So, New York has effectively eliminated marriage. Same-sex “marriage” has now created a breach in the institutional wall, a vulnerability than can be exploited to allow other domestic relationships to acquire the status of “marriage” as well. The implication of this is that, in principle, any domestic relationship among adults must have the same, equal entitlement to “marriage” as any other domestic relationship. New York style “marriage” must no longer be limited even by parentage or association. Why? Because marriage has been based historically and legally only on the one particular relationship in nature that directly implicates biology and sexual reproduction. This is the sexual relationship that is possible only between a man and a woman.
New York and other “same-sex marriage” states, by offering legal status within the existing institution to relationships that are not based on or related to biology and sexual reproduction (i.e., non-sexual relationships), have chosen to ignore this basis. But, then, because of constitutional constraints, they are now in the position of having effectively excluded themselves from the option of ever assuming that the nature of the conjugal relationship may, indeed, be sexually reproductive. Why? Because, within the context of the statutory scheme that is marriage, it cannot be legally assumed without contravening US constitutional law, that, under the same circumstances, the conjugal relationship is based both on the relationship that directly implicates biology and sexual reproduction and, also, that it does not. It will have to be either one or the other. The basis of these state’s “marriage” statutes cannot be both without running afoul of federal constitutional protections.
The reason for this is because discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal in the US, and to even assume that the nature of the relationship where it concerns some couples is sexually reproductive (for example, where it concerns opposite-sex couples), but it is not where it concerns some other couples (e.g., same-sex couples), can only be achieved by impermissible classifications. It would require observing and taking into account the gender composition of couples, and in “same-sex marriage” states, the state must be blind to gender. Thus, to uphold the principle of equality and the rule of law, the sexual genders of domestic partners must not be taken into account, and neither must any assumptions about the nature of their relationship be permitted. “Same-sex marriage” states may only assume that the relationship between persons wanting to marry is a consensual, domestic one, but they may not be permitted to assume that it is one related to biology and reproduction. All adults in a domestic situation, then, who desire the legal status of “marriage” must have that entitlement as these states would have no conceivably important or legitimate governmental interest to exclude any of them.
Furthermore, to continue limiting “marriage” only to domestic relationships when these constitute an association of two persons, and to exclude those domestic relationships that are an association of more than two persons, impermissibly discriminates on the basis of association for no discernibly good reason, and infringes on that right.
There is no longer any reason, then, why New York and other states that have offered a legal status to non-sexual relationships should continue to deny the same legal status to persons of close parentage or to associations of more than two persons, since there can be no legitimate assumptions about the nature of these relationships that would hinder them from establishing a domestic relationship that would entitle them to the same legal status.
Put simply, there is nothing wrong or illegal about two or more people living together, whether these be friends, family members or lovers. If a legal status is offered to some people living together, then the principle of equal treatment under the 14th amendment requires that this same legal status must be offered to all people living together.
Same-sex marriage states have effectively instituted legal partnerships for domestic relationships and have eliminated marriage as it is related to sexual relationships.
These are some of the implications of same-sex marriage.
"The implication of this is that, in principle, any domestic relationship among adults must have the same, equal entitlement to “marriage” as any other domestic relationship. "
ReplyDeleteThat is one implication. And it certainly is the implication that follows from the belief that: "...marriage has been based historically and legally only on the one particular relationship in nature that directly implicates biology and sexual reproduction."
But what if your guiding premise is wrong? What if the core of marriage is not the procreative act?
The simplest and most ancient form of human organization is the "Band." A Band, is, essentially, an extended family group. When one marries one enters a new Band. This is the most important and essential part of marriage: the creation of new familial relationships in a Band. For example Ron needs a kidney. I have a kidney. Ron is a stranger to me; he doesn't get my kidney. BUT if Ron is my sister's husband then Ron gets my kidney. The addition of Ron to my extended family strengthens my band as a whole. These strong familial relationships are important to a functioning society; therefore the state recognizes them & regulates them.
