Also apples and oranges.
What percentage of the male population of the US happen to he homosexual, and what percentage of the female population of the US happen to be homosexual?
Other than some seriously repressive religious communities, you will never see every single man over the age of 18 married off, nor every single woman married off over the age of 18. You can not say that even the US at its most repressive had a 100% marriage rate. Remember the spinsters, the ‘boston marriages’ and the ‘eternal bachelor uncles’? There were always [noncatholic nonclergy] unmarrieds around. Heck, to hear the homosexuals talk about it, 90% of the people in Hollywood were gay and just married to each other for convenience.
I really doubt that polygamy will cause social upheaval, so it is pretty much a null argument. I know a number of both men and women who prefer to live alone, and rarely bother to date anybody.
If the thought of the guys not getting their rocks off bothers you, think about making prostitution legal like in Nevada. Problem solved, they can get their rocks off at a bordello.
So how about all the societies around the world that do have polygyny as a base? Even earlier forms of Judaism had polygyny [comprende ‘concubine’?]
Yes, it civilizes them into treating women like chattel just so they can prove to their little abusive minds it really was their kid popping out, and in many cases penalizing the women if the man himself was the cause of infertility by anything ranging from being divorced and sent back to the family seriously shamed and essentially unable to be sold off into marriage again other than to someone who essentially wanted a slave to work around the house through killing.
Now, I feel compelled to say that I disagree with this argument for many many reasons. But I’m not sure it’s an illogical argument. I just disagree with many of the premises and assumptions.
[/QUOTE]
I have long been a proponent of getting the government out of peoples bedrooms … the only real restriction I happen to believe in is consentual adulthood, and both [or however many] parties actually discussing and agreeing to the deal. My actual preference would be for something from a SF novel I read many years ago - term contracts for marriages. If you had never been married to the specific person before, you can only enter into a 1 year contract, no kids. If at the end of the contract, it is working out then you can negotiate a new contract, and actually specify the things that people argue over - number of kids, financial details, division of labor and the like. Only after you make it through 5 years can you go for a permanent contract. Changing from a religious institution to a legal one just makes sense.
Then treat it as a real contract. Business law deals wit all that - what if you have a law firm of 5 partners and 12 non-partner employees - if 1 dies, the insurance company knows how to deal with it, and the incorporation paperwork deals with how to modify things. They remove and add members all the time [in a manner of speaking]
Divorce in a plural marriage? Financial breakup is handled by the standard prenup. Kid allotment? Just like a regular divorce - does it go with the departing parent or stay with the nondeparting parent. Finances? Again - prenup time. Any time something changes like a windfall can be discussed in family or with lawyers making a change to the prenup agreement. Living wills? Same as with a 2 person marriage - one assumes that you have specified code/no code conditions, and you can list people in order of contract importance [Sammy has first control of my nearly dead ass, if Sammy is not there, then CindyLou. If CindyLou is out of contact, then Jeffrey.] Who knows - maybe there is a possibilty of a new lawyer niche - living will executor. Has novested interest in any interfamily bitchfest - it is in black and white, and he does exactly what the living will states. If you want no code, he would be more than happy to pull the plug as he doesnt really care if you live or die as long as the bills are paid.
Again, take the religious garbage out of the equation and it becomes a matter for contract law. Not that big a deal, just not the romantic hearts and flowers vision of marriage, but what prenup is romantic?
I concur. All marriages should be treated in this manner, with standard contracts and written expectations, especially pertaining to a potential end of the relationship. If more people went into their relationships with this spelled out, there would be a lot less blood on the other end of the relationship.
To play devil’s advocate, where does this standard come from?
I mean, I understand that the whole “marry your dog” argument is silly from today’s perspective. But the flip side of it, that as long as consenting adults want to do it, then it is okay, seems to come from left field as well.
If I’m an employer and want to pay an employee five dollars for an hour’s work, then we can’t do that, even though we are both willing, consenting adults. Where is the line drawn on this?
It’s been 3 years now since gay marriage has been legally possible in Canada. I see no sign of increased polygamy or goat marriage since.
