Would you have a second wife?

[Shaggy]

This may be a dumb question, but…does anyone know how they were supposed to know what God permitted and when?? 

[The Jade Knight]

Actually, Renoard, resource polygyny was typical among the Jews, and was a normal, Jewish, institution.  Christianity became so dominantly monogamous only through Roman influence—the Romans were extreme monogamists, and as many important early Christian theologians were Roman (and, indeed, it was not long before the Church was centered in Rome), certain Roman mores entered into Christianity and became Christian mores.  Among these is strict adherence to monogamy.

I would recommend you read prof. Dixon's The Roman Family for more about the Roman institution of marriage, Renoard.  Smith's Dictionary (available online) is also a good resource.  Your argument that it was primarily religious in nature is belied by the fact that a) Confarreatio marriages increasingly diminished in Rome, b) other Roman marriages involved no religious officiator, and c) it was considered a matter of civic duty (pietas) to marry and have children.  To argue that civic duty was identical to religion in Rome is essentially to argue that there was no such thing in Rome as "the state" as opposed to "the religion", which seems to me to be ludicrous.

As for early Medieval marriages, it is quite clear that, in most cases, there was certainly no religious officiator, and usually little of explicit religious practice in Medieval marriages, until the Church stepped in (primarily for bureaucratic/legal reasons: too often a man would marry a woman with no witnesses, and then later deny the marriage after he had deflowered her.  There were few legal officers that cared if this happened among the peasantfolk, so the Church got involved).  When there was a ceremony, it was quite clearly a social/cultural thing, much more than religious, and the massive differences between the ceremonies of Christian nobles (the rich were always much more likely to have a ceremony) throughout Europe underscores this.  For further reading, I can recommend Herlihy's Medieval Households and Gottlieb's The Family in Western Europe.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

This may be a dumb question, but…does anyone know how they were supposed to know what God permitted and when?? 

You need God talking to a prophet and saying the prohibition is waived in order for it to be waived. Then for it to be un-waived again he needs to talk to another prophet (or theoretically the same one). It's only done by dispensation—individuals can't receive their own revelation saying it's OK for them personally unless it's already been allowed by the dispensation.

[Skar]

Renoard:

Skar I wasn't limiting myself to homosexual men, I was including homosexual women as well.

Yes, I picked one case in the interests of brevity, trusting that the other would be implicit.

all individuals, regardless of class, are presented with precisely the same options and opportunities with regard to marriage, limited only by their own strengths and weaknesses.  No only equal protection but identical protection.

From one POV this is true.  From another, I submit that it could be argued that it's not true.

To Illustrate, I'll ask this question: Does a homosexual female have the ability to legally marry (and therefore inherit from, visit in the hospital, file taxes with, etc...) another adult with whom she shares a passionate, world-shaking love? 

And I'll give my answer:Since she's homosexual, and men are therefore excluded from the passionate world-shaking love equation, I'd have to say that she does not have that ability. Yet I, by virtue of my heterosexuality, do. Not identical.  I personally think that love is an important part, and ought to be an integral part, of marriage, civil or religious.

Shaggy:
...aaaand Ookla stole my answer.  Well said.

[The Jade Knight]

The same prohibitions follow against pedophiles, polyamorists, and bestialists, Skar.  Are they limited in ways that normal heterosexuals are not?  Yes they are.  Do you have a problem with this?  Does this make the fact that they're limited unconstitutional, or somehow a violation of their rights?

And I'd like to reiterate my point that marriage, historically, was not a romantic institution (though certainly romance in marriage was encouraged).  So this concept of "rights" relating to love and marriage is frankly, (in my opinion) quite silly, and has nothing to do with why marriage started up in the first place.

Frankly, I'd be fine if we took marriage out of the government's hands entirely.  But you'd still have to make sure you had appropriate inheritance and guardianship laws (which could certainly be done without having the government regulate marriage, but would require some extra effort).

[Skar]

A good point Jade Knight, but I'd have to disagree on the applicability of the examples you provided.  The differences lie in the details:
Pedophiles: Diddling little kids is not the same as two consenting adults engaging in relations.  A pedophile and a 12 year old can declaim all they want about how they love each other.  Doesn't change the fact that one of them is a kid and therefore not legally able to make that call. Unless your claiming that one partner in all homosexual relationships is always not legally capable of giving consent, or that 12 year olds ought to be able to legally give consent, this is apples and oranges.
Polyamorists: Last I looked it's not illegal to engage in this behavior.  And when it comes to legally recognized relationships this would have to fall under chain marriages, polygamy (as the word is understood today) and/or polyandry.  All of which, as we've already noticed, come onto the table once you start expanding the possible permutations of legal marriage beyond the traditional one male to one female, it is something that needs to be considered but is by no means an automatic deal-breaker.
Bestialists: Again, diddling animals is not the same as two sentient beings engaging in relations. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating the practice of helping the sheep over the fence, it's just apples and oranges and not really applicable as a counter-example.