Now if you take my view of what is the essential element of marriage (the strengthening of Bands through the addition of kinship) then your above implication does not make sense. Rather than all domestic relationships among adults having the same, equal entitlement to “marriage” we have, in New York, state recognition of an addition of a person to a Band.
Further it does not follow, if you take my definition of the core of marriage, that “All adults in a domestic situation, then, who desire the legal status of “marriage” must have that entitlement as these states would have no conceivably important or legitimate governmental interest to exclude any of them.” The state is in the business of making strong Bands. Strong Bands make strong & peaceful societies. Strong Bands are strong precisely because they add in people from outside of the Band, hence the familial restrictions.
As far as polygamy is concerned I see no reason why the addition of gay people as full members of a family with state recognition necessarily forces a recognition of plural marriages. Our society favors couples because couples make the strongest Band (not only in the special bond between each other, but also by lessening jealousy and envy within the band). Or let me put it this way: what loyalty does the third child of the second wife owe the husband of the fifth daughter of the fourth wife?
New York and other states are not extending legal status to two individuals living in isolation; they are extending expectations of kinship from these two people onto their extended family. If two gay people are married & one of their siblings has a child, that child will be a niece or nephew to both people under the law. Under a non-same-sex marriage regime this is not ensured. One person would be the uncle or aunt, the other would, legally, be a stranger. Now that’s not to say state recognition prevents the familial relationship from breaking-down; but it does mean that the state is saying: “You there. Sir! Recognize that this person your son has committed the rest of his life to is your son. Please treat him accordingly.”
IATSH's argument has been dealt with already elsewhere on this blog some years ago. I'll go ahead and deal with some of his points again for illustration.
ReplyDeleteIATSH: And it certainly is the implication that follows from the belief that: "...marriage has been based historically and legally only on the one particular relationship in nature that directly implicates biology and sexual reproduction."
Wrong. This is simply inept reasoning. The belief that "any domestic relationship among adults must have the same, equal entitlement to 'marriage'" in no way follows from the belief that marriage is, in fact, unique from those other relationships.
What if the core of marriage is not the procreative act?
Misstatement. Acknowledging a link between marriage and procreation is not the same as saying that "the procreative act" is "the core of marriage."
The simplest and most ancient form of human organization is the "Band."
The subject is marriage, not "band"age.
A Band, is, essentially, an extended family group.
This contradicts the previous statement. The "band" cannot be the "simplest and most ancient form of human organization" if it is based on some other preexisting organization, i.e., the family.
This is the most important and essential part of marriage: the creation of new familial relationships in a Band.
This is the crux of IATSH's argument and, not coincidentally, also the conclusion which he would like to reach, the "any two adults" view of marriage. To attempt to introduce one's conclusion in one's premises is an example of the fallacy begging the question.
IATSH provides no historical evidence to back up his claim. He simply rests on the notion that it rationalizes New York's behavior. This is an example of outcome based reasoning, when an argument is accepted based not on evidence or soundness but rather on whether one agrees with its conclusion. Unfortunately for IATSH, outcome based reasoning is irrational and therefore cannot be used to rationalize anything.
IATSH's "band"age theory of marriage explains little to nothing about it historically. Why has marriage been so universally a man/woman proposition? Why do so many societies have mores about sexual relationships outside of marriage? Why does marriage include a presumption of paternity? The only reason that can be supported by the "band"age theory is that "band"age really has no link to any of the above and the world has simply been waiting for a dizzying intellect like IATSH's to realize that fact, a sort of deus ex machina that could be used to sweep any unwanted association under the rug.
Ron is a stranger to me; he doesn't get my kidney. BUT if Ron is my sister's husband then Ron gets my kidney.
