Why Do People Care About Gay Marriage?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
521

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
A society where alpha males mate with numerous females and form family structures promotes (a)the creation of children and (b)the formation of social units well suited for raising children. You know, those two things the government wants to incentivize so bad. Right BB?

Not only that, consider that alpha males and alpha females tend to do well in other endeavors, so allowing the majority of procreation to be done by alpha males/females even further promotes better situations for children to be raised in.

[/quote]

Really? Do tell - relative to a society with widespread traditional marriage, including polyandry would be a relative improvement in both categories (creation of children and formation of units at least as good for raising those children), justifying any extra societal costs?

522

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Also, it would tend to hurt beta males more, but you may also get a critical mass of poor males who might otherwise tend to be alphas in that situation - maybe not as relevant a threat in a richer country such as the U.S., but still something that should be considered from a societal risk point of view.

Makavali wrote:
Who might OTHERWISE be Alpha? Then they were never meant to be Alpha.[/quote]

Not having resources can be a bitch.

523

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
A society where alpha males mate with numerous females and form family structures promotes (a)the creation of children and (b)the formation of social units well suited for raising children. You know, those two things the government wants to incentivize so bad. Right BB?

Not only that, consider that alpha males and alpha females tend to do well in other endeavors, so allowing the majority of procreation to be done by alpha males/females even further promotes better situations for children to be raised in.

Really? Do tell - relative to a society with widespread traditional marriage, including polyandry would be a relative improvement in both categories (creation of children and formation of units at least as good for raising those children), justifying any extra societal costs?[/quote]

Yes.

Alpha males/alpha females tend to be physcially attractive; this generally indicates healthy mates which produce healthy offspring. The more people involved, the more potential incomes, also, alpha males/females tend to be successful - again, financial security. Further, having one man and three women means that, should one (or even two) of the mothers decide to start careers, this allows for the chilren to still be raised by at least one parent figure (by raised I mean as a stay-at-home, you’ll have to forgive me for being lazy). Alpha males/females tend to be good role models. Being raised by multiple people means the child(ren) is less likely to be/feel neglected. Having a wider support system gives the children more opprotunity to get different perspectives and a broader range of experiences. All this isn’t just pertaining to polyandry, btw.

Yeah, I’d say there are good reasons that polygamy would actually be better than monogamy.

524

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:

Polygamy is problematic for society mostly because of your polyandry point - but the problem is for low-status males, who get aced out of the marriage market all together. Wide spread polyandry would effectively create for a society the same thing China will be facing because of its demographic policies: lots of angry young men with no women available to them.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Sounds like you’re just bitching that you wouldn’t have a chance at getting laid. Why should the government consider your feelings on the matter? “Waaah! I’m afraid of the alpha males getting all the women and none of them being forced to settle for me!”

BostonBarrister wrote:

Look at the gamma-male thinking he’s funny when he’s missing the point…

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Aw, you sound hurt. You should have known that when I said you I wasnt talking about you. Duh.

I didn’t think you were - it’s just your stupidity is painful. My eyes ache from intaking it. To think that you honed this skill through years of wasted education only
makes it worse.
[/quote]

Psh. This is all natural, baby. Ain’t nobody teach me how’a do me.

Right. So, since there aren’t enough, they shouldn’t be considered. Is that it? Or are “societal effects” that concern them just not important because they’re gay (or poly) and you’re not?

And yes, the government giving special rights to heterosexual monogamous people and withholding those rights to others offends my sensibilities - it kind of goes against that whole “equality” and “civil rights” thing.

Yeah I’m really sorry. You keep supporting this thing thats directly lined to ongoing homophobia, claim that homophobia being the reason for it not to change is irrelevant, claim that effects on homosexuals shouldn’t be considered because the government shouldn’t be concerned with ‘hurt feelings’… yeah I absolutely dont see anything that would lead anybody to ever believe you to be bigoted against homosexuals. Nope, nothing at all.

looks around for his candy at-dollar sign-dollar sign

525

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Not having resources can be a bitch.[/quote]

Oh well. Guess they won’t be able to work their way up. Thank GOD for government handouts.

