Very well said.

So, the religious lobby is more motivated than the so-called homosexual lobby? If one compares the lobbying of MPs to opinion polling, a stark difference is evident. In other words, a well-organised campaign by highly-motivate ideologues is not an accurate gauge of what the public actually thinks.

We also see here the old canard about marriage being about bearing and raising children. So, what does David have to say about heterosexual marriages that are childless entirely by choice? Not an insignificant number, judging by statistics that suggest as many as 20% of women in some western countries today are childless. By his argument, those are not marriages at all.

David conveniently ignores the fact that, at its core, marriage is a property sharing agreement. It is a legal contract. Sometimes it is celebrated with a religious ceremony, but in Australia today that is most often not the case (roughly 60-70% of marriages conducted in Australia today, if I recall correctly, were conducted by a civil celebrant).

There is no logical reason two legally consenting adults cannot enter into a legal agreement. Thus there is no logical argument against same-sex marriage.

I agree Trav. This is an insightful piece of writing on a very difficult issue.

In the words of Mandy Rice-Davies "Well he would say that" !!

Social conservatives couldn't care less about what gays do in the privacy of their homes. Social cons are mainly concerned about losing their religious liberty...what Americans refer to as their first ammendment rights - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

Everywhere we see gay marriage legalised we also witness the loss of the freedom of religion, e.g. students suspended for not agreeing with gay marriage, counselors being fired if they don't advise same sex couples, charities closing down if they don't support gay adoption, pastors arrested for critising gay marriage in sermons the list goes on and on and on.

Again, gays should be free to do as they please but forcing religious people to approve of gay marriage, and thus, denounce Jesus is outrageous

Gay people are not and have never been against religion, they have argued against those extreme religions who would lobby government against equality for gay people.
When bigotry is used to denigrate gay people, then gay people will respond.

I support what David has written.

Over the last thirty years of so both sides of government have by legislation and administrative action weakened the family.

Some of these issues are;
- No fault divorce
- Legalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults in Australia and its Territories
- Financial support of unmarried mothers
- Establishment of Relationship Registers (Tasmania and Queensland and ??)
- Abortion on demand (Victoria)
- Legalisation of prostitution.

If the Marriage Act is ammended to allow "same sex marriage" this will be another knife in the heart of the family.

Kipp, why should gay people have equality but then deny equality to children?

Unless you're willing to argue that 8 year olds should be allowed to marry and that polygamy should be allowed, then you must admit that marriage laws will still not provide equality for all people, even when gay marriage is allowed. You must admit that the laws will still be discriminatory after gay marriage is allowed.

I don't see any reason to privilege gays over polygamists and 8 year olds, therefore I think the most sensible approach is to continue having laws that are in keeping with the traditional purposes for marriage, and the purposes that best serve society as a whole. That is, one man and one woman.

Trav, 8 year olds are not legally consenting adults. Hence, they cannot be married. Dredging up stupid strawman arguments like that is as good as admitting that you don't have a logical leg to stand on.

progressive pat - please tell me where, exactly, in the Bible does *Jesus* say that same-sex marriage is not allowed?

Clownfish, please stay on the point at hand.

Whether we're talking 8 year olds or "minors" more generically, the point remains exactly the same. As it does for polygamists.

Why should homo's get privileged above those groups?

Why DO you think the marriage laws didn't apply to ALL people EQUALLY in the first place?

@ Clownfish,

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

Clearly, it was Jesus' view that traditional marriage was the way to go. But, the issue isn't what Jesus believed, the issue is what will the progressive left have Christians believe about the concept of marriage? Can the left allow people to have freedom of religion in the 21st century, or is religion an impediment to their utopian vision of the future?

>>Why DO you think the marriage laws didn't apply to ALL people EQUALLY in the first place?<<

Difficult to completely answer, Trav, in the absence of any qualifiers from you...

but the ostensible answer is because in the first place women, children, slaves as well as some categories of males were excluded from being regarded as legally entitled people.

Trav you missed out marrying your dog or your car, keep trying !!

'The push for same-sex marriage is therefore largely ideological' and theologiacl according to Darwinism followers. Thanks for a sane article David exposing the agenda of the those rejecting God's plain plan for man and woman.

would lobby government against equality for gay people.
Kipp,
I don't want to be equal to gays, I'm as straight as can be. To ask me to be equal to some queer is a gross insult.
I don't tell them to go along with how I feel so they should keep to themselves also. Do whatever you have to do but leave me out of it.

Gay couples already have the same recognition under the law as anyone else in a de-facto relationship. The need for marriage is not necessary for legal recognition therefore the argument for the need to enter into a marriage contract to be legally recognised is an invalid one. Let’s be clear on this THERE IS NO LEGAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAY COUPLES!

In other words, progressive pat, Jesus never said a word about it, did he?

But, nice quote from Matthew - I take it, in that case, that you refrain from eating pork or shellfish, don't shave your beard, stone your kids if they mouth back at you, keep New Zealanders as slaves, and all the rest of the things the Law of the Prophets tells you to do.

Or are you just cherry-picking the bits that suit your prejudice?

The prejudice that Trav and individual nakedly display with their openly bigoted language. Better lock up your bums, guys, the gays are coming for you!

But, Trav, what part of only legally consenting adults being able to sign a legally binding contract don't you understand?

Clownfish,
you'd better look up prejudice in the dictionary. Where does it say that not wishing to be the same as someone biologically challenged is prejudice ?
Did I not say do as you please but leave me out of it ? To me that means I don't give a hoot what you do. Is that prejudice ? I think you have a lot to learn. I'm not throwing heterosexual behaviour in your face but you're throwing pooftery into ours. That is prejudice.

'Prejudice:
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2.any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights'

Yep, I think all of those would pretty much describe your bigotry, individual.

Thanks David Palmer for your common sense. Children are made by a man and a woman. Children need their mums and a dads. Marriage recognises a natural union where the desire of a man and a woman for children coincide with the best interests of children. (And just because a married couple are not able or willing to have children doesn't mean that they are any less a natural reproductive union, the kind of union that is always best for children.) A radically redefined concept of marriage, like the one proposed by the Greens, will work like acid on the vital natural link joining men and women and the children they may bear together. And women and children will suffer for it.

Clownfish, your initial post implied that the lobbying of MP's by "highly motivated ideologues" (religious people) "is not an accurate gauge of what the public thinks."

Leaving aside that I think that your premise, that these "highly motivated ideologues" hold opinions contrary to general public opinion, is false, it is still a prejudgement of religious people.

It is implying that religious people are "ideologues" who only follow ideological directions (which is true enough) and that they are highly motivated (also reasonably accurate.) But accurate or not, it is still a prejudgment.

Lesson?

