The next great step in civil rights?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Look at statistics. People who are in a monogamous relationships live longer, report being happier, are more productive, and have more successful children.


JM

Compared to lonely romantic failures. We have no comparative statistics regarding long-term polygamy. The one polygamous family I know -- an Arab diplomat and his wives -- seem pretty happy and healthy.

[Jon Miller]

The issue with that sort of relationships have already been addressed. Mainly they are fundamentally (the great majority) nonequal and perpetuates women being lesser members of society.

It is without a doubt that male dominated polygamy is stable. It has some weaknesses (The males without wives...), but the center problem with it is that it is male dominated. 99.99+% of all polygamy is of this type.

JM

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Look at statistics. People who are in a monogamous relationships live longer, report being happier, are more productive, and have more successful children.

Do you see a difference between "marriage" and "monogamous relationship"?

[Jon Miller]

Basically, in an equal and democratic society male dominated polygamy will always leave the majority of the population feeling unsatisfied. Hence, the only way it can perpetuate itself is via oppression and nonequality.

There are not more gay males than females.

JM

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The beginning of civilization was marked far more often by polygamous marriage than by a male-female dyad.

I beg to differ. While polygamous relationships were sometimes common in nomadic societies it was not the case in static societies. The Egyptian lower class practiced Monogamy. In some cases it is known that while Polygamy was accepted in the Higher classes it was vehemently opposed in the lower.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Basically, in an equal and democratic society male dominated polygamy will always leave the majority of the population feeling unsatisfied. Hence, the only way it can perpetuate itself is via oppression and nonequality.
JM

I agree.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
The issue with that sort of relationships have already been addressed. Mainly they are fundamentally (the great majority) nonequal and perpetuates women being lesser members of society.

It is without a doubt that male dominated polygamy is stable. It has some weaknesses (The males without wives...), but the center problem with it is that it is male dominated. 99.99+% of all polygamy is of this type.

JM

99.99% of all monogamous marriages throughout human history have been male dominated, and taken place in societies where women were lesser members of those societies.

You can't have it both ways. If history shows that marriage is good, then it shows that a social organization od systematic male domination is good. If male domination is not good, than marriage has been a bad institution for almost all of human history.

[Jon Miller]

The 99.99+% is current.

JM

[snoopy369]

Polygamy should not be legally recognized, EVER. Not as marriage, anyway. Marriage in the LEGAL sense is primarily if not entirely a financial arrangement allowing a married couple to enjoy certain financial benefits normally not permitted between two people. In fact, this has been and is still the best argument against gay marriage - that those financial benefits are provided for the sole benefit of raising children. (I'm not saying it's a good argument, but it's probably the 'best' argument.)

In any event, Polygamy/polyandry would take unfair advantage of that, in the financial sense, permitting MORE people to take those financial advantages than was intended by the law; either requiring the benefits be reduced (hurting monogamous couples IE 99% of society) or those polygamous/polyandrous couples will be getting extra benefits and thus indirectly hurting the monagmous 99%.

These benefits are things like tax communality (allowing greater pooling of incomes, averaging out a high income with low/zero incomes for a lower tax bracket), health insurance coverage through employers, and estate tax breaks, not to mention the sudden complexity added to various legal permissions and such allowed to spouses such as medical permission, child custody, etc. Divorces would also be much more complex especially if they involved the entire grouping.

I have no problem with de facto polygamy ... but it should never, ever be allowed de jure. You may be legally married to one person and one person only, beyond that it's just sex anyway.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


99.99% of all monogamous marriages throughout human history have been male dominated, and taken place in societies where women were lesser members of those societies.

You can't have it both ways. If history shows that marriage is good, then it shows that a social organization od systematic male domination is good. If male domination is not good, than marriage has been a bad institution for almost all of human history.

Your number there is very, very wrong. Not only does it dramatically oversimplify "Male Dominated" , but given today's society where female dominated marriages or non-dominated marriages are extremely high - probably in the 40% range - given today's population, that's baloney.

