6 ms·

Why not? In a secular society marriage is just a legal contract, regardless of the participants' religion or lack thereof. If there is an appropriate legal str

Why not? In a secular society marriage is just a legal contract, regardless of the participants' religion or lack thereof. If there is an appropriate legal structure, all participants are freely consenting, and are not causing anyone harm, why shouldn't they be allowed?

greygatch 7y ago
Historically speaking, monogamy and civilization seem to go hand-in-hand. Undermining the former might undermine the latter.
- TomMarius 7y ago
  Historically speaking horse was the only mean of transportation, hygiene was nonexistent, disease spread quickly and killed millions, warlords owned nearly everything for most of the recorded history, people used to believe in gods... (all these factors could contribute to monogamy) That something was valuable and important in the history doesn't mean is it today. Do you seriously think our world is in any way similar to the world even just 100 years ago?
- lovich 7y ago
  Historically speaking, slavery and civilization go hand in hand. Undermining the former might undermine the latter. That's not to say that not having access to legal polygamous marriage and owning people are equal but to show that the argument doesn't really stand on it's own. The correlation between monogamy and civilization isn't necessarily causitative. Also I'm not sure that monogamy is as paired up with civilization as you claim. Haven't Kings and leaders for large portions of history been known for their harems?
  - Freak_NL 7y ago
    Not just harems, but also marriages between high-born men and women made for political reasons, with the both of them having their own lovers on the side.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    Revolutions are fueled by angry young men. Young men get especially angry when they don't have access to the opposite sex.
    - Brometheus 7y ago
      Nonsens
    - dashundchen 7y ago
      I think a lot of these comments about single men are assuming way more men would be poly than woman. I'm wondering if that would hold true were it more culturally acceptable. I think it also discounts that many people do have some bisexual tendencies.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  For a period of time, so did some form of monarchy. I believe this may be a correlation and causation issue.
- mfoy_ 7y ago
  That had more to do with "who owns what, and who gets what when they die" than anything else. (Citation needed...) In a modern society with strong property rights and gender equality monogamy would be unnecessary from a purely "maintaining civilization as we know it" point of view. ...No comment on an emotional / psychological point of view.
- nerdjon 7y ago
  Do we actually know this for certain? We have a very curated view of many past civilizations and in many (most?) cases it is a very heteronormative view. I have seen plenty of arguments that monogamy did not become "normal" until religion entered the picture and the idea of woman as property became a thing (ironically the fact that some religions reinforce this by a man having multiple wives). There is absolutely no reason to believe monody and civilization matters in the slightest. At best you could argue (and I would agree) years ago needing to be concerned about a woman getting pregnant, but that does not hold any weight in a modern society.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  Historically speaking, rich men having multiple partners so long as they could support them all (plus any resulting children) was the norm. Maybe the real problem is we now think even rich men should tightly comply with expectations of monogamy when that was never the norm. /Devil's advocate
marcoperaza 7y ago
By guaranteeing that just about every man is matched with a woman, monogamy brings harmony and social order. Having millions of single men with no prospect of marriage would lead to more crime, resentment, strife, and so forth.
- nerdjon 7y ago
  Please for the love of god tell me you are missing a "/s". Assuming not.... I forgot about how only single men (ignoring any woman that commit crimes) commit crimes. How you can only be happy if you found "the one". That a single person will give you every single thing you ever need. Which... is bullshit.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    That all men are heterosexual and only want a woman. (In a discussion of an article about gay marriage no less.)
    - nerdjon 7y ago
      Even better... in a comment written by a gay man >.> (myself) That also though :p
- Freak_NL 7y ago
  Why would polygamy change the balance? Are polyamorous relationships where the women outnumber the men significantly more common?
  - marcoperaza 7y ago
    Thanks to dating sites and hookup apps, there is plenty of data on how men and women choose partners when there is no restraint other than the willingness of the other. It’s not symmetric at all.
    - Freak_NL 7y ago
ummwhat 7y ago
Typically polygamy has been asymmetrical and part of an undeniable patriarchal power structure (one man, as many wives as he can afford). But if we're talking about symmetrical polygamy (multiple husband's and multiple wives), I see no reason why a modern secular society should care. Of course if everyone is married to everyone, is anyone married to anyone? I vaguely recall a species in startrek that was like this.
- nerdjon 7y ago
  There was a poly society in season 1 of TNG. I think it was episode 2 or something like that? It is the episode where Natasha has to fight another woman for her life.
- dashundchen 7y ago
  Agreed that some religions use marriage as a power structure, poly or not - but that was the case even for many secular monogamous marriages in the US until relatively recently. Marital rape is legal on the books of many states!
- sDlEzAtyoNAz 7y ago
  >But if we're talking about symmetrical polygamy (multiple husband's and multiple wives), I see no reason why a modern secular society should care. A modern secular society should care because of the nature of the distribution of women's sexual attraction toward men. Even if the marriages are symmetrical such that men and women are equally likely to be married, men's sexual access to the women will not be equal unless the women are compelled to behave otherwise. When women are free to choose which men they have sex with, the vast majority of women choose the same small minority of men. The wives will choose to have sex with some of husbands far more than others, resulting in a minority of the men having the vast majority of sexual access to the women, and a majority of men having little or no sexual access to their wives. The best way to ensure men other than that small minority have sexual access to women is to discourage sex outside of marriage and to prohibit men from having multiple wives.
dmurray 7y ago
It's not just a legal contract between the participants, it confers certain legal privileges (you could say the government is also a party in the contract). A lot of people would be unhappy with InfoSys's CEO marrying all of its H1B applicants, or a pro-immigration activist marrying hundreds of refugees. This is not to say that polygamous marriage couldn't work, or that nobody abuses monogamous marriages for tax or immigration purposes. But if only a tiny proportion of people want to see their real loving polygamous family relationships approved by the state, the downsides could outweigh the positives.
- Swizec 7y ago
  > It's not just a legal contract between the participants, it confers certain legal privileges (you could say the government is also a party in the contract). This is the part that needs to change imho. Marriage should have zero legal meaning outside of some sort of contract all parties sign at the time of marriage. You are essentially cofounding a business and that’s what it should stay at. The government doesn’t make special amends (afaik) if two random people say “We are business partners” so why do it if two random people say “We are married”. Who cares, you do you.
  - dmurray 7y ago
    This isn't a completely ridiculous or inconsistent viewpoint, but it's not a popular one. Most people favour at least some of the benefits of marriage (whether it's in immigration, tax, inheritance, healthcare, parental rights...) so the government really should keep them around.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sDlEzAtyoNAz 7y ago
What benefits do married homosexuals provide to society such that society should reward homosexuals with the legal benefits and social recognition associated with marriage? Married heterosexuals provide children to society which have the highest chances of leading successful and productive lives.

