I think of the nature of marriage, in a legal sense, anyway, as a partnership between two consenting people. That would rule out polygamy, I think, but I am not sure if the number is actually important from a legal perspective.
I've never really found a viable definition of marriage outside religious or traditional context that doesn't have some arbitrary cutoffs, I guess the parallel legally would be exclusive contracts, X agrees to buy or lease or whatever solely to/from Y, problem being, that works fine for why you can't commit bigamy without everyone involved being okay with it, it doesn't really explain why Uncle Sam has a seat at the table. Bob Johnson might agree to exclusively license his new patent to Boeing, but the government doesn't really have any business telling him he has to enter an exclusive contract with somebody. Regardless I just don't think marriage works well in a modern legal context, I've never seen a definition beyond utter libertarianism that did seem to discriminate against someone.
So long as it is understood that marriage must be between consenting adults, I don't think it would be a huge issue, as the real problems with polygamy tend to come from underage girls being forced to marry.
Well, grooming to, though it's tricky to make the case that girls who are raised to think polygamy is okay because their parents are are actually being brainwashed. Still, I can't think of any culture it is or has been common in that didn't have abuses, though other circumstances were factors too.
As for incest, the issue is not about an ability to procreate, but rather the genetic damage done to children of incestuous relationships. Not sure how that affects stuff.
Yes, it's that genetic damage thing. Ignoring that sterility is an option, according to the Journal of Genetic Counseling, first cousins are only 2% more likely to have gene defects then normal, alternatively, a woman at 35 is something like twenty times, or 2000%, more likely to give birth to a Down's Baby then a 21 year old, and it's even higher beyond 35. While in the past they didn't know what the hell genes were, just had vague notions incest caused problems, we now know a lot more. If we can ban first cousins from marrying because they might have children, and ban it without an exemption for sterility, can't we ban 35 year old woman from marrying by that same logic? It's an abhorrent concept, but I can't think of a good reason beyond genetic defects and there are ways to reasonably prevent that from happening. The bans don't say "No incest marriages unless you've had a vasectomy" they say "No period", and that makes me feel we sort use genetic defects as an escape route to avoid a nasty train of thought, not because of its actual scientific and logical soundness.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Let's ban all Christian Marriage.
07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM
- 1617 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me.
07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM
- 1021 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people.
07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM
- 1253 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there!
07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM
- 1067 Views
Who else should make those decisions?
07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM
- 1006 Views
I'd totally...
08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM
- 964 Views
I'd totally...
08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM
- 1123 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering.
08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM
- 1055 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged
08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM
- 963 Views
*Shakes Head*
08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM
- 924 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM*
08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM
- 532 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense.
08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM
- 1024 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense.
08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM
- 992 Views
Re: *Shakes Head*
08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM
- 977 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution
08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM
- 1075 Views
No, I was referring to same-sex marriage. Real marriage hardly counts as a novelty. *NM*
11/08/2010 02:28:43 PM
- 442 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about.
08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM
- 922 Views
You cannot be that stupid.
11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM
- 1202 Views
There's a lot of ridiculous arguments here, but I'll focus on just one of them...
11/08/2010 03:38:05 PM
- 1075 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM
- 949 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad.
09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM
- 988 Views
Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM
- 935 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM
- 924 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid?
09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM
- 1037 Views
Not really
09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM
- 896 Views
Re: Not really
09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM
- 1027 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives.
11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM
- 1070 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM
- 972 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM
- 909 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM
- 1015 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too
09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM
- 1032 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure.
10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM
- 1008 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure.
10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM
- 890 Views
It should be noted again...
09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM
- 1060 Views
and how is it not a right?
09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM
- 934 Views
My definition of rights...
09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM
- 1058 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right.
10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM
- 818 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example
10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM
- 915 Views

You could just as easily move the emphasis...
10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM
- 1042 Views
If we need a more specific resolution...
10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM
- 1215 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM
- 911 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM
- 1228 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize.
10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM
- 874 Views
The point is that marriage IS a right, one which cannot be denied based upon sexual orientation *NM*
10/08/2010 07:04:16 PM
- 701 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context
10/08/2010 03:46:56 PM
- 1104 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though.
10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM
- 909 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM
- 907 Views
Re: I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point.
10/08/2010 06:33:56 PM
- 841 Views
It's mentioned as a right in some SC decision quoted in that Walker opinion. *NM*
10/08/2010 06:51:13 PM
- 452 Views
To clarify for you
10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM
- 844 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body...
10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM
- 1283 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body'
10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM
- 881 Views
The fact that it is capable of authorizing the use of military force makes it an enforcement body
10/08/2010 10:33:59 PM
- 1152 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless....
10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM
- 856 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM*
11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM
- 491 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right.
10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM
- 988 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction...
10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM
- 1068 Views
Note it all you want...
10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM
- 782 Views
No, they seek to expand the terms of the partnership. Homosexuals can & do get married normally *NM*
11/08/2010 03:14:25 PM
- 502 Views
The best one yet.
10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM
- 1040 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM
- 908 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM
- 1017 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM
- 904 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane
11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM
- 1028 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM
- 1014 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel
11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM
- 981 Views