And I'd like to reiterate ... started up in the first place.

You'll get no argument from me on this front.  There are sound secular reasons for a state to encourage marriage as an institution. Inheritance, child-rearing, and general good order and discipline are a few among many.  Note that all of these would result from same-sex marriages as well as hetero marriages so from a state's point of view, the more people engaged in stable married relationships the better, sexual orientation be darned.

Forthermore, why marriage started up in the first place has little or nothing to do with why people engage in it now and is thus irrelevant to answering the question today.

Frankly, I'd be fine ... would require some extra effort).

There's no need to take it out of the state's hands and go to that extra effort.  We just need to quit conflating the spiritual with the secular implications of the word and ceremony.

[Miyabi]

I really like your points Skar.

(I've been lurking this thread and not saying much recently, but I strongly agree with many of the points he has made.)

[The Jade Knight]

I'd rather not get into an argument on the examples you provided here.  I will simply say that there are plenty of people that think that age shouldn't be a factor limiting marriage any more than sexual orientation.  To them, it is discrimination.  To you, it's simply common sense, decency, "protecting people", or whatever you'd like to call your own particular moralistic leanings.

Forthermore, why marriage started up in the first place has little or nothing to do with why people engage in it now and is thus irrelevant to answering the question today.

I must disagree with this completely.  Simply because you are ignorant of the function of an institution does not mean the essence of that institution has changed.  I certainly think people don't pay attention to the "historical function" when trying to get married, but marriage is a) codified in our society because of those historical reasons, b) carries the social functions and implications it currently does because of those historical reasons.  Failing to understand the history of marriage in trying to determine its function is, indeed, trying to "redefine" something without understanding why the current "definition" exists in the first place—in other words, it's a totally arbitrary, and somewhat ignorant, process.

Your argument that homosexual union carries all the same benefits is probably your best argument, but as homosexual couples cannot biologically have children together (except in the case of transexuals), I don't think you've got it entirely accurate—a clear example of this was when a Swedish court forced a man to pay child support to a woman who had his child via donated sperm.  She was in a homosexual marriage, and wanted the child to raise with her partner.  The message of this case was clear:  Biological obligation trumps marriage, sexual orientation, or intent.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Skar, I don't think that most people right when they get married have a passionate, world-shaking love—or if they think they do, they're probably blinded by it and due for a reality check days, months, or years down the road. Mature, lasting love is something that can only develop over time through mutual respect—and that is something that can certainly happen between a lesbian and a man.

Probably a lot of people nowadays get married because they believe they have a passionate, world-shaking love, but they're probably getting married for the wrong reasons. Sexual attraction is only a part of the sum total reasons for marriage.

[EDIT: Anyway, passionate love has never been part of the legal requirements of marriage. Getting someone of the opposite sex to agree to marry you is the only requirement (with restrictions on close relatives, minors, and people who are already married). And there are legal non-marriage solutions to inheritance and hospital visitation, etc. In California where domestic partners are allowed all the rights of married partners they can file state taxes jointly.]

[The Jade Knight]

Isn't that the truth, Ookla.  And divorce statistics attest to it.

I don't know if we have statistics for homosexual marriages, but there are statistics on homosexual relationships, and, statistically, homosexuals go through more partners than their heterosexual counterparts.  If that carries into marriage (which it may or may not for a number of different reasons), we could expect divorce rates to be higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals.

[Oh yeah, add Incest to the list of situations where people can have "passionate love" but where law currently forbids them from marrying.]

[Patriotic Kaz]

We need to stop treating the married and single differently legally. If it was no longer beneficial financially and otherwise to marry there wouldn't be a need for all this argument, it would be a union due to mores only, but then again what stupid thing would we fight over next?

[mtlhddoc2]

"there are statistics on homosexual relationships, and, statistically, homosexuals go through more partners than their heterosexual counterparts."


And how many of these homosexuals are allowed to get married? Marriage is the main reason for monogamy in the first place. If gay men and women were allowed to get married, there would be more monogamy among the gay community, and, due to that, less STDs in the gay community.

[Patriotic Kaz]

They use to have leper communities so i say we re-institute that principle with STD's!!!

(and yes this is a joke...i think..)