Chinese society, for example, is an example of a complex situation. Marriages, by western standards are 'male dominated', but there is more than adequate power in the female side of the relationship. Just because men have the legal power doesn't mean they rule the marriage

In any event, there's no requirement for marriage to be linked to the goodness/badness of male domination. Your comparison is flawed (Not that I'm suggesting I care one bit whether polygamy/polyandry is going to tend towards one or the other, for me it's strictly legal/financial and nothing more, the rest is not to be considered)

[Nubclear]

In fact, this has been and is still the best argument against gay marriage - that those financial benefits are provided for the sole benefit of raising children. (I'm not saying it's a good argument, but it's probably the 'best' argument.)

No, since it lends itself too easily to being reduced to absurdity. The best argument is "I have an illogical and irrational dislike for gay marriage, and you should too." since it avoids all the problems of consistency and non-craziness

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

In fact, this has been and is still the best argument against gay marriage - that those financial benefits are provided for the sole benefit of raising children. (I'm not saying it's a good argument, but it's probably the 'best' argument.)

No, since it lends itself too easily to being reduced to absurdity. The best argument is "I have an illogical and irrational dislike for gay marriage, and you should too." since it avoids all the problems of consistency and non-craziness

Except that it's not easily reduced to absurdity, and the latter is not an argument but a basis for an opinion. It certainly can be easily counter-argued (that marriage is no longer about raising children, for example, and that there's no reason gay folk can't raise children) but, fundamentally, it is a valid point; marriage DID come about for the primary-if-not-sole purpose of raising children, and providing a financial and legal arrangement to simplify the division of duties in raising children. As I said, it's not necessarily an adequately compelling argument, but it's certainly not absurd.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Except that it's not easily reduced to absurdity, and the latter is not an argument but a basis for an opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Reductio ad absurdum is also often used to describe an argument where a conclusion is derived in the belief that everyone (or at least those being argued against) will accept that it is false or absurd. However, this is a weak form of reductio, as the decision to reject the premise requires that the conclusion is accepted as being absurd. Although a formal contradiction is by definition absurd (unacceptable), a weak reductio ad absurdum argument can be rejected simply by accepting the purportedly absurd conclusion.

So it depends on whether the person in question considers "We should then ban all marriage between people incapable of having children, people who refuse to have children, etc" an "absurd" (ie bad) conclusion or not.

And the argument that they put forth need not be logical - in fact, avoiding logic is really the most logical argument that they can attempt, since because they are not asserting the truth value of their statements but instead expressing a moral value, it cannot be challenged except by some other common value. They are able to hold onto the position while not being subject to logic or reason. Yay!

[snoopy369]

By your above definition, any argument is reducible to absurdity simply by the fact that the conclusion could be drawn and called absurd. Which is, um, absurd (It might hold true in the land of the Trolls, but beyond that it's a fairly meaningless statement or argumentative style.)

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by snoopy369
By your above definition, any argument is reducible to absurdity simply by the fact that the conclusion could be drawn and called absurd.

If both parties agree that the conclusion is absurd.

Which is, um, absurd

How?

(It might hold true in the land of the Trolls, but beyond that it's a fairly meaningless statement or argumentative style.)

If people agree that X leads to something undesired, then they may at least restructure X so that it doesn't lead to the undesired thing...hence being at least somewhat useful when it comes to convincing people that they are wrong. Hence, given that their reasoning leads to a conclusion that both parties agree is morally incorrect, the reasoning needs to be changed. In a morals debate, this is a perfectly fine method of proving your position.

If they say that gay marriage should be banned *because* it does not provide for the promotion of children (which itself is wrong), but they also say that heterosexual couples who cannot have children should be allowed to marry then either
A) They haven't thought about it enough to realise that it is a contradiction.
B) they don't oppose gay marriage at least solely on the grounds of the promotion of children but instead for some other reason, or
C) They bite the bullet and accept the contradiction.

The children argument is simply not a very good argument, because it leads to a conclusion that they themselves find incorrect. Furthermore, on a factual basis it is incorrect.

Hence, if that is the "best" argument against gay marriage...opponents of gay marriage don't have much to stand on