"The point of same-sex marriage is to give everyone an opportunity to marry. Polygyny only serves to reduce that opportunity."

No, the point of same-sex marriage is to give same-sex couples who want to be married the right to be. The point of polygynynous marriages is to give polygynous groups who want to be married the right to be. What part of 'want to be' don't you understand?

"The kind of unconditional love that Belle gives Marc is something we all hope for, the love of another human being who commits to you, to the exclusion of all others."

This is called 'infatuation' and it leads to stalking, obsessive behaviour and occasionally violent assault. It's a nasty, scary thing. If it turns you on that's fine. But if something else turns you on that should be fine too. What's wrong with choice?

"This is a right that should not be denied to women.
Nor is it a right that should be denied to same-sex couples."

Nobody has a 'right' to unconditional love, even if that's what they really want. Love has to be earned. If you can earn the love of two, or three, or four other people then you have just as much right to that as you do to the love of one other. In fact a majority of people manage to break their obsession with a single beloved and form loving communities of three, four, five or even more people.

Some of them are called 'families'.

Yet another situation that falls into the, " two aspirin, glass of water and a lie down" category.
I can't imagine that after several thousand years of recorded history entire populations are going to abandon their deepest inclinations and change to behaviours they find distasteful, either with gays or straights, either through biology, or cultural conditioning or a combination of both.
Can you contemplate a sillier notion than the idea that you will head of to assault your neighbour's livestock, for no better reason than a couple of gays a thousand miles away got married?
If people want others behaviour's modified, maybe start with the problem of violence- at least there is an actual victim and real and malicious harm done.
Or perhaps some of the morals police could do an internal investigation and work out what/why it is, this compulsion to meddle, judge, control and superintend, in the private lives of others.

I wonder how much evidence there is for the view that pluralistic marriages lead to worse outcomes for women and children than binary marriages when other factors are seperated out. Are the case studies being done in modern secular western democracies or based on the experiences of societies dominated by values and laws which bear no relation to ours?

Its also clear that binary marriages can do great harm to men, women and children when they go bad, given the proportion which go bad would we consider banning such relationships? I doubt it.

The arguments against pluralistic marriage seem to employ many of the same tactics as the anti same sex marriage arguments which does little to help the case for same sex marriage.

R0bert

yes and the secularist argued that abortion was about the one in a thousand girls who was raped. They argued claimed the slippery slope arguement was nonsense. Yeah. The secularist are known for their deceit. Even Kirby knows 'gay'marriage' will open the door to other forms of perverted 'marraige'.

<< Its also clear that binary marriages can do great harm to men, women and children when they go bad, given the proportion which go bad would we consider banning such relationships? I doubt it. >>

R0bert, yes. How could same-sex marriage possibly be as bad as conventional marriage?

It would have to be truly rotten, on average, to go anywhere near being as harmful to kids and all concerned as conventional binary marriage!

The same could be said for polygamy.

Jon J

'..... the point of same-sex marriage is to give same-sex couples who want to be married the right to be. The point of polygynynous marriages is to give polygynous groups who want to be married the right to be. What part of 'want to be' don't you understand?'

I understand the bit about 'want to be' But I don't understand where you find the 'one man and one woman' bit necessary for the established meaning of a marriage.

I have sympathy with those who can not meet the basic requirements for the formal arrangement defined as 'a marriage' but I prefer the description 'civil union' for homosexual couples or polygamous
gatherings rather than redefining the word marriage.

I 'want to be ' is not an established basis for legislation.

In any case we have plenty of 'wannabees' already. Perhaps this is because they don't understand that 'want to be' is an aspiration not a right

Polygamous relationships/marriages, have existed for centuries, and are sanctioned, legitimised in some cultures? Arguably, only amongst heterosexual couples.
Until fairly recently, Homosexual relationships/love, dare not breathe its name!
Even today, I believe, some ultra-religious gays, hide their true feelings and desires behind a butched up heterosexual mask?
Arguably it is the latter group, closet dwelling gays, most opposed to gay marriage?
Which would make utter nonsense out of their lifetime sacrifice and personal hate-filled revulsion?
In my view, the sham filled anger filled self hating price they've paid, to have conventional families, replete with kids and social acceptance/political/religious opportunity etc/etc?
Nonetheless, I believe, they seem to self identify, as micromanaging workaholics?
A strategy, along with, a look at me, look at me, victimisation of their own kind?
Which then allows/enables them to avoid looking within, or at their own true, if personally reviled, feelings and desires?
Little wonder we have witnessed in recent years, a veritable army or conga line, of child abusing paedophile priests be outed and or exposed for who and what they are?
Rhrosty.

