I hope you realise that by raising this as a point of contention you’re obliquely suggesting that folks who aren’t in monogamous relationships are not dedicated to their commitments. (And that many people will consider that a grievous insult.)
Why should it make it less potent? A promise is a promise. A decision to spend a lifetime with someone is a big damn thing, y’know? To share that life through the good times and the bad, to work at growing together rather than apart, to maintain a family, to support each other’s dreams is nothing to shake a stick at.
What makes my vows potent is knowing that in making them I make an active choice, a living one, to keep that relationship going, to build a life together, to support and grow. Not only do I make that choice once, I make it twice, two living vows that resonate and support each other at their best, bringing to light the fact that my choice to continue is not one made out of fear of being alone or because I have vowed to have no other options, but because these are the people I want to spend my life with.
If your vows are rendered potent by an offered gift of exclusivity, more power to you; make your vows and keep them. I choose to make my vows on different gifts, because those are more valuable to me, and I prefer those jewels.
Poor use of words! I guess I meant “dedicated” in the “primary” or “exclusive” sense of the word.
Anyway, I’m not trying to insult people here. (I have an honest curiousity in polygamy, actually, and I want to know the dynamic.)
The only thing I’m really wondering about is the vows/commitments that intrinsically cannot be made in polygamous relationships, and whether the lack of them intrinsically prevents such relationships from becoming a marriage by definition.
Specifically, I wonder if a lack of strong exclusivity doesn’t devalue the relationship such that it can’t be a marriage. I honestly don’t know, and I can’t answer it - that’s why I’m curious about the dynamic, because if anyone can explain why this isn’t true, well, you’ve got me convinced. I won’t say I like the idea (hey, I’m a jealous guy; it’s not to my tastes), but I’ll defend it on the basis of sound reasoning.
I wish more people truly understood that. If they did, this stupid gay marriage debate would not be happening.
That’s fine by me - for the most part. Don’t you think there should be a line drawn somewhere, though? I’m treading down a slippery slope but… just how powerful (or rather, how weak) can the vows be for it to still be considered a marriage?
I mean, I know of a supposed marriage that consists of the vow of staying married for financial reasons. That’s no marriage in most people’s minds, I’d argue. Your vows are sensible enough, I suppose - but where’s the inbetween, the threshold where the commitment goes from convenient to honorable (and worthy of recognition)?
What if John and Jane have a child? Adopt a child? Adopt a puppy? What if Jane gets hit by a car and is in an apparently permanent coma? All of these things “change the relationship” (especially the last one). Would you say that any of these work a termination of the marriage? Why or why not?
I submit that marital relationships change all the time, often in ways far more drastic than through the inclusion of extramarital sex, without destroying the marriage. I don’t think that even drastic “change of the nature of the relationship” is sufficient to count a marriage terminated.
I think this comes down to your axiomatic belief that marriage must be monogamous. As long as you hold that axiom, debate is irrelevant. Our point is that we believe that your axiom is ill-founded; it does not model the way most people view marriage; specifically, I don’t believe that most people believe that extramarital sex as an automatic termination of the marriage.
But if John keeps Julie on the side, at least in the eyes of the law, John and Jane remain married. Right?
John and Jane marry in a church, and vow lifelong commitments to each other in front of G-d. They live a blissful married life, until one day, when John commits sin. However, if he is truly repentant, he can be forgiven and save his marriage. And whether he repents or not, he maintains the legal protections of marriage.
But, if after the twenty years, John and Jane are honest with each other, and mutually agree to open their relationship; if they maintain full disclosure, consent, and respect for each other, and if both/either of them fall in love with another, perhaps agree to have the third join their family life, that they are no longer married? They don’t even deserve the legal protection of marriage?
Is that what you are saying? Upon what basis do you judge John’s behavior more worthy of legal protection?
Given that polygamy is “more than one marriage” by definition, I have my doubts that can be successfully argued.
What about strong exclusivity is valuable in the first place? Valuable to some people, maybe, but valuable in and of itself? Is the extent of trust given to someone to believe their vows of exclusivity somehow greater and more valuable than the extent of trust given to someone to believe their vows to return? I don’t find any joy in a commitment to exclusivity; why should I want one when I find joy in having my partners find delight in their relationships with other people?
When they form families, they cannot be merely “convenient”.
