[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;269959]Are you going to deny bisexuals the right to marry partners from both genders? On what basis do you make that discrimination? Why must a marriage be between only two people? Why aren't you being cruel while you think I am (i.e., what is the difference)?[/QUOTE]
Nowhere have I stated that I think you personally are cruel. I don't think that. I merely think the effects of the discrimination can be so described in the most extreme cases.

Why must a marriage be between only two people, you ask.
Let's jump back a step further. Why do we have marriage at all?
The answer is that there is a strong human calling, stemming from deep in our nature, to bond with another, single, individual. Whether this ultimately succeeds for the lifetimes of the individuals or not (and very often it does), it is an overwhelmingly strong urge for a majority of the population and it led many centuries ago to the institution of marriage between two people as we know it in the Western culture.

Polygamy, where it is legal, probably arose and still thrives, at least partly, due to a very different natural urge: the desire to have power over (including sexual "rights" over) multiple others. I don't see polygamy as an institution which is called for in the culture I live in or in the rest of the Western world. If it isn't called for then there is no need to implement it. In any case I believe polygamy to be based on a completely different set of values and human characteristics than our marriage institution. In short: polygamy is something else. I reserve judgment about whether polygamy is a good thing for the cultures in which it is legal because I am an outsider to those cultures.

Your mention of bisexuals in the context of polygamy, which is what you seem to be doing unless I am misunderstanding you, only reveals an ignorance of what bisexuality is. Bisexual people are no more likely to want to marry multiple partners than straight or gay people are.

[QUOTE]At least historically, marriage brought with it the right to sexual relations. If a spouse refused spousal favors the other party could be granted a divorce (back when it was harder to get them). Does your understanding of the institution of marriage have any connections to sex?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Sex in the context of marriage is part of the human nature which led to the marriage institution in the first place.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;269952]Maybe it will be like removing from the definition of "species" the phrase "able to procreate and produce viable offspring" (so, we can consider lions and tigers to be the same species).[/QUOTE]At the risk of diverting the discussion, I should point out two things.

1) I have profound doubts about the usefulness of almost all definitions given for the word "species". There are just too many exceptions to any definition I've yet read.

2) Unfortunately, your definition doesn't hold up too well in my opinion. Some well-recognized species have never been observed to "procreate and produce viable offspring". There are many organisms which (appear to) reproduce purely asexually. Some bamboos have been observed for closely centuries and, although presumably flowering plants, have never been seen to flower and produce seeds. Garlic can be persuaded to produce seed but hardly ever, if at all, does so naturally. Some other species have been observed to breed with other different species to produce viable offspring. As chance would have it, a report of exactly this behaviour appeared a few days ago and, what is more, concerning a topic which is close to my heart --- beer. Here's the link: [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14592877[/url]. Finally, there are species which are unable to breed with members of their own species to produce viable offspring. Examples include the Arctic tern. Look up "ring species" for further examples.


Subsequent reading has turned up an example of a mammal which is the offspring of two different species (as currently recognized by taxonomists) which can produce fertile offspring of both sexes. It's the beefalo. I believe, but can't yet produce explicit examples, that similar behaviour has been discovered in flowering plants.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;269997]At the risk of diverting the discussion, I should point out two things.

1) I have profound doubts about the usefulness of almost all definitions given for the word "species". There are just too many exceptions to any definition I've yet read.[/quote]At the risk of diverting the discussion even more, I should point out that I don't see a direct connection between the usefulness of a word/concept in describing a general phenomenon in the world and the imprecision/exceptions to the word/concept's current definition.

That said, I should also say I chose the word "species" on purpose because I knew you had issues with it. While you personally may not find it useful, society (and I believe many biologists) do find it useful to some extent. (Just as physicists and engineers find Newtonian mechanics useful to some extent, even though it is also imprecise.)

That said, if you really don't like the word in the context of this discussion, pick one you do find useful.

