LBGT marriage rights vs Polygamist marriage rights?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What about separation of State and Religion?

Why should marriage be licensed by the State.

That's a different issue, outside the scope of this thread.

[SMR 368]

The fundamental, undeniable difference between men and women is that women become pregnant with children while men do not. This has two important corollaries. First, women have maternal certainty while men are left without a simple method for knowing which children are theirs. Second, women are biologically required to invest heavily in their children while men can conceivably pursue a reproductive strategy that involves little investment in offspring. These conditions are obviously asymmetric, but marriage is essentially an arrangement in which men and women trade their respective disadvantages (or respective advantages). A woman agrees to exclusivity to assure that the children are the man's while the man in return agrees to invest substantially in those children. Within this framework, polygyny, but not polyandry, makes sense. A man can agree to substantially invest in the children he has with more than one woman while a woman cannot meaningfully agree to exclusivity with more than one man. If a closed group of men could manage to not be internally competitive long term, polyandry would conceivably be possible, but I am not convinced such men exist.

However, marriage also has a secondary purpose. Not only does marriage allow for collaboration between men and women as individual pairs, it also allows for collaboration between men. In short, men can only collaborate if they can declare some type of truce in the field of sexual competition. Monogamous marriage fulfills this need by designating boundaries between men. These boundaries allow for collaboration between men, which in turn makes civilization prosper. If, for some reason, the sexes became hugely imbalanced such that there were many more women, polygamy could become viable, as long as some framework allowed for continued male/male collaboration. Unfortunately, the opposite sexual imbalance is quite typically more violent in effect. The fundamental problem with polygamy is that if employed in a population that is predominantly gender balanced it will lead to the perception of female scarcity. This leads to disgruntled men and enough disgruntled men inevitably leads to violence.

In regards to homosexual marriage, it fulfills neither the first nor the second role of marriage. However, it is also not the biggest threat to the framework of society on which marriage is based. Divorce, infidelity, and premarital sex all pose much greater threats. This is actually quite obvious once you understand the basis for marriage in the first place and the reason that civilization does not function without marriage.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Is there any current, mainstream debate going on in relation to this issue? I wonder...

No, but as the long fight against marriage equality is in its last throes and the forces of yesterday realize that they lost again, I suspect you'll see the "slippery slope canard" brought up more often.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, but as the long fight against marriage equality is in its last throes and the forces of yesterday realize that they lost again, I suspect you'll see the "slippery slope canard" brought up more often.

Well from experience from previous threads on this subject (which I know you've seen your share of, as have I), the rationale behind the 'slippery slope' argument is highly dubious. There simply is no mainstream debate on polygamous marriage and the only examples of it in practice - repressive societies in Africa and the Middle-East, and in the USA - Mormons and other cult-like organisations etc provide ample evidence for why it is a bad idea.

[decocker 7,198]

The fundamental, undeniable difference between men and women is that women become pregnant with children while men do not. This has two important corollaries. First, women have maternal certainty while men are left without a simple method for knowing which children are theirs. Second, women are biologically required to invest heavily in their children while men can conceivably pursue a reproductive strategy that involves little investment in offspring. These conditions are obviously asymmetric, but marriage is essentially an arrangement in which men and women trade their respective disadvantages (or respective advantages). A woman agrees to exclusivity to assure that the children are the man's while the man in return agrees to invest substantially in those children. Within this framework, polygyny, but not polyandry, makes sense. A man can agree to substantially invest in the children he has with more than one woman while a woman cannot meaningfully agree to exclusivity with more than one man. If a closed group of men could manage to not be internally competitive long term, polyandry would conceivably be possible, but I am not convinced such men exist.

science and maury povich have determined that this point is no longer valid.

Edited August 1, 2014 by val erie

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

There are some things like polygamy that are detrimental to society, in those cases it is not only our right, but our duty to interfere.

How does someone having 4 wives affect you ?

[Boiler 45,434]

There used to be no debate about Gay Marriage.

None of the Governments business how adults organise their lives.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Boiler

[Teddy B 17,252]

How does someone having 4 wives affect you ?

It not only affects me, but it affects the foundation of our society as a whole. Nothing in our system is set up for families with multiple marital partners.

[Boiler 45,434]

It not only affects me, but it affects the foundation of our society as a whole. Nothing in our system is set up for families with multiple marital partners.

Same could be said for gay marriage.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Same could be said for gay marriage.

No

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

It not only affects me, but it affects the foundation of our society as a whole. Nothing in our system is set up for families with multiple marital partners.

but how does it affect you specifically ? I say if one man can manage 4-6 chicks and not be living in hell, more power to him

[decocker 7,198]

It not only affects me, but it affects the foundation of our society as a whole. Nothing in our system is set up for families with multiple marital partners.

child support enforcement.

[Teddy B 17,252]

but how does it affect you specifically ? I say if one man can manage 4-6 chicks and not be living in hell, more power to him

It would affect everyone of us financially big time. Think of all the different types of laws that would need to be changed and the lawsuits brought about because of it. Not to mention the tax codes.

I don't care if a dude wants to shack up with 4, 6, or 20 chicks, but they can't all be legally married.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Teddy B

[Boiler 45,434]

child support enforcement.

Which is irrelevant to being married or not.

[decocker 7,198]

Which is irrelevant to being married or not.

so is child bearing.