Marriage an "institution"?

Great Debates
1

Webster’s definition of “institution” includes the following:

[quote]

a. A custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society: the institutions of marriage and the family.

b. An established organization or foundation, especially one dedicated to education, public service, or culture.

[quote]

These definitions are very different. In the latter case, an institution is a finite entity, like a government or school, and anything which affects one significant aspect of it affects the entire institution and everyone connected to it. Like if the building falls in, or the money runs out, or drug use becomes a big fad within the walls, or the leadership becomes incapacitated. But with the “behavioral pattern” type of institution there are no walls, no budget, no leaders, no membership rolls. What we do have are infinite “copies” of a particular model that the overwhelming majority of the population are inclined to emulate. It would be less misleading to say that there are hundreds of millions of institutions of marriage, not just one.

The dictionary uses marriage as it’s example of the first type of instituion, and “protecting” the institution of marriage has become a major issue in respionse to the possiblility of the recognition of gay mariages. This raises the question, what other institutions are there like this? Is, say, music an institution? If we allow certain kinds of music to be played, say some unconventional tuning or time scheme, will that harm all of those for whom music is a part of their lives? Or will it simply appeal to a narrow audience who are so inclined to listen, while most people continue to prefer more convertional tunes?

Indeed it is inclinations and their impact on society when allowed free rein that social mores are designed to control. Simply put, is same-sex marriage a preferable alternative to opposite-sex marriage for most people so much so that we’ll suffer a shortage of children?

Polygamy is always thrown into the gay marriage debate as a total red herring. But there are subtantive, secular reasons to ban polygamy. A society based on polygamy incorperates fundamental inequalities in a number of ways. And while most people in the US would currently prefer the standard monogamous arrangement, polygamy-based subcultures exist and more would emerge. The potential is there for a return to universal polygamous values because there is indeed a natural human inclination for powerful men to get all the women (so much for basing sexual morality on what’s “natural”).

But because homsexuality is confined to a certain limited percentage of society, legalizing gay marriage would simply have no effect on the culture at large. Any claim to the contrary requires magical thinking.

2

I think marriage is both of those definitions. On one hand, we have marriage as the idea of a private commitment and public airing of said commitment. On the other, we have the legal, social, and economic benefits granted to and obligations expected of married couples, all within the scope of government.

3

I don’t understand the need to refer to a gay union as a “marriage”. Its not and will never be.
I have no problem with extending marriage like benefits to any couple or group who wants to claim them. There are a lot of “couples” living together who should have such benefits and rights simply due to the partnership arrangements in their life that have nothing whatsoever to do with sexual preference.
This shouldnt be about “gay” marriage. It should be about the rights and benefits that a long term partnership should be privy to.

4

Coupling is a cultural practice; marriage is an institution.

With coupling, if things don’t work out, you split up. With marriage you aren’t split up until the state agrees that you’re split up.

==this space intentionally left blank for you to add other examples of the difference==

It’s an institution insofar as it is a structured and formally organized arrangement, interwoven with others of its sort (e.g., the legal system, the internal revenue service, the university’s housing department, etc).

5

Not a red herring at all. Especially if gay marriage is gained via the right of any two individuals to marry (as opposed to preventing descrimination due to sexual orientation). Why do 2 people have this right, but 3 people don’t? And there is a difference between basing a society on polygamy and allowing polygamy.

Now, I have no doubt that our judicial system could dance around that point-- ie, arguing that 2 same sexed people have the “right” to marry, but 3 people do not. But that does not make the argument any more logical.

6

Speaking of red herrings, could we please scrap the notion that “polygamy” is a gendered term? It’s not polygyny. You can tell because it’s spelled differently.

Signed, would-be polygamous person with two male partners.

7

So basically you seem to be saying it’s okay for gays to be married, but not call it a marriage. Is that correct?

If not, why not. If so, what difference does it make? Word definitions are malleable. There’s just no reason beyond tradition why “marriage” should be exclusively assigned to hetero unions.

8

But there are reasons for society to maintain a ban on polygamy that can be articulated completely independently of any issue associated with gay marriage. Such as: It’s unfair. The fact that you can have only one spouse is a great leveler in society and assures that even the poorest can find a mate. Encouraging would-be “alpha-males” (gimme a break Lilairen, we all know it’s usually men with multiple wives) to use their wealth and status to build harems has the potential for serious societal harm. Descriptions on this board of polygamy under the Mormons, of how it’s often older men taking teenage girls, with the young men being driven out of town, is pretty frightening for starters.

The whole point is that supporters of gay marriage are not saying, “anyone should be able to marry anyone–or anything–at anytime”. No, its that homosexuals are a large and distinct minority group in society for whom gender roles are based on the principle that likes attract and opposites repel, rather than the other way around, like for the rest of us. Society’s mores need to be adjusted in this one way to accomodate this special case. Since gays and lesbians are finite groups and only form relationships within their own groups, there would be no broader impact on society. Heterosexual relationships aren’t going to be influenced in any way, why should they be?