IATSH tells the story this way not because it is the only reasonable way the story can be told, but rather because it is the way he needs it to be told to support his conclusion. It is not unheard of for a perfect stranger to donate a kidney, and denying one's kidney to a brother-in-law is, if anything, more likely than donating it. IATSH's story therefore illustrates nothing.
...we have, in New York, state recognition of an addition of a person to a Band.
Considering New York doesn't legally recognize "bands" at all, it is odd that IATSH would use that legal recognition as evidence of his claim. This is an example of a false premise. Whatever conclusion one can reach from a false premise is irrelevant because it is based on a falsehood.
(continued from above)
ReplyDelete...it does not follow, if you take my definition of the core of marriage ["band"age], that “All adults in a domestic situation, then, who desire the legal status of 'marriage' must have that entitlement...”
Oh no? Which domestic situations does it exclude?
...hence the familial restrictions.
Only "familial" restrictions? But there is no "band"ial restriction. If "band"age really is the core of marriage then wouldn't there have to be? After all, the "band" linkage already exists in those situation. There is no restriction on "band"age between in laws, for example.
The state is in the business of making strong Bands.
A difficult assertion to support since states don't recognize "bands" at all.
Strong Bands make strong & peaceful societies.
Another ahistorical assertion. The primitive societies IATSH points to as examples of "bands" experienced plenty of bloodshed, both between "bands" and within "bands."
I see no reason why the addition of gay people as full members of a family with state recognition necessarily forces a recognition of plural marriages.
Another example of a false premise, since there is no state in the United States (or anywhere else, I'd wager) that doesn't already accept "gay people as full members of a family."
Our society favors couples because couples make the strongest Band...
Contradiction. Earlier IATSH claimed bands were a form of extended family, a group that necessarily includes more than two people, what he claims would be the strongest band. In fact, he gives several examples of how "bands" are made better by including more people than fewer.
...what loyalty does the third child of the second wife owe the husband of the fifth daughter of the fourth wife?
How is this question fundamentally different if the second wife is dead? A man can have a second and a fourth wife without polygamy. Polygamy simply allows him to have both at the same time.
Firstly, addressing the hyperlink. The previous critic was incorrect in placing the emphasis on the family. As Michael pointed out in the comments: notions of family and blood relation pre-date society and the social intuitions of society.
ReplyDeleteAlso, y’all’s theory does not easily explain why Marriage is Universal and arises in all human societies spontaneously. To stop at y’all’s definition of marriage is stopping a level too high (Here’s an explanatory analogy: Instead of arguing about the Meaning of Marriage imagine we’re arguing about Cola. What y’all are doing is saying Coke-a-cola is the only Cola. What I’m saying is that you’re focusing too narrowly; there is a deeper understanding of Cola; it is one part of how cola has been understood. Further, the existence of Coke does not deny the existence of other colas or even rule out the possible existence of novel Colas which we, with our Coca-cola based heritage, would've never come up with). Your definition of marriage, as articulated in the response link you provided, neither takes into account the Social aspect of marriage nor explains how marriage came to be.
And please don’t misunderstand my position: Band inter-connectivity is at the heart of marriage. Not Band creation.
Imagine a man and a woman encountering each other in a non-society. For whatever reason they have never known other human beings. There are no other people that they know of. They decide to cooperate and copulate: they form a family/band of 2. But, I would argue, they do not have a marriage. Without interactions with people from outside of the family/band there is no reason to declare themselves publicly anything. Without other people there is no Public to declare anything in. Marriage is a social institution; there is no need of marriage without society. Or perhaps I’m wrong. Can you think of a reason to why my two hypothetical people would marry?
Note: Family/band is used above not to say that the terms are interchangeable, but rather to say at this point in the above hypothetical the singular family encompasses the entire band.
Now on to responding to Op-Ed’s commentary.