Everybody prejudges. Every one of us forms opinions about people, and of groups of people, every day, based upon what little we know of them. You can criticise the accuracy of a pre judgement, but you can not criticise the act of prejudgement itself.

The claim that people must not prejudge, label or stereotype, are the silliest arguments I have ever heard. Because everybody does them, every day, in social situations where the forming of opinions about groups of people are necessary, or even essential.

But if you say it is wrong, then I am going to amuse myself by pointing out to you when you do it in your own posts. And believe me, Clownfish, you are going to do it. Because it is normal thinking, not just for heterosexuals, but for everybody.

That is one bit of sexual equality that does exist.

"But what's the principle? What is the rational, logical argument that carries sufficient weight for such a significant change in the law of marriage?"

The principle is that everybody should be treated equally in the eyes of the law unless there is some compelling reason not to.

And what you think your Sky Daddy said three thousand years ago is not a compelling reason.

Clownfish,
there's no mention of poofters in your list of prejudice ?

But that's the issue, Clownfish, no one is forcing Christians to eat shellfish, shave beard, (insert strawman). This is what religious freedom is all about. As far as I know, no Christian's have been persecuted for saying that you shouldn't eat shellfish, but, we have seen cases where religious people have been fined, fired, lose rights, etc. if they don't endorse gay marriage/ rights.

Recently, Obama made it compulsory for Catholics to pay for abortion pills. It's a similar issue to gay marriage, we should have freedom of conscience, and my original point was, what guarantees are there that religious freedom on marriage will continue to exist if gay marriage becomes the law of the land. Some MPs in Britains 'conservative' party have even suggested that churches should be forced to marry gay couples, so it's a valid concern -

http://www.christianpost.com/news/british-mp-force-churches-to-perform-same-sex-unions-or-close-them-down-55371/

Thanks for your article, David. It's good to see an article that takes some heat out of the debate and presents a rational argument.

In particular, I appreciated the point that the inevitable imperfections of individual marriages - divorce, spousal death, infertility, etc - is not a case to deviate even further from the institutional reality of marriage.

In fact, these imperfections should lead us to strengthen marriage, not radically revise it.

Thanks to all for taking the trouble to comment.

Clownfish says, “We also see here the old canard about marriage being about bearing and raising children. So, what does David have to say about heterosexual marriages that are childless entirely by choice? Not an insignificant number, judging by statistics that suggest as many as 20% of women in some western countries today are childless.”

Well marriage is about bearing and raising children, without this occurring none of us including Clownfish would exist. I think the fact that 20% of women in some western countries today are childless, if it is a fact, is incredibly sad and may also be the reason why those same western countries are now in demographic decline.

I more or less agree with progressive pat’s comments. For the record 5 years ago I wrote in support of Victoria’s relationship register act which allows homosexual and caring couples to register their relationships.

Kipp writes, “When bigotry is used to denigrate gay people, then gay people will respond” – so you read something you don’t like and respond by labelling the writer a bigot. Actually in this matter I wrote as a religious person, a Christian, in support of the status quo on marriage whereas it is the homosexual lobby and fellow travellers trying to impose their (new) understanding of marriage on the rest of us.

Back to Clownfish, you are right that there is no record of Jesus Christ dealing explicitly with homosexuality but there is no record that he spoke about polygamy, husbands doing the washing up or equal pay for women. However, he did say marriage is between a man and a women (Matthew 19:4,5) There was nothing to stop him from saying two men or two women, but he didn’t and in view of other teaching in the Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament we know he would never have countenanced saying such a thing.

Well said Lego.

David you misquote me as I was not referring to you, but the nasty comments from another poster. Would you also say that love is only between the opposite sex, as I was brought up to believe that love in any form is beautiful, and should be respected.

Jon J says, “the principle is that everybody should be treated equally in the eyes of the law unless there is some compelling reason not to”.

Exactly my point Jon J. The compelling reason is a) how marriage has always been understood, everywhere; b) marriage extends beyond friendship, companionship, even love by what makes it special, the union of a man and woman who are able through their sexual complementariness to bring children into the world and to nurture them to adulthood.

Jon J adds, “and what you think your Sky Daddy said three thousand years ago is not a compelling reason”. It is true that my “Sky Daddy” or the one whom I would call the mighty Creator God and Judge of all, including the Judge of Jon J and myself said these things consistently over a period of 1500 yrs of recorded history (and repeated ad nauseam by the Church ever since), but actually nowhere in my article did I argue my case on the basis of Christian teaching but rather on the basis of what we all, religious or otherwise, can’t not know, Clownfish, Jon J or myself.

BTW, I am indebted to Jon J, and contra Clownfish for acknowledging the uniform testimony of the Bible, including Jesus (and the Qur’an for that matter) in support of the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman, not two men or two women.

From adamchng, “In particular, I appreciated the point that the inevitable imperfections of individual marriages - divorce, spousal death, infertility, etc - is not a case to deviate even further from the institutional reality of marriage.

In fact, these imperfections should lead us to strengthen marriage, not radically revise it”.

Thank you for spotting this adamchng – too often people think they can undermine an argument by quoting the exception to the rule, a bit like the tail wagging the dog. A big argument deserves a big response, scrapping around the edges won’t do.

I'll pop back tomorrow to see where we have got to.

Kipp, sorry I didn't mean to misquote you. In answer to your question, I don't agree love is only between persons of opposite sex, love of course can be between persons of the same sex, but I argue that such love does not justify a sexual relationship between two of the same sex as I explain in my article. So yes, given that caveat, I'm with you 100%.

David whilst you attempt to impose your antiquated beliefs on others, you and the rest of the religious fundmentalists will be challenged, I do believe even the sky fairies would not pleased with you using them has a battering ram, to impose what you have no right to do, in their name.

David interesting that you complimented a poster who was hatefully derogatory towards Gay people. Sorry mate that shows you up also as a religious bigot!!

The greatest bigots in this debate is the homosexual lobby. Being such a selfish self centred activity it is no surprise.

Well, individual, it seems you not only cherry pick the Bible, you also cherry pick the dictionary! Out of all the various nuances of the word 'prejudice' provided, you actually ignore them all, and produce one of your own! Good to see you keeping form, there.

Also, good work on showcasing your frank bigotry.

David, you keep asserting that marriage is 'about bearing and raising children', without actually providing any evidence that this is so, or why it is so, and merrily continue to ignore the glaring example of married couples who are childless either by circumstance or by choice.

I ask again, if a couple marry, but choose not to have children, have they not failed to meet your definition of marriage? Is their marriage thus annulled?

Regarding Matthew 19:4,5, Jesus does not actually say that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. He provides an explanation, somewhat appropriate for the primitive society he lived in, of why men and women marry (the magic sky fairy did it, of course).