526

My, my, so much ignorance in your reply, so little time to correct it all…

First, you’re conflating some sort of “Alpha Male” gene with an Alpha Male position in a human society, which, if the Alpha Male gene exists might have an overlap but shouldn’t be conflated. Were you a soc major or something?

Second, you haven’t thought about the societal advantages we get from somewhat controlling the competition for women amongst males. Amongst the numerous advantages are controlling those disaffected young males would would be either the the beta losers at the bottom, or wanna-be-but-resource-constrained alpha types who would be more likely to resort to violence to displace the current alpha males who were hoarding the access to women (you know, like in the animal kingdom which has lots of polygamy) - this we previously mentioned. Not mentioned above were the contributions to society made by beta males - we need to encourage their reproductive success ( Gene Expression: Intercourse and Intelligence ; Whiskey's Place: Why the Beta Male Exists ). This doesn’t require government dating services, or overt manipulation of female choice - just the inhibition on the ability of one male to dominate access to multiple females (this would also hopefully address the problem jsbrook pointed out about coercion of females).

One can see the results of Alpha Male dominance without strong traditional marriage pretty easily too. Just look at the poorer cultures in the U.S., or the trendlines in Europe (yes, by all means, let’s emulate them… (note, this sarcasm)). African Americans in the US have 70% nationwide illegitimacy - and this is driven by an astonishing 90% rate the “urban core”, aka the ghettos. Whites have 34% illegitimacy rates, but with a similar driver amongst poor, uneducated whites. This is compared to 4% in 1965, and 24% for blacks in 1965 - but let’s keep undermining marriage!

This is indicative of a pattern of women chasing after the alpha males who do most/all of the reproduction, but are unconstrained by traditional marriage because societal pressures, particularly in the most problematic communities, have combined with legal changes (and previously with governmental programs like welfare) to leave generations of fatherless kids, with boys especially running wild and engaging in thuggery to be the most macho and thus the most favored by women.

Britain’s illegitimacy rate is 50%. Most of Northern Europe has the same rates or higher, including the Scandinavian nations, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, France, and Switzerland.

Third, role models for what? For successfully competing for the attention of women? Or for maximizing productivity in society? Might we care which?

But apparently you think it will be one big mythical African village from a Hillary Clinton story… more like a Yanamamo settlement. I’m sure those women in your little vision would all love spending their resources and energies on raising other women’s kids generally - couldn’t foresee any problems with that (see: history of the world).

And this ignores the complexity of the legal relationships among the parents - I would assume you’re for allowing easy divorce amongst polyandrous groups as well? Custody? Inheritence? Back to prima geniture I guess.

Short version: You’re a moron, and the government policy does not need to be about empowering individual adults to make whatever choices they believe will maximize their personal happiness. Policy decisions should seek to maximize the benefits enjoyed by society overall (yes, that means the majority, in the aggregate).

Getting an overview on a subject from you would be like learning from Calvin’s dad from “Calvin and Hobbes”:

[i]
Calvin: Why does the sky turn red as the sun sets?

Dad: That’s all the oxygen in the atmosphere catching fire.

Calvin: Where does the sun go when it sets?

Dad: The sun sets in the west. In Arizona actually, near Flagstaff. That’s why the rocks there are so red.

Calvin: Don’t the people get burned up?

Dad: No, the sun goes out as it sets. That’s why it’s dark at night.

Calvin: Doesn’t the sun crush the whole state as it lands?

Dad: Ha ha, of course not. Hold a quarter up. See, the sun’s just about the same size.

Calvin: I thought I read that the sun was really big.

Dad: You can’t believe everything you read, I’m afraid.[/i]

527

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

Polygamy is problematic for society mostly because of your polyandry point - but the problem is for low-status males, who get aced out of the marriage market all together. Wide spread polyandry would effectively create for a society the same thing China will be facing because of its demographic policies: lots of angry young men with no women available to them.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Sounds like you’re just bitching that you wouldn’t have a chance at getting laid. Why should the government consider your feelings on the matter? “Waaah! I’m afraid of the alpha males getting all the women and none of them being forced to settle for me!”

BostonBarrister wrote:

Look at the gamma-male thinking he’s funny when he’s missing the point…

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Aw, you sound hurt. You should have known that when I said you I wasnt talking about you. Duh.