[quote]2) Unfortunately, your definition doesn't hold up too well in my opinion. Some well-recognized species have never been observed to "procreate and produce viable offspring". There are many organisms which (appear to) reproduce purely asexually. Some bamboos have been observed for closely centuries and, although presumably flowering plants, have never been seen to flower and produce seeds. Garlic can be persuaded to produce seed but hardly ever, if at all, does so naturally. Some other species have been observed to breed with other different species to produce viable offspring. As chance would have it, a report of exactly this behaviour appeared a few days ago and, what is more, concerning a topic which is close to my heart --- beer. Here's the link: [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14592877[/url]. Finally, there are species which are unable to breed with members of their own species to produce viable offspring. Examples include the Arctic tern. Look up "ring species" for further examples.


Subsequent reading has turned up an example of a mammal which is the offspring of two different species (as currently recognized by taxonomists) which can produce fertile offspring of both sexes. It's the beefalo. I believe, but can't yet produce explicit examples, that similar behaviour has been discovered in flowering plants.[/QUOTE]You misunderstood. I never gave my definition of species. I was trying to use a simplified part of the definition given by dictionary.com: "the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species." You seem to have missed the point that I agree with you that the condition "able to breed among themselves" is not necessarily a part of what we intuitively would like species to mean.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;270018]That said, I should also say I chose the word "species" on purpose because I knew you had issues with it. While you personally may not find it useful, society (and I believe many biologists) do find it useful to some extent. (Just as physicists and engineers find Newtonian mechanics useful to some extent, even though it is also imprecise.)[/QUOTE]Oh, I find it useful in practice. I just don't find it well-defined in any useful manner.

That said, we should draw to a close this diversionary sub-thread and concentrate on the real subject.


Paul

[QUOTE]< snip > bisexuals
< snip > right to marry
< snip > On what basis
< snip > polygamists, or bisexuals, or best friends
< snip > historically, marriage
< snip > right to sexual relations
< snip > understanding of the institution of marriage
< snip > connections to sex
< snip > legal and societal expectations
< snip > the institution as a whole
< snip > societally validating life-long commitments[/QUOTE]ISTM that we have here (in one sense) is a clash between a set of ideas and rules about relationships that developed over a long time, based on what was supposed in those times to be accurate facts and accepted norms, and certain ideas that have arisen from more recent knowledge that has crossed what were formerly thought to be clear lines of demarcation. It's not that the more recent knowledge necessarily supersedes the older, but that it casts a different interpretation on the older, and the contexts differ now from what was the past situation. What we're groping toward is a coherent way of understanding the old with the new and incorporating both into consistent and accepted revised norms.

I don't claim that I am being profound here, or especially helpful. This post started out rather different, but simmered down to this.

[QUOTE=xilman;270019]Oh, I find it useful in practice. I just don't find it well-defined in any useful manner.

That said, we should draw to a close this diversionary sub-thread and concentrate on the real subject.[/QUOTE]I agree.

If it is useful, instead use the word "circle", which has multiple well-defined definitions (think non-Euclidean geometries). In some contexts it is appropriate to limit oneself to Euclidean circles (like when talking about the inability to trisect arbitrary angles with straightedge and compass), and in other contexts it is appropriate to use the expansive understanding.

The question, in this context, then becomes "What are we trying to describe?" Is it loving long-term relationships, societal regulation of behaviors related to coitus, or something else entirely?

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;270025]The question, in this context, then becomes "What are we trying to describe?" Is it loving long-term relationships, societal regulation of behaviors related to coitus, or something else entirely?[/QUOTE]My personal opinion, and it is only that though it may be shared with others, is that it (marriage) describes loving long-term relationships [b]and[/b] societal regulation and recognition of behaviour.

Paul

I've been thinking about what marriage is to myself:

marriage is a legal agreement to the following conditions

1) live together until death
2) all decisions involve both parties ( including if coitus can occur or what type of alternatives are going to be used)
3) the only legal exit to terms 1,and 2, is divorce ending the above agreement.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;269996]Nowhere have I stated that I think you personally are cruel. I don't think that. I merely think the effects of the discrimination can be so described in the most extreme cases.[/quote]Ah, I think I understand now. I suppose similar descriptions of cruelty could be given to vaccinations in the most extreme cases, or any number of other human endeavors in the most extreme cases.

