Make a purely secular argument for 1 woman & 1 man.

[jmvizanko]

The only arguments I have ever seen for forcing the definition of marriage to be only one woman and one man fall into 2 categories. One is an argument that is derived from somebody's religion, say for example, Christianity suggesting 1 woman and 1 man. The other is an argument from majority/tradition, say for example, most or many cultures throughout history defined marriage this way, so that's what it should be.

In America, we have a bill of rights that clearly states we should not have a state religion. Therefore the first argument does not suffice for a justification for making gay marriage, or polygamy, illegal in the US. The second argument seems to be used when the first argument fails, namely because of the above reason I just gave. But it also fails because we have a bill of rights that clearly states we have a right to practice religion freely. If your religion allows polygamy, the American government in no way has a right to deny your practice of it. And both fail in basic principle that they are based on ethnocentricity and are anti personal freedom, and I have no clue how anyone could put either argument forward and still spout that they love America because it stands for freedom.

The only convincing argument that wouldn't violate the first amendment or the respect of personal freedom would be one based solely on logic. I challenge anyone to present such an argument, that is not derived from their religion, their personal preferences, or the basis that their religion/culture should rule all others.

[Angel]

I never said that cheating and finding more than one person sexually attractive and lusting are all polygamy but non-monogamy is not just limited to polygamy. All of the examples I listed aren't necessarily about polygamy but they don't reflect monogamy either. Sure people engage in monogamous MARRIAGE but don't you think society imposing those rules on us has something to do with that? So how can you get a fair assessment on who would engage in what when there's a THREAT of CRIMINAL charges, i.e. bigamy? There are more heterosexuals than homosexuals, so is homosexuality therefore not biological even if it's to a degree? Or what are you going by to say that polygamy is not normal? Define or explain normal as you're using it. I ask these questions because for now I don't see you making any real point to show that polygamy is wrong or that all are born for monogamy.

Sexual behavior extends beyond marriage, so while the majority of people engage in monogamous MARRIAGE but before marriage that doesn't mean they were monogamous, especially if they were single and had sex with different people.

I don't think society "imposes" rules on individuals. Remember, individuals form society and are making up the rules.

This is a false generalization and only applies to democratic societies, some times.
Women used to not be able to vote, and had it worse in past history where they were treated like property and arranged in marriages. Blacks did not get much of a choice when they first arrived on the North American continent. Dictatorships imposed their rules on the people and reinforce it with their military and various forms of mistreatment.

Now I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have rules but I will say that CURRENT rules aren't necessarily a good basis to show that polygamy is wrong no more than rules allowing slavery shows that slavery is right. Polygamy was banned in the US during the 1800's and not necessarily for any good reasons other than religious intolerance.

The health of the society depends on the ability to work out common rules that would work for the benefit of the majority of individuals. If theocratic society is healthy, there would be no need to debate religion. If intolerance to homosexuals and polygamists is undoubtedly beneficial to the society then there would be no debate of these issues.

So you are saying that all laws are based on 'good' or 'healthy' and a reasonable basis? I suppose the countries where polygamy is allowed have it right then? Or what about those with slavery? What I'm trying to show here is that laws are NOT always based on what's healthy to society and I don't see where that was thought out during the time that polygamy was made illegal in the US. That was a prejudiced era in many respects. So here again you're not offering any rational reason that polygamy is harmful to society other than say that's how the law is or that's what most think.

Also, I am not sure now what you call "monogamous". Most people I know didn't leave with multiple sexual partners at the same time before marriage. Often they completely end relationships with one partner before moving to another one.

Do you consider jumping from one relationship to the next as being a good indicator for monogamy? I understand that this can be done just as long as you still have a 2 person relationship but I'd hope monogamy means more than the number of people otherwise, promiscuity may as well mean monogamy just as long as the guy or girl has sex with only one person at a time. Serial monogamy doesn't show much committment or value or show much willingness of some people to sustain a monogamous relationship. I know some polygamists who have been married to the same 3 women for over 18 years. I'm not saying that serial monogamists are really closet polygamists, but it does show that monogamy is not all that it's cracked up to be or as hard-wired as you say it is. For some monogamy works but for others not so much for others.

