But marriage has a distinct cultural, society, and historical meaning in OUR SOCIETY. The one that you and I both live in now, today, right here and now.

The meaning of marriage. Like I said, you are usually sharp as a tack, but for some reason you can't make this argument stick. The tradition of marriage in the context of our society is money.

You pay the family of the bride money to compensate for the loss of her labor, the bride brings with her a substantial amount of goods, and up until the last century, about middle ways she lost pretty much all her rights with the 'I do'

Marriage is about money. Nothing sacred about it. Strip it all down to the essentials.

The notion that you had to 'love' your spouse is new. The tradition in many areas - and yes, our western traditions - dictate that money belongs to money. That the girls are encouraged to 'reach for the good cloth' when allowing a suitor to court them.
Tradition also suggested that women did not have a job outside the home, depending on their husbands. Also a very recent victim of changes. naturally divorce rates were not high when leaving your husband meant economic disaster!

This is not theory, this is fact.

I know you mean it different, but you are right.

I'm sorry you don't like it. Redefining marriage as something it is not is exactly what I said it was - opening the door so that marriage can be whatever you wish it to be.

I am trying to nail you down on what traditions you want to adhere to

So when a man wants to marry his daughter, or all his daughters, and his dog too, please please please don't complain; and don't call me ridiculous for suggesting it might happen. You yourself have decided to define marriage to fit whatever definition YOU choose; he'll do the same. And the argument will be just as reasonable.

Those are loser arguments, brought forth by those who know they have no real reason to deny a different view of the existing.
Incest has always been a big taboo. It seems that even cavemen noticed it was a bad thing for the tribe. Having the scientific backup as to why it is bad, I don't think it even figures into the equation! Same as the dog and the ficus: They cannot give consent! I think that is the premise we are operating under: two (or maybe more) adults who can legally consent to enter into a legally binding contract.

Marriage has one cultural, social, and historical definition in our society. Just one. It's not the one you like - sorry, but too bad.

Like? Like has nothing to do with it. But you usually are good at stripping away the BS and seeing things for what they are. definitions change.
Like the definition of wife has changed over the centuries and decades.

The last couple of centuries have put a sugar gloss layer upon the institution of marriage.

Romance had little to do with the carnal needs of the body and the economical needs to raise the fruits of the loins.

 

[Steve]

There is a slippery slope, which was made clear by the careful wording I quoted from the court case; the argument made by the state was that marriage 'between two people' was a 2,500 year old institution. It is not that at all, it's a 2,500 year old institution between a man and a woman. That means that the argument that polygamous marriages go against tradition can no longer be used in Canada; by changing the definition of marriage, they tossed that out.

That's the slippery slope. Man + woman = marriage is unfair to men + men and women + women. So we (Canada) change it. Now that we've changed it, the number is hardly relevant. Two, three, four, what differences does it make? You can't argue that marriage is traditionally only between two - because it is also traditionally between a man and a woman, and that was conveniently tossed out - so you can toss out the maximum number as well.

Simple stuff, really. Marriage is traditionally:

Man + woman.
Two people.
Legal age of consent or with approval of parents.
Not closely related.
Both human beings.

Now, we change one of those. Now it doesn't have to be a man and a woman. If that's not really required, then why two people? Why not closely related? Why not more than two? Why both have to be human?

Once you open the door, all the rules change. Same-sex marriage did that in Canada, and now we see the result. Those that claimed this would not happen were wrong or liars. I'm not surprised. Are you?

Wow. My response got eaten.

What I was trying to say this morning is that polygamy doesn't follow same-sex marriage in legal way. Arguments may be made to legalize polygamy, but the underlying foundation (at least in America) of discrimination is strictly tied to gender as a protected class.

In other words, you identify the following as "traditional" marital traits:

Man + woman.
Two people.
Legal age of consent or with approval of parents.
Not closely related.
Both human beings

Until 1967, that list would have read as follows:

Man + woman.
Two people.
Legal age of consent or with approval of parents.
Not closely related.
Both human beings of the same race

Race, however, is a protected class just as gender is a protected class. Telling a man he can't get a marriage license to marry another man is discrimination based on gender, just as denying a marriage license to a black man and a white woman is discrimination based on race. If the black man were white, or if the man were a woman, the license would be issued without question.