Look, it’s a very small percentage of the population to whom this applies. It does not affect or impact the lives of anyone else whatsoever. Let them marry. It’s the right, and respectful thing to do.
Near as I can tell, it comes from (roughly) six or eight thousand years of contract law. Sure, some entities, like our colored- and women-folk, have been “upgraded” over the millenia for completely obvious reasons, while the criteria have been adjusted in ways that our horsine and mechanical brethren have little chance of evading, despite Disney’s efforts to anthropomorphise dumb animals. Yes, I have previously argued that animals may not be as stupid as we may see them but, c’mon! There HAVE to be limits because our animal brethren are awfully, effing, dumb.
what about them? Does their existence prove that marriage is not a fundamental institution? The whole point is that conservative defenders of monogamous opposite sex marriage don’t like polygamy or polygyny. They are not denying the existence of polygamy. Quite the contrary.
I am not following you. I think this is beyond a ridiculous caricature of how most conservative defenders of marriage view marriage. Remember the point of the OP’s question was to understand the logic behind the conservative argument that allowing gay marriage would lead to marriage with animals or polygamy. Their view, which I tried to characterize in my original answer, was that marriage has a civilizing influence one men.
This paragraph is incoherent. First you argue that the government should keep out of people’s bedrooms. Next you say your preference would be to restrict people’s choice to have children. They are not allowed to have children until after they’ve successfully completed a one year marriage. And they cannot enter into a permanent contract until after 5 years. You want the government to force this onto people (or what other institution is going to enforce these requirements?)
I think that outlawing incestuous marriages would be a law narrowly tailored to prevent genetic defects, and the prevention of genetic defects is a compelling government interest.
The state wouldn’t have to allow childless marriages, as sex is an inherent part of marriage. Before “no fault” divorce, lack of affection was grounds for ending marriage. Even today, a marriage without sex is generally deemed dysfunctional. And we all know that sex often leads to kids, whether planned or not.
These constitutional standards can be strict, but I don’t think they are as strict as you’ve made them out to be.
What if one of the partners had documentation showing that he/she was infertile, or the couple was elderly? Wouldn’t the prohibition of the marriage be overly broad?
Good question. I suppose, if the only argument against incestuous marriage is genetic defects, then you’re point is valid. However, I presume the opposition to incest is more than just flipper babies. If the state is worried about abuse, or coercion among unequal partners (say, an uncle marrying his niece), and can demonstrate a causal link between such relationships and the abuse, they’d have another argument against this type of matrimony.
In point of fact, I’m one of those people who aren’t against polygamous marriages, presuming all parties are old enough, competent, and acting of their own free will. And I certainly support the right of homosexuals to wed. So if two love-struck siblings decide to get hitched after years of unspoken passiosn…meh, whatever floats your boat. Flipper babies be damned!
Rereading this post I think it comes of somewhat nasty. May apologies aruvqan. I still think there is a contradiction between (a) wanting the government out of people’s bedrooms, and (b) forcing people to complete a one year starter marriage before they can enter into a longer term marriage, but my tone was inappropriate.
I think that in many cases strict scrutiny has been as strict as Bearflag70 suggests, but realistically I don’t think the court would be so strict in trying to find a law against incestuous marriage constitutional.
I don’t have the write-up, but a number of years ago I proposed a “Marriage Defense Act” that would redefine and limit marriage in defense of procreation. The rough provisions, subject to some slight jiggering;
1> If there were no children within the first 3 years of marriage, the marriage would be invalidated.
2> Marriage for the purpose of companionship without children would be banned.
3> All marriages would be automatically terminated within 18 months of the last child leaving the household.
Thus, “marriage” would be redefined as a state in which a man and a woman cohabitated for the sole purpose of having and raising children. Any relationship outside this narrow purpose would cease to be “marriage” and have to be redefined as something else. “Something else” that cannot necessarily be narrowly defined as being one man and one woman.
Obviously, this was a response to dimwits who insist that marriage is all about children. Hey, you don’t want gays to wed because marriage is about children? Then we’re going to eliminate all the childless marriages and end the ones that no longer involve children. Do you want to change your argument yet?