But, thank you for at least admitting that Jesus never said a word about not allowing same-sex marriage. Presumably if it was so important, he would have got around to saying so in at least one of the Gospels?

David Palmer,

Considering you and your God still have it all to prove, this is a pretty bald assertion...

<<It is true that my “Sky Daddy” … said these things consistently over a period of 1500 yrs of recorded history…>>

Really? To whom and in what way? Are these things, that have been said, recorded in history as well? If so, where?

Remember, when we speak to God, it’s called “prayer”; when he speaks back, it’s called “schizophrenia”.

<<...nowhere in my article did I argue my case on the basis of Christian teaching but rather on the basis of what we all, religious or otherwise, can’t not know, Clownfish, Jon J or myself.>>

Actually, you did:

“At its deepest level, marriage is the union of difference, the combining of a man and a woman to make one flesh, a union that is physical, emotional and as well, mystical.”

“One flesh” is a term used only by theists (originally appearing in the book of Genesis to describe the unity of marriage) as a way of adding an air of mysticism and a “spiritual” dimension to marriage and sexual intercourse. Even worse, though, you actually use the word "mysticism" - a word I'm unaware of a secular or reality-based use for.

You clearly wanted to present a rational argument against same-sex marriage in your article and presumably realised that you couldn’t do it by mentioning God, so you slip him in under the radar with thinly veiled Biblical references.

But Christians did not invent marriage; marriage was around long before Christianity. In fact, Christians were actually late-comers to the party there. One man and one woman is not, exclusively, how marriage has always been understood and even if it was, so what? That’s not a reason to leave it that way. A voter was always understood to be a white, land-owning male, but that changed.

Uniformity amongst different religions and consistency in the Bible doesn’t prove anything either - not until you can at least demonstrate some truth behind religious claims - so why bother mentioning them?

A voter was always understood to be a white, land-owning male, but that changed.
AJ Philips,
That's not quite correct. There were hierarchies all over the planet before anyone even knew about white men. The Incas, as in fact have ALL civilisations, committed heinous atrocities throughout evolution. The whitey is actually a late comer who in comparison was rather tame. When you try to evoke guilt in men then you are a hypocrite if you fail to mention the unpleasant parts of the past of other cultures.
Look at all countries now & see how their people are faring. Then come back & tell us how bad we are.

AJ: Coming in with a massive red herring! Nice.

Everyone else FYI: AJ has proven himself to be totally uninterested in informed discussion on these forums before, so leave him to ponder his own irrelevencies.

Individual,

My point, there, was that society is not bound by dictionary definitions; definitions can reflect how we live, but they don’t tell us how to live.

How hierarchies and atrocities have any relevance to what I said is beyond me, but to derive self-loathing and feminist undertones from a simple analogy doesn’t say much for your ability to think rationally and objectively about these things.

Irrelevancies*

Whilst we are in the mood for language correction, Trav and others…

I'd like some suggestions from those who hold to the author's point of view.

That is, I wouldn't want to cause offence or institutional weakening by describing any heterosexual couples who – just because they have a government licence or recognition – regard themselves as being 'married' when they don't meet the criteria: one man and one woman, lifelong, no other sexual partners and fecund.

Espoused might work but seems quaint. Any suggestions?

The thing is Gay people CAN get married. Just not to people of the same gender.

And really, I DON'T have the right to marry people of the same gender either and I'm not gay.

There is no discrimination or lack of equality.

There's a facility for people to get married. Some heterosexual people still like to do it, most don't, and homosexual people aren't likely to be interested but a lot actually have in the past. It's called marriage, the union of a man and a woman.

Now since homosexuals generally don't really like marriage, and athiests and non-conformers and anti-authoritarians don't like to get married, then we have a concept of civil unions and de-facto marriage, that have all the rights of marriage.

I think the government calls some people married when it's a man and a woman, but it has no real practical effect on the rights and responsibilites so it really doesn't matter.

Hello Kipp, I seem to misread you several times over.

I see you have resorted to the usual denigration of religious belief: “antiquated beliefs”, “religious fundamentalists” , “sky fairies”, “religious bigot”, etc

I had hoped you might have engaged in my argument which as I said before is based on “what we all can’t not know”, regardless of whether I might be a “religious bigot” or you a loving, caring secularist (actually not sure what you are, but I’ll be generous).

Thank you for replying Clownfish.

Regarding my assertion that marriage is 'about bearing and raising children' (I do acknowledge it is also about companionship, complementary fulfilling lives and other good things) I think the evidence is staring you in the face, if you can’t see it, I not sure what else I can do: a) marriages, historically, at least 80% plus produce children, without the children that come from marriages there would be no human race.

I don’t ignore “the glaring example of married couples who are childless either by circumstance or by choice” – I simple say the exception does not negate the rule. I am saddened to hear that people marry but don’t want children. I am saddened when people who marry and want children are unable to have children. This was a very personal sorrow of my wife and I.

Regarding Jesus and the possibility of same sex couples qualifying for marriage, if he favoured this he would have had to say so and given a reason, given how incomprehensible, indeed abhorrent same sex marriage would have been in first century Palestine

Hmm, Houellebecq, let's try a counterexample:

'The thing is Black people CAN get married. Just not to people of different colour.

And really, I DON'T have the right to marry people of different colour either and I'm not black.'

Let's see you try and make that one fly.

Clownfish, skin colour is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the purpose of marriage.

WmTrevor,

I refer to my 'partner' sometimes, other times my 'girlfriend' (Gets the tounges wagging about the legitimacy of my children and even their paternity) and 'The missus' which can sound strangely chauvenistic but not as much as "'er indoors" wich really rankles feminists which amuses me so, and even at times 'Lady Friend' when I'm in a silly mood, not unlike today.

A little secret, sometimes I just call her my wife! Imagine that, and we're not even married! Scandalous!

I'm all for weakening institutions! Not so much on empty symbolism and changing the meaning of words, pining for acceptance or political correctness

Trav,

'Clownfish, skin colour is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the purpose of marriage.'

It has nothing to do with any purpose, it's just that there is a facility that is enjoyed by a subset of the heterosexual community. Actually not even a facility, a definition of a word. Woopdy doo!

I really cant see a crime if gay people have an equivalent facility, but not exactly the same by name. It's just semantics. It's like women's only Gyms and guys reckoning that's discrimination. It's ridiculous for people to expect that every avenue of life must be open to them whether it is designed and intended for them or not and regardless if there is an equivalent option available.

We segregate on gender, we segregate on age, we discriminate in insurance, we have different names for gay and heterosexual 'marriage'. Get over it man.

It implys an inferiority complex this assumption that marriage by any other name is not adequate, it must have that moniker! It's wanting to join a club just because the club isn't designed for you and refuses to change for you. Get over yourself and make your own club or find a different club or just ignore the club altogether. It's not compulsory.

