This is supposed to be funny, right?

Some people love to hump animals, should we call that marriage also ? (I am sure that the dog would consent right ?) I am not joking either…

I didn’t think you were aiming for marriages of convenience to help in the pursuit of crime. I think that extending marriage to cover multiple parties will have effects unintended by proponents of polygamous marriages, which will impact on monogamous marriages in a way that same-sex marriage does not.

If we’re talking about some sort of legal recognition that isn’t the same as marriage then that’s different.

And in most cases those are not countries that lots of people want to migrate to, unlike the West.

eg every member of a criminal gang “marries” each other so as to avoid not testifying.

When I saw “triad marriage” above, I thought that was exactly what was meant: a marriage of convenience for Organised Crime.

But I think you mean “avoid testifying”, not “avoid not testifying”.

As for fitz, I think his only reference for Logical Positivism is the Monty Python Philosophers Sketch, where, at the University of Woollomoolloo: “I’m in charge of Logical Positivism, and Bruce is in charge of the sheep dip!”.

That’s a very nice way of putting it, NW. Thanks.

While I have never been able to see a reason as to why single-sex marriage would change existing marriages, I think polyamorous marriage would change existing marriages and not in a way that benefits existing marriages.

Marriage comes with various legal benefits that are not achievable by contract. Two key ones are: – the right not to be compelled to testify against your spouse in court. – the right to migrate to your spouse’s country of citizenship.

If polyamarous groups are afforded the same rights of marriage, I predict it won’t take long at all before these rights are abused – eg every member of a criminal gang “marries” each other so as to avoid not testifying. And this would thereby lead to a reduction in the legal benefits of marriage.

Polyamarous marriage – or some sort of legal recognition that mimics monogamous marriage – would change marriage in a way that same-sex marriage does not. If you’re talking about some sort of legal recognition that’s just a shortcut to what can be done by contract (eg inheritance rights), I don’t object to such legal recongition. If you’re in favour of polyamarous marriage, that’s going to be a very big change, and since I am married to a man with citizenship of a different country, one I oppose.

“The answer provided by research to date is that pre-existing factors account for much but not all of the difficulties experienced by children and adults in single-parent families. Despite consistent evidence of greater risk, the research also shows that the majority of children in single parent families develop normally. The exact magnitude of the effects that are caused by nonmarital childbearing has not been isolated, but effects have been characterized as small to moderate, depending on the study.”

The next para goes on to say that that evidence of greater risk comes mostly from studies of single-parent families: not gay couples, not unmarried straight couples in France, not Dutch triads. It seems likely that children raised by such couples would do at least as well, and probably better, than those raised by a single parent.

So the report basically doesn’t support your contentions at all: it provides no reason to believe that the phenomena described in the other two links are harmful. Moreover, even the claims of harm in the single-parent case are minimized and hedged.

Besides which, accepting superstition, prudery, and homophobia in return for slightly better child-development outcomes would be a rotten trade even if it were a feasible one. The point of bringing up children well is so that they can enjoy the freedom of the adult world.

The link in the middle Nick….

“don’t care”

I do.