*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Boise_Lib.

I wish I was there...I'd rip another hole for him to spew his Santorum...

"Rational reasoned thought". What a moron. The subject of her question concerns the gender of parties in a two person marriage. The number of parties to a marriage is a different question involving different concerns. Personally I think any marriage combination desired between consenting adults should be allowed but that raises all kinds of contractual questions that the legal system would have to be adjusted to deal with.

He keeps going back to 'what about 3 men'. He seems to be thinking about that a lot.

I hope he's the next Republican to get caught with a male escort.

Why not three men?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/05/07/threesome-marriages.html

>> ^gorillaman:

Why not three men?

Why can't a woman marry two men? Or a man marry two women? Duh. It was a stupid, red herring response to a reasonable question. He didn't like the road she was taking him, so he jumped off the bike. If you think "why not three men" has any validity whatsoever in regards to the question that was asked, you are as irrational and detached as Santorum. He thinks he's shoving logic down their throats, but he's just making an ass of himself, and so are you.

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^gorillaman:
Why not three men?

Why can't a woman marry two men? Or a man marry two women? Duh. It was a stupid, red herring response to a reasonable question. He didn't like the road she was taking him, so he jumped off the bike. If you think "why not three men" has any validity whatsoever in regards to the question that was asked, you are as irrational and detached as Santorum. He thinks he's shoving logic down their throats, but he's just making an ass of himself, and so are you.


I'll admit to somewhat playing into Santorum's hands by following the diversionary path he threw up and, yeah, I understand how the questions differ in their specifics.

But, both questions do need to be asked because both address serious state and social interference in private life. It's important to question whether that interference can be justified, and while gay marriage has huge public support and garners significant attention, group marriage gets almost none of either.

Ultimately opposition to polygamy has its roots in the same bigotry that condemns other non-traditional practices, and the same irrationality that views marriage as anything other than an artificial construct that should probably eventually be dismantled.

So, why not two men? Why not three men? Why not a man and a donkey? Why not twelve men, sixteen women, a chicken and a block of wood?

because blocks of wood are terrible lovers.

Nothing like wood in the morning...

>> ^ghark:

because blocks of wood are terrible lovers.

http://videosift.com/video/Bruce-Campbell-for-Morning-Wood-Robot-Chicken

>> ^Sagemind:

Nothing like wood in the morning...
>> ^ghark:
because blocks of wood are terrible lovers.

@gorillaman
Being against polygamy is not bigoted. Humans pair off, its what we do. But Polyandry (one female - multiple males) doesn't work except in a few places like Nepal and Bhutan, where there is little arable land. But the men are ALWAYS brothers, there is no other way it would work (also its a dying practice). Polygyny (One Male - Multiple females) doesn't work either, because then you get an excess of poor, young, bored undersexed men, who become serious problems. Infact, the Warren Jeffs FLDS cult would evict 'misbehaving' young men because there weren't enough ladies to go around. These kids were given no chance. As far as homosexual groupings of more then two? No one is asking for that, many are quite content pairing off with one other person. There is also no historical or ethnographic evidence for it either. And as far as marrying anything nonhuman, that is wrong simply because the other thing is not sentient (in the way we are) and doesn't know what its agreeing to. I think you may be one of those dangerous people only took ONE Anthropology class, and has otherwise missed the boat.

He has a point, like it or not. Where are the limits of marriage, and how are they determined?

I'm tired of fighting idiots...I say we cede ground and just make EVERYTHING available to Civil Unions. Yeah I know and we can keep fighting if we want but I want to have a civil union with some ladies...multiple!

>> ^Unaccommodated:
Being against polygamy is not bigoted. Humans pair off, its what we do. But Polyandry (one female - multiple males) doesn't work except in a few places like Nepal and Bhutan, where there is little arable land. But the men are ALWAYS brothers, there is no other way it would work (also its a dying practice). Polygyny (One Male - Multiple females) doesn't work either, because then you get an excess of poor, young, bored undersexed men, who become serious problems. Infact, the Warren Jeffs FLDS cult would evict 'misbehaving' young men because there weren't enough ladies to go around. These kids were given no chance. As far as homosexual groupings of more then two? No one is asking for that, many are quite content pairing off with one other person. There is also no historical or ethnographic evidence for it either. And as far as marrying anything nonhuman, that is wrong simply because the other thing is not sentient (in the way we are) and doesn't know what its agreeing to. I think you may be one of those dangerous people only took ONE Anthropology class, and has otherwise missed the boat.


Diogenes just linked to an article about people who are asking for exactly these things, and making them work. Polyamorous and polygamous relationships are neither very rare nor dysfunctional.

Marriage involving nonhumans seems to be very simply resolved. We discount the consent of the nonsentient partners. If I want to marry my pencil or goldfish I really don't see how it could be any of your business.

He reminds me of a bad substitute teacher. "C'mon guys!!"

@gorillaman
First, Human sexual relationships in a democratic society should be, at its heart, about consent. That is why RAPE is RAPE and sexual abuse of children is ABUSE. So that rules out animals, although some eat animals we still are expected to treat them humanely. We can't just sexually coerce them.