greygatch 7y ago

Historically speaking, monogamy and civilization seem to go hand-in-hand. Undermining the former might undermine the latter.

TomMarius 7y ago
Historically speaking horse was the only mean of transportation, hygiene was nonexistent, disease spread quickly and killed millions, warlords owned nearly everything for most of the recorded history, people used to believe in gods... (all these factors could contribute to monogamy) That something was valuable and important in the history doesn't mean is it today. Do you seriously think our world is in any way similar to the world even just 100 years ago?
lovich 7y ago
Historically speaking, slavery and civilization go hand in hand. Undermining the former might undermine the latter. That's not to say that not having access to legal polygamous marriage and owning people are equal but to show that the argument doesn't really stand on it's own. The correlation between monogamy and civilization isn't necessarily causitative. Also I'm not sure that monogamy is as paired up with civilization as you claim. Haven't Kings and leaders for large portions of history been known for their harems?
- Freak_NL 7y ago
  Not just harems, but also marriages between high-born men and women made for political reasons, with the both of them having their own lovers on the side.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  Revolutions are fueled by angry young men. Young men get especially angry when they don't have access to the opposite sex.
  - Brometheus 7y ago
    Nonsens
  - dashundchen 7y ago
    I think a lot of these comments about single men are assuming way more men would be poly than woman. I'm wondering if that would hold true were it more culturally acceptable. I think it also discounts that many people do have some bisexual tendencies.
SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
For a period of time, so did some form of monarchy. I believe this may be a correlation and causation issue.
mfoy_ 7y ago
That had more to do with "who owns what, and who gets what when they die" than anything else. (Citation needed...) In a modern society with strong property rights and gender equality monogamy would be unnecessary from a purely "maintaining civilization as we know it" point of view. ...No comment on an emotional / psychological point of view.
nerdjon 7y ago
Do we actually know this for certain? We have a very curated view of many past civilizations and in many (most?) cases it is a very heteronormative view. I have seen plenty of arguments that monogamy did not become "normal" until religion entered the picture and the idea of woman as property became a thing (ironically the fact that some religions reinforce this by a man having multiple wives). There is absolutely no reason to believe monody and civilization matters in the slightest. At best you could argue (and I would agree) years ago needing to be concerned about a woman getting pregnant, but that does not hold any weight in a modern society.
DoreenMichele 7y ago
Historically speaking, rich men having multiple partners so long as they could support them all (plus any resulting children) was the norm. Maybe the real problem is we now think even rich men should tightly comply with expectations of monogamy when that was never the norm. /Devil's advocate

