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.

[100%atheist]

If we should jail those involved in gender oppression, then I can point out some monogamous relationships where women are abused and controlled by their husbands, as well. Are you for jailing them as well or only polygamists?

Yes, the same a polygamists.

Your comment also implies that polygyny is always going to be about gender oppression, but have you considered that some wives actually want polygamy as multiple wives and don't want multiple husbands? If these wives are given a choice on the type of polygamy they want, they have the choice to enter or leave the relationship, they have a say on how the relationship will work, etc, etc, how is this gender oppression?

Ever heard of Stockholm syndrome?

Multiperson marriages? Can you give examples of "they lived long and happy, 6 of them?" It is just for sex, not for long relationships

You say polygamy is just for sex and I find that people who hold that view haven't really studied how polygamous relationships work by studying polygamous couples, why they want it, how they make it work, etc. People like you usually reason from their limited monogamous experience or from one-sided media coverage (only showing the bad side or bad people of polygamy). This is not a surprise considering that most are born in, raised in, and taught monogamy and that anything beyond that is associated with cheating or just wanting only sex. From my study of some good poly relationships I find that these people function like a family and not some group orgy. Sex is kept private to each marriage. There polygamists also have kids so these relationships are for the long term. All of the women gain extra companionship (emotional, social, etc) and support from each other, esp. when it comes to child raising.

You asked for 6 examples but I'll give you 3 for now:

Polygamous family #1
Prince and his 2 wives, Yohanna (sp?) and Chilania(sp?). They've been married for over 30 years.
Source:
(Start watching the video at 1 minute and 30 seconds until 2 minutes and 30 seconds).

Polygamous family #2
Joe Darger and his 3 wives, Alina Darger, Vicki Darger, and Valerie Darger. Joe has been married to Alina and Vicki for 20 plus years. Joe has been married to Valerie for 12 years.
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/modern-polygam ... d=14956226
(Scroll down and watch the video entitled, The Life of a polygamist, 3 wives, 24 children. You can start watching at 1 minute and 5 seconds into the video).

Polygamous family #3-
Kody Brown and his 3 wives, Janelle Brown, Christine Brown, and Meri Brown(sp?). They've been married for 18 years and they're featured on a show on TLC called, Sister Wives.
Source:

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough on my request. I was asking for at least ONE example of 6 people living together in a happy polygamous marriage.
You just listed polygyny examples, which are of course common, but they are even more often play just a social status role. Similar to who has more slaves/wives/cars/money/etc. have a high social status.

[Angel]

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?

This would make a good legal argument but even if polygamy is difficult to function on legally, but that doesn't mean that it's immoral or would cause physical or emotional harm. In other words, not being able to figure out taxes does not mean the participants of polygamy would suffer physical harm. Perhaps, at best, it may cause financial problems depending on the family.

I'm not arguing that it's immoral or would cause physical or emotional harm. Marriage is a legal status/relationship. With polygamy and equality, that status/relationship is not workable. Therefore it's not a good idea. I value equality above polygamy, and you can't have both and make it work.

Marriage is primarily a relationship. The legal issues comes in depending on how much a government interferes with marriage and that can vary from a little to a lot depending on the country or civilization. In the United States, people can choose to get married without acquiring a marriage license or state recognition just as long as they're not breaking any laws like bigamy, child abuse, age of consent, etc.

You bring up polygamy and equality and I believe the two can be compatible depending on how polygamy is practiced. In fact, even monogamy can be practiced without equality and in some cases it is especially as you go back further in history. I'll explain in more further down below how or why poly is compatible with gender equality.

The scenario you described is polygamy practiced as group marriage. I'm with some of jmvizanko's views when it comes to taxes and health insurance. If Obama's healthcare plan goes through, then everyone would already be required to carry health insurance so that's one obstacle out of the way. However, even if that were not the case, I don't see why it's impossible to write separate laws for polygamists even with lesser benefits. I'm sure polygamists would accept this as a better alternative to being criminally charged and jailed. Another option may be instead of 'legalizing' polygamy, the US should instead 'decriminalize' it.

Yes, something like that makes sense. You can do it, but you won't get any legal recognition for it. (In which case you haven't really done it.) That makes sense.

In reality, what you see is just polygyny, and polygamy as practiced in those countries that permit it, there is no gender equality.

Here again you bring up that polygamy is about gender inequality. I'm assuming that you say this because some poly relationships involve only multiple wives and not multiple husbands. The problem is that here you've boiled down equality to just numbers when the point of equality is about 'fairness'.