I let the “sacramental union” question go by without comment earlier, but what does practicality have to do with sacrament anyway?
And before the question could even be addressed, the premise would need to be tested. Where is the evidence that suggests that marriage as a “sacramental union” has been specifically defined as between a man and a woman (exclusively)? The old testament surely didn’t make that distinction…
Would anyone suggest that having a second child, and loving that child just as much as your first, somehow “devalues” the relationship with the first? Do humans have an absolute limit on love, and therefore, each new relationship must somehow detract from existing ones? [sub](Note: I did see your “new” position, don’t feel these questions are directed at you personally)[/sub]
In summary, while common usage of the term “marriage” may imply an exclusive monogamous commitment, there is nothing intrinsic in the word itself to place such limits on its usage. Even attempting to insert “a monogamous commitment” into the definition is either destined to fail or fraught with inequities. Too many of the supposed “exclusively mongamous” marriages fail to meet the standard.
And in the greater scheme of things, why should marriage limit love?
Speaking for myself, I think that things practical and things sacremental go together about as well as oil and water. But, just like oil and water the forced mixture of both these things often rewards the doer with something wonderful and quite palatable.
Why on earth does the premise of the question need to be tested? Obviously there are proponents of clearly labelling marriage as a holy sacrament, limited to participation by one man and one woman. The very fact that there are people who feel this way makes the question, “Why do you feel this way?” justified. Can you really be attempting to tell other people what is and what isn’t an appropriate question?
I’m not sure who these questions are directed towards, myself or TonyJ, but allow me to take a stab at it anyway.
No, I don’t think that the love given to one child should be any greater or less than another. However, I think you’re mixing apples and oranges here. The love given a child is obligated from that child’s birth. The love given to a spouse is chosen. Big difference there.
The only limits on capacity for love are self-imposed. What, specifically, do you think would be added or subtracted? I have no way of gauging the emotional investment any other person puts into their relationships. But I can say for certain that the amount of time available to spend with each partner individually in a polygamous realtionship decreases as the number of people welcomed into that relationship increases. I think that that can certainly account for some kind of effect on the relationship the first two people had when their were alone.
Define intrinsic. Do you mean etymologically speaking? Intrinsicly no word means anything. It is merely a grouping of sounds that is commonly understood to identify something. Definitions get rounded out and shaped over time. While the definition of faggot may only “intrinsically” mean a bundle of sticks, it has certainly gained other connotations over time. Connotations serious enough to make that word very controversial today. And simply asking someone to pay attention to the intrinsic meaning of the word does not make it any less controversial.
Those failures are attributed to the people involved, not the word itself.
[Sigh.] Again, as far as I’m concerned marraige and love are two wholly distinct and separate things. Neither is required for the other to exist. And oftentimes people who are married do not love each other, and people who are in love are not married.
And what would you suggest in its place? ‘Civil unions’?
The only idea I can think of is that gay marriage necessarily cannot produce children, and so (it is assumed that) it lacks practical value.
[/QUOTE]
Wrong. Al and Mark or Barb and Joe or Millie and Susan can adopt Steven, and Steven would be their child. Maybe not genetically, but who gives a crap about that? Also, the aforementioned couple could give sex cell samples, have the DNA recombined, and have a baby. Al and Mark would probably need a host mother, but that’s a semiminor detail.
I applaud you for your open-mindedness, and I thank you for your civility.
So, what happens when a man and woman marry and then later one of them has a sex change and becomes the other sex legally. Is their marriage voided by the sex change?
That was me thinking from back-to-front. The reasons for defining marriage as a sacramental union between a man and a woman are due to America’s cultural roots, which I hear were pretty religious (and Christian). I had offered a reason why people may be against gay marriage, which wasn’t answering the question at all. ^^;
I’m pretty sure it hasn’t been specifically defined as such, or else I’d be hearing about such-and-such’s gospel about it from the religious who are defending the “holy definition” or whatever.
I do think it is implicitly defined as exclusive, at least in American culture, because most of us are selfish or jealous when it comes to sharing a partner, spouse or just boyfriend/girlfriend. (I base the claim “most of us” on how straying from monogamy is looked down upon in the courts, the media, and in my own experience with a number of relationships.)
Oh, I never try to take things personally!
I would not argue such a thing (anymore!). I realized that I was working backwards and made a “converse error” (I forget the proper name of the fallacy): I took a->b and jumped to ~a->~b.
