Trav, how on earth do you move on to incest? Your slippery slope is simply ridiculous.

I was also quite clear: if no-one is being coerced, or their rights otherwise violated, if all parties are legally adults, *then* it is none of your, or my, business.

Therefore I cannot be making myself the arbiter of anything, because I'm saying quite clearly that it's none of my business either.

'Who gets to decide what a right is?' Well, unlike the simple-minded Theist, I won't argue that there is an easy answer to that (ie, 'see Leviticus 18 - there, that's what God says, end of story'). But as philosophers and scientists like Stephen Law and Sam Harris have argued, just because an answer is difficult, doesn't mean it doesn't exist; and just because we cannot give a definitive answer now, doesn't mean that we can't give an approximate one.

The lure of a simple answer to complex problems is seductive, but usually wrong.

Try reading this: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/revised-chapter-for-comments.html

Or this: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/whats-wrong-with-gay-sex.html

vanna
You seem to be of the impression that these alternative relationships be they Polygamy, Polyandry or whatever are simply a case of have some kids and move on... Those that move on are engaging in Serial Monogamy.

In my experience over many years of being an advocate of these alternative relationships - nothing could be further from the truth. These types of multiple relationships take a considerable amount of effort, understanding and communication to start and maintain - therefore are more likely to succeed in the long run. The average length of these alternative relationships is 16 years compared to 7.6 years for monogamous marriage.

In my case we are just coming up on 10 years so I have already passed the average for monogamy.

Tastiger,
I would think there is a fine line between polygamy, polyandry and the feminist version of society, which is serial de facto relationships normally ending in single parent families living near or below the poverty line, and kept alive through taxpayer funding.

The average length of marriage in our society is a little over 12 years.

There are more social scientists in universities than someone could count, but almost no research has been conducted into de facto relationships in this country (probably to hide the tragic and sickening details of so many de facto relationships), but from some research in the US, the average length was about 3 years.

I would think our society has enough problems already without adding polygamous marriage.

Clownfish, you are trying to make yourself the arbiter of when something is and isn’t someone else’s business. Please be honest enough to admit that.

So, if adults decide to enter into a loving relationship, without coercion from either side and without violating each other’s rights then it’s none of our business and none of the state’s business, right?

If you think I’m making a slippery slope fallacy then tell me how incest and polygamy couldn’t fit under the above description.

My point: If you support same-sex marriage on the basis of equality and anti-discrimination (as most supporters do) then you should also support polygamy on the basis of equality and anti-discrimination. And if you support same-sex marriage on the basis that consensual adult decisions are none of the state’s business per the above reasons, Clownfish, then you have no right arguing against marriages or relationships of any kind- be it polygamy or incest or whatever.

The discussion should be about the basic purposes of marriage, NOT equality or discrimination (As I argued in my first post) or what is and isn’t the state’s business.

(And Re: The two links. Law’s first article is completely irrelevant- I’ve said nothing about theistic morality- and the second one is only slightly relevant in parts. I have some disagreements about certain arguments made (particularly the “moral capital” discussion) but because they’re so irrelevant I won’t be going off on a tangent)

Trav, marriage is about the loving committment of two people to each other, wether they are male-male, female-female, male-female or female-male; If they truely love each other then their marriage commitment is absolutly none of your or anyones business.
Though your postings indicate that life should only be as you want it,
that sort of thinking is dicatorial,so have a look at North Africa where the people have had enough, and will no longer be dictated to. This is the 21st century and your thinking and belief, belongs in the 19th century.

Well, Trav, your entire argument against gay marriage seems to be predicated on the assumption that it will lead inexorably to legitimising polygamy and incest, which are apparently so heinous that therefore gay marriage cannot be tolerated either.

So, it appears that the problem is not gay marriage itself, but what you believe to be its inevitable consequence of legitimising polygamy and incest.

So, how about this? How about *you* explain exactly why polygamy and incest are so abhorrent, that not even the apparently morally neutral stepping stone of gay marriage can be tolerated?

Seeing as you are not advancing theistic morality, I expect that your answer will be devoid of any religious arguments.