@paul "Or perhaps some of the morals police could do an internal investigation and work out what/why it is, this compulsion to meddle, judge, control and superintend, in the private lives of others."

We already know this, paul -- it's called 'religion'. It's motivated by the nasty irritating feeling that somebody, somewhere, might be having more fun than you are, and should stop it immediately.

@CARFAX: "I have sympathy with those who can not meet the basic requirements for the formal arrangement defined as 'a marriage' but I prefer the description 'civil union' for homosexual couples or polygamous gatherings rather than redefining the word marriage."

What you 'prefer' is immaterial.

"I 'want to be ' is not an established basis for legislation."

It's a perfectly well established basis for legislation when there are absolutely no sound arguments on the other side -- which is the condition we find ourselves in with regard to gay marriage, at least, if not (yet) polyandry.

Morality is a symptom of it's time and changes as required.
It has never been frozen in time indefinitely.

Not so many years ago I recall the utter shame many felt at the very notion of divorce, tales of young girls going away "on holiday" to secretly give birth to their illegitimate children and the horror of people "living in sin". Families and individuals were destroyed by such scandals and for what?

What goes on in my neighbour's house is of no concern to me and vice versa.

Maybe some of the arguments seem to be coming from people who are just tired of getting all the guilt and none of the sex.

the posts about this subject by the religous right are becoming more shrill every day. Truth be told though Runner and co only have our best interests at heart. You see if gay marriage is allowed then everyone will have to go gay over night. And if there is one thing I know about being gay it's all the dancing you have to do. You see runner knows most of us don't want to dance, but you have to when you're gay.

I'm against same-sex marriages because marriage is there to provide the legitimate avenue for engaging in intimate relations with the opposite sex. As society this is what we should be teaching our children. People who want to engage in intimate relations with the same sex can do so without destroying an institution that can serve as the foundation of more civilised relations.

I'm not against polygyny provided women are treated equally in everything: from living conditions to sexual relations. It's a con to say on the one hand that it is permissible for a man to have as many partners as he likes OUTSIDE OF WEDLOCK (and therefore with no commitment) while forbidding more than one wife. A legally binding marriage contract would protect the wife against exploitation.

But grateful, who decides what's 'legitimate' and 'civilised'? In pre-Colombian Central America it was 'legitimate' and 'civilised' to conduct human sacrifices; and no doubt they looked forward to the day when they could impose their enlightened views on the rest of the world.

Come up with some clear evidence that your views are more 'legitimate' and 'civilised' than, say, mine, and I will embrace them cheerfully. Till then, you're just attempting to disguise a personal preference as an objective fact.

And grateful what will protect a man from exploitation?

A marriage contract certainly does not.

The reality is that there are those who will use any lever they can get to exploit others, who they are is not a gender specific issue. Gender stereotypes around the issue just serve to empower some of those exploiters even more.

R0bert

Marriage between same-sex couples should not be conflated with polygamous marriage on the grounds of private freedoms. The former enhances the individual’s personal freedom, while the latter mainly enhances the freedom of men while disadvantaging the freedom of women.

For many centuries, the cultural taboos surrounding heterosexual marriage and polygamy heavily restricted the expression of women’s sexuality. Once those restrictions began to break down with the advent of the sexual revolution in the West, women have become a lot more polyandrous in their sexual behaviours in a relatively short period of time – revealing the belief that women are essentially monogamous for the falsity it has always been.