marcoperaza 7y ago

By guaranteeing that just about every man is matched with a woman, monogamy brings harmony and social order. Having millions of single men with no prospect of marriage would lead to more crime, resentment, strife, and so forth.

nerdjon 7y ago
Please for the love of god tell me you are missing a "/s". Assuming not.... I forgot about how only single men (ignoring any woman that commit crimes) commit crimes. How you can only be happy if you found "the one". That a single person will give you every single thing you ever need. Which... is bullshit.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  That all men are heterosexual and only want a woman. (In a discussion of an article about gay marriage no less.)
  - nerdjon 7y ago
    Even better... in a comment written by a gay man >.> (myself) That also though :p
Freak_NL 7y ago
Why would polygamy change the balance? Are polyamorous relationships where the women outnumber the men significantly more common?
- marcoperaza 7y ago
  Thanks to dating sites and hookup apps, there is plenty of data on how men and women choose partners when there is no restraint other than the willingness of the other. It’s not symmetric at all.
  - Freak_NL 7y ago

ummwhat 7y ago

Typically polygamy has been asymmetrical and part of an undeniable patriarchal power structure (one man, as many wives as he can afford). But if we're talking about symmetrical polygamy (multiple husband's and multiple wives), I see no reason why a modern secular society should care. Of course if everyone is married to everyone, is anyone married to anyone? I vaguely recall a species in startrek that was like this.

nerdjon 7y ago
There was a poly society in season 1 of TNG. I think it was episode 2 or something like that? It is the episode where Natasha has to fight another woman for her life.
dashundchen 7y ago
Agreed that some religions use marriage as a power structure, poly or not - but that was the case even for many secular monogamous marriages in the US until relatively recently. Marital rape is legal on the books of many states!
sDlEzAtyoNAz 7y ago
>But if we're talking about symmetrical polygamy (multiple husband's and multiple wives), I see no reason why a modern secular society should care. A modern secular society should care because of the nature of the distribution of women's sexual attraction toward men. Even if the marriages are symmetrical such that men and women are equally likely to be married, men's sexual access to the women will not be equal unless the women are compelled to behave otherwise. When women are free to choose which men they have sex with, the vast majority of women choose the same small minority of men. The wives will choose to have sex with some of husbands far more than others, resulting in a minority of the men having the vast majority of sexual access to the women, and a majority of men having little or no sexual access to their wives. The best way to ensure men other than that small minority have sexual access to women is to discourage sex outside of marriage and to prohibit men from having multiple wives.

dmurray 7y ago

It's not just a legal contract between the participants, it confers certain legal privileges (you could say the government is also a party in the contract). A lot of people would be unhappy with InfoSys's CEO marrying all of its H1B applicants, or a pro-immigration activist marrying hundreds of refugees. This is not to say that polygamous marriage couldn't work, or that nobody abuses monogamous marriages for tax or immigration purposes. But if only a tiny proportion of people want to see their real loving polygamous family relationships approved by the state, the downsides could outweigh the positives.

Swizec 7y ago
> It's not just a legal contract between the participants, it confers certain legal privileges (you could say the government is also a party in the contract). This is the part that needs to change imho. Marriage should have zero legal meaning outside of some sort of contract all parties sign at the time of marriage. You are essentially cofounding a business and that’s what it should stay at. The government doesn’t make special amends (afaik) if two random people say “We are business partners” so why do it if two random people say “We are married”. Who cares, you do you.
- dmurray 7y ago
  This isn't a completely ridiculous or inconsistent viewpoint, but it's not a popular one. Most people favour at least some of the benefits of marriage (whether it's in immigration, tax, inheritance, healthcare, parental rights...) so the government really should keep them around.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

sDlEzAtyoNAz 7y ago

What benefits do married homosexuals provide to society such that society should reward homosexuals with the legal benefits and social recognition associated with marriage? Married heterosexuals provide children to society which have the highest chances of leading successful and productive lives.