Perhaps you and I have different experiences because we may be in different age brackets. I'm in my 20's and most young folks, especially college students, that I know have sex with different people. Bars and night clubs are hot spots to meet people like this. As I also mentioned in my last response, even people in relationships engage behavior that is characteristic to non-monogamy, like being sexually attracted to others while already being in a relationship (and plenty attempt to act on this beyond just looking - with some success and failure). This should not be possible if people are hard-wired or born for monogamy. To me, monogamy is more of a choice. The predominance of monogamous relationship is more of a social standard and not necessarily a reflection of our nature.

Again, this is not polygamy. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary polygamy is "marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time". I suggest to interpret marriage in the broadest possible sense, but then we still have this "at the same time" part. And monogamy is "the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time". So what are you talking about exactly when you mention a person having sex with different partners before [traditional] marriage? I claim [based on my personal observations] that it is highly unusual for someone before marriage to have multiple sexual partners at the same time, meaning somewhat prolonged time beyond an occasional sexual orgy, which is rather unusual too.

I was responding to your claim about people being hard-wired for monogamy. The point that I brought up was about promiscuity, which usually takes the form of not being in a relationship and wanting or actually having sex with different people. I understand this is unusual to your limited experience and that's fine as long as you don't use terms like 'normal' and 'unusual' as blanket statements.

[Choir Loft]

The only arguments I have ever seen for forcing the definition of marriage to be only one woman and one man fall into 2 categories. One is an argument that is derived from somebody's religion, say for example, Christianity suggesting 1 woman and 1 man. The other is an argument from majority/tradition, say for example, most or many cultures throughout history defined marriage this way, so that's what it should be.

In America, we have a bill of rights that clearly states we should not have a state religion. Therefore the first argument does not suffice for a justification for making gay marriage, or polygamy, illegal in the US. The second argument seems to be used when the first argument fails, namely because of the above reason I just gave. But it also fails because we have a bill of rights that clearly states we have a right to practice religion freely. If your religion allows polygamy, the American government in no way has a right to deny your practice of it. And both fail in basic principle that they are based on ethnocentricity and are anti personal freedom, and I have no clue how anyone could put either argument forward and still spout that they love America because it stands for freedom.

The only convincing argument that wouldn't violate the first amendment or the respect of personal freedom would be one based solely on logic. I challenge anyone to present such an argument, that is not derived from their religion, their personal preferences, or the basis that their religion/culture should rule all others.

Your philosophy is well worded albeit unfounded. You base all your arguments on the Bill of Rights, which no longer exists as the highest law of the land. The entire constitution went down in flames on October 26, 2001 and took the old American republic down with it. Ten years on, most Americans suspect the system is broken. What they are experiencing is the stench of the dead republic in their nostrils, not brokenness.

We now live in a post-constitutional America.

So let's get off all this pointless discussion about what the constitution does or does not say. It's a different country now. Most folks just haven't gotten around to accepting what we've really got on our hands.

That being said, what about marriage? Perhaps what should have been defined from the beginning; a private matter between consenting adults.

No laws should define it and none should prevent it. It's private business not community business. Period. As long as no one is being hurt, what's the problem?

As for my house, it's one man and one woman. (I don't doubt that many men have entertained the notion of more than one wife at times). That's illegal too BTW even though the BIBLE says its ok.

IMHO there's too much government meddling about things that don't concern it ESPECIALLY in the bedroom.

If a man isn't free there, then he isn't free at all.

[jmvizanko]

Your philosophy is well worded albeit unfounded. You base all your arguments on the Bill of Rights, which no longer exists as the highest law of the land. We now live in a post-constitutional America.

So let's get off all this pointless discussion about what the constitution does or does not say. It's a different country now. Most folks just haven't gotten around to accepting what we've really got on our hands.