The fairest way to practice polygamy is with the consent of ALL adults involved so that way no one is adding a husband or wife to the relationship behind someone's back or against someone's wanting. And yes, some wives do choose to have multiple wives and not multiple husbands for their polygamy. If you're saying that this is still gender inequality then you are probably just going by the number of each gender and saying that it has to be equal, like having 2 husbands and 2 wives or to where there's at least both multiple husbands and wives involved. Under that scenario, I'd ask how is it fair if the poly involves 2 husbands and 2 wives when the wives did not want 2 husbands? Even if the ratio of genders is equal under this scenario but it still takes away the choices of the wives and husbands and giving them a poly that they didn't want. In the U.S., seeing that there is already equal rights and equal opportunities between the genders, polygamy would be opened to be practiced in any combination of gender and sexuality.

[jmvizanko]

The issue is right and wrong vs. relativism.

The classic version of western/Biblical morality is that a thing is either right or its wrong.

There is no right and not-right. That's relativism.
Relativism speaks to those who choose to justify their own injustice.

For example:
A moral relativist may justify stealing because he is socially underprivileged, while most who live in those conditions do not.
Such a person speaks the truth only when its convenient.
Such a one kills for personal advantage or gain.
Such a one justifies offenses against God or the general community because he places himself, his wants and his desires above anything or anyone else.
"Everybody else does it", is the justification for wrong despite the fact that everybody else may NOT be doing it.

The self-importance of relativism is another term for self-love or self-worship. Oddly, the only person who is unaware of this mental imbalance is the one affected. Others know full well the reasons for his or her motivations and actions. The rationale is completely transparent.

Relativism fills a void in that it provides self-justification for thoughts, words and deeds which are otherwise offensive or outright rebellious.

But self-justification will not profit a man in the end.
Neither will it keep him out of prison or hell.
It will, however, keep him in self-deluded darkness selfishness and lies.

Relativism isn't absolute. The greatest attraction for this philosophy is that it can be utilized to personal advantage. One can be 90% moral one day and 90% relative the next. Unfortunately its 100% wrong 100% of the time.

Relativism is like playing with fire. Sooner or later you'll get hellishly burnt.

You completely missed my point yet again. If god changed the rules for us from the OT to the NT, then there is no absolute morality that god is suggesting, or he would never have changed his mind. The god of Christianity is apparently a relativist, as he had a fling with much more violent morality before Jesus hit the scene. Was he just in an infant stage?

And btw, I've never been burnt by being a moral relativist. And I've never utilized it to my own personal advantage. I just happen to think that what is morally right or wrong should be subject to argument and logic, not a blind acceptance of what this or that god decreed in some book.

[Angel]

You asked for 6 examples but I'll give you 3 for now:

Polygamous family #1
Prince and his 2 wives, Yohanna (sp?) and Chilania(sp?). They've been married for over 30 years.
Source:
(Start watching the video at 1 minute and 30 seconds until 2 minutes and 30 seconds).

Polygamous family #2
Joe Darger and his 3 wives, Alina Darger, Vicki Darger, and Valerie Darger. Joe has been married to Alina and Vicki for 20 plus years. Joe has been married to Valerie for 12 years.
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/modern-polygam ... d=14956226
(Scroll down and watch the video entitled, The Life of a polygamist, 3 wives, 24 children. You can start watching at 1 minute and 5 seconds into the video).

Polygamous family #3-
Kody Brown and his 3 wives, Janelle Brown, Christine Brown, and Meri Brown(sp?). They've been married for 18 years and they're featured on a show on TLC called, Sister Wives.
Source:

Notice anything in common in these three cases, as well as every other case of polygamous marriage in the United States today? Anything at all?

Goat already answered your question in post #30. A less obvious answer is that all of these women CHOSE polyGYNY and were not FORCED into it. In fact, some of these women in the 3 examples I gave came out of failed monogamous marriages and simply tried something different afterwards. In poly family #2, Valerie was a divorced woman who recently joined her poly marriage in year 2000. For poly family #3, I learned from watching the show, Sister Wives, that Janelle came from a failed monogamous marriage before joining a poly marriage. It really should not matter what the gender combination is, it may be 3 women or 3 guys, just as long as all have a choice and they're getting the poly that they ALL want.

[Angel]

Your comment also implies that polygyny is always going to be about gender oppression, but have you considered that some wives actually want polygamy as multiple wives and don't want multiple husbands? If these wives are given a choice on the type of polygamy they want, they have the choice to enter or leave the relationship, they have a say on how the relationship will work, etc, etc, how is this gender oppression?

Ever heard of Stockholm syndrome?

I've heard of it but I don't apply it to anyone without evidence.

