Why is the “essence of the typical marriage contract” a good thing?
If it is a good thing, why pick only the exclusivity part and not the male/female part?
You miss the point. Polycarp never says that exclusivity is good, just typical, and that when exclusivity is part of the agreed-upon marriage contract, then bigamy is a fraudulent act on the part of the bigamist. He then goes on to cover non-exclusive marriages, which he appears to have no significant objection to either.
Exactly! Let me try again.
Polycarp is trying to differentiate between the different types of marriage and why some of them are acceptable and others are not. In doing that, in order to eliminate bigamy, he needs to define why it would be fraudulent. To do that, he needs to define what the expectations are of a typical marriage so that doing something different would break expectations in order to claim fraud. He picked the exclusivity part of the typical marriage to say that breaking expectations with that part would be fraudulent.
However, it’s also typical of marriage that only one man and one woman participate in marriage.
Since Polycarp didn’t pick the male/female part of the typical marriage but did pick the exclusivity part to differentiate, there must be some reason that exclusivity trumps male/female. So he must consider the exclusivity part as a good thing. . .but why?
I ain’t him…but it seems to me that the exclusivity angle is more tightly related to the explicit purpose of marriage - a marriage is a lasting union between specific people. If you start mixing up who is and isn’t going to be partaking of marital benefits, that cuts to the heart of what the marriage itself stands for.
The genders of the occupants, not so much - if one member of the marriage suddenly changed gender through magical or medical means, that doesn’t directly impact the notion that the two are still a union. It might cause strife and confusion and inspire them to want to end the union, but it wouldn’t attack the premise of the union by its very happening.
I am not, in the post H&R reference, attempting to define “good” or “evil” either in some absolute sense or in my own opinion.
I said that the typical marriage vows promise exclusivity. I drew the exception for open marriages. I suggested that bigamous marriages are fraudulent because they violate the exclusivity commitment. I hypothecated that people who contract open marriages do not commit bigamy – and I believe this to be true, as a factual generalization: if you’ve vowed non-exclusive commitment with someone and wish to have a liaison with someone else, you’re free to do so by the terms of your marriage vows; no need to contract a bigamous union. (I distinguish bigamy, one person having two marriages each unknown to the other, from polygamy in the broad sense (“Polyamory”) where multiple persons contract marriage, all with the knowledge of each other party.)
True, the typical marriage is both exclusive and heterosexual. But I was examining not the morality of same but the distinctions. A two-person marriage may be opposite-sex or same-sex, and it may be exclusive or non-exclusive. Two distinct criteria.
On the incest question, RitterSport explains in much better terms what I was incoherently raising as an issue and using anthrololgoical criteria in doing so. Close-relative incest is something that is well nigh universally prohibited, deemed unhealthy. RitterSport’s analysis is far better than my own.
Interesting, but couldn’t the same be said for homosexuality? the only difference I see is that while some of us are “programmed” exclusivley for same sex the rest of the taboos genetic and societal seem to apply.
The evolutionary explanation for homosexuality is speculative but interesting.
I won’t argue, in those words, that “marriage is a right”, but it’s largely semantics.
The institution of marriage is not a basic human right BUT the rights to form mutually consenting alliances and live one’s life without interference are, imo.
And that is what “marriage” represents; a contract between two (or more) consenting individuals which confers certain protections, including those regarding property and parental rights and next of kin issues.
I think that “marriage”, meaning a legal contract carrying the same protections as “traditional marriage”, should be legal and federally recognized for all who choose to enter into it. If “civil unions” do not carry the same protections and rights, then they are not an acceptable alternative, and if they do, it is just silly to call them something else.
I personally am in favor of allowing marriages between multiple partners. If 3 or 4 or however many consenting adults choose to live together as a family unit, they should be able to enter into the same sort of contract that 2 can to protect their property, children, and rights re’ next of kin.
All that said, I’ve never BEEN “married” despite a 23 year committed relationship which produced 2 children. We considered ourselves “married”, and in many states, we were considered as such (common law). The benefits “marriage” held were not compelling enough for us to bother with it.
But we were a heterosexual couple, and there are common law, basic protections in place for such a relationship which don’t exist for homosexual or polygamous relationships. (rights to child support, SS benefits for the kids in the event of one spouses death (tho’ not for the surviving spouse, as I realized and which was confirmed after his death), joint property rules, rights of next of kin, etc.)
This is a huge issue for those in “non-traditional” relationships. They are seeking equal protection under the law. To deny them such protection is unsupportable, imo.
You could have filed jointly/married. We did for 23 years, despite being common law. Never yet has it become an issue. (watch, now that I’ve said that, I’ll get a letter from the IRS demanding I produce a marriage license, lol!)
Essentially, I agree with you, the government should stay the hell out of our personal relationships and people should neither be rewarded or penalized based on their current realtionship status.
I disagree. If the same sex marriage decision was inappropriate, it would not require an initiative to change it. If new law is passed to restrict who may marry, it is indeed removing a right previously recognized by the law, as interpreted by the courts.
I was just trying to point out that incest taboos are not necessarily cultural – we seem to be built with incest taboos.
Society as a whole could decide (has decided, I guess) that incest is not allowed because we are aware of the genetic issues that can crop up with incestual relationships. Also, I don’t have a cite, but my guess is that much of what is called incest is probably more akin to rape – older male relative (uncle, step-father), with girl below the age of consent. I don’t think incest laws are in place because otherwise brothers and sisters would be marrying off all the time.
So, I don’t think there is a slippery slope that goes from legal gay marriage to knocking down incest laws (or laws against marrying a dog or table or something – the other examples that Polycarp used). There may be a slippery slope that goes from legal gay marriage to polyamorous marriage – there doesn’t seem to be any genetic eww-factor to polygamy that there is for incest, and in fact, many cultures have allowed it – it’s so common throughout history that I don’t understand how people can say “traditional marriage is one man, one woman”.
My more limited point to Polycarp was that it’s probably not cultural that people don’t normally commit incest, although that genetic taboo is also now reflected in our laws.
I guess the best slippery-slope argument against polygamy is the complexity of those relationships, who decides, etc. I can’t think of any good arguments against SSM.