Yes, that's the problem that simple rules get into with complex subjects. Polygamy is taboo for quite other reasons it seems. I'd say let marriage be whatever the spiritual tradition you feel part of says and let whoever wants to fulfill the legal obligations of civil unions, whatever they happen to be called, do that too. Then "who people are" in their relationships is quite up to them.
I think there are too many overlapping kinds of interpersonal relationships to start drawing lines between them, and what nature does to solve that problem, let them all drink out of the same stream, is the way to sort things out. Phil Henshaw > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 12:36 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Obama, Proposition 8 > > Thus spake Phil Henshaw circa 11/11/2008 09:12 AM: > > It's not really about definitions, > > That was precisely my point. > > However, the law _is_ about definitions (though the purpose of the law > is not about definitions). Hence, my preferred solution regarding the > law would be to eliminate the concept of "marriage" completely, for > everyone. This would include legalizing poly[gamy|andry]. If 2, 3, or > N people want to enter into a contract that involves household assets > and medical power of attorney, then so be it. But leave your religion > at the threshold of the courthouse. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