[Skar]

Jade Knight

...there are plenty of people that think that age shouldn't be a factor limiting marriage any more than sexual orientation.  To them, it is discrimination.  To you, it's simply common sense, decency, "protecting people", or whatever you'd like to call your own particular moralistic leanings.

You're right, there are such people, which is exactly why I pointed out that unless you're arguing that the legal age of consent ought to be changed, it's an entirely different discussion.

Simply because you are ignorant of the function ... it's a totally arbitrary, and somewhat ignorant, process.

Agreed on both major points.  Ignorance of the function and history of an institution doesn't mean its essence has changed.  And failing to understand the history of an institution while trying to change that institution is totally arbitrary and ignorant.  You are correct.

It is, however, the nature of the society we live in that adults are free to do as they wish within the law and to change the law as they wish should they gather enough votes to do so.  The historical roots of the institution of marriage should certainly play a part in the national discussion (much larger than it has to date IMO) but if you're going to claim that same-sex marriages (and by extension all the other permutations we've been talking about like polygamy and polyandry and chain marriages) will have a negative effect on society you're going to have to come up with a better line of reasoning and evidence than, essentially, "we've never done it before, therefore we shouldn't do it now" or even "we've never thought it was a good idea before, therefore it's not a good idea now" if you expect to change anyone's mind.

Ookla:

Skar, I don't think ... sum total reasons for marriage.

Agreed on the difference between passionate and mature love and the wisdom of marrying due to one or the other.  However, it begs the question, are homosexual couples not capable of the mature love you describe?  If they are, then those homosexual couples would be getting married for the right reasons would they not? 

Incidentally, in my mind you could have replaced "passionate world-shaking love" with "mature considerate love"  in my statement and the point would remain the same.

[EDIT: Anyway, passionate love has never been part of the legal requirements of marriage

Never said it was.  My reference to passionate love was simply an illustration of the desire to get married.

And there are legal non-marriage solutions to inheritance and hospital visitation, etc. In California where domestic partners are allowed all the rights of married partners they can file state taxes jointly.]

So, essentialy, homosexual couples are separate but equal under the law? 

A scenario like I described earlier, government handing out legal status to couples, and churches handing out their own brand of spiritual status to couples, or not as the case may be, solves that nasty "separate but equal" problem nicely.

Jade Knight:

Isn't that the truth, Ookla.  And divorce statistics ... divorce rates to be higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals.

You could very well be right about divorce rates ending up being higher among homosexual marriages than heterosexual. However, if there's any truth to the idea that the institution of legal/secular marriage encourages fidelity and monogamy then allowing same-sex marriages under the law would result in a net gain of stable couples in our society no matter how high the comparitive divorce rates.  That's a good thing right?

Incest: There are lots of perfectly good, scientifically proven, reasons to prohibit incest: balding insane women and children with flippers instead of arms, to name just two.  Though with modern genetic testing you could probably determine beforehand whether even a brother and sister couple were at risk for genetic problems.  Though that just makes an argument for denying close relations a marriage license on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket prohibition.

----------------------------------------
Can I just say I'm finding this entire discussion to be invigorating and mind-expanding?

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I'm pretty sure I've already responded to a lot of these arguments in the previous threads and I'm not really inclined to get into them again.

My point was that the mature considerate love happens long after marriage, not before marriage. The desire for it is a reason for marriage, but it is something that can happen between a homosexual individual and a heterosexual individual. And it's still only a reason, not the reason. There is no the reason. I've talked about the other reasons in the other threads.

But also you said you can replace the terms in your original post. Let's do that:

To Illustrate, I'll ask this question: Does a homosexual female have the ability to legally marry (and therefore inherit from, visit in the hospital, file taxes with, etc...) another adult with whom she shares a mature, considerate love? 

And I'll give my answer:Since she's homosexual, and men are therefore not excluded from the mature considerate love equation, I'd have to say that she does have that ability.

My point being that a lesbian can marry a man and develop a mature considerate love with him.

Anyway, on the "separate but equal" question: Domestic partnerships can be entered into by homosexual or heterosexual couples. Marriage (opposite-sex marriage) can be entered into by homosexual or heterosexual individuals. I don't see a legal problem.

As I mentioned in the other threads, my main issue is that marriage and homosexual marriage are not equivalent and should not be taught by society as equivalently desired statuses. I think that sexual desire is complicated, and the realization of sexual desire as an adolescent is complicated. I believe that the desire to pursue one avenue of sexual desire over another is something that personal decisions can be made upon, and if society treats them as equivalent, some people who might have gone one way will instead go the other way, and this is to the detriment of society as a whole.