Obviously I have no problem extending marriage benefits to those who are different from me.Tony C: Does that benefit society?
ALAN: This is not about what benefits society. This is about extending as much freedom to as many people as possible. There is no such thing as "society" there are only individuals and each one of us have different believes about what is right and wrong. The pew warming KKKristians often argue against gay marriage asking how it benefits "society" while all that is important is it benefits you and yours.
Tony C: Or is the notion of stable households benefiting society outdated, and it's time to just note things for the purposes of legal transition of property?
ALAN: We are each individuals, our lives do not have to benefit anyone other than ourselves. We are not part of a herd but self-owning individuals who have an obligation to ourselves and not to some invented "society." You exist to make yourself happy, you do not exist to make me happy.
Tony C: I have not studied polygamy, I don't know. I probably won't take the time to study it properly unless and until there is either a vote before me or a personal connection.
ALAN: I hope you will vote to extend freedom to more individuals even if you do not agree with their lifestyle.
Tony C: Now here's where I think I break with Sheeple,
ALAN: Be careful, last time I disagreed with Sheepie he started calling me names and insulting me and has not let up for over 6 months. This is why I no longer read anything he posts, it is just all pure negativity and life is difficult enough with out Sheepie making it worse.
Tony C:- if there is a higher instance of issues within polygamist marriages as he suggests (I have not fact-checked)- then how do you hold it against those polygamist marriages which are successful?
Re: societal benefit: isn't that the origin of all this stuff?(Again, I ask because I'm not certain. I'm not one of these people who claims to know everything for a fact, unless I really know it for a fact.) The government doesn't incentivize things for no reason, it must have some perceived benefit to "society" or "the greater good" or what have you (or a crooked lobby, actually.)
So didn't they either realize or presume that more married people creates a generally more stable society? Mostly for practical reasons, again, when you have people taking care of each other they are less likely to require public assistance, etc. They are more likely to take ownership in their neighborhoods, etc. All those little and even abstract things.
I try not to look at things as just "now" but a big picture perspective going back to their origins. Maybe now your ideas make more sense. Maybe back then they didn't.