That does fly clownfish. The only reason it wouldn't fly is if you considered that somehow either black or white people were inferior.

Just because a distinction is made doesn't mean it's an inequality. It's a segregation or distinction. I am denied the same rights as the other party (black/white, gay/straight), and if you think that's unfair, you must think that black people are inferior to white then? Or are gay people inferior to heteros then? Or is it the other way around?

As I said before, not all avenues to all areas of life should be available to all people. As long as generally people can practically and pragmatically live the same lives then what's the argument. It boils down to an inferiority complex.

If there didn't exist Gyms that men could join, then women's only Gyms would be inequality. If fathers didn't have the exact rights of mothers, men not being able to be officially recognised as a mother to their children would be inequality.

So, Houellebec, you're actually endorsing miscegenation now? You must really miss the days of the Ol' South.

Trav, I realise it must be taxing your poor old Christian brain cells to get your head around it, but a counterexample is a method of evaluating an argument, to see if its premises are valid. In this case, substituting skin colour in place of gender results in an argument that I think reasonable people would find repugnant. Therefore, the premises of your argument are suspect.

But, as to the 'purpose' of marriage, none of you have yet answered my question of whether predicating marriage on a 'purpose' of bearing and raising children means that those marriages which are childless are therefore invalid.

I realise that logical reasoning isn't a strong point for your lot, so I'll put your argument into a simple logical form, to make it easy to follow.

Your argument runs thus:

1) Marriage is for the purpose of bearing and raising children;
2) Homosexual couples cannot ordinarily bear and raise children;

C) Homosexuals couples cannot marry.

Applying this argument, we find that:

1) Marriage is for the purpose of bearing and raising children;
2) Infertile couples cannot ordinarily bear and raise children;

C) Infertile couples cannot marry.

I look forward to you explaining to Hugh Jackman, that his marriage to Deborah-Lee Furness is invalid.

Hello AJ Philips, why the derogatory language: Sky Daddy indeed!

Recorded in the Bible or are you one of these people who believe nothing existed before 100, 200 years ago?

I repeat (ad nauseam) what I said earlier that there are things we can’t not know whether we are believers in Sky Daddies (your words not mine) or not. I would have thought we all understood what “one flesh” meant whether the phrase come from the Bible or not.

“Christians did not invent marriage; marriage was around long before Christianity” - my point exactly. I chose the natural law argument because it is real, substantial, what none, you included “can’t not know”. No point in me using a Biblical argument if you and Kipp are just going to denounce Christian claims with inflammatory language. I wouldn’t bother seeking to demonstrate the truth of such claims to you - indeed in following this course of action I respect you(!) - for I’m certain on the basis of your post your mind is closed to such matters.

“'The thing is Black people CAN get married. Just not to people of different colour.

And really, I DON'T have the right to marry people of different colour either and I'm not black.'

Let's see you try and make that one fly.”

Good try Clownfish, but it doesn’t work, apples and pears stuff I’m afraid. No one, at least not nowadays, argues against interracial marriage while observing the opposite sex distinction, but people do argue against same sex marriage (i.e. according to what we can’t not know) and that regardless of racial background.

Clownfish, the analogy in your reply to Trav breaks down, for it is known that the sexual coupling of homosexuals will never result in children whereas the sexual coupling of the heterosexual infertile couple has the real and hoped for possibility of children.

I’ll leave it for now til tomorrow.

You can lead a horse to water...

' No one, at least not nowadays, argues against interracial marriage while observing the opposite sex distinction, but people do argue against same sex marriage'

So, David, you're admitting that we're gradually dismantling the barriers of prejudice and bigotry, and that marriage has changed as social mores have changed? Well done! Now all you've got to do is stretch your brain cells just that teeny bit further, and concede that, just as it is no longer acceptable to discriminate against people based on race, it is now no longer acceptable to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation.

You're nearly there - you can do it!

Now, my analysis of Trav's argument holds, due to a simple flaw in your response.

'the sexual coupling of the heterosexual infertile couple has the real and hoped for possibility of children'.

If they're genuinely infertile then ipso facto there is no possibility of children.

Therefore my analysis of Trav's argument is still correct. If the conclusion is unsound (that infertile couples cannot marry), then it must be because one or more of the premises is false.

The premise that infertile couples cannot bear and raise children is a priori true, therefore it is the other premise, that marriage is for the purpose of bearing and raising children, which *must* be false.

Therefore your whole argument against same-sex marriage fails.

Trav,

You really are a nasty piece of work, aren’t you. All you can do is throw stones with short, sharp responses in a limp attempt of character assassination. Like a school yard bully, you try to turn others against me by addressing everyone else with unfounded assertions about my intentions on this forum just because what I say makes you uncomfortable.

And I hadn’t even addressed you on this thread yet, either.

Not one thing I said was irrelevant or intended to distract from the topic at hand here and given your abusiveness, I’d say you at least owe it to me to point out this alleged red herring you accuse me of.

Your behavior and attitude is disgraceful. Your cowardly actions and tone are like that of a fearful little school boy with a big chip on his shoulder.

Wake up to yourself.

David Palmer,

“Sky Daddy” was actually in your quote. I didn’t use that term at all. So please cease with the wounded deer act and accusations of inflammatory language - you pulled this card three times in your post!

<<Recorded in the Bible or are you one of these people who believe nothing existed before 100, 200 years ago?>>

No, I’m just one of these people who realises that there’s no reason to believe that those words actually came from a God.

If the Bible really was written by a God, then there’d be no competing holy books. Instead we have this alleged God, who has an important message for mankind, yet he only reveals it to certain individuals, who then record it so that thousands of years after this initial revelation, we have to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies by anonymous authors, with no originals.

There’s no amount of anecdotal and testimonial reports that could be sufficient to justify believing the God claims in the Bible - no amount - and anything that could qualify as a God would understand this not rely on ancient texts communicate to us.

The God that Christians believe in is amazingly stupid if it wants to rely on texts, anecdotal testimony and languages that die off to spread its message to humanity. That’s not a pathway to truth and anything that would qualify as a God should know this.

<<I repeat (ad nauseam) what I said earlier that there are things we can’t not … I would have thought we all understood what “one flesh” meant whether the phrase come from the Bible or not.>>

Yeah, I got it the first time. Thanks. But whether we all understand what “one flesh” is or not, is irrelevant; it’s whether we accept the sentiment that matters.

<<I chose the natural law argument because it is real, substantial, what none, you included “can’t not know”.>>

Yes, but as I pointed out, you still slipped God in under the radar (without actually dropping the ‘G’ word) to add some transcendental meaning to marriage.

I don't believe marriage is to have children. I believe marriage to be between two people of opposite sex.
If you want some sort of union between the biological challenged then go forth and find another word. Do not use marriage, you're offending normal people.

