You can bed because it is just your own body. (and your partner's)
Any law restricting that is a law upon your body (remember sodomy laws??)

Marriage, however, always implies property. Even if neither partner has properties in the moment they marry, marriage laws contain provisions regarding property. That's why marriage age is usually higher than sexual age. Because of the property part in all marriage contracts, not because of the sex.

But let my try an answer : because the implications of entering a legally binding contract can be much more serious than taking someone in one's bed.

Not everyone finds him unattractive!

If your concerned about young people being used, why not focus on that issue. You state yourself that these laws allowing such young people to wed already exist. If you have an issue with that, then you should focus on that, and not on what consenting adults are doing.

The difference here is clear.

I can see homosexuals pushing for same sex marriage.
I can see polygamist unions fighting for multi-partner marriage.

I don't see any girls or boys pushing for marrying men.
I don't see any animals pushing for marrying humans.

When you show me those, then your argument will have creedence.

::As for the religious angle. Where is having more than one wife PROHIBITED? Didn't the men in the Old Testament routinely have more than one wife? Was Moses a "sinner?" What about King David or Mohammed?::

Since you brought it up, having more than one wife is prohibited here:
Deuteronomy 17, verse 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn
not away...
And it is understood here:
Matt 19:4-6
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
(Some people deal with the words in religious books very differently then they would treat those same words anywhere else. In case this is hard, think of it this way. See, if I tell my kids they can eat the cookies in the cookie jar, they understand this mean they cannot eat cookies in some place other than the cookie jar. If I tell them they may eat all the red candies, they understand that means I want them not to eat the others. If I ask my secretary to bring me all the correspondence from clients dated Sept. 13, it is understood that I do not want correspondence from other dates.)

Titus 1:6 (and others)
says church leaders must have only one wife

Some men in the OT had more than one wife, but I do not think you can say that they all 'routinely' did. And invariably, the OT indicates that this caused problems. Big problems.

And my goodness, yes, *of course* Moses and David were both sinners, according to both the Old Testament and the New. I cannot speak for Islam, but if you knew your Bible enough to make an argument from it, you would know that there is only one person within its pages who is said to be sinless.
David actually calls himself a sinner in the Old Testament writings. And could you please explain why you think Moses was polygamous? The only wife I know of that he had was Zipporah, the Ethiopian woman.

I don't mean to be snotty (well, not *really* snotty) but perhaps you should read your Bible before making arguments from it?

To openminded Stephen:
"I already convinced your wife!"

Are you talking about smoking, eating doughnuts, hang-gliding or what?

Bob Doney

It's even better when the tradition they are pointing to never existed the way that they claim.

The “Flemish American” states, “ many … we are offended by the idea of gay marriage and civil unions that recognize multi-partners. Thus, their efforts to have these unions recognized are infringing on our beliefs.”

I am so completely appalled by the lack of logic in this. By this reasoning anyone who does not believe and act like you do is infringing on your beliefs. Is it infringing on your beliefs for Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, or Wikans to call their philosophies “religions”?

Since you like analogies so much, let’s consider football. Is it infringing on the world’s beliefs for Americans to call their sport football? Most people in the world refer to football, they are speaking of the game Americans call “soccer”. In fact football referred to that game long before the American game existed.

In fact, what Americans call football can trace its roots back to rugby, and rugby back to soccer. They all get called football, and they all classify as a sport. But I suppose that you think calling “soccer”, “football” is infringing on your beliefs as well.

Calling poker or gulf a sport and showing them on ESPN is offensive to many as well, but that doesn’t mean it’s infringing on anyone’s beliefs.

To infringe on someone’s beliefs is to keep them from having or practicing those beliefs. No one is suggesting to keep those who believe in heterosexual mono-partnering from doing anything, or having whatever beliefs they want. You are even free to teach your children that homosexuality and multi-partnering are wrong.

Just like I am free to teach my children that bigotry and suppression of freedoms is wrong.

Thank you for those responding to my original statement. As is expected in blogland, I can see much of what I said has been twisted for your own purposes, as is your prerogative.

While I felt I was clear, I will try to put my thoughts into simple sentences. I'm curious to see where this will take us.

1. Marriage is a religious institution.

2. Civil unions are legal "back-doors" to make historically unconventional relationships like a marriage. This includes homosexual relationships as well as a heterosexual couple living out of wedlock and, in this case, a polygamist relationship.

3. Trying to force the legal institutions to recognise these unconventional relationships as marriage seriously undermines the deep meaning of the tradition and is being done more to antagonize traditionalists rather than out of actual, legal need.

Thus, I conclude that they are forcing their own set of values on me and consider myself completely justified in defending the institution as it was intended to be...the joining of one man and one woman.

What if monotheist religion came at some point to help patriarchal societies develop ?
What if all your beliefs work socially the same way those 'poor indians' , guiding their society rules and avoiding genetic deviance ?
What if your traditions are a tool, to mold society, a tool created by others, or by society itself, and you're just a pawn ?

"My point about having their values forced on others, and this includes the polygamist relationship of the story, is based on the simple fact that many Christians and, might I note, many non-believers as well, consider the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman to be much more sacred than the joke being made of it today and we are offended by the idea of gay marriage and civil unions that recognise multi-partners."

Aren't you enforcing your beliefs on non-religious people here? Not everyone is a christian and not all non-christians share the same views.

"Of course marriage is historically based on religious beliefs."

It can't be denied that christian beliefs play an important part in what Dutch people consider 'marriage', but this is a part of their culture. It's in no way 'nature'. Other cultures can have different interpretations of the word 'marriage'.

we are offended by the idea of gay marriage and civil unions that recognise multi-partners. Thus, their efforts to have these unions recognized are infringing on our beliefs.

Infringing on beliefs? How does one do that? If you can't handle having your beliefs challenged, can't handle seeing contradictions of your beliefs and that means you can't believe what you did any more, that's your problem, not anyone else's. It's not a "right" to have everyone else conform to your beliefs. If you want that you need to go live with Amish people or some other closed-society.

"In your case Krist, I will forgive you for ignoring milleniums of history."

Um, first of all, technically it's *millenia* not milleniums. :\ At least according to proper pluralization of Latin nouns. But I'm just being picky.

"Of course marriage is historically based on religious beliefs."

Well, just whose beliefs are you referring to? The word marriage actually comes from the Latin words maritare and maritus. If you consider the rigidity of the Roman marriage systems, and often the lack of love, do you really want to compare so-called "ideal" marriages to that? Because that is the basis. Otherwise you must look elsewhere in the world where there is a rich variety of legal, social, and religious relationships between people.

Well, the fact is you should bother about the "sanctity" of YOUR OWN marriage. Isn't that enough for you? :D
I don't need "sanctity", I just pay taxes and expect society to treat me righteously. And I promise I won't mess with your marriage, dear.

i wholly agree with your assessment to the gays trying to cram their agenda on an institution called marriage, in which is all about a union between a woman and a man; and i might add a hetersexual woman and man.

When they insist on invading an institution and watering it down to where it no longer means a commitment between one man and one woman...

It has not meant that since the first divorce.

What happens when a group splits up is up to the group. If they're smart they will have made the necessary provisions in their contract beforehand.