“Even if true (and I don’t know, I’m not up on my Scandinavian sociology), so what? Since when is it the government’s job to socially engineer its citizenry?”

Since forever– all governments, throughout all recorded history.

Might be interesting to try one that doesn’t do so, but I think it’d be better to find a small island somewhere and first try it there.

Actually, William Golding once wrote a novel on that, right?

OK, I’m done with this topic. 3 posts is enough.

Even if true (and I don’t know, I’m not up on my Scandinavian sociology), so what? Since when is it the government’s job to socially engineer its citizenry? It’s government’s job first and foremost to guard individual rights, such as equal protection under the law, and if society is evolving, through the combined decisions of it people, in a direction that causes marriage rates to go down, really, what’s the big deal? We’d be more married as a society if divorce were illegal, too, but I don’t see anybody adovcating that.

There are clear consequences to gay marriage. Scandinavia has had gay marriage for 15 years. Basically:
1) Very few gays actually marry each other.
2) They tend to have ‘open’ marriages.
3) Many of them are older Scandinavians importing much younger men from poor countries.
4) As the focus shifts to individual relationship rather than societal expectations of getting men and women together, marriage becomes just another alternative– optional, rather than expected. So marriage rates overall go down.

And more… read Stanley Kurtz for more details.

Basically, not much of a win for gays, a big loss for Scandinavia.

It’s Houston rather than Dallas which has the large thriving gay community. Not that there isn’t one in Dallas and even Ft. Worth, but the attitude is different. Houston is freewheeling in all respects.

I don’t understand your prejudice against polygamy. I really don’t see it as anything but irrational prejudice, exactly the way JenLArt’s attitude toward gay marriage looks to me. Being in favor of gay marriage is officially GOOOOD among the current thought-fashion tsars, while polygamy is of course still BAAAAAD, but I fail to perceive any reason underlying the prejudice in either case.

The argument that we shouldn’t change the nature of marriage after all this time (and that is what is being proposed here—polygamy has in fact been common from time to time in human history while gay marriage has never been) because there may be unseen consequences which we do not understand does hold some weight with me, but only some. After all, followed to its logical extreme this attitude would preclude any change whatsoever, which cannot be the true path.

btw: marriage is NOT limited to heterosexuals, but to members of the opposite gender. then sexual preference of the man and woman in the marriage is not relevant.

what has never in hman history been part of marriage is same gender marriage. neihter has human-animal marriage or human-corpse marriage – neither of which would harm third parties in a technical sense.

as hayek wrote: insitutions like marriage grew up over eons and have many intricate and seemingly hidden beneficiary/anciliary effects in a society. when we tamper with them we may be undermining those other effects -havo9ng UNINTENDED consequences, ya know: the ones which always come back to bite you.

that’s why i support legal unions for same gender couples. and oppose altering the instituion of marriage.

let’s give them their rights without tampering with one of our oldest institutions.

But it’s hard for me to see the arguments against gay marriage. The procreative one is just silly. Should sterile couples, or elderly couples be barred from marriage? Should young couples be required to sign a “procreation oath?” Please. The “threat to marriage” argument is weak too, I think. I mean, if gay marriage were the biggest threat to traditional marriage we had, we’d be doing pretty well. I don’t think it threatens it at all.

But it certainly does open the door to polygamy, at least legally. And “pathetic Mormons” won’t be the ones who we will see bring it up. It will be Muslims. Polygamy is more problematic than gay marriage because of the “consent” issue. Are (particularly young) women in certain insulated subcultures really giving “free” consent to be married into polygamous marriages?

Still, that isn’t persuasive enough an argument for me to oppose gay marriage. Denying gays the right to marry because we are afaraid of certain subcultures pushing polygamy isn’t logical, and it isn’t fair. I think our culture faces bigger threats than two people wanting to commit themselves to a loving relationship.