[quote]Why must a marriage be between only two people, you ask.
Let's jump back a step further. Why do we have marriage at all?
The answer is that there is a strong human calling, stemming from deep in our nature, to bond with another, single, individual. Whether this ultimately succeeds for the lifetimes of the individuals or not (and very often it does), it is an overwhelmingly strong urge for a majority of the population and it led many centuries ago to the institution of marriage between two people as we know it in the Western culture.[/quote]I don't believe history backs you up on these assertions. This is discussed more fully in the article I linked to earlier.

[quote]Polygamy, where it is legal, probably arose and still thrives, at least partly, due to a very different natural urge: the desire to have power over (including sexual "rights" over) multiple others. I don't see polygamy as an institution which is called for in the culture I live in or in the rest of the Western world. If it isn't called for then there is no need to implement it. In any case I believe polygamy to be based on a completely different set of values and human characteristics than our marriage institution. In short: polygamy is something else. I reserve judgment about whether polygamy is a good thing for the cultures in which it is legal because I am an outsider to those cultures.[/quote]I've thought about how I might respond to this. It seems to me that you didn't really answer my questions. There were two competing ideas in my head about how I might help you understand that. Finally I decided to try both ideas. So here I go.

[b]Idea 1: Modify you post to show you how exactly these same ideas can be used against the gay agenda.[/b]

"[Gay marriage], where it is legal, probably arose and still thrives, at least partly, due to a very different natural urge: the desire to have [sexual relations with the same gender (I won't give the most negative characterization of these behaviors, like you did for polygamy)]. I don't see [gay marriage] as an institution which is called for in the culture I live in or in the rest of the Western world. If it isn't called for then there is no need to implement it. In any case I believe [gay marriage] to be based on a completely different set of values and human characteristics than our marriage institution. In short: [gay marriage] is something else. I reserve judgment about whether [gay marriage] is a good thing for the cultures in which it is legal because I am an outsider to those cultures."

[b]Idea 2: Modify standard arguments given for gay marriage to apply to polygamy, that try to counter these very same ideas.[/b]

You mention that marriage arises as a "strong human calling, stemming from deep in our nature, to bond with another, single, individual." Are you denying that there is a strong human calling, stemming from deep in our nature, to bond with multiple other individuals? Why is your strong human calling more important that this other, quite natural and common, calling? Just because there is "an overwhelmingly strong urge for a majority of the population" to participate in pairs, are you saying that the other natural urges of the minority should be relegated to discrimination?

[quote]Your mention of bisexuals in the context of polygamy, which is what you seem to be doing unless I am misunderstanding you, only reveals an ignorance of what bisexuality is. Bisexual people are no more likely to want to marry multiple partners than straight or gay people are.[/quote]I don't think I said otherwise, and I don't see how this has anything to do with the thread at large. The number of people who want multiple partners is irrelevant (and I imagine it is larger than the number of people who want same-sex partners). The point, rather, is whether their urges to have multiple partners are inherent, natural biologically motivated aspects of their sexuality.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;270051]Ah, I think I understand now. I suppose similar descriptions of cruelty could be given to vaccinations in the most extreme cases, or any number of other human endeavors in the most extreme cases.[/QUOTE]
...the difference being that the extreme cases of forcible breaking up of families due to failure to recognise marriages at federal level are occurring on a structural basis in the modern-day USA. Would you care to comment on the example to which I have linked twice of the married couple in San Francisco who are being split up (today is in fact the date that one partner is required to return to Australia) because their marriage is not recognized at Federal level?

[QUOTE]I don't believe history backs you up on these assertions [that marriage arose because it provided the framework for the natural human urge to bond with another person, B-E]. This is discussed more fully in the article I linked to earlier.[/QUOTE]Really? When I read through the article after you posted the link I found it extraordinarily bigoted and blinkered, but I didn't notice such a blatant misunderstanding as this of why marriage arose. Which part of the article are you talking about? Come on, surely you are not suggesting that the marriage institution did not come into existence because there was a natural human need for it.