ReplyDeleteOp-Ed, you seem to misunderstand my gist here. I was responding to the article at the head of this discussion thread. I was not attempting to articulate a full picture of my position. That will come out with time. What I was doing was attempting to show how the Doom & Gloom scenario as laid out by Voice in the Wilderness is only compatible with y’all’s definition of what is defining about the marital relationship.
So when I quoted the implication of “neutered marriage” which VitW laid out in the piece, I was agreeing that if your worldview is that the central tenant of the marital relationship is (as also defined by VitW) “marriage has been based historically and legally only on the one particular relationship in nature that directly implicates biology and sexual reproduction." My point isn’t that this implication is invalid; but that the underlying “truth” is invalid. To state it another way: If you believe that marriage has been based historically & legally only on the one particular relationship in nature that directly implicates biology and sexual reproduction then it would appear that by adding same sex couples to the definition of marriage betrays the core meaning and opens up a Pandora’s box of doom and gloom as laid out by VitW. But, if you believe that the basis of marriage in law and history is not necessarily tied to a Male-Female relationship, that there is a deeper more important understanding of marriage, then the implications of Doom & Gloom that VitW is pointing out do not necessarily follow.
I will now offer a counterpoint to Op-ed's critique of my statements. The Format will be as follows:
Op-ed: “Wrong. This is simply inept reasoning. The belief that "any domestic relationship among adults must have the same, equal entitlement to 'marriage'" in no way follows from the belief that marriage is, in fact, unique from those other relationships.
IATSH: Marriage is unique to other relationships due to the numerous kinship connections that accompany marriage and that are made between two Bands. No other domestic relationship provides these connections. For example, if two people are close friends, then they support one-another. But if two people get Married then each of their collective Bands supports one-another. Marriage is still special. I’m not saying it’s not. More to follow!
Op-ed: Misstatement. Acknowledging a link between marriage and procreation is not the same as saying that "the procreative act" is "the core of marriage."
ReplyDeleteIATSH: Fine, I went sloppy on my shorthand, but you have to admit it’s a little difficult to condense y’all’s central idea into an easy shorthand. I should’ve said: “What if marriage has only been partiality based on Male-Female sex? What if there is a deeper meaning to marriage which transcends this relationship?” Regardless, my sloppy shorthand does not undermine my central point: I am striking at something deeper in the meaning of marriage than the male-female relationship. But I will try to better proof-read my arguments before I post them in the future.
Op-ed: The subject is marriage, not "band"age
ReplyDeleteIATSH: Well you’re jumping the gun here. I’m going to explain why Bands are important to understanding marriage. A little patience, please.
Op-ed: This contradicts the previous statement. The "band" cannot be the "simplest and most ancient form of human organization" if it is based on some other preexisting organization, i.e., the family.
IATSH: I was trying to keep it simple for the sake of responding to the concerns expressed in the editorial by VitW. I made a mistake in connecting it directly to the family & I clearly have not done a good job defining Bands. An easy short-hand explanation is that they are similar to extended families, but not necessarily related to families. Bands can divide families. Bands can have any number of members as long as there are at least 2. Bands can grow or shrink depending on the interactions between them and other Bands. Bands are simple in construction but can be complex in reality. Bands are the most ancient from of human organization. Bands still exist; Band identity motivates many of our actions whether we realize it or not.
Op-ed: This is the crux of IATSH's argument and, not coincidentally, also the conclusion which he would like to reach, the "any two adults" view of marriage. To attempt to introduce one's conclusion in one's premises is an example of the fallacy begging the question.
ReplyDeleteIATSH: You identify the crux (as quoted: "This is the most important and essential part of marriage: the creation of new familial relationships in a band")(here I used the term familial in an attempt to connect to my sloppy analogy from earlier (Band is like an Extended Family). The term familial is not helpful. I regret using it. I shouldn't have included it), but you are wrong to when you state what my conclusion is. My conclusion is that the basic element of Marriage is not Male-Female sex, but rather SOMETHING ELSE. Now I articulate that "something else" as Band inter-connectivity and the special relationships that spring thereof. But I could be wrong. There could be numerous elements at the core of Marriage (None of us think so) but the point is your assuming my goal is to justify same-sex-marriage. It is not. There could be good reasons why, within the Band understanding of Marriage, to exclude same-sex couples. I don't see them, but they could exist.