I didn’t think you were - it’s just your stupidity is painful. My eyes ache from intaking it. To think that you honed this skill through years of wasted education only
makes it worse.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Psh. This is all natural, baby. Ain’t nobody teach me how’a do me.[/quote]

I guess we just have your parents to blame then. At least your stupidity isn’t contagious; thank the Lord for small mercies.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The government should consider overall societal effects,

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
You mean like the overall societal effect of supporting homophobia? Hmmmm.

Oh, I get it. When its a societal effect you’re comfortable with, challenging it is “Just whining about hurt feelings”. But when its something that doesnt sit well with you, suddenly the government should give it grave consideration.

And you wonder why someone would call you a bigot…

BostonBarrister wrote:
Really, you’re harming my retina. Your posts should come with a warning: Shield your eyes or look away to avoid damage from concentrated retardation. I see a class-action lawsuit from T-Nation readers in the offing…

The overall societal effects to which I was referring actually impact society overall, as opposed to offending your sensibilities, or failing to provide governmental validation that sub-group of the approximately 4% of the adult population who might desire it.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Right. So, since there aren’t enough, they shouldn’t be considered. Is that it? Or are “societal effects” that concern them just not important because they’re gay (or poly) and you’re not?

And yes, the government giving special rights to heterosexual monogamous people and withholding those rights to others offends my sensibilities - it kind of goes against that whole “equality” and “civil rights” thing.[/quote]

You don’t have a civil right to a benefits program.

And apparently you can’t read very well: you keep dropping the word “overall” - as in for society overall, in the aggregate - you know, the majority. That group with which broad policy decisions should be most concerned. And the group that gets to make the (indirect) decisions in our form of consensual government.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, no one wonders why you would call someone a bigot: your arguments fail, so it’s your best line. And I mean that in its most relative sense.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yeah I’m really sorry. You keep supporting this thing thats directly lined to ongoing homophobia, claim that homophobia being the reason for it not to change is irrelevant, claim that effects on homosexuals shouldn’t be considered because the government shouldn’t be concerned with ‘hurt feelings’… yeah I absolutely dont see anything that would lead anybody to ever believe you to be bigoted against homosexuals. Nope, nothing at all.[/quote]

Yes, defining an interest in benefiting society overall, as opposed to taking an action at the expense of society overall in favor of a small special interest, is now defined as bigotry by Cap’n Crunch. They didn’t teach you much about how to think properly in school; the least they could have done was teach you how to use the language properly. Or maybe they only taught Propaganda for Logically Challenged Idiots over and over for your degree?

“It doesn’t matter what you think. Know your role and shut your mouth.”

  • The Rock
528

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Conservatism in general is rooted in avoidance of the hubris of assuming one has enough understanding of complex institutions that have evolved over generations to monkey with their essences, as well as a healthy appreciation of the law of unintended consequences.[/quote]

Note that this ALWAYS places conservatism on the losing side of history. Insofar as we have made progress, conservatism has been a hindrance. This means that anytime effort is put forth to create a new system to correct the mistakes of the old system, conservatism is a hindrance.

The Romans and Jews that rejected Christ were conservatives. In the Revolutionary War, the conservatives were the Tories. In the Civil War, the conservatives were the Confederates. In the battle for civil rights, the conservatives were the southerners who wanted to continue segregation. Always and eventually, the conservatives lose. No wonder they’re so fucking pissed all the time.

I think it’s hubris to think that changing the institution of marriage to include homosexuals would be more damaging to marriage than, say, a consumerist culture that encourages discarding the old and replacing it with the newest model. Can marriage really be expected to survive in a society where one is always expected to obtain the newest and best of everything?

In the end, it doesn’t matter what the conservatives think, because in the end, the conservatives ALWAYS lose. That warms the cockles of my heart.

529

Interesting little reality you’ve constructed for yourself there - I suppose at least your cockles are nice and toasty inside…

First, while it may make you feel good to essentially define progress as movement, they aren’t synonymous. A change can be for the worse - and when progressives win, it often is, if not in whole cloth then at least in large measure.