Yet, even in the West, the expression of women’s sexuality is still being suppressed and/or exploited under a reactionary barrage of patriarchal privilege. Any move to polygamous unions in the West should proceed with extreme caution regarding its implications for women’s rights

You can't separate the sexual mores of women in the modern West from the economic and social paradigm from which it sprang. If the "sexual revolution" represents anything, then it represents a liberty granted by women's relative economic and social independence and a modicum of control over their reproduction. This state of affairs has arisen in the wake of social democracy in a time of great technological advance. If you think that represents proof of monogamy being a falsity, I would reject that premise. At no other time in human evolution has the female of our species been in a position to simultaneously reproduce and not be wholly reliant on a male for physical protection and basic material support.

Women have been afforded greater sexual freedom, and greater freedom in general. But the loosening of bonds and the fading of sexual taboo in society is shadowed by any number of attendant debasements - many of which are now being loudly lamented by the feminist cohort.

Poirot. I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. My comment completely allowed for the paradigm that human sexuality is inextricably linked to social and economic structures. Some people are by nature monogamous, others polygamous. The patriarchy simply divided the distinction along gender lines, in order to allow men the greater freedom.

While feminists are mindful of the pros and cons of greater sexual freedom for women, they are certainly not lamenting that freedom. What feminists ‘loudly lament’, as you put it, is the patriarchal exploitation of the lifting of previous taboos on women’s sexuality. This exploitation is particularly manifest in the rampant pornifying and sexualising of women in the public culture (still very much controlled by men). Once women have an equal say in, and control of, our means of cultural expression, I fully believe that this exploitation will greatly diminish.

Given that homosexuals are a small portion of the general population, and that, an ever smaller portion of them wish to "get married," why are we wasting so much time over this? It is a non-issue (i.e. bread and circuses) to distract us from much more important things.

Killarney,

I'm having trouble grasping your point. On the one hand your extol the new freedoms which allow women to strut their stuff...be wholly free sexual beings - and on the other you blame the "patriarchy" for the so-called "pornification" and "sexualisation of women " in public culture.

You can't have your sexual liberation and your modesty too. What did feminists expect would happen to an intelligent, yet carnal species once the taboos were lifted?

@Jon R: We're 'wasting time' over this precisely because it is a purely symbolic issue. It's a way for our leaders to demonstrate that they can make decisions based on logic, evidence and compassion rather than Bronze Age rules handed down by hypothetical deities. Since there are no valid arguments on the negative side whatsoever, it's not possible for them to hide behind those. Instead they have to nail their colours to the mast, and show exactly what they regard as more important: people or imaginary supernatural beings.

Poirot. I'm done with wasting mine and everyone else's time arguing with people on blogsites about the critical difference between sexual objectification and sexual empowerment. Either people get it or they don't.

>>why are we wasting so much time over this?<<

Who knows? It is a great mystery to me why so many people argue so tenaciously against something which won't affect them in the slightest. I really can't see the sense in wasting so much time and effort opposing such a non-issue. Maybe they just enjoy opposing for the sake of opposing. Whatever it is that is the reason we are wasting so much time over this.

>>Killarney,

I'm having trouble grasping your point.<<

It seems obvious enough to me: if a woman chooses to have sex this is sexual empowerment and it is good. If she chooses to be video-taped while having sex this is sexual objectification and it is bad. This seems to me to be a very simplistic and irrational distinction between sexual empowerment and sexual objectification. Then again 'simple' and 'irrational' are often descriptions that can be applied to your more extreme feminists.

>>Either people get it or they don't.<<

Maybe some people just don't get it because whenever they ask a reasonable question in good faith of the knowledgeable expert on the topic that expert has a tantrum and storms off in a huff instead of taking the small amount of time and effort required to educate the uneducated - all the while bemoaning people's ignorance on the topic at hand. A strange and self-defeating behaviour. I sure hope you don't work as a teacher.

Cheers,

Tony

Jon J, a symbolic change so our leaders can nail their colours to the mast! You have to be joking, cynical more than symbolic. Most of the current crop in Canberra don't actually have any colours, principles, or beliefs except a burning desire to keep their snouts in the trough for as long as possible.

If they want to make homosexual unions legal, then do so, but they will not be, and should not be called marriages.

Maybe it’s time to scrap the idea of marriage altogether in favour of Civil Contracts.

With so much divorce in the country it makes more sense for a legal civil contract to be drawn up stating what the financial and legal responsibilities are in the case of a marriage break down.

A contract that spells out the obligations re:any children from the union and what the division of assets will be.