Op-ed: IATSH provides no historical evidence to back up his claim. He simply rests on the notion that it rationalizes New York's behavior. This is an example of outcome based reasoning, when an argument is accepted based not on evidence or soundness but rather on whether one agrees with its conclusion. Unfortunately for IATSH, outcome based reasoning is irrational and therefore cannot be used to rationalize anything.
ReplyDeleteIATSH's "band"age theory of marriage explains little to nothing about it historically. Why has marriage been so universally a man/woman proposition? Why do so many societies have mores about sexual relationships outside of marriage? Why does marriage include a presumption of paternity? The only reason that can be supported by the "band"age theory is that "band"age really has no link to any of the above and the world has simply been waiting for a dizzying intellect like IATSH's to realize that fact, a sort of deus ex machina that could be used to sweep any unwanted association under the rug.
IATSH: True I provide no historical evidence. I was not attempting to build that sort of argument. I'm positing a different lens through which to view history. I'm not interested in getting bogged down in historical semantics but for the sake of argument:
Why has marriage been so universally a man/woman proposition? It has not. There have existed and there continues to exist Marriages which are between Man/Woman/Woman/woman/woman.
Why does marriage include a presumption of paternity? In my calculation of what is at the core of marriage it does not. Nor do I see any evidence that suggests it has to, historically.
Why do so many societies have mores about sexual relationships outside of marriage? This is a misleading question. What mores are we talking about and how are they central to the understanding of marriage?
When you say “The only reason that can be supported by “band”age theory is that “band”age really has no link to the above…” you seem to be suggesting that all of the above are central to an understanding of the core of marriage. They are not. None of the above are necessary to understanding the core of marriage by either of our proposals as to what is there.
Look, I’m just suggesting a new theory here. I may have gotten ahead of myself in attempting to undermine your propositions before mine were adequately laid out. I am attempting to do that now and if you’ll wait and see you’ll see that the weight of human interactions supports my theory. I apologize for the hubristic way I sprang on the scene here, but let’s avoid argumentum ad hominem in the future okay?
And finally, yes, in this particular case I was attempting to illustrate how the conclusions do not necessarily follow from a central understanding of marriage.
It is my impression that a major tenant of this site is that y'all are expressing an idea of the core of marriage that only includes Male-Female marriage and that is not based on Religious tradition or social tradition but rather a singular universal core. I am offering an alternative core which is more all-encompassing. Or have I misunderstood the 800lbs Gorilla?
Op-ed: IATSH tells the story this way not because it is the only reasonable way the story can be told, but rather because it is the way he needs it to be told to support his conclusion.... IATSH's story therefore illustrates nothing.
ReplyDeleteIATSH: Very true. But lets dig into the underlying implications of the story & why it has to do with a different understanding of what is at the core of marriage. If what was at the core of marriage were Male-Female sex then my Brother-in-law would be nothing more to me than a stranger. I would feel no obligation to treat him as a member of the family. But I do. I have an obligation to place my Brother-in-law on a different tier than strangers or friends.
It doesn't matter, for the sake of my argument, if I give my kidney or if I don't give my kidney what is important is that I have an obligation to at least consider it because he is a part of my band. No such obligation exists when the other person is not a member.
Ideally these obligations are strong across all members of the Band, but in reality Bands break-down. For example, if I refuse to consider giving my kidney then I create a fault-line in the Band & force all members of the Band to take sides. Perhaps my decision to not consider giving my kidney is enough to breakup the Band.
Hey IATSH, seems like you have a lot to unload and are looking for a good place to do it.