Individual what is normal? My understanding is that it means Usual,Regular or Typical. Free from mental or physical disorder.
Gay people have been a part of the normal since time began.
The question in return is "Are you regular"!!

"Are you regular"!!
Kipp,
Nope, at least I hope I'm not.

'I don't believe marriage is to have children. I believe marriage to be between two people of opposite sex.'

Ah, so you're admitting that, apart from its purely legal function as a property-sharing contract, the 'meaning' of marriage is a social construct, meaning different things to different people?

Thus, if to someone else as marriage is between two men or two women, then that's just as legitimate as individual or Trav's different meanings.

Looks like we're getting somewhere.

Clownfish,
To come up with such petty wording you'd have to have to be heavily influenced by an academic background.
A union called marriage is between a man & a woman. If you want a union between two me or two women then call it something else. Calling it a marriage is degrading the word marriage.
You lot always invent new words & phrases whenever you're cornered so why not come up with a word for yourselves ? Leave us heterosexuals out of it & stop insulting us by claiming same status.

AJ,

As you're well aware, in a previous discussion we had, your disappointing actions led me to seriously question your desire to have a reflective discussion: Strongly implying dishonesty on my behalf, and after being shown evidence of your mistake, continuing sarcastic criticism of me, and flatly refusing to do the honourable thing and apologise.

As a result, I became more convinced than ever that you are here only for one purpose: To egocentrically and very close mindedly proclaim your point of view.

I do not have anything at all against you personally, so please quit patronising us all with laughable nonsense about "schoolyard bully", "character assination" and "abusiveness".

I am just doing the right thing by other OLO users: I owe it to them to warn them in advance of your superfluous massdebating.

Trav,

There was nothing wrong with my actions. I simply called you to account for what I believed at the time to have been a deliberately-pulled, intellectually dishonest trick; the kind of intellectually dishonest trick we see pulled by theists (almost exclusively, in religious debates) on almost a daily basis here on OLO - as I had pointed out to you at the time - so it was understandable that I would suspect you of pulling such a trick too. It was nothing personal but, understandably, you took it personally. I would too.

I did post a very cheeky response after you cleared things up to show that there was still reason for suspicion but, at the time, didn’t realise how inadequately I conveyed the impression I meant to (now that I look back and read it again): that I was still giving you the benefit of the doubt.

<<... and flatly refusing to do the honourable thing and apologise.>>

At first, I was a little confused as to what you meant here as I had stopped reading the thread after my last post. But after taking a look through it now, I can see what you mean... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12050#209591

So I am sorry that I accused you of such intellectual dishonesty and while the evidence did tend to suggest that my suspicions were wrong, I believe I had still provided sufficient reason to maintain some level of suspicion. But I’ll forget that and, again, say I’m sorry.

I can understand now why you think what you do of me, but that still doesn’t excuse your behaviour since then, nor does it make your claim about “doing the right thing by other OLO users” much more believable. Your intent was clearly malicious; not to mention childish considering I was in the middle of a discussion with someone else here on OLO and hadn’t even addressed you. The mature thing to do would have been to ignore me, but it appears you have far too much of a nasty streak in you to do that.

My reply to Clownfish @ Friday, 10 February 2012 1:24:39 PM

Your premise is wrong in that for the most part interracial marriage has always been a part of the life of the church. The church was multiracial from the beginning: Jew and Gentile, and those Gentiles came from all around the Mediterranean. There was the unfortunate and morally wrong segregation of blacks and whites in South Africa and America, but these were the exception not the rule. A typical suburban church in Melbourne or Sydney (and the same can be said of mosques) has persons from quite a number of different racial/national backgrounds. I’m attending the global atheist convention and I’m certain that I will find that racially far more monochrome than any of the churches I’m familiar with.

“Therefore your whole argument against same-sex marriage fails” – nonsense, you’ve just playing word games

Next AJ Philips

I would never refer the God of creation, redemption and judgment to whom we are all accountable as Sky Daddy.

If you check the thread, Sky Daddy was first used by Jon J on 9 February 2012 6:26:45 AM. I then responded to Jon J on Thursday, 9 February 2012 12:30:05 PM dissociating myself from his use of the word by saying “or the one whom I would call the mighty Creator God and Judge of all”. You then quoted my use of Sky Daddy on Friday, 10 February 2012 1:10:20 AM but in doing so you failed to include my words as I have just quoted them. By removing these words and then saying “”Sky Daddy” was actually in your quote” you are being quite deceitful and I refuse to be taken in by it.

You say “No, I’m just one of these people who realises that there’s no reason to believe that those words actually came from a God.”

Well that is your entitlement, I think differently but I remind you again that the argument of my article is advanced not on Biblical teaching but the things known to all of us.

"If the Bible really was written by a God, then there’d be no competing holy books".

No, this doesn’t logically follow – there can be one authentic book written by God and other books that fraudulently pretend to be so.

Since I have not presented a Biblical case against same-sex marriage but rather the natural law case, I won’t respond to these anti Christian, anti God points – that would be a different article. I have already indicated that I am attending the global atheist convention which no doubt will give me ample opportunity to critique atheism and advance Christian teaching and then we can really have some fu

Reply to individual, posted at Friday, 10 February 2012 3:48:08 PM

“I don't believe marriage is to have children. I believe marriage to be between two people of opposite sex.
If you want some sort of union between the biological challenged then go forth and find another word. Do not use marriage, you're offending normal people.”

History and the common experience of people around the globe is against you on this one, individual. Marriage historically has always inextricably been linked to children. I suggest you are the one needing to find a new word.

marriage historically has always inextricably been linked to children.
david Palmer,
I interpreted marriage for a man & a woman to unite thus living together without committing a sin of the flesh in the eyes of God. The little terrors in general came as a result of God's consent for the couple to have a roll in the hay.
Now I'm so not religious but that's how I see it. As far as I know most religions have a similar stance.

In Malaysia a man & a woman can not marry if one is not muslim. If they are married & visit Malaysia then they are not permitted to sleep in the same hotel room.

David Palmer,

You don't need to remind me of the events surrounding the use of the term "Sky Daddy". I'm well aware of what happened. 

My shortening of the quote was purely to do with brevity and readability; the original edit of my post exceeded 350 words and let's not forget the complete irrelevance to my point that the omitted words bore.

The sheer creativeness of your misinterpretation, and the delay in your display of frustration with the use of term, is indicative of who here is really being deceitful (exactly the kind of deceit I was mentioning to Trav), especially when one considers just how much impact your quotation marks around "Sky Daddy" would have sapped from such an obscured and silly trick. 

<<...I remind you again that the argument of my article is advanced not on Biblical teaching but the things known to all of us.>>

Yes, and again, I got it the first time. Thank you.

