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.

[Artie]

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.

The only argument I can think of is that a union between a man and a woman might produce offspring, and that marriage might reinforce the bond which might provide a more secure and stable environment for upbringing.

[jmvizanko]

The only argument I can think of is that a union between a man and a woman might produce offspring, and that marriage might reinforce the bond which might provide a more secure and stable environment for upbringing.

How would a polygamous group of people not be able to produce offspring? And does that mean that infertile people should not be allowed to get married? And if they should be allowed to be married, because they could adopt, then why shouldn't gay people be able to?

[100%atheist]

The only argument I can think of is that a union between a man and a woman might produce offspring, and that marriage might reinforce the bond which might provide a more secure and stable environment for upbringing.

How would a polygamous group of people not be able to produce offspring? And does that mean that infertile people should not be allowed to get married? And if they should be allowed to be married, because they could adopt, then why shouldn't gay people be able to?

In principle, biologically, humans are monogamous heterosexuals. There are exceptions. I don't think that homosexuality is normal in the same way as having 6 fingers isn't normal. But it is okay and I do not see any reason why they can't marry if they want. This being said, I can clearly see how, based on an average biology, 1 man and 1 woman is a biological normal for marriage.

[jmvizanko]

In principle, biologically, humans are monogamous heterosexuals.... I can clearly see how, based on an average biology, 1 man and 1 woman is a biological normal for marriage.

Can you justify that statement? I don't see how average biology justifies it at all. If anything, average biology justifies men having as many sexual partners as they can find.

[100%atheist]

In principle, biologically, humans are monogamous heterosexuals.... I can clearly see how, based on an average biology, 1 man and 1 woman is a biological normal for marriage.

Can you justify that statement? I don't see how average biology justifies it at all. If anything, average biology justifies men having as many sexual partners as they can find.

Well, look, if there is a man who lives with several women simultaneously, or if there is a woman who lives with several men simultaneously, the partners will not likely happy psychologically about this polygamy. Most likely, there will be stress, there will be conflict, there will be fight. Again, I am saying most likely because there are exceptions, of course. I think this works for a general man-man or woman-woman relationship. If a man sexually wants me it will likely freak me out. It's not normal for me, it is not normal for the majority of men. But if it is normal for him, it's okay with me, just please don't attempt to have me sexually even in the nicest possible way. Marriage is an abstract human invention. We don't really need to have right to it as we should do have right to safety and [potentially] equal access to ways of expressing our personal or group concerns. We can even define marriage as a legal government issued licence for a pair to live together for a purpose of potentially having offsprings. Then homosexuals will not qualify because they have no such potential. I don't see how the inability to legally marry in itself is against homosexuals. What if everyone is 100% tolerant to gays, and they are allowed to pay taxes and do other legal things exactly in the same way as married couples do? I think that they just consider their right to marry as a way to get recognized as equal members of the society. Again, I am 100% fine with gays being gays and I do not consider them any different from me on anything else but their sexuality. But there is a historically proven danger in the US that a group being recognized is not necessarily being tolerated. Consider African-Americans. They have equal rights with European-Americans now, even some more rights sometimes. So what? Would you say there is no racism in the US? Would you say there is no racial segregation in the US? I've seen some studies indicating there is not much less racial intolerance in the US now as compared to older times. Whites now sit together with blacks on school buses and then after school (and even at school) whites play predominantly with whites and blacks with blacks. What I really afraid of is that after homosexuals will get the same rights for marriage etc. as heterosexuals, the government and the society will say "okay, we are now equal, case closed", and then my evangelical neighbors will not let their kids to play close to the house of gays, and homosexuals will live in segregated communities, etc. The problem [with tolerance] will not be solved but simply ignored at the official level because there will be nothing really that one could do officially. ... but of course, I can be wrong.

[Angel]

In principle, biologically, humans are monogamous heterosexuals.... I can clearly see how, based on an average biology, 1 man and 1 woman is a biological normal for marriage.

Can you justify that statement? I don't see how average biology justifies it at all. If anything, average biology justifies men having as many sexual partners as they can find.

Well, look, if there is a man who lives with several women simultaneously, or if there is a woman who lives with several men simultaneously, the partners will not likely happy psychologically about this polygamy. Most likely, there will be stress, there will be conflict, there will be fight. Again, I am saying most likely because there are exceptions, of course.