If (or when) sexual orientation is included as a protected category nationally, the issue will become even more cut and dry.

Polygamy isn't similarly protected.

Also, just so that I'm on record, I am speaking strictly about civil/public recognition of marriage. As far as I'm concerned, a person can have as many boyfriends and/or girlfriends as he or she wants at the same time, and call them anything from "husband" or "wife" to "old man" or some word they made up at Burning Man. For legal purposes, however, we have to have some ground rules.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In other words, you identify the following as "traditional" marital traits:

Man + woman.
Two people.
Legal age of consent or with approval of parents.
Not closely related.
Both human beings

Until 1967, that list would have read as follows:

Man + woman.
Two people.
Legal age of consent or with approval of parents.
Not closely related.
Both human beings of the same race

It would have read that in some states; not all.

Race, however, is a protected class just as gender is a protected class. Telling a man he can't get a marriage license to marry another man is discrimination based on gender, just as denying a marriage license to a black man and a white woman is discrimination based on race. If the black man were white, or if the man were a woman, the license would be issued without question.

That has not been shown to be the case. Marriage is a human right. 'Miscegenation' laws infringed upon the rights of men and women to marry each other, and thus it was rightfully struck down. The attempt by some states to append a new meaning to marriage to restrict it based on race was found to infringe on the human right to marry.

Now, if you wish to argue that the definition of marriage is changeable because it once meant 'within the same race' in some states, then there is no reason it cannot be changed to mean 'within the same gender' but of course it can also be changed to mean 'two or more people' instead of 'two people'.

Civil rights must be respected, and I agree with that. I see no reason that any conglomeration of people who wish to be seen as a united, er, couple, can't be extended the same rights as those who are married in the more traditional sense. But it's not marriage and should not be called that. Marriage is as I have described it; any attempt to redefine it is just that, redefinition. I didn't make up the definition of marriage; it is what it is.

If (or when) sexual orientation is included as a protected category nationally, the issue will become even more cut and dry.

Polygamy isn't similarly protected.

Also, just so that I'm on record, I am speaking strictly about civil/public recognition of marriage. As far as I'm concerned, a person can have as many boyfriends and/or girlfriends as he or she wants at the same time, and call them anything from "husband" or "wife" to "old man" or some word they made up at Burning Man. For legal purposes, however, we have to have some ground rules.

There is no reason that the exact same argument used to redefine marriage to mean two people and not two people of the opposite gender cannot be further modified to mean more than two people of whatever gender. Once you break with tradition, you can't claim tradition as a reason not to change it anymore.

Miscegenation laws were never part of the traditional definition of marriage; they were part of a racist institution that was intended to deny the legal rights of marriage to men and women of a different skin color. Marriage, however, was before and has been since, the same; between a man and a woman. That is the traditional definition in our society.

 

[Steve]

It would have read that in some states; not all.

Just as same sex marriages are banned in some states; not all. The parallels are undeniable. The point isn't what States ADD to the "traditional" definition of marriage. It's whether what they have is illegal based upon the civil rights act and our nationally defined protected categories.

Once again, race is a protected category. The argument was essentially that it wasn't discrimination because it applied to all races. White people can't marry black people, and black people couldn't marry white people, either. Equal. Right?

Wrong. It was discriminatory and in violation of the Civil Rights Act, and appropriately, States were mandated to issue marriage licenses and end any prohibitions against interracial marriage.

In the same way, we are now seeing discriminatory legislation based upon gender that argues this exact same position.

Now, if you wish to argue that the definition of marriage is changeable because it once meant 'within the same race' in some states, then there is no reason it cannot be changed to mean 'within the same gender' but of course it can also be changed to mean 'two or more people' instead of 'two people'.

I do not. I am arguing that the definition of marriage is changeable if it is illegal and discriminatory, as it was in the 60's.

Civil rights must be respected, and I agree with that. I see no reason that any conglomeration of people who wish to be seen as a united, er, couple, can't be extended the same rights as those who are married in the more traditional sense. But it's not marriage and should not be called that. Marriage is as I have described it; any attempt to redefine it is just that, redefinition. I didn't make up the definition of marriage; it is what it is.

Personally, I don't care what it's called. But officially, I don't agree with this because we have a precedent. We're not redefining marriage. We're excising the portion that is illegal.