I would argue that loving one child more than other can definitely (and often does) place more (perceived) value on one relationship.
Hmm… I have to take contention with the last part because if any marriage fails to meet its standards then the marriage is void in the first place.
I’m also not sure why inserting monogamy “is either destined to fail or fraught with inequities.” Could you expand on that a little bit?
That’s up to you. More generally, that’s up to the marriage. I personally don’t want limits on my girlfriend’s love, per se, but I feel, uh, special when she says she’ll only love me.
That’s true - and I hope this happens - but, they still didn’t make Steven - that’s what I was trying to get at.
We can do that? We’re getting close, but we can’t do that yet, right?
Considering it’s a necessary condition for them to have a child, I’d say it’s a huge detail!
Well, when science advances, it’ll all be a moot point… but we should stick to now.
(Wait. Why am I defending something I don’t believe in? I’m just offering up a hypothetical…I don’t think that fertility is required for marriage in the first place!)
Prior to the rash adoption of “Defense of Marriage” laws in the various States, the answer was pretty consistently “no”. In many states, there is no way to change one’s legal sex (those states include Kansas, Texas, Oregon, and Ohio). In the others, the marriage was not dissolved because the only legal way to dissolve a marriage was by divorce, and there is no legal mechanism by which a divorce can arise by operation of law. Such a marriage could be dissolved easily if either of its parties wanted out, but there’s no way a third party (or the state) could dissolve it.
DOMA laws change all that. In a state where a post-op transsexual can successfully change his or her legal sex and which has a DOMA act, it is likely that the act of changing one’s legal sex works an automatic dissolution of the marriage. However, I’m not aware of any legal precedents to test this.
It is generally a truism when dealing with transsexuals and the law that a transsexual’s gender is whichever of the two would be least convenient for the transsexual in the immediate circumstance. The law tends not to be nice to transsexuals, and we generally expect to be screwed whenever we get entangled with the law in an area where gender matters.
Fair enough. But a monogamous commitment is a requirement? You seem to agree that monogamous behavior is not required.
It’s your thread, I’d certainly cede to your discretion. But no one else introduced the argument, you just sort of tossed it out there - a plea to the “silent majority”.
Because it presupposes the premise of the OP. HYSBYW? It’s like asking, “What are the reasons that Bush is the greatest president ever?” It assumes the question at hand.
For me at least, love of my children does not come from obligation. And I don’t feel that I “choose” to love my wife. I simply do. And I worry for those who derive love from obligation and for those who choose not to love.
Under what circumstances should someone purposefully limit their capacity for love?
Sure, relationships take time and investment. Do you measure your love by the amount of time you spend with your lover?
I’m simply disagreeing with the OP, take even the most common use of the term “marriage”, monogamy is perhaps expected, but not required.
And why are those people more worthy of the legal protections of marriage than John, Jane and Julie? [sup]1[/sup]
Mr. Johnson across the street has a long standing affair that everyone in the neighborhood knows about, including Mrs. Johnson, but no one talks about it. You say, in America, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson aren’t married? [sup]2[/sup]
And what are those standards, if not mutually agreed between the parties? What other stipulations do you apply?
See [sup]2[/sup] and [sup]1[/sup], respectively.
And we all want you to feel special. Unless your girlfriend will get jealous.
Yes. As far as I understand it until John or Jane take the initiative and seek a divorce, they are still legally married. And they remain married, no matter how many people either of them screws on the side. “But wait! That’s a double standard!” I can hear you say. Yup. It does appear to be one, doesn’t it? But just because some people act in such a way that betrays the spirit of “marriage” doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong with the definition.
I assume you mean the sin of adultery. If covetousness were enough to call a marriage into question than most people would suddenly find themselves in a lot of troubles with their spouses. Oh, BTW, it’s okay to say God, your fingers won’t burn for typing out the o.
Sure.
Yup. That’s what I’m saying. The minute John and Jane openly welcome another member into their family the realtionship is no longer a marriage. While John, Jane, and Julie, may be fully committed to one another’s happiness, loving parents, and great neighbors, I don’t see why their relationship is deserving of many of the legal protections currently provided for by marriage. As a matter of fact, I’d bet that openly welcoming a new member into the household goes beyond the scope of most “marriage” laws, and automatically makes it impossible to apply them to that kind of relationship. (This is merely a guess on my part. I don’t claim to be a legal scholar.)