Secondly, your history suffers from a “dog that didn’t bark” problem. When conservatives win, no change is noted, so it’s not recorded as a big event. It may eventually change, or it may stay the same, or circumstances may change that either make the concerns irrelevant (w/r/t polyandry, another large war knocking out a large percentage of the male population would be that type of change) or moot the desire to change at all. When conservatives lose and are correct, society changes - maybe for the worse, but no one is noting that but perhaps a bunch of grumpy old guys who lost that particular battle - unless conservatives lost and a societal tipping point was reached, like the fall of the Roman Empire, for instance.

When progressives lose and drop a cause, no one notes it really. It’s only the big changes that are noted. But their noting doesn’t mean that they always or inevitably happen. Change, yes - the type of change you want or envision? Maybe not - how do you suppose all those Islamic immigrants into the Western European “countries of tolerance” view gay marriage? What’s the fertility rate over there again?

As to your specific historical examples, they’re all so facile as to be laughable, but that said, w/r/t Jesus, who cares? W/r/t the Revolution, the Tories lost - but then the Federalists, not the anti-Federalists, won on how to construct the government and the Constitution. And defining the Civil War as simply a conflict between progressives and conservatives is just too mind boggling to even categorize - suffice it to say the Southern states had some pretty radical ideas, such as breaking up the Union and repudiating their debts.

With marriage, sadly, there are many attacks on it - which doesn’t seem to be a good argument to pile on, at least to me. I don’t think anyone knows the tipping point - but some parts of our society have reached it, and it looks as if Europe has reached it as well…

530

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
You don’t have a civil right to a benefits program.
[/quote]

You made an analogy a while ago about a benefits program for farmers, but not gas stations. Would you say, then, it would be ok for the government to then decide that people with blonde hair were not allowed to become farmers?

The government can, sure, give benefits to married people. The government cannot, then, discriminate against homosexuals who wish to do so. This is called inequality.

Fuck the majority. There’s a reason America is not a true democracy, I think you said it before, that the majority cannot create a tyranny over any minorities.

But BB, black people are only, what, 12% of the population? And slavery sure made things better for white people, why did we ever get rid of that?? It was good for the majority!

Why should other religions be allowed to practice in the united states? The majority of americans are christian! Laws reflecting christianity are good for the majority!

I consider you a bigot because you adopt this “Tough shit, majority rules” attitude towards whoever is not like you, but rush to defend and placate those like you (lower class males). Let me explain something to you about rights: The rights of one individual trump the desires of the rest of the world. Read that again. Keep reading it till it sinks in.

To give heterosexuals the option to enter into a certain legal contract (called marriage), but to withhold that option from homosexuals goes against equal rights. No matter what you think the effect on society would be - doesn’t. fucking. matter. Because it may offend the sensibilities of bigots doesn’t matter. The rights of one person trump the comfort and desires of “the majority” regardless of what “the majority” may or may not do.

The fact that you consider equal rights for homosexuals to be “taking an action at the expense of society overall” makes you a bigot.

531

But BB, the majority of people didn’t want interracial marriage, and it could have destroyed the publics perception of marriage so badly that the institution itself would dissolve. Why in the hell would the government allow it, when it risked so much harm to the majority and so few people actually wanted it?

Btw, I ignored your “Saying bigotry is bigotry is like saying a preference is a preference, so if I prefer corn flakes is the same as I prefer raping nuns” argument because it was actually, literally, too stupid for me to even bother with. But, I’ll bother with it now: It was stupid.

532

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
You don’t have a civil right to a benefits program.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
You made an analogy a while ago about a benefits program for farmers, but not gas stations. Would you say, then, it would be ok for the government to then decide that people with blonde hair were not allowed to become farmers?[/quote]

That would be fine if there was a rational reason to do so - but of course that’s not actually the analogy.

The analogy is the government makes a benefit available to people who want to start farms, but not people who want to start gas stations. The fact you don’t want to start a farm doesn’t mean there is illegal discrimination against someone who wants to start a gas station.

Quite specifically, the government isn’t prohibiting gay people from marrying - it’s refusing to legally recognize a same-sex relationship as a marriage. The fact they don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex isn’t the same as their being prohibited from doing so. That’s just a logical point.