I respectfully don't think its as bad as you've painted it. Sure I'm very jaded about the government, and I think pretty much everybody is from any side, but I guess I'd have to see your justification that our government has completely abandoned the Constitution before I agree that its all out the window.

As long as no one is being hurt, what's the problem?

Don't forget the old "its bad for society" argument. Which of course is nothing but a cloak for imposing Christian values that have no secular and universal argument that justifies such an imposition.

That's illegal too BTW even though the BIBLE says its ok.

Hey now, don't forget that the most intelligent being ever set down those rules for an older generation, then decided to craft completely new rules in the "new covenant." Anybody that believes that the new convenant trumps the old covenenant must have quite the interesting mind circuitry to also be able to claim that there is an absolute morality that comes from god....

IMHO there's too much government meddling about things that don't concern it ESPECIALLY in the bedroom.

If a man isn't free there, then he isn't free at all.

Couldn't agree more.

[Autodidact]

O.K. let's say you have gender equality and polygamy. Abe is married to Betty, Carol and Donna. Betty is married to Abe, Edward and Frank. Carol is married to Abe, George, Henry, Irving and John. Donna is married to Abe and Frank. Edward is married to Betty, Kate, Linda, Mary and Nancy. Frank is married to Betty, Donna, Olivia and Paula. Etc. etc. I don't really think it's workable. How would that work in terms of tax status, social security, health insurance, etc?

[jmvizanko]

O.K. let's say you have gender equality and polygamy. Abe is married to Betty, Carol and Donna. Betty is married to Abe, Edward and Frank. Carol is married to Abe, George, Henry, Irving and John. Donna is married to Abe and Frank. Edward is married to Betty, Kate, Linda, Mary and Nancy. Frank is married to Betty, Donna, Olivia and Paula. Etc. etc. I don't really think it's workable. How would that work in terms of tax status, social security, health insurance, etc?

While that is a good point, its not an argument for why we should fundamentally not allow polygamy from a cultural freedom standpoint. But it wouldn't have to be that difficult to figure out, just call them all technically in the same marriage and have increased premiums proportional to the number of spouses, and lets just tax all adults independently of if and how many people they are married to. That would eliminate the marriage penalty and actually make income taxes simpler.

[Autodidact]

O.K. let's say you have gender equality and polygamy. Abe is married to Betty, Carol and Donna. Betty is married to Abe, Edward and Frank. Carol is married to Abe, George, Henry, Irving and John. Donna is married to Abe and Frank. Edward is married to Betty, Kate, Linda, Mary and Nancy. Frank is married to Betty, Donna, Olivia and Paula. Etc. etc. I don't really think it's workable. How would that work in terms of tax status, social security, health insurance, etc?

While that is a good point, its not an argument for why we should fundamentally not allow polygamy from a cultural freedom standpoint. But it wouldn't have to be that difficult to figure out, just call them all technically in the same marriage and have increased premiums proportional to the number of spouses, and lets just tax all adults independently of if and how many people they are married to. That would eliminate the marriage penalty and actually make income taxes simpler.

So, for example, in the hypo I gave, 22 spouses and counting, some of them married to each other, and some to someone who is married to someone else?

[jmvizanko]

So, for example, in the hypo I gave, 22 spouses and counting, some of them married to each other, and some to someone who is married to someone else?

Since your argument boils down to it being a huge legal inconvenience to deal with scenarios like this, I'll just point out that the extreme scenario you plot out would be extremely rare if not non-existent.

Plus, like I said above, you could really simplify things by getting rid of the marriage penalty. Make everyone's taxes independent. If there are children in a marriage, their tax benefits are equally distributed among the married individuals, regardless of how many. Make the premiums for healthcare for spouses go up geometrically in relation to how many spouses are on one plan, and additional premium hikes for any spouse that could obtain healthcare through another employer. (big incentives for not being in your extreme scenario)

Just ideas, but I'm sure they could make the equations for things like tax and healthcare not all that complicated to even take care of your scenario. But just because its slightly more inconvenient for the government to handle, and I'm not convinced it would have to be, doesn't mean we should ban it. Otherwise a lot of other things having nothing to do with marriage would be banned.