Also, I think that spreading those proctections between more than two people might actually allow for JJ&J to unfairly benefit from some of those protections meant for only two people. For instance, assuming that married couples are taxed at a lower tax rate, why should three or more people enjoy that benefit?
Don’t give up your day job. While inviting additional adults to join the household of a married couple is criminal in a small handful of states, these laws are rarely enforced. And in no state does inviting a third person to join the household of a married result in the an automatic dissolution of the marriage, nor does it prohibit two “unmarried” persons out of a larger group living as a family unit from marrying. As it happens, there is only one act which works the automatic termination of a marriage: the death of one of the two parties. Traditionally, even the change of the sex of one spouse does not automatically dissolve a marriage. Yes, the parties can request dissolution at this point, but the parties can request dissolution at any time.
Simply put, your understanding of marriage as a legal institution is completely at odds with reality.
So your definition doesn’t allow a determination of applicability through direct observation of behavior, but only by being able to ascertain the intentions of those involved.
I find your definition of marriage immoral. Anyone who condones a definition of marriage that rewards and protects adulterous spouses practicing infidelity while actively removing protections from honest and open spouses having outside relationships has a screwed up sense of morality, IMHO.
You see, they can stay married “no matter how many people either of them screws on the side”, as long as they either aren’t open about it, or lie about it to each other. But, if they are honest and open with each other, the “minute John and Jane openly welcome another member into their family the realtionship is no longer a marriage.”
How odd. How many of your “silent majority” will back you up on that?
Not me. I would normally have spelled out God, but particularly because I was going to bold it, I decided I should refrain from possibly offending someone else…
And btw, what makes the married couple more deserving of a tax break than a single person? Why is two fair, and three unfair?
My deepest apologies for not anticipating that someone might take offense at a tounge in cheek remark about God. I wil henceforth refrain from ever mentioning God, Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah, Shiva, Jupiter, and any other deities ever again.
My definition is applicable when the circumstances warrant using the word. To witness two people making a monogamous committment to one another and thereby calling them married does use “direct observation”. As a matter of fact, there is no ascertion of intentions needed, they’ve already been proclaimed.
That’s funny, I find my definition of marriage empowering. Anyone who condones the act of choosing to spend one’s life with one other person, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health is supporting a choice that presents great risks while offering great rewards. I could just as easily say that your definition of marriage is immoral. Condoning a definition of marriage that rewards and protects spouses who refuse to practice monogamy while actively removing protections from honest spouses who choose to dedicate themselves to one another has a, well, you know the rest. But the mud-slinging fest that might result is not going to generate meaningful discussion.
If you choose to see my definition of marriage as a sham which only serves to reward liars while punishing honest people who truly love one another, then you and I will probably never see eye to eye because we choose to focus on different things. (And it makes me wonder why you would so zealously claim the right to use the term marriage in the first place.)
Yeah, John’s a bad person. And they have a bad marriage. Were John my friend, and if he were honest to me about what he was doing, I would tell him that he should get a divorce (and I’d start wondering about our friendship). But why does John’s lying require me to toss out my definition? Would making marriage no longer an exclusive commitment between two people solve everyone’s problems? I doubt it. If some a-hole is going to cheat, lie, manipulate, and deceive they’ll probably do so no matter how many spouses they are allowed to keep.
Right now, it doesn’t seem like to many people want to back me up at all. But then again out of the hundreds of people who have viewed this thread I believe three people have consistantly argued your point of view. So that make it 3 to 1. Many people have successfully fought more important fights against much longer odds.
I’m glad to know that you can take a poorly worded wisecrack and give it the proper ignoring it deserved. I will endeavor to improve my wisecracks in the future, but I’ll be honest. After 30 odd years, my sense of humor doesn’t seem to be getting any better.
Generally speaking, married couples earn more than single people. Most often times their combined income places them into a higher tax bracket, and therefore places a higher tax burden on each spouse than they might otherwise suffer, were they filing separately. If two people each make $35,000 dollars a year and are married, is it really right to tax them as though they were one person making $70,000 dollars a year? There are more reasons, but I think that’s a good starting place.
More generally, that’s up to the marriage. I personally don’t want limits on my girlfriend’s love, per se, but I feel, uh, special when she says she’ll only love me.