John:

Charles,

Constructing defective marriages is not an argument for same sex marriage. It is an argument for good marriages.

So I’m “Charles” now, eh?

I really prefer “Charlie”, thanks.

As to the rest, I agree that good marriages are a good thing. Have you got an actual argument here, or are you simply continuing the assertion that the only good marriages are traditional marriages, by definition?

Nuclear families are (or were until no-fault divorce) traditional. As you go into the past, with different conditions, extended and substitute families happened, which largely provided the same structure as a nuclear family.

John, I’m referring to a “traditional” family structure that was in place in 1930; the only reason my Dad’s family isn’t there still is that my grandfather — crippled in WWI and unable to do physical labor — was forced to look for work outside Cherokee County by the Depression.

The “traditional nuclear family” wasn’t traditional even in the United States in living memory. It was the terrifying consequence of moving away from one’s family, on the frontier or because we developed a more mobile society.

Flenser:

Charlie, what do YOU consider sufficient argument? What is the intellectual undepinning for YOUR position? What religion or school of morals are YOU drawing on, if any? If you reject all of these, what is left but abstract reason?

Well, I don’t actually see “abstract reason” as being a bad choice, so I think you’re making another unwarranted assumption. But I think I actually beat that one to death just above.

Richard:

Chuck, Charlie ÔøΩ Actually, can you name any polygamous societies that treat women in a fashion that could be considered acceptable in Western society?

Hell, Richard, can you point to any Western societies that treat women in a fashion that would be considered acceptable in Western society, and have done so for more than about 30 years? The whole notion of what we consider “acceptible” has changed radically since I was in high school; the notion that women should be able to vote has only been accepted in the US since 1920 — and still isn’t in some places in Europe.

(Not to mention the problem that I wouldn’t necessarily say a society that prevents a woman from marrying whomever they want to is treating women in a fashion that could be considered acceptable.)

I will grant that polygamous marriage does appear to go with the notion of wife as chattel. But then it’s not that long ago that monogamous traditional marriage treated the wife as chattel too.