Luckily you’re not smart and you’re not Mr. Webster, so your definitions of terms don’t really matter. Maybe I could contact Webster’s, though, and get you added as an example for a phrase entry: “person educated beyond his intellectual capacity.”

533

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But BB, the majority of people didn’t want interracial marriage, and it could have destroyed the publics perception of marriage so badly that the institution itself would dissolve. Why in the hell would the government allow it, when it risked so much harm to the majority and so few people actually wanted it?

Btw, I ignored your “Saying bigotry is bigotry is like saying a preference is a preference, so if I prefer corn flakes is the same as I prefer raping nuns” argument because it was actually, literally, too stupid for me to even bother with. But, I’ll bother with it now: It was stupid.[/quote]

Well look-y here: Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius (aka Cap’n Crunch), has asserted that differences in scale do not matter at all, and are stupid, so it must be true… Thus a speck of dust in space and Jupiter are equivalent because they are both space rocks affected by gravity - how could I argue with that?

Also, the essence of marriage doesn’t have anything to do with race, and none of the policy goals have anything to do with race. Race is irrelevant to marriage. Gender differences are the essence of marriage. Just a little bit different.

534

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
storey420 wrote:

Exactly how would gay men or women run around impregnating evrything that moves? What about the tens of thousands of children with siblings from multiple fathers that the father was married to the mother at time of birth?

You may want to catch up by reading the last couple of pages. My contentions that you cite above were not offered to address the question “why not gay marriage?”, but rather “why not get rid of marriage as a public institution at all?”. Separate issue to which my arguments above were directed.

We got to that question because those that wanted non-traditional marriage recognized in law (or equalized with traditional marriage, at least) came to the predictable conclusion that recognizing all consenting adult relationships as “equal” and therefore worthy of being honored as a “marriage” essentially dissolved the entire point of marriage, therefore getting rid of it as a public institution. They were ok with that as the next logical step, and my comments above addressed that logical next step and why getting rid of marriage was a bad idea.[/quote]

You’re right. Sorry didn’t read back far enough. mea culpa

535

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

It’s not. Homosexual couples don’t want to get married, as defined - they want to change the definition of marriage to encompass their chosen relationship. The government wants to incentivize marriage, as defined, and not to undermine marriage, as defined, and has rational reasons for wanting to do so.[/quote]

Well, herein lies the crux of the issue. There is no set definition and consensus of marriage. Not everyone agrees that marriage is between a woman and a man. If there was a concensus, there would be no dispute at all. At least as a legal matter, many feel that any professed committed union between two people is a marriage and is entitled to all the legal benefits that accompany it whatever the sex of the two people. Religion brings a whole different elemesnt, but I don’ think anyone–even the most ardent supporter of gay marriage–are telling churches and synagogues (or any other religious denominations) that they should recognize and approve of it.

536

The definition of bigot is as follows:

So BB is “utterly intolerant” of homosexuality because he doesn’t think gays should get married?

Also, if I’m utterly intolerant of a creed like, say, Nazism, isn’t that a good thing? Doesn’t it depend on the creed I’m being “utterly intolerant” of? I’m not comparing homosexuality with Nazism, but the term “bigot” can actually be a complement. Suppose I was intolerant of a creed that said, “kill or subjugate unbelievers.” I would take the term “bigot” to be complementary.

I’m starting to wonder if words have meanings to liberals. I think I know the answer.

537

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But BB, the majority of people didn’t want interracial marriage, and it could have destroyed the publics perception of marriage so badly that the institution itself would dissolve. Why in the hell would the government allow it, when it risked so much harm to the majority and so few people actually wanted it?

Btw, I ignored your “Saying bigotry is bigotry is like saying a preference is a preference, so if I prefer corn flakes is the same as I prefer raping nuns” argument because it was actually, literally, too stupid for me to even bother with. But, I’ll bother with it now: It was stupid.

Well look-y here: Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius (aka Cap’n Crunch), has asserted that differences in scale do not matter at all, and are stupid, so it must be true… Thus a speck of dust in space and Jupiter are equivalent because they are both space rocks affected by gravity - how could I argue with that?