Living with someone is not necessarily the same as 'monogamy'. Non-monogamous behavior can take the form of just having multiple sexual partners without living with them. I would also say that biology is not a clear-cut as you seem to say it is when it comes to monogamy. Although, many choose monogamous relationships but yet it's still possible to be sexually attracted to multiple people even if you are in a relationship. As an example, we can start with men in relationships who watch porn and lust for other women. Plenty of people act on this beyond just looking but go through cheating, and if we add on Jesus' standard (committing adultery in the heart), then that rate goes even higher.

I've actually studied polygamous relationships for quite some time now. The majority of the ones that I've read about having an overall unhappiness or dissatisfaction tend to be those where there was no consent and mostly involved religious pressure. When there's reports of satisfaction, I've found a pattern of the wives wanting polygamy because they wanted extra companionship (more than just a husband or a two person relationship) and the wives lived like best friends supporting each other.

Here's one video of a woman explaining why she wanted polygamy:
Christine on choosing polygamy

[100%atheist]

In principle, biologically, humans are monogamous heterosexuals.... I can clearly see how, based on an average biology, 1 man and 1 woman is a biological normal for marriage.

Can you justify that statement? I don't see how average biology justifies it at all. If anything, average biology justifies men having as many sexual partners as they can find.

Well, look, if there is a man who lives with several women simultaneously, or if there is a woman who lives with several men simultaneously, the partners will not likely happy psychologically about this polygamy. Most likely, there will be stress, there will be conflict, there will be fight. Again, I am saying most likely because there are exceptions, of course.

Living with someone is not necessarily the same as 'monogamy'. Non-monogamous behavior can take the form of just having multiple sexual partners without living with them. I would also say that biology is not a clear-cut as you seem to say it is when it comes to monogamy. Although, many choose monogamous relationships but yet it's still possible to be sexually attracted to multiple people even if you are in a relationship. As an example, we can start with men in relationships who watch porn and lust for other women. Plenty of people act on this beyond just looking but go through cheating, and if we add on Jesus' standard (committing adultery in the heart), then that rate goes even higher.

I've actually studied polygamous relationships for quite some time now. The majority of the ones that I've read about having an overall unhappiness or dissatisfaction tend to be those where there was no consent and mostly involved religious pressure. When there's reports of satisfaction, I've found a pattern of the wives wanting polygamy because they wanted extra companionship (more than just a husband or a two person relationship) and the wives lived like best friends supporting each other.

Here's one video of a woman explaining why she wanted polygamy:
Christine on choosing polygamy

Cheating and lust is not polygamy. It support exactly opposite point of view that polygamy isn't normal for humans. It it were normal, there would be no point in cheating.

[Angel]

In principle, biologically, humans are monogamous heterosexuals.... I can clearly see how, based on an average biology, 1 man and 1 woman is a biological normal for marriage.

Can you justify that statement? I don't see how average biology justifies it at all. If anything, average biology justifies men having as many sexual partners as they can find.

Well, look, if there is a man who lives with several women simultaneously, or if there is a woman who lives with several men simultaneously, the partners will not likely happy psychologically about this polygamy. Most likely, there will be stress, there will be conflict, there will be fight. Again, I am saying most likely because there are exceptions, of course.

Living with someone is not necessarily the same as 'monogamy'. Non-monogamous behavior can take the form of just having multiple sexual partners without living with them. I would also say that biology is not a clear-cut as you seem to say it is when it comes to monogamy. Although, many choose monogamous relationships but yet it's still possible to be sexually attracted to multiple people even if you are in a relationship. As an example, we can start with men in relationships who watch porn and lust for other women. Plenty of people act on this beyond just looking but go through cheating, and if we add on Jesus' standard (committing adultery in the heart), then that rate goes even higher.

I've actually studied polygamous relationships for quite some time now. The majority of the ones that I've read about having an overall unhappiness or dissatisfaction tend to be those where there was no consent and mostly involved religious pressure. When there's reports of satisfaction, I've found a pattern of the wives wanting polygamy because they wanted extra companionship (more than just a husband or a two person relationship) and the wives lived like best friends supporting each other.

Here's one video of a woman explaining why she wanted polygamy:
Christine on choosing polygamy

Cheating and lust is not polygamy. It support exactly opposite point of view that polygamy isn't normal for humans. It it were normal, there would be no point in cheating.

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.

[100%atheist]

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. 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.

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. 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.