[QUOTE]There were two competing ideas in my head about how I might help you understand that. Finally I decided to try both ideas. So here I go.

[B]Idea 1: Modify you post to show you how exactly these same ideas can be used against the gay agenda.[/B]

"[Gay marriage], where it is legal, probably arose and still thrives, at least partly, due to a very different natural urge: the desire to have [sexual relations with the same gender[/QUOTE]No, it's the same natural urge. Love, llifetime commitment, family forming.

[QUOTE]. I don't see [gay marriage] as an institution which is called for in the culture I live in or in the rest of the Western world. If it isn't called for then there is no need to implement it.[/QUOTE]It is now being called for in no uncertain terms. That is why we, and politicians and commentators throughout the western world, are having this discussion now.

[QUOTE] In any case I believe [gay marriage] to be based on a completely different set of values and human characteristics than our marriage institution.[/QUOTE]No. The values are the same. Lifelong bonding in committed love relationship with another human being in a family unit.

[QUOTE] In short: [gay marriage] is something else.[/QUOTE]No. Ditto.

[QUOTE] I reserve judgment about whether [gay marriage] is a good thing for the cultures in which it is legal because I am an outsider to those cultures.[/QUOTE]As an insider in a country which opened marriage 10 years ago, the first in the world to do so, I am proud to judge the removal of the previous inherent discrimination favourably.


[QUOTE][B]Idea 2: Modify standard arguments given for gay marriage to apply to polygamy, that try to counter these very same ideas.[/B]

You mention that marriage arises as a "strong human calling, stemming from deep in our nature, to bond with another, single, individual." Are you denying that there is a strong human calling, stemming from deep in our nature, to bond with multiple other individuals? Why is your strong human calling more important that this other, quite natural and common, calling? Just because there is "an overwhelmingly strong urge for a majority of the population" to participate in pairs, are you saying that the other natural urges of the minority should be relegated to discrimination?[/QUOTE]I see no evidence of this other natural urge in the western world. Lesbian and gay couples have always been forming their family units despite the lack of legal recognition: the same is not true of set-ups with more than two adults. If multiple bonding was a natural human instinct the evidence would be all around us just as same sex couples are everywhere. I have a suspicion that you are actually talking about the urge to have sex with multiple partners (rather than lifetime committed bonding): that urge is definitely there, but it doesn't require any social/legal construction.

Re species as mentioned above by Xilman, Beefalo are not a good example of a fertile species cross. The beefalo is not always fertile. A fertile first cross beefalo male is extremely rare. Fertile first cross females are typical but often their offspring have reduced fertility. Fertility problems recur at a high level for several subsequent generations when backcrossed to either parent species. Finally, Bison Bison and Bos Taurus (or Bos Indicus) are only separated by a few hundred thousand genetic years. They still share the same chromosome count and their genome is still 99.5% identical. A similar situation occurs with the water buffalo with has two commonly recognized species with different chromosome counts (swamp=48, and river=50) . Despite the chromosome difference, inter-species hybrids are common and sought after. [url]http://psasir.upm.edu.my/12283/1/FPV_1988_7_A.pdf[/url]

Even more interesting in my opinion is the graft compatibility of widely divergent species in the plant kingdom. For example, Sweet Clover (Melilotus) can be successfully grafted on top of a Sunflower (Helianthus). This blurs species boundaries much more than definitions based on sexual compatibility.

And finally, consider the microscopic world where entirely different "species" routinely swap dna using a process similar to sexual reproduction for macro species.

The gist of it is that a "species" is pretty hard to define.

While I might disagree with several of the above opinions, the tendency of humans to pair bond is very well documented and easy to demonstrate. I have trouble understanding how how pair bonding works in a polygamous society. I also have trouble understanding pair bonding in same sex couples. That it does occur can be seen in numerous public examples.


DarJones