The reason I question going on about mariage as an institution is that it implies that marriage is a singular, interconnected entity, which it is not. Heck, you could go so far as to call it a habit, but it’s not the kind of institution where if you knock a hole in the wall there’s gonna be a mass breakout.

9

Can’t give you a break, sorry; I know more women with multiple partners than I do men.

10

Is it also unfair in societies where the women outnumber the men? Like most human societies throughout history?

Are the Mormon fundamentalists the only polygamous model with which you are familiar?

Its kinda like saying you don’t want to live in California because Palm Springs is too hot.

11

I agree that gay marriage isn’t any kind of threat against straight marriage. I’ve never seen a halfway plausible explanation of the mechanism for the supposed damage.

But if you’re saying that multiheaded, non-singular institutions like marriage can’t be harmed, I don’t agree. (Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood you, sqweels.) Marriage itself is a good example of this: A few generations ago, marriage was an undisputed norm. A couple living together was expected to be married. Parents were definitively supposed to be married. Breaking this norm could give pretty serious social consequences (at times, even legal ones). These days, at least in my part of the world (Scandinavia), whether to marry or not is a practical and emotional question, but very few see it as a moral one. The vast majority see nothing morally wrong with living together and/or having children without being married. In other words, the institution of marriage is a lot weaker than it used to be. Every couple who chose to share a flat without getting a marriage license first made a small attack on that institution. So did every book and article which mentioned unwed parents or cohabitating couples without condemning them. Mind you, I think the weakening of the institution of marriage is a great thing. I’m married, I enjoy being married, and I even married before starting to improve the human gene pool by reproducing :slight_smile: , but I would hate to see any trend towards making marriage the Only Good and Moral Way of Living.

12

Good grief people, my point is simply that refuting the arguments against legalizing gay marraige does not automatically eliminate all arguments against legalizing polygamy and make it inevitable. I provided an example of an argument that could still be made which does not rely on superstition.

Hildea:

I’m not saying that, I’m saying that that type of institution is far more subtle and resiliant than the bricks-and-mortar kind and that its misleading to blur the dinstiction and to use symbolic language. The loosening of sexual morality and gender roles has indeed harmed the institution (if we must) of marriage, but gay marriage is held up as enemy #1 when if anything it would strengthen it.

13

The problem is, though, that we poly-folks have heard those old chestnuts many times before, and they don’t hold water; you’re still citing a myth.

Let’s take the idea that the rich and powerful men will just glom up all the women. Now, put that in a societal context where women have rrroughly the same level of self-determining power as men, and are as a general rule no longer sold to their husbands, handed-off as part of a power exchange, or having their marriages arranged for them. For those powerful men to glom up all the women, then, without that sort of social structure, the majority of women would have to have the self-control of a moth, inexorably drawn to power without any ability to exercise choice. (As a woman, I think this is a pretty derogatory opinion.) Yes, there exist people who want to marry into wealth and power; there are many more people, in my experience, who want to marry into a good sense of humor and compatible musical taste.

If polygamy is legal, these people will have harems, part ii: you think they don’t already? All those ‘girl|boyfriend on the side’ tabloid exposes haven’t tipped anyone off yet? How about those people who have huge, acrimonious divorces and immediately thereafter marry someone fifteen years younger who they’d already been boffing on the side?

And all those people who are unavailable because they’re lusting after someone’s wallet and TV access? Are those people actually available for Joe Schlub who works at the five-and-dime in the first place? Sure, if you want to play with the numbers, they’re both supposedly ‘single’, but the folks who are fixed to marry wealth and power at any cost aren’t going to be interested in those low-status men in the first place. And since their daddies can’t force them to get married, they won’t.

Now look at the broader social structure. The vast majority of people that I’ve observed, both male and female, think that a non-monogamous relationship is settling for low-quality goods. I don’t see any good reason to believe that this is going to change any time soon. Even if there’s some sort of inexorable sucking sound in the vicinity of Big Name Dude’s wallet, a large number of the chicks he might attract because of it are entirely likely to say, “Why do I want to be #17? I’m better off being #1-and-only,” and go off looking for someone with less wealth and power who’s got the “You are #1-and-only” offer on the table. (Unless one’s seriously arguing that women are sufficiently moths to be unable to make that sort of evaluation.)
If you raise a flawed argument in GD, you have to expect that people will poke holes in it, neh? :}

14

Then you provided a very poor example, perhaps you would like to try again. You suggested it is unfair. I suggested a common situation where traditional marriage is unfair. Your suggestion that the law needs to take choice away from women in order to protect them didn’t fare so well either.

So let’s go back to your OP.

Perhaps you could name one. Or perhaps you would prefer to refute a positive assertion: Under polygamy, there are more adults in the household to help with child-rearing. Now please explain the “serious societal harm” in that.