[Autodidact]

So, for example, in the hypo I gave, 22 spouses and counting, some of them married to each other, and some to someone who is married to someone else?

Since your argument boils down to it being a huge legal inconvenience to deal with scenarios like this, I'll just point out that the extreme scenario you plot out would be extremely rare if not non-existent.

Plus, like I said above, you could really simplify things by getting rid of the marriage penalty. Make everyone's taxes independent. If there are children in a marriage, their tax benefits are equally distributed among the married individuals, regardless of how many. Make the premiums for healthcare for spouses go up geometrically in relation to how many spouses are on one plan, and additional premium hikes for any spouse that could obtain healthcare through another employer. (big incentives for not being in your extreme scenario)

Just ideas, but I'm sure they could make the equations for things like tax and healthcare not all that complicated to even take care of your scenario. But just because its slightly more inconvenient for the government to handle, and I'm not convinced it would have to be, doesn't mean we should ban it. Otherwise a lot of other things having nothing to do with marriage would be banned.

It's not extreme. None of my hypothetical people had 20 or 30 spouses. There are over 1000 legal effects of being married. Should someone be able to facilitate the immigration status of entire groups of people? What about Social Security survivor's benefits, can 3-7 people get them? Also their children? Should several different dependents of enlisted personnnel get veteran's benefits? Can someone disinherit some spouses but not others?

But that's not even it. What I'm saying is that if both men and women are allowed to do it, then A is married to B who is married to C and the whole thing goes on forever, until everyone is married to someone who is married to someone else. Where do you go on Thanksgiving?

[100%atheist]

So, for example, in the hypo I gave, 22 spouses and counting, some of them married to each other, and some to someone who is married to someone else?

Since your argument boils down to it being a huge legal inconvenience to deal with scenarios like this, I'll just point out that the extreme scenario you plot out would be extremely rare if not non-existent.

Plus, like I said above, you could really simplify things by getting rid of the marriage penalty. Make everyone's taxes independent. If there are children in a marriage, their tax benefits are equally distributed among the married individuals, regardless of how many. Make the premiums for healthcare for spouses go up geometrically in relation to how many spouses are on one plan, and additional premium hikes for any spouse that could obtain healthcare through another employer. (big incentives for not being in your extreme scenario)

Just ideas, but I'm sure they could make the equations for things like tax and healthcare not all that complicated to even take care of your scenario. But just because its slightly more inconvenient for the government to handle, and I'm not convinced it would have to be, doesn't mean we should ban it. Otherwise a lot of other things having nothing to do with marriage would be banned.

Can you provide an argument why polygamous relationships should be regarded as marriage? And how can they be marriage at all, even technically? I can only think of polygyny or polyandy as a technically viable form of relationships to be considered for marriage. However in these two cases I expect much stronger outcries of another kind.

[Choir Loft]

I respectfully don't think its as bad as you've painted it. Sure I'm very jaded about the government, and I think pretty much everybody is from any side, but I guess I'd have to see your justification that our government has completely abandoned the Constitution before I agree that its all out the window.

What is it that you have to see?
Do you not read the news?
Do you not watch televised political debates and critiques?
The subject of the constitution is one of the hottest issues today.

Why?

Because its dead already.

Because of its violation by every act of congress, the judiciary and the president (not to mention the bureaucrats) since October 26, 2001.

Because there are innumerable almost daily testimonies of private citizens being stripped of their rights under the law.

Want proof?

Buy a plane ticket from city A to city B. Before you get on the plane you will have to submit to TSA search of your privates and everything else. That is a clear violation of the 4th amendment.
Object to the search and you will be 'detained' - another violation of your rights.

Want more proof?