Multiperson marriages? Can you give examples of "they lived long and happy, 6 of them?" It is just for sex, not for long relationships

You say polygamy is just for sex and I find that people who hold that view haven't really studied how polygamous relationships work by studying polygamous couples, why they want it, how they make it work, etc. People like you usually reason from their limited monogamous experience or from one-sided media coverage (only showing the bad side or bad people of polygamy). This is not a surprise considering that most are born in, raised in, and taught monogamy and that anything beyond that is associated with cheating or just wanting only sex. From my study of some good poly relationships I find that these people function like a family and not some group orgy. Sex is kept private to each marriage. There polygamists also have kids so these relationships are for the long term. All of the women gain extra companionship (emotional, social, etc) and support from each other, esp. when it comes to child raising.

You asked for 6 examples but I'll give you 3 for now:

Polygamous family #1
Prince and his 2 wives, Yohanna (sp?) and Chilania(sp?). They've been married for over 30 years.
Source:
(Start watching the video at 1 minute and 30 seconds until 2 minutes and 30 seconds).

Polygamous family #2
Joe Darger and his 3 wives, Alina Darger, Vicki Darger, and Valerie Darger. Joe has been married to Alina and Vicki for 20 plus years. Joe has been married to Valerie for 12 years.
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/modern-polygam ... d=14956226
(Scroll down and watch the video entitled, The Life of a polygamist, 3 wives, 24 children. You can start watching at 1 minute and 5 seconds into the video).

Polygamous family #3-
Kody Brown and his 3 wives, Janelle Brown, Christine Brown, and Meri Brown(sp?). They've been married for 18 years and they're featured on a show on TLC called, Sister Wives.
Source:

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough on my request. I was asking for at least ONE example of 6 people living together in a happy polygamous marriage.
You just listed polygyny examples, which are of course common, but they are even more often play just a social status role. Similar to who has more slaves/wives/cars/money/etc. have a high social status.

I don't have any examples of a 6 person relationship and even if I could find one they may not be of the type you're looking for. My examples suffice though to show that it's possible to live in a stable poly relationship where ALL adults and kids can express themselves freely like in any other relationship.

[East of Eden]

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.

I reject your premise is that by being faithful to their beliefs, theists are somehow instituting a state religion. Are theists who think their faith impels them to support gay marriage also wrong, or just the other kind?

Everybody brings their worldview into the voting booth.

[jmvizanko]

Everybody brings their worldview into the voting booth.

Yes, but the difference is, some people don't want the voting booth to force their worldview onto others. I don't support gay marriage because I am a gay person interested in marriage (I'm married to a female), I support it because I stand for freedom. Gay marriage does nothing to hurt you, let you feel the need to disallow it. A vote against gay marriage is a vote against freedom.

Its not just being faithful to your beliefs when you are trying to make your beliefs apply to everyone. If you were just being faithful to your beliefs you would never get into a gay marriage. But you're taking it far beyond that, trying to force your beliefs on all of us. If there isn't a secular, universal argument for it, then that means that your are injecting your religion by making it law. No its not your whole religion established, but it is partly. Which is a scary road to start down.

[East of Eden]

Everybody brings their worldview into the voting booth.

Yes, but the difference is, some people don't want the voting booth to force their worldview onto others. I don't support gay marriage because I am a gay person interested in marriage (I'm married to a female), I support it because I stand for freedom. Gay marriage does nothing to hurt you, let you feel the need to disallow it. A vote against gay marriage is a vote against freedom.

That is your opinion. In the same way a vote against polygamy is a vote against freedom.

Its not just being faithful to your beliefs when you are trying to make your beliefs apply to everyone. If you were just being faithful to your beliefs you would never get into a gay marriage. But you're taking it far beyond that, trying to force your beliefs on all of us.

So what? Secularists do the same thing when voting. All laws are an imposition of morality.

If there isn't a secular, universal argument for it, then that means that your are injecting your religion by making it law.

Yes, exactly. ML King did the same thing, as did the evangelicals who banned the British slave trade.

No its not your whole religion established, but it is partly. Which is a scary road to start down.

{|=

[micatala]

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.

I reject your premise is that by being faithful to their beliefs, theists are somehow instituting a state religion. Are theists who think their faith impels them to support gay marriage also wrong, or just the other kind?

Everybody brings their worldview into the voting booth.

I agree, anyone can bring their worldview into the voting booth. However, when that worldview results in policies that infringe on the rights of others, those policies should be overthrown, whether the majority likes it or not.

To institute a policy against gay marriage when that policy has no legitimate secular purpose that can even remotely stand up to the measure of equal protection under the law, then that policy should be thrown out, no matter how many people vote for it and no matter what reasons they had for voting for it.

[jmvizanko]

That is your opinion. In the same way a vote against polygamy is a vote against freedom.

No, it is not an opinion. Gay marriage is something people can and want to do. To make them not able to do it is taking away a freedom. That's a fact, not an opinion.

{|=

Your point?