I remind you again of your use of the terms "one flesh" and "mystical" and the point that I made about it not mattering if everyone knows what "one flesh" is, only whether we all share the sentiment behind it or not. Because, if we don't all agree on the validity of the term "one flesh", then it's not something that we all "know" now, is it?

So no, your article wasn't just advanced on what we all know, a part of it was advanced on a concept that requires God to validate it and this is where you snuck him in under the radar. 

<<Since I have not presented a Biblical case against same-sex marriage...>>

Well, not entirely or overtly anyway.

<<...I won’t respond to these anti Christian, anti God points – that would be a different article.>>

The question of God's existence became relevant because of the questionable validity of the term "one flesh" and the non-religious value of the word "mystical", but was really triggered by the matter-of-factly way in which you said what you said in the quote that you took so much offence to my abbreviating of.

Oh, one point I missed, sorry...

<<No, this doesn’t logically follow – there can be one authentic book written by God and other books that fraudulently pretend to be so.>>

You miss the point. I suspect deliberately too. 

If a God wrote a book, it would be so perfect that no book written by a human could possibly compete, and they'd know how to write it in such a way as to quell any question of it's truth. Its claims could be known by all and not just believed by those willing to suspend their critical faculties.

Instead, what we see is a wide range of holy books; each as flawed and contradictory as the other. 

What I find so difficult to understand is, If all humans are deemed equal in the eyes of God then why the need for hierarchy in the churches ?
It really is no different a hypocrisy than a political party claiming to be there for the working class yet only academics can ascend through the ranks.
No wonder education is designed the way it is.

That's bizarre, individual.

>>In Malaysia a man & a woman can not marry if one is not muslim. If they are married & visit Malaysia then they are not permitted to sleep in the same hotel room.<<

So, let me see if I have this right. My partner and I book into a Kuala Lumpur hotel. When we get there, the first thing they ask is "are you Muslim". And if I say no, they won't give us a room?

I'm sorry, I don't believe you.

And anyway, what's your point?

Pericles,
Is one of you a muslim ?

individual, my old Dad had a saying, 'never assume. It makes an ass out of u and me'. Well, you're certainly making an ass out of yourself.

Firstly, all the words I've used are in a standard dictionary. You should try using one some time: so many words - and some of them even have more than 3 syllables!

As for 'You lot .. Leave us heterosexuals out of it' - are you trying to imply that I'm homosexual? Besides the fact that my wife and sons would laugh in your face, you might want to be careful about making such accusations on a public forum. I'm sure you didn't really mean to impute that I have homosexual affairs outside of my marriage, now did you?

Surely you wouldn't let your bigotry run that far away with you ..?

David, it appears that basic logic just really isn't your strong point.

Let's go through it again.

Trav's argument is as follows:

1) Marriage is for the purpose of bearing and raising children;
2) Homosexual couples cannot ordinarily bear and raise children;
C) Homosexuals couples cannot marry.

Do you dispute this form of his argument?

By simply substituting the subject of premise 2, we have:

1) Marriage is for the purpose of bearing and raising children;
2) Infertile couples cannot ordinarily bear and raise children;
C) Infertile couples cannot marry.

Now, do you dispute that infertile couples cannot bear and raise children? If you do, then you have a very odd definition of 'infertile'.

So the fact remains that, if you accept Trav's argument against same-sex marriage (which it seems you do, when you say '[marriage] is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together'), then you must accept that the same argument holds against infertile and childless heterosexual marrages.

Clownfish,
You're the one who is assuming that I called you a homosexual. I said you lot & that means those who defend homosexuality.
You're making a public accusation of me being a bigot, so get your facts straight if you really do know the meaning of straight that is.

Oh the humanity, individual...

"You're making a public accusation of me being a bigot..."

Get a load of this:

"...If you want some sort of union between the biological (sic) challenged then go forth and find another word. Do not use marriage, you're offending normal people."

Charmed I'm sure.

Hm. Posts frequently peppered with pejoratives like 'homo', 'poofter', 'queer', etc. Constant invective against such. I'd say calling that as bigotry is entirely justified.

'Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religious belief or spirituality, nationality, language, sexual orientation'.

If the white hood fits, my friend, best wear it.

Despite your piss-poor effort at back-pedalling, contrasting 'you lot' and 'us heterosexuals' clearly insinuates that 'my lot' is not heterosexual, ergo, that I am homosexual.

white hood
Clownfish,
now that is racist ! Best cut that crap ok!

It is normally considered rude to answer a question with another question, individual, but for the sake of getting to the bottom of your somewhat out-there assertion, I'll persevere.

>>Pericles, Is one of you a muslim ?<<

No. In fact, for the record, we might not even be married. But let's assume for a moment that one of us is Muslim, and the other isn't. You stated that:

>>In Malaysia a man & a woman can not marry if one is not muslim. If they are married & visit Malaysia then they are not permitted to sleep in the same hotel room.<<

But how would the hotel know, unless they ask me "are you both Muslim".

I have stayed in a number of hotels in Kuala Lumpur, and haven't seen this question anywhere on the reservation form. I should also point out that your "information" is not consistent with any of the guides issues by the Malaysian Government. Surely, such important tourist information should be clearly stated? Instead, the furthest they go is sartorial advice...

"Malaysia’s a fairly liberal nation but rules of propriety still exist. Women are especially subjugated to the laws of convention and female tourists are encouraged to adhere to these standards. Dress modestly and try to blend in with the locals by being respectful, especially in areas of stronger Muslim religious sensibilities, such as the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia."

Do you know what? I think you are just stirring the pot. You certainly don't know what you are talking about on this particular topic.

Clownfish,

'So, Houellebec, you're actually endorsing miscegenation now? You must really miss the days of the Ol' South.'

I cant make any sense of that.

For a start, it's your analogy. Secondly, people from the Ol' South would be anti miscegenation. Surely.

I think you have adequately demonstrated that your parallel is rubbish. As I said, if YOU (It's your analogy) believe denying miscegenation for both white and black people is an inequality, YOU must therefore think either white or black people are inferior.

Which do you think is inferior? I think they're equal.

Like I think Gay people are equal to straight people too, but if they cannot marry people of the same gender, I don't see that as any inequality. Straight people also cannot marry people of the same gender.

Gay people have married straight people of the opposite gender since marriage was invented, so I don't know where you got this idea that miscegenation had anything to do with anything. If you wanted to use that analogy, it would be a parrallel of gay people marrying straight people.

So straight and gay people have exactly the same rights. It's indisputable.

Gay couples are equal to heterosexual couples by law also, as well as de-facto heterosexual couples.

They just don't use the word marriage. Just like fathers are eqaul by law with mothers, but men cannot be called mothers.