ReplyDeleteI'm happy to let you make a front page post of your ideas. Why not sit down for a bit and write it all out. You can either send it to me or post it here in the comment section, and I'll give it front page attention.
In the mean time, you may want to read this advice I gave a few weeks ago. part 1 and part 2.
Just to tip my had a little bit, you seem to be attempting 2.1 from part 2. And you'll find we are more than prepared to deal with that kind of argument.
Still I'm anxious to see you flesh it all out for a front page post. Thanks for commenting!
Op-ed: Considering New York doesn't legally recognize "bands" at all, it is odd that IATSH would use that legal recognition as evidence of his claim...
ReplyDeleteIATSH: I believe you misread my comment. I was saying that New York in recognizing Same-sex marriages is not adopting Neutered Marriage and the inevitable negative consequences that come along with it, but rather recognizing the addition of the Spouses into each other’s Bands. The Couple are now, legally, next-of-kin. Those men’s fathers are now fathers-in-law. Any siblings are now brother-and-sister-in-laws. Any children of siblings are now nephews & nieces. While in our modern society the Band usually stops there, at the extended family, this is not the historical understanding of what a Band is, nor does it limit what a Band may contain. But still, what is central to the marital act in New York is now, explicitly, a combination of two Bands.
You seem to think I was articulating a premise. I was not. I, in responding to VitW automatically assumed my position/worldview, and asked VitW and any readers to do so as well in order to see that future is not so scary.
Op-ed: Only "familial" restrictions? But there is no "band"ial restriction. If "band"age really is the core of marriage then wouldn't there have to be?
ReplyDeleteIATSH: Bands expand by adding the maximum number of people into the Band. With the spouse comes in-laws, cousins, second cousins, and various and sundry people who are attached to the Spouses siblings or parents. So marriage provides that outlet. But there are situations where the Band as whole is even further strengthened by strengthening the ties between the Bands through additional marriages between Band members. Consider historical Royal Weddings, for example.
Op-ed: After all, the "band" linkage already exists in those situation. There is no restriction on "band"age between in laws, for example.
IATSH: While it is a less than ideal situation for two brothers to marry two sisters (for example) an outright ban makes no since because there are those instances where they are "circling the wagons" so to speak by reinforcing Band bonds in order to achieve whatever is valuable to society at the time (money, power, etc.).
Besides, at the core of the Band theory is that restrictions develop in society and then society assigns these restrictions to marriage; not the other way around. Some of these restrictions are good: no incest; no polygamy; but I can't think of one restriction which is central to an understanding of marriage. Hence the existence of Incestuous Royal Marriages in the past and of Polygamy in the present.
Op-ed: A difficult assertion [The state is in the business of making strong Bands.] to support since states don't recognize "bands" at all.
ReplyDeleteIATSH: perhaps it is easier to defend if I say it this way: the State of New York wants strong Bands. It is more in the interest of the State of New York if gay couples are included in Bands rather than cast out.
Op-ed: Another ahistorical assertion. The primitive societies IATSH points to as examples of "bands" experienced plenty of bloodshed, both between "bands" and within "bands."
IATSH: As culture evolved out of the Band Organization of Culture peaceful resolution methods became open: codes of law, courts, religion, etc. and so on as society became more complex. But just because there are additional levels of society it does not mean that bands ceased to exist or that the state doesn't have an interest in promoting strong bands through marriage. Now we resolve our inter & intra-Band disputes peacefully with mechanisms like lawsuits.
Op-ed: Another example of a false premise, since there is no state in the United States (or anywhere else, I'd wager) that doesn't already accept "gay people as full members of a family."
IATSH: Wager up then! I'll take your money. Up until 10 years ago, to live openly gay in the majority of the United States meant you got kicked out of your family or even the larger Band. Even today in places as diverse and different as Iran and Jamaica if you live as openly gay then you are subject to death. Clearly you're trying to distract me. I refuse to believe you are so naive.