Second, Marriage usually deals with socially sanctioned semi-permanent relationships for the purposes of assigning responsibilities for having sex with intention to procreate and raising children. Therefore you can't marry an inanimate thing. It also takes two gametes to make a new human. If it took any number of gametes to do that, then we'd be talking about a different situation. But two individuals are directly needed to create a child, and therefor should be the basis of any discussion of marriage. A pair. Our biology is the reason why 'free love' doesn't work. Despite whatever anecdotal evidence given, the large scale practices and ideas of swingers and free love are dead. We are ultimately programmed to serially be looking for ONE other person to aid in the creation of a child. Extra pair copulations (cheating) happen, there is no denying that, but its the exception that makes the rule. People break up and become angry over it. It can kill relationships, it is seen as a betrayal. Now, I believe homosexuality is significant enough (10%-12% of the human population) to be granted the same rights of marriage as heterosexual people, even though currently it has little to with offspring - except for adoption. While the academic debate on whether homosexuality is nature or nurture is far from over (Its probably both). They, being humans, still feel the same biological desire to pair off with someone, just like anyone else.


Now when the time comes that children can be created out of more than two gametes, I'd be willing to reassess. Also, if you want to leave marriage up to other institutions aside from the state - I'm fine with that too, just don't expect things to actually change.

@Unaccommodated

Modern marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with the production of children.

Marriage can only be worthwhile as a private contract contrived to serve the happiness of its participants. Its legitimacy should not be determined by the number of similar arrangements or the prevalence of comparable relationships in nature.

The biological source of our sociosexual proclivities is only a starting point, the raw material to be combined with our culture and worked by our intellect to produce something of greater value. Humanity has the power to surpass nature.

Homosexuality crossing a threshold of acceptability now that it's practiced by a significant enough percentage of the population is an idea that ought to be offensive to pretty much everybody.

>> ^gorillaman:

@Unaccommodated
Modern marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with the production of children.
Marriage can only be worthwhile as a private contract contrived to serve the happiness of its participants. Its legitimacy should not be determined by the number of similar arrangements or the prevalence of comparable relationships in nature.
The biological source of our sociosexual proclivities is only a starting point, the raw material to be combined with our culture and worked by our intellect to produce something of greater value. Humanity has the power to surpass nature.
Homosexuality crossing a threshold of acceptability now that it's practiced by a significant enough percentage of the population is an idea that ought to be offensive to pretty much everybody.


Why should something be outlawed simply because it's offensive? My farts are pretty offensive but there's been no law passed to ban them... yet anyway.

Also, how exactly do we surpass nature when we are part of nature, please explain.

>> ^gorillaman:

@Unaccommodated
Modern marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with the production of children.
Marriage can only be worthwhile as a private contract contrived to serve the happiness of its participants. Its legitimacy should not be determined by the number of similar arrangements or the prevalence of comparable relationships in nature.
The biological source of our sociosexual proclivities is only a starting point, the raw material to be combined with our culture and worked by our intellect to produce something of greater value. Humanity has the power to surpass nature.
Homosexuality crossing a threshold of acceptability now that it's practiced by a significant enough percentage of the population is an idea that ought to be offensive to pretty much everybody.


Marriage is FAR, FAR from simply a private contract, it is a public occasion. While the participants in the marriage may make promises to each other, its always done with public input. When people get eloped it often hurts other people in the family for not being able to give their input. Marriage and its public nature, is a human universal. In western Christianity it comes with the portion of 'speak now or forever hold your peace'. In other situations it can be as simple as leaving your belongings in front of someone else's dwelling for a day in the public eye.

Its very clear you think humans are removed from 'nature'. We are not. We do not transcend or surpass our nature, we are who we are. The nature that created your body is the same nature that created your brain and the way you think. Of course other things affect the way you think, but you can't get passed your human way of understanding things. Our Biology affects are behavior and culture, until the point where our culture influences our biology. That is why only some cultures, with a practice of raising cows, people can drink milk as adults. We will never become removed from this cycle.

Homosexuality has had varying amounts of acceptance at different places and different times. Its not only a modern development. I am saying that homosexuality makes up a significant amount of the human population, and probably always has far into our past. I am not saying 'Oh, I guess now it should be accepted', I am saying 'Why should it be anything other than accepted?'

@Unaccommodated

Humans are no longer a part of the competitive 'survive and procreate' gene-war that is the natural world, or at least we're in the process of struggling our way out of that tangle. Very soon, our evolution will be defined by wholly non-naturalistic parameters.

We are not starving. Nothing is going to eat us. Our decisions are not made purely by instinctual drives. Of course it's usually accurate to say that we're still subject to the laws of physics and their emergent systems; it ought to be obvious contextually that's not the nature I'm suggesting we have surpassed.

Your appeals to natural law are inapplicable to human endeavour.

At the most fundamental level of our existence, more fundamental even than physical law, we are individual consciousnesses possessing a general intelligence - inherited, admittedly, from an evolutionary heritage that is no longer relevant; from which we should always strive to divorce ourselves.

Marriage is ultimately whatever we want it to be. One thing I do not want it to be is a state-driven instrument of social conformity.