Originally Posted by Rotaerk

The problem with the marriage debate is that there are two completely different things that are ambiguously referred to by the word "marriage". Marriage in the traditional sense is a personal promise of commitment and fidelity between two people, perhaps one that is announced to and accepted by the community/family. "Marriage" in the legal sense is just a legal contract recognized by the government for certain benefits.

Since marriage is traditionally a strictly social construct, not a legal one, I think that "marriage" is a poor term for the legal contract, precisely because of this conflict which has arisen on the issue. Legal "marriage" shouldn't even necessarily correlate with true marriage. Being legally "married" to someone doesn't imply that you love each other, have sex with one another, or even plan to live together. And being truely married does not imply the government even knows about it.

I think that one's church or community should offer marriages in their own way. Whether gays should be allowed to be married is completely up to their community, faith, and/or themselves, not the government. True marriage is not done for the sake of government benefits, but for the sake of being accepted by one's community. If a religion supports it, children can marry, in this traditional sense (though no popular religions I am aware of support this).

Now, the government's "marriage" contract should be a completely separate mechanism. Personally, I don't have anything against homosexual or polygamous legal "marriages". Such contracts should be available, indiscriminately, between any consenting adult citizens of the country (or if the country supports international marriage, then citizens of supported countries as well). This means animals and children are excluded in the US.

If you separate legal "marriage" and traditional marriage, the religious debate over the validity of gay marriage simply ceases to exist. Marriage in the traditional sense is defined by the religion, and thus they can choose not to bestow marriage upon homosexuals. However that should not stop them from gaining the legal benefits of a so-called "marriage" contract, which again, I think should be renamed to separate it from the social/religious construct.

Originally Posted by Rino

If someone is not infringing on the rights of others, why should you infringe on theirs?

Pologimany infringes on others rights within the relationship, bestiality is illegal because an animal can not give consent, and pedophilia does as well.

Originally Posted by Rino

Please keep in mind that marriage was never defined as man and woman until someone got a wild hare and decided to do so. Up until 2001 it was simply defined as two people.

Originally Posted by Rotaerk

How does polygamy infringe on the rights of those within the relationship? Polygamy is just a "marriage" of more than two people, who together, unanimously agree to be "married". (Since we're talking about rights, I presume we're discussing legal "marriage"

Originally Posted by Rotaerk

How does polygamy infringe on the rights of those within the relationship? Polygamy is just a "marriage" of more than two people, who together, unanimously agree to be "married". (Since we're talking about rights, I presume we're discussing legal "marriage".)

Originally Posted by Colombine

The difficulty is in defining "principle" next-of-kin for legal purposes.

If ten people want to live together that's fine by me but whereas the legal dynamic of two opposite or same-sex people marrying is the same, it's obviously completely difficult when more are party to the contract.

That in a sense would be truly "re-defining marriage" from a legal perspective.

Originally Posted by Rino

Even if you legalize it, it would still infringe on the rights of one or more partners. If you can not figure out how this is, then you need to think harder.

Now if it were a true multiple marriage it may not infringe on any of the partners rights. True multiple marriage meaning both the wife and the husband have multiple others. Can you list one example of a true multiple marriage?

Originally Posted by Rotaerk

Precisely. That is my intention: that legal "marriage" should be renamed and redefined to something that's less coupled with Christian marriage, and one that's more aligned with secular values. Naturally, if you're including polygamy, you'll have more legal issues to figure out.

Of course, we could do away with the legal concept altogether. I don't see that it is all that necessary. I just think that if it exists, it should not discriminate among adult citizens. I suppose that one could still limit it to only two people, in the interest of avoiding the resulting issues and potential abuses. The addition of polygamy is no more necessary than legal "marriage" contracts to begin with, but it's still just as doable as the two-person "marriage" contract.

Originally Posted by Colombine

I understand but at the moment legal marriage conveys numerous automatic benefits: Inheritance, power-of-attorney, hospital visitation rights, spousal immigration. I think there are over 1400 automatic rights in US Federal law alone.

You can see the problems inherent in trying to apply even the few I've listed above "equally" (and this is all about equality) to a group of multiple partners.

Originally Posted by Colombine

I understand but at the moment legal marriage conveys numerous automatic benefits: Inheritance, power-of-attorney, hospital visitation rights, spousal immigration. I think there are over 1400 automatic rights in US Federal law alone.

You can see the problems inherent in trying to apply even the few I've listed above "equally" (and this is all about equality) to a group of multiple partners.