Also, the essence of marriage doesn’t have anything to do with race, and none of the policy goals have anything to do with race. Race is irrelevant to marriage. Gender differences are the essence of marriage. Just a little bit different.[/quote]

Says who? Once again, marriage is a social construct. It is what people believe it to be. Many would say monogamy, unyielding committment, and sharing is the only ‘essence’ of marriage.

538

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But BB, the majority of people didn’t want interracial marriage, and it could have destroyed the publics perception of marriage so badly that the institution itself would dissolve. Why in the hell would the government allow it, when it risked so much harm to the majority and so few people actually wanted it?

Btw, I ignored your “Saying bigotry is bigotry is like saying a preference is a preference, so if I prefer corn flakes is the same as I prefer raping nuns” argument because it was actually, literally, too stupid for me to even bother with. But, I’ll bother with it now: It was stupid.

Well look-y here: Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius (aka Cap’n Crunch), has asserted that differences in scale do not matter at all, and are stupid, so it must be true… Thus a speck of dust in space and Jupiter are equivalent because they are both space rocks affected by gravity - how could I argue with that?

Also, the essence of marriage doesn’t have anything to do with race, and none of the policy goals have anything to do with race. Race is irrelevant to marriage. Gender differences are the essence of marriage. Just a little bit different.

Says who? Once again, marriage is a social construct. It is what people believe it to be. Many would say monogamy, unyielding committment, and sharing is the only ‘essence’ of marriage.[/quote]

It is a social construct. In some countries, you can marry a girl as young as six and have sex with her at nine and have up to 4 wives. The wives are property.

539

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But BB, the majority of people didn’t want interracial marriage, and it could have destroyed the publics perception of marriage so badly that the institution itself would dissolve. Why in the hell would the government allow it, when it risked so much harm to the majority and so few people actually wanted it?

Btw, I ignored your “Saying bigotry is bigotry is like saying a preference is a preference, so if I prefer corn flakes is the same as I prefer raping nuns” argument because it was actually, literally, too stupid for me to even bother with. But, I’ll bother with it now: It was stupid.

Well look-y here: Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius (aka Cap’n Crunch), has asserted that differences in scale do not matter at all, and are stupid, so it must be true… Thus a speck of dust in space and Jupiter are equivalent because they are both space rocks affected by gravity - how could I argue with that?

Also, the essence of marriage doesn’t have anything to do with race, and none of the policy goals have anything to do with race. Race is irrelevant to marriage. Gender differences are the essence of marriage. Just a little bit different.

Says who? Once again, marriage is a social construct. It is what people believe it to be. Many would say monogamy, unyielding committment, and sharing is the only ‘essence’ of marriage.

It is a social construct. In some countries, you can marry a girl as young as six and have sex with her at nine and have up to 4 wives. The wives are property. [/quote]

And I’m not saying that’s right. But if enough people in THIS country feel that marriage is not definitionally between a man and a woman, than it’s NOT. I don’t know that this is where we are right now. But I think it is inevitably where we will one day be.

540

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

Also, the essence of marriage doesn’t have anything to do with race, and none of the policy goals have anything to do with race. Race is irrelevant to marriage. Gender differences are the essence of marriage. Just a little bit different.

jsbrook wrote:

Says who? Once again, marriage is a social construct. It is what people believe it to be. Many would say monogamy, unyielding committment, and sharing is the only ‘essence’ of marriage.[/quote]

You’re right, in the social sense. History and social practice throughout the millenia have defined marriage as the relationship between a man and a woman - even in the polygamous context, the actual marriage was between one man and one woman, in all the cases of which I’m aware, with the polygamy coming in with the allowance of further marriages. I’m sure if we stretched our brains, we could come up with some possible pragmatic reason for this…

But in any case, yes, some would like to change the historical construct of marriage. And they may; and if it’s done via the democratic process, I may disagree because of the possible problems posed for traditional marriage (see my previous posts in this too long thread), but I would have had my say. What marriage is not is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution to an individual (the mere idea that a legal status invented for couples would be seen as an individual right says a lot). I’m fairly sure you’d agree with this last point, but I’m restating it here anyway.