Forget about flying. TSA is now constructing roadblocks in Tennessee (as of 10/21/11). Soon the traveler will not be able to drive from City A to City B without having to answer to the Feds. You'll have to wait in line and show your ID before you'll be allowed to continue on your way. Some estimate that travel time may be affected by as much as an additional two hours minimum. Another violation of the constitution.

How about conducting a war without a congressional, constitutionally mandated, declaration?
In 1973 the War Powers Act was passed to make it easier for America to start a war.
POTUS was required to report to congress when he ordered an attack against another country.
In 2011, Mr. Obama violated that law, which itself was unconstitutional, TWICE*.
POTUS now has unresticted authority to wage war upon any and every nation he so chooses.
There's an old word for that kind of power; dictator.

In addition, the president can now MAKE LAW simply by signing a statement.
This power is/was constitutionally reserved for congress. No more.
George W. Bush began the precident by signing a few memos such as the one which halted American participation in the 1929 Geneva Convention regarding the humane treatment of prisoners of war (thus justifying waterboarding - an internationally recognized method of torture).
There's an old word for that kind of power; dictator.

ALL OF THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL - if there still was a constitution, which there isn't.

All this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have collected files and can go on and on if you want me to.....

On June 21, 1788 the American republic was established by the ratification of the constitution.
On October 26, 2001 the constitution was overthrown by an act of congress called the Patriot Act.
The republic ended.**

It's taken ten years for most Americans to realize that something is 'broken' and that something is 'wrong'.
They still don't know what it is and can't put their finger on it.

The problem is denial.
Like a man whose just heard he's got a terminal illness, the American public is denying the reality of what has been going on for the last decade.

We don't have rights any more.
We don't have a republic any more.
We now live in a post-constitutional America.
We now live in a fascist police state.
Every day the screws are tightened a little bit more.

Watch and see, my friend. Watch and see.

The days of warning are over. The night of tyranny is upon us.

(*)
06/15/11 attack on Libya
10/20/11 invasion of Uganda, Congo, Central African Republic & Southern Sudan.

The US is now involved in TEN concurrent wars!
Afghanistan, Pakistan, covert war in Yemen, covert war in Somalia, Uganda,
Congo, Central African Republic, Sudan , shadow war with Iran
& the ubiquitous War on Terror

"The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killings."
- Major Ralph Peters

(**)
Ever hear of the Reichstag Fire of February 1933?
The Reichstag was the German parliament/congress building.
When the building was suddenly destroyed by fire, Chancellor Hitler declared a national emergency.
He blamed it on an idiot Danish Jew who was summarily executed for the crime.

Ever hear of the Enabling Act of March 1933?
Less than a month after the fire, Chancellor Hitler got the members of the German parliament to pass the Enabling Act, which destroyed the German constitution and ended the old Weimar Republic.
It gave dictatorial power to Herr Hitler.

In America, we had the "terrorist" attack of 9/11.
Less than a month later the Patriot Act was passed, which destroyed the US Constitution as we know it (knew it).

The historic parallel would be interesting and fascinating if it didn't affect every man woman and child in this country so badly. The two historic events were designed to work together to destroy the old American Republic.

Guess what?

IT WORKED !!!

Hey now, don't forget that the most intelligent being ever set down those rules for an older generation, then decided to craft completely new rules in the "new covenant." Anybody that believes that the new convenant trumps the old covenenant must have quite the interesting mind circuitry to also be able to claim that there is an absolute morality that comes from god....

The 'rules' of the O.T. didn't change with the advent of the church. There's nothing in the N.T. about a man having one wife or many. The passages you refer to specifically mention church leaders. A bishop, for example, should have one wife only.

The new convenant does not 'trump' the old. Grace and law compliment one another. I'd explain it if you were interested, but as this thread is supposed to be limited to one subject I'll simply extend an invitation for discussion elsewhere.

Your statement, that those who believe in moral behavior are insane, is insulting and naive.
Moral behavior is the only thing that keeps one man from putting a bullet in another's head.
That isn't insanity, it's mental and social stability.