I don’t understand how polygamy violates any of this definition per se. (Not that I’m a fan of polygamy, but what is so obvious to David is far from obvious to me in this case.)

Richard M,

Thank you for acknowledging this. Whether speaking in terms of philosophy, anthropology, or the Judeo-Christian tradition, it simply makes no sense to define marriage in such a way as to exclude polygamy. Whatever one may think of same-sex marriage, to claim it is a stepping stone to polygamy is nonsense.

Talk of infertile or aged couples is really beside the point. Marriage was not made for them.

The question in my mind is, “Was marriage made?” What kind of “thing” is marriage?

Polygamous and arranged marriage may be “Marriage” under the natural law and even – at one point – the divine law.

But both still have/had as one principal – certainly possible – component: the procreation and rearing of children.

Talk of infertile or aged couples is really beside the point. Marriage was not made for them.

If children were generated and raised in some other fashion, marriage would not exist. Other contractual relationships might have come into existence; but they would not be marriage as we have come to understand it down through the ages.

But that is what has gotten lost in the marriage debate, certainly by advocates of gay marriage (just like with no-fault divorce advocates before them): the good of the children. What prevails instead is a great deal of rank selfishness. And disordered morality.

It’s a ridiculous fantasy. Much of our society is living in la-la land. It’s the same as those mushroom clouds and destroyed buildings in Iraq, whose reality were “illegal”. I didn’t buy that, either.

peg,

Of course it does. They were legally married in California, and consequently they were a married couple. I know of no one who has maintained that same-sex couples who have civil weddings in those areas (countries and states) where same-sex marriage is permitted are not legally married. It is a fact people may not like, but it is nevertheless a fact.

As I have already pointed out, the authors of the op-ed page piece criticizing the law say the following:

Prominent LGBT rights organizations have come out in support of this bill, but the issues it addresses are not limited to same-sex couples. For example, In Re M.C. would not have been different if already-pregnant Melissa had married a man. The ambiguity about who is the legal parent, the biological father or (in that case) the husband, would remain. And in either case, the court should make that decision.

I suppose it could be a satisfying legal problem to hash through, too—hours of enjoyment—for people who like those kinds of puzzles and can forget the attendant suffering of innocent humans.

In other words, good people are too sensitive to discuss the legal issues here. It’s something only the cold-hearted would do, for their own amusement.

Not only that, the credulous will accept as truth the bumper sticker tenet that multiple “parents” are better than the traditional two—more people to love the little mite! All those grandparents to spoil the little guy!

Of course, human nature will assert itself, usually right away. It will take years before society admits that it engaged in magical or wishful thinking, though.

Hardly. I think this is refered to as the “circumstances” in “the world today”.

The problem in this mess is the status of Irene. You say, “IF Irene were Isaac…”, but she is not Isaac. She is neither Melissa’s husband nor MC’s mother. Calling them a married couple does not make them so, any more than a man who calls himself Loretta is a woman, even if he hopes to gestate a fetus in a box. That’s how bizarrely ridiculous these situations are, brought about by the sexual “liberation” crowd who didn’t think things through. It would be funny if not for the MCs of the world.

I suppose it could be a satisfying legal problem to hash through, too—hours of enjoyment—for people who like those kinds of puzzles and can forget the attendant suffering of innocent humans.

First of all, we could take out the word “loving” from my definition and then your first criticism fall away. Yet, I am hesitant to take that word out for this reason: I am talking about “essence” (what a thing is at its core). You, instead, are talking about what a thing is “in history.” What a thing is in its essence need not be mirrored at a particular point in historical time. Your hidden assumption, which is false, is this: Whatever marriage is at point X in time is what marriage is. Why would you say that? As an example outside of our discussion, if most people at time X live in caves, do we then say, “Oh, a cave is a building because the essence of a building is a structure in which people live, and people live in caves, therefore it follows that caves are buildings.” The problem, of course, with this labeling is that a building is more than—more than—a place where people live. It is and always has been the same with marriage and that is why people have fought so hard (and have won) to negate the equating of marriage with something arranged and even polygamous.

I think we have now addressed your second point as well. Polygamy in history has been called marriage, but over time most societies have developed—developed, David—to see more clearly and so polygamy has been banned.

The take-home message is this: Marriage is not relative to history or to culture or to opinion. It is what it is and when societies begin to define it erroneously, they begin to see the negative consequences of this and therefore to develop a more adequate definition without so many tragic flaws, as has happened characteristically with arranged and polygamous marriages.

Oh, and by the way, have you ever been to Jerusalem? Do you know what the hill is called (and seems to have been called since ancient times) where Solomon had his “wives”? Right—The Mount of Scandal.

Now, David, you realize that you have added to my list of woes whenever marriage is taken out of the context of its essence and its purpose. You have added what I forgot to include—incest. Did you know that in Argentina and Brazil, there is no criminal penalty against incest when defined in certain ways (and always including a blood relative)? I hope you do not find that shocking because your fight for same-sex “marriage” is opening the door for this and your word “ridiculous” is dismissive without addressing my issues.

Oh, one more thing. In your free time, you might want to read the articles about the “three way marriage” in Brazil that has been causing an uproar lately. It should do nothing of the sort if—if—marriage is taken out of its essence and purpose. What just happened in Brazil follows logically from the kinds of thinking in which you engage.

David, you have not refuted a thing. I am still waiting.

You certainly have a number of things right. Marriage is not about “love”. That arranged marriage is so common is evidence of that. Polygamous marriage has been and still is, in some places, part of the traditional. But what made each of every one of them marriage was the possibility of children.

As to polygamy, in Western civilizations, we have come to believe that men and women should be equal in the family, that polygamy (polyandry having always been rare) results in some women and their children being treated as second class. Lastly, we reach for the love that nurtures children even in arranged marriages, but caring for our children should come first. At least, we used to so believe, even if we not infrequently fell short.