Julia Gillard stated her belief in civil unions on Questions and Answers the other night. She said she believes more in that, than actual marriage and she has this kind of non-marriage arrangement with her present partner.

The social construct of marriage is the problem, it no longer need apply in modern day Australia. 50% of marriage breaks down, anyway, and a lot of those people don't bother to remarry they just live with another partner.

I should have said "in the case of a relationship breakdown" in the above post, sorry.

Jon J, what is the fear you have that two same sex couples, will have the right under law to have their loving relationship recognised.
What affect will it have on your "Marriage or your "Relationship", as the argument that marriage is "Tradition"or an "Religous Act", has no historic base, other than tribal exploitation.
Your denial of this right, indicates that you accept gay people only on your terms, an attitude that is still reflected today in the world, with the stigma, brutality and murder that gay people live with daily

Jon J,
You say it’s a purely symbolic issue. Yet you also say this law reform requires a decision based on ‘logic, evidence and compassion’. I doubt it can be both. I suspect it’s largely symbolic, as I’m so far unimpressed with the logic coming from their side.

Traditional marriage in the West is based around an Old Testament precedent and ideal of the family construct. So those who want gay marriage must think highly of those “Bronze Age rules handed down by hypothetical deities” if they insist they wish to emulate them.

'Maybe it’s time to scrap the idea of marriage altogether in favour of Civil Contracts. '

Sure CHERFUL if you can't pervert it then scrap it. Makes a lot of sense.

Dan, do you want to explain how the legal institution of civil marriage with no-fault divorce, as practiced in 21st-Century Australia, has anything to do with Biblical strictures? It seems to me that it's merely an expression of the government's determination to meddle in the private lives of its citizens to its own advantage.

Well I for one don't "get it", Killarney.

>>Either people get it or they don't.<<

My understanding is not helped by sentences such as this one.

>>Once women have an equal say in, and control of, our means of cultural expression, I fully believe that this exploitation will greatly diminish.<<

How would you describe a woman's "means of cultural expression"? Could you give an example perhaps?

And in what sense do women not currently have "control" of it?

Any help you can provide would be most welcome.

And Dan S de Merengue, are you absolutely sure about this?

>>Traditional marriage in the West is based around an Old Testament precedent and ideal of the family construct.<<

Which particular precedent did you have in mind when you wrote this?

Polygamy seems to have been relatively common, as did concubinage. How is this an "ideal of the family construct"?

I can not see how any bloke who had been married for more than a couple of months, could even consider living with 2 wives. The mere thought sends shudders down any sane spine.

Hang on a minute, I recall a recent report on this. Our middle eastern breathern have the 2Nd, 3Rd etc "wives" claim single parenthood. This way they get a second & even a third lot of public housing, & even more welfare.

Hell, if I only had to visit then a couple of times a week, even I could handle it.

Roll on polygymy.

When I mentioned the Old Testament precedent regarding marriage, I refer to Matthew 19:5, where Jesus spoke of why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife. This is in reference to the first marriage, Adam and Eve, at the beginning of time.
 
This is the ideal held to in the traditional Western concept of marriage. I think these (and other Biblical) Scriptures have had a deep influence on Western thought, although there may have been some other influences as well. For instance, Greek culture I believe was monogamous.

One man and one woman joined for life is a pretty standard custom across many peoples and cultures. Though there are also other variations. I've lived in Africa for a while and have some friends who are polygamous. I knew one young man who married two young women in the same week.

But even in the Old Testament I think monogamy was the norm, with polygamy, though not specifically outlawed, being a bit unusual or sometimes adopted in unusual circumstances (e.g. a brother taking in his deceased brother's widow), and rarely if ever portrayed favourably. Kings had many wives for reasons such as assuring political alliances with foreign powers. Yet Jesus reaffirmed God's original intention for marriage pointing back to the first marriage in Eden..

My understanding of the revolutionary Family Law Act of the 1970s is that it was famous for setting up the Family Court and 'no fault' divorce, This was the government's rather imperfect way of dealing with marriage breakdown, which can be such a damaging and difficult thing that it ought to require some amount of regulation. However I don't think this Act attempted to redefine marriage away from the traditional concept, one man and one woman joined together for life.