Op-ed: Contradiction. Earlier IATSH claimed bands were a form of extended family, a group that necessarily includes more than two people, what he claims would be the strongest band. In fact, he gives several examples of how "bands" are made better by including more people than fewer.
IATSH: Yes. Poorly stated on my part. Correctly stated: the strongest Bands are those that are made up of the maximum number of couples. But the point of the paragraph, in context, was that we can still put societal restrictions on polygamy because polygamous are inherently weaker because they do not contain the maximum possible number of couples (each wife could be coupled) while simultaneously upholding same-sex marriages without sacrificing the core meaning of marriage or being unfair to Polygamous couples.
Well I think that about covers it. Y'all should have plenty of ammunition to nit-pick me apart with. Enjoy!
IATSH: Y'all should have plenty of ammunition to nit-pick me apart with. Enjoy!
ReplyDeleteNot so. For all the copious writing, all Iatsh managed to do was reiterate his position rather than strengthen it. This sort of fortification-by-repetition results in the sort of "Yuh-huh! Nuh-unh!" debates made famous by four year olds.
Examples:
IATSH: The state is in the business of making strong Bands.
Me: A difficult assertion to support since states don't recognize "bands" at all.
IATSH: perhaps it is easier to defend if I say it this way: the State of New York wants strong Bands.
The same assertion, and (therefore) not any easier to support.
IATSH: What if the core of marriage is not the procreative act?
Me: Misstatement.
IATSH: I should’ve said: “What if marriage has only been partiality [sic] based on Male-Female sex?
Other than the aforementioned four year olds, readers already understand "the procreative act" to mean "Male-Female sex." IATSH's restatement is therefore simply reiteration. And if marriage "has been partiality based on Male-Female sex," how is that fact explained by "band"age?
Me: IATSH's story therefore illustrates nothing.
IATSH: Very true. But lets dig into the underlying implications of the story...
It's the same story, it is still not the only or even the most reasonable telling, so it still illustrates nothing, "underlying implications" or no.
Me: This is the crux of IATSH's argument and, not coincidentally, also the conclusion which he would like to reach...
IATSH: My conclusion is that the basic element of Marriage is not Male-Female sex, but rather SOMETHING ELSE.
Which is still exactly the premise IATSH is trying to introduce, that marriage is actually "band"age, to arrive at that conclusion. Iatsh's argument is still just begging the question.
Me: IATSH provides no historical evidence to back up his claim.
IATSH: True I provide no historical evidence.
And Iatsh still provides no historical evidence, which is exactly what he should be doing to strengthen his claim.
Me: IATSH's "band"age theory of marriage explains little to nothing about it historically. Why has marriage been so universally a man/woman proposition? Why do so many societies have mores about sexual relationships outside of marriage? Why does marriage include a presumption of paternity?
IATSH: None of the above are necessary to understanding the core of marriage by either of our proposals as to what is there.
Still just sweeping under the rug. If the social aspects of marriage aren't "necessary to understanding the core of marriage" then what is? Iatsh never says. He attempts to use one aspect of marriage, bans on sibling marriages, to justify his "band"age theory, so apparently understanding marriage fits into his support somehow, but where "band"age doesn't explain he says it just doesn't matter.
Iatsh's theory for sibling marriages, by the way, is that sibling marriages are banned because they don't create new "band" links but then he can't explain why other preexisting "band" links are allowed.
Iatsh still provides no evidence, no reason to believe his "band"age theory beyond that it allows a New York style redefinition of marriage, therefore he is still peddling outcome based reasoning. His response needs to focus on filling this hole rather than on repeating himself.
Iatsh admits to being caught by surprise by the debate format in the comments. Fine. On Lawn has proposed letting him collect his thoughts into a front page post. Perhaps that is the best suggestion. Perhaps starting from a blank slate and taking time to collect his thoughts Iatsh will be able to make a more cogent argument.