Cheers for the apology AJ.

And yes, I do have a nasty streak. I think we all do!

Individual says, “I interpreted marriage for a man & a woman to unite thus living together without committing a sin of the flesh in the eyes of God. The little terrors in general came as a result of God's consent for the couple to have a roll in the hay.”

Yes, I guess that is right, though there is more to marriage avoiding sin/rolling in the hay, w’o denying either, certainly pleasure in the second action.

Hi AJ Philips, I might give replying to you a miss since I think you are just in it for the verbal jousting – the thrill of the chase as it were.

Individual, I see we are back again. You raise an interesting point about equality and hierarchy. I see the distinction between status (equality) and function (hierarchy) as an important one. Status is who we are in ourselves, function is about process – getting things to work: think company structures, the organisation of the military, schools, the local sports club, the RC church, etc.

The thing that goes wrong is that those ‘higher’ up the hierarchy soon forget the idea of equality, including that of the sexes, and accord themselves a higher status. BTW, all that equality stuff including equality between men and woman first turned up in recorded history in Genesis chap 1 (apologies to AJP for bringing religion into the argument)

OK Clownfish, I’ll have another go, maybe logic isn’t my strong point.

No, I don’t dispute the form of Trav’s argument, it is part 2 of my argument.

I think the problem (=failure of logic) in your argument is that by rights an infertile couple should be able to produce children, penis in right aperture, matching pair of sex organs for producing children, that kind of thing – unfortunately some couples who marry with every expectation of children find that are not able to have children. This is a very different set of conditions to that of a same sex couple – wrong aperture, lack matching (complementary) pair of sex organs.

So, accordingly your statement, “that the same argument holds against infertile and childless heterosexual marriages” is condemned ipso facto for failure of logic. Sorry about that.

Houellebecq, IMO, makes good argument at Monday, 13 February 2012 9:34:04 AM

I suppose it is OK (just) for you all to wander from the cut and thrust of my article, if you are enjoying yourselves, though Clownfish and individual need to cool it somewhat.

Pericles,
You'll find that if you weren't muslim but your partner is then you can not get married in Malaysia. I know several Australians who had to become muslim so they could get married & stay together in Malaysia.
Because neither you nor your partner are muslim it doesn't affect you.
I did not make this up. This how several good friends explained it to me.
Don't believe it , check for yourself.

Trav,

You’re welcome. I’m just disappointed that I didn’t make it clear in the first place - I’ve never been one to shy away from an apology.

.

David Palmer,

Sorry, but that’s one of the weakest cop-outs I’ve ever encountered and I don’t think anyone is fooled by it.

<<…I might give replying to you a miss since I think you are just in it for the verbal jousting – the thrill of the chase as it were.>>

Considering how much you’ve prided your argument on being completely non-religious, and the strength of my argument demonstrating otherwise, I would’ve thought that my motivations here would be the last of your concerns.

Not that I’m saying you’re right, of course.

Ever since your initial accusation regarding the use of the term “Sky Daddy” (despite including your quotation marks - go figure), you’ve been scratching around, looking for a way to divert attention from the point I’ve raised and now that you've exhausted all avenues, you simply dismiss me based on more conjecture.

You really should ask yourself why it is that you are the only one here who needs to do such things.

I’m not sure why, as a Christian, you feel it’s so important that your argument not contain a religious element to it, but it’s an encouraging sign of the times that you do. Would it really hurt your argument that much if you were to admit that I’m right and just strike that part of your article from the record (so to speak) though?

There’s no reason why - when trying to formulate a completely non-religious case against gay marriage - your apparent sneaking of God into the argument couldn’t have just been a simple oversight, but now your side-stepping and accusations just look like a guilty conscience.

By the way, I have nothing against religious arguments regarding gay marriage per se, so there was no need for the insincere apology. I’d point out, however, that the truth claims of any given religion need to be demonstrated before such arguments have any validity - not just asserted.

That wasn't the part I was questioning, individual, as you would be aware.

>>You'll find that if you weren't muslim but your partner is then you can not get married in Malaysia<<

But I suggest you may be wrong in stating that as an absolute. Article 3 of the Malaysian Constitution states specifically that all religions may be practiced in peace and harmony, while Article 11 gives every person the right to practice their own religion.

As a result, there are two levels of marriage legality, that which is recognized under Islamic Law, and what is known as "civil law" marriage. Given the nature of that country, the former is far more powerful than the latter.

But this is the sentence that I highlighted:

>>If they are married & visit Malaysia then they are not permitted to sleep in the same hotel room<<

Which is utter nonsense.

The two-level, religious/non-religious system would be quite appropriate for Australia, in my view. Although being a genuinely secular nation, the emphasis would be reversed, with the civil law being the legal foundation of the partnership, and the religious ceremony simply being the icing on the cake for those so inclined.

In both cases the parties would be legally married, and the Church (or churches) would not have to get into such a lather about being invaded by gay activists.

The problem would remain, of course, for Christian gays who would like to be married in their church. But that is simply a matter between themselves and their priests.

How do Muslim gays deal with it, I wonder?

That first assertion of yours (unlike most) intrigued me though, individual…

"In Malaysia a man & a woman can not marry if one is not muslim." And whilst I haven't had time to get all the way through to the end of the statute a second time I thought I should check that I'm looking in the right place with "LAWS OF MALAYSIA, Act 164, LAW REFORM (MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE) ACT 1976, Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006" because so far I have found nothing to substantiate your claim.

But this did surprise and impress me because its effect could be argued as the reverse of what you said…

“51. (1) Where one party to a marriage has converted to Islam, the other party who has not so converted may petition for divorce: Provided that no petition under this section shall be presented before the expiration of the period of three months from the date of the conversion.
(2) The Court upon dissolving the marriage may make provision for the wife or husband, and for the support, care and custody of the children of the marriage, if any, and may attach any conditions to the decree of the dissolution as it thinks fit.”

Well, looks like humble pie for me today but my friends who have actually gone through that tell me otherwise. Two very close mates had to convert to islam before they were permitted to get married to their Malay muslim ladies.

There was me thinking Aussies who can't find a partner Australia, go to the Phillipines or Thailand.

Kipp,
Sad eh? Unfortunately males & females outnumber men & women here.

David, you have quite the obsession with bodily apertures. Which I think may be quite significant - but more on that later.

You're deliberately obfuscating now. You initially claimed that marriage 'is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together'. Marriages that do not, it would then appear, are by your criteria unfulfilled. The simple fact remains that an infertile couple cannot have children, even if they intend to. Perhaps such a marriage should be annulled post-facto?

Leaving that aside, what of a marriage where one or the other partner knows full well that they cannot ever have children - where the male, perhaps, has had a vasectomy? Should that be forbidden?

