The problem is that the welfare of children isn’t necessarily best served by two adults (hetero or non-hetero). There have been multiple cultures that regarded the raising of children as a communal act, which is arguably better. Our culture has simply settled on two adults plus children as a means of, more than anything, convenience. As an example, it’s easier to move a household across the country for a new job (or, in the olden days, a new patch of dirt to farm) if it’s you, spouse and children and not you, 50 other communal spouses, plus children. It’s even hard having to tear your biological children away from their communal care givers.
It’s much the same way that ancient polygamy worked: A male patriarch would own a big plot of land and have 5 wives and 15+ children and everyone would pitch in to operate the farm. Once those families began to move to cities (or, possibly, became cities) that became much harder. After all, how hard do you have to work as a blacksmith or clothing producer to feed 21 people with little or no land?
Exactly my point. There ARE restrictions. That’s why speaking of it as a “right” is a little imprecise.
We’ve simply decided that, because of our changed view of both marriage and gays, that a restriction against gays marrying is not justifiable.
How is polygamy harmful to women? If they are consenting adults, it’s their RIGHT to marry.
I understand your concerns are valid, however, to cite harm to women, or children, in discussing polygamy can border on offensive, like citing pedophilia when talking about homosexuality. We can have polygamy without harming anyone.
Yes. We know what the benefits are. WHY does the state give them out? What are their purpose to the state? Stable relationships? Why does the state care about those exactly?
Those who think it suffices to say gay marriage is a “right” without further discussion.
Sure. And until recently, it appeared to be profoundly rational that only straights could marry. The change is the product of our change in our views about marriage, and gays. Not just suddenly waking up and deciding something we thought was rational actually wasn’t.
Most of our laws concerning relationships stem from the need to establish care taking and estate guidelines. When someone is needing an emergency medical decision, who do they contact? The spouse? The child? The homeless guy outside? After an unexpected death, who does the state give power of estate?
Should the state just simply take over all medical and estate actions? Okay, now we don’t have next of kin issues, but what guidelines will we put in place to regulate the emergency care or estate issues that replaces next of kin?
:dubious: I don’t follow this line of reasoning. It’s like a person saying driving is a “Right” and then having someone go “NO! It’s a privilege!” The distinction is minor to the lay person.
The quote is from Kennedy, who was paraphrasing a scene from Dante’s Inferno.
I also don’t give a damn about homosexual marriage. However as an outsider I think it a precarious strategy to push through a general acceptance of homosexuality by using marriage as a tool, and I predict a blowback. Basic human nature.
Farin gives some good answers here, and I would add that encouraging that kind of stability is good for the people in the marriage and for children should the couple choose to have them.
You’re splitting hairs here. Voting is a right, but we don’t let minors do it. We have a right to life, but I’m still allowed to kill in self defense if necessary. Freedom is a right, but we can lock up criminals. Just because we haven’t afforded a right to a certain group of people, whether through reasonable justification or not, doesn’t mean that it’s not a right to begin with. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a reasonable justification for not allowing same sex couples to enter into the legal institution of marriage in the same way that opposite sex couples do.
I think you missed the part where I said that I’m not opposed to polygamy. I also never said that polygamy IS harmful to women. I said that it traditionally HAS been harmful to women. Almost all cases of societies that allowed polygamy were polygynous. Very, very few were polyandrous. In other words, MOST cases of polygamy involved one man with multiple wives. The implications should be clear, but if not, look up “patriarchy” with particular attention to how women have been historically treated under such systems.
But we could do all those things without marriage.
A good analogy, or at least a start - one does not have a right to a driver’s license. But one does have the right to get one regardless of sexual orientation.
Then why even have marriage at all? Don’t people have a right to the things marriage brings them, without having to get permission from the state in the first place?
I understood that. I wasn’t accusing you of anything, just bringing up a tangent.
Sure, but why would the state need to go around doling out “stability” in our personal relationships? What’s so important about that that we need to provide 1,400 or so benefits just so we are more likely to not break up as fast with our girlfriends or boyfriends?
I agree! Why even have marriage at all? I have met plenty of people who argue that marriage shouldn’t even exist as a legal institution, and I agree with them. But of course, that’s not really relevant. Marriage as an incentivized legal institution exists, whether it should or not, and therefore those incentives should be equally available. It would also work to remove the incentives completely so that nobody has them. But equal protection means that it must be all or nothing. Everybody gets it or nobody gets it (with reasonable restrictions, as we’ve discussed).