On the other hand, what of a transgender person who is legally male, yet able to bear children? Indeed, it is not unfeasible that in the future, medical science may make if possible for a male to bear children. Should such a male homosexual couple be allowed to marry? Or if medical technology makes it possible for a lesbian woman to conceive using the gamete of her female partner?

The reason I am pursuing this line of argument so doggedly is because I suspect it is merely an argument of convenience, used to give a veneer of pseudo-rationality to what is nothing more than irrational dislike of homosexuals.

Which is where I find your lingering ponderances on bodily apertures somewhat suggestive. Flamboyantly homosexual British comedian Julian Clary was once asked why he made so many jokes about anal sex. He replied that it was because it seemed obvious to him that anti-gay hatred was largely motivated by prejudiced disgust at homosexual sex. By making fun of it, he hoped, much of the homophobes' prejudice might be defused.

Thanks, David, for your clarity of thought and a well argued article.

I have a friend who married a twin. We sometimes ask him jokingly how he chose this girl ahead of her identical sister. He answers that he wasn’t too fussed, he would have married either. This gets me wondering that if the lobby group that wants to change our marriage laws gets their way, then would it be possible for my friend to have the laws also changed in his favour so that he could marry both of those girls.

If a man loves two sisters can he marry the two sisters? If not, why not?

I often find when I ask this of atheists or others supporting this push to change the marriage laws, I’m usually met with silence. Maybe I’ll get some reasoned argument coming back at me this time.

Hi Dan S de Merengue, nice to have you back.

>>If a man loves two sisters can he marry the two sisters? If not, why not? I often find when I ask this of atheists or others supporting this push to change the marriage laws, I’m usually met with silence. Maybe I’ll get some reasoned argument coming back at me this time.<<

The mistake you made was to ask an atheist. When faced with questions such as this, I prefer to ask "What would Martin Luther say?".

I know, I could just as easily have used the scriptures themselves (Exodus 21:10, for example) but as we all know, Christianity is just the translation of those documents into a lifestyle. And given Martin Luther's reputation as playmaker to the Reformation, I thought he might have something to say on the matter.

Sure enough, it turns out that he does.

In a letter to the Chancellor of Saxony, Gregor Brück, he wrote (presumably in answer to a question along the same lines as yours) as follows:

"Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis" (as reported in John Emerich and Edward Dalberg-Acton's The History of Freedom, p129)

To be fair, he did add "I wouldn't recommend it".

Although, when you think about it, that last bit could equally well have been cynical, worldly-wise advice...

Bigamy is illegal

My question was, according to those who are lobbying for law reform -

If a man loves two sisters can he marry them both? If not, why not?

Kipp says it’s illegal.
I know it is illegal. So is same sex marriage. The issue is why?

Pericles,
Is it a mistake to seek a logical response from an atheist?

Your answer gives the punch line in Latin. I’m sorry, this is not helpful; I don’t know much Latin.

You don't need to, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Your answer gives the punch line in Latin. I’m sorry, this is not helpful; I don’t know much Latin.<<

There's this amazing thing called the internet, that has a feature called "search". All you needed to do was to copy the entire phrase into the search engine - Google is quite popular, I believe - and you would have found the original quotation, in context, and a number of translations.

It goes like this:

"I admit that I do not have the power to forbid a man who wants to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the scriptures"

Luther did add, as I mentioned, that he himself would not recommend it. But that sounds more like he is advocating self-preservation on the part of the male, rather than offering a religious pronouncement.

So it is fair to assume that this prissy-mouthed prohibition by the Church is a fairly recent proscription, probably initiated by envious celibate priests, rather than scripturally supported.

Polygamy is frowned upon in modern society, of course, as is any gratuitous act that could lead to pain. My own view is that society does not necessarily have a bounden duty to prevent its citizens venturing into the realms of self-harm, but it is probably better for the sake of a more harmonious society if individuals were limited to one legally-recognized partner at a time. As a result, I support the idea that in any dealings with the State, one partner at any one time is the upper limit.

But gender neutral, of course. And because it is the State's relationship with human beings we are talking about, animals are excluded from consideration, totally.

Bigamy, of course, is a crime because it is polygamy plus deception.

Pericles,
I’m asking why a man should not be allowed to marry two sisters. (Let’s assume for the moment that the sisters are not subject to any deception.)

You’ve described polygamy as a

“gratuitous act that could lead to pain.”

With some imagining that could well describe polygamous marriage.
It could also easily describe: homosexual coupling,
heterosexual coupling,
adultery,
one night stands,
smoking,
ballooning,
hang-gliding,
go-kart racing,
and bungee jumping,

Many things are frowned upon and might cause pain. You’ve stated some personal preferences but I couldn’t discover your reasoning.

From your post, I can’t follow why you’re suggesting that same sex marriage more so than polygamy is better for the sake of a more harmonious society. I’ve lived in parts of Africa where many of the locals (legally) practice polygamy and consider their society to be quite harmonious.

But many thanks for even attempting an answer. That’s more than I was expecting from previous experience of asking that question. I know such questions don’t have simple answers. But those wanting gay marriage are often gratuitously oversimplifying matters by calling it an equal rights issue.

Always happy to help, Dan S de Merengue, you know that.

>>But many thanks for even attempting an answer. That’s more than I was expecting from previous experience of asking that question<<

I'm not entirely sure you captured the essence of my position, though.

>>Many things are frowned upon and might cause pain. You’ve stated some personal preferences but I couldn’t discover your reasoning<<

I was simply taking a sideways dig at the masochism that I associate with a man taking on more than one bride. The convention of one-at-a-time has grown along with our more orderly approach to society - I dare say that your polygamous Africans, given different economic circumstances, will themselves graduate to the concept.

That still doesn't make it "right" or "wrong", both of which are judgements that require a level of absolutism that I personally believe is unnecessary. If a society works more harmoniously through an acceptance of polygamy, then it is the responsibility of that society to permit it. Similarly, if a society has matured sufficiently that it is able to accept that homosexuality a) exists and b) is a perfectly normal expression of being human, then it, too, has a responsibility to permit the relationships that stem from that reality.

But there is no societal value in our embracing polygamy right now. Maybe post-apocalypse we will change our minds, but that's what we humans do. We become wiser with age, wise enough to adapt to changed circumstances.

>>But those wanting gay marriage are often gratuitously oversimplifying matters by calling it an equal rights issue.<<

My attitude towards human rights is fairly well documented elsewhere on this forum. Society can never create "equal rights" until such time as we are all "equal". Which is still a few centuries away, thank goodness. So I agree. Acceptance of gay couples should be seen as pragmatic, basic common sense, showing a concern for the well-being of our society. Labelling it as a "human right" gives all the wrong signals, except for having consistent "rights" in the eyes of the law.