Marriage already is supposed to be between two people: a man and a woman. By making it legal for two men or two women to marry each other, the government has already changed the meaning of marriage. By allowing more than 2 people to marry each other, this will terminate the meaning of marriage.
I did not say that I do not like polygamy, I just do not believe that it should be legal. Komodo, I know we have- which is very unfortunate. Minny, I did not say the government should control who we marry, but they are going to act like a bad parent: Not caring what their children (american citizens) are doing, as long as it makes them happy, and does not bother the parent (government).
Explain to me this. Let's assume that a polygamous trio is entirely consensual and no one is being coerced. Let us further assume that the trio is made up of two men and one woman. What is so wrong with this group?
Alex, there is three of them.
Not only is this gross, it is wrong. Not wrong because of my morals or values, and not gross for the same reason. It seems highly illogical for three people to be married, and share a bed. This just does not make sense.
To those 'shouldn't interfere with people's personal lives' people, legalising polygamy means giving state recognition to polygamous marriages. In other words, the government has to recognise an unethical, backward relationship that should have no place in the 21st century.
Morality should not be based on religion. Morality is based on self-cultivation. Self-cultivation is based on the principles of benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom, which were conferred to us by Nature.
Also, for the record, I don't believe in 'naturalism' as you say. Man and nature should be one, as I've said on my profile, but I believe in cooperation between man and nature. The greatest thing Man can do is to assist in the transforming and nourishing powers of the heavens and earth.
But I digress. What I meant was that morality is following the Path of duty, which nature has endowed upon us; this is human nature. 'What Heaven has conferred is called The Nature; an accordance with this nature is called The Path of duty; the regulation of this path is called Instruction.' (Doctrine of the Mean 1)
@Diqiucun_Cunmin The morally superior is usually the majority of people that accept each other which you. Now, the majority is religion, and if everyone is religious there would be no progress thus impending doom.
@reece: Morality isn't determined statistically by opinion polls, but by how virtuous someone is, reece. We need a meritocratic system that ensures the ones in power are the truly virtuous. Besides, virtue isn't reflected in someone's beliefs; it's reflected in someone's actions. I come from one of the most atheist places in the world, so my experiences are inevitably different from yours, but I don't believe a man who preaches Christian dogma every day and yet ignores his parents, breaks every promise he makes and abuses his wife would be considered moral by the majority, or by anyone at all.
@minny: Morality is innate. Let me show you this passage from Mencius 3.6. It's long, but it's IMO one of the most important passages ever written: 'When I say that all men have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others, my meaning may be illustrated thus: even now-a-days, if men suddenly see a child about to fall into a well, they will without exception experience a feeling of alarm and distress. They will feel so, not as a ground on which they may gain the favour of the child's parents, nor as a ground on which they may seek the praise of their neighbours and friends, nor from a dislike to the reputation of having been unmoved by such a thing. From this case we may perceive that the feeling of commiseration is essential to man, that the feeling of shame and dislike is essential to man, that the feeling of modesty and complaisance is essential to man, and that the feeling of approving and disapproving is essential to man. The feeling of commiseration is the principle of benevolence. The feeling of shame and dislike is the principle of righteousness. The feeling of modesty and complaisance is the principle of propriety. The feeling of approving and disapproving is the principle of knowledge. Men have these four principles just as they have their four limbs.' You see, all men have the four principles of morality; it is common to every single person of the homo sapien species. There's no way we can't tell whether someone is virtuous or not, given enough time and experience with that person.
@Diqiucun_Cunmin Humanity will always live by a hierarchy and a meritocratic system is one of them. With hierarchies come socialisation of morality. I admit there are different forms of morality (personal and social) but the most important is the social morality, which form majorities that agree with each other. Morality/virtue is reflected in both belief and action. I come from a fairly secular country too. For your last few sentences You're right, it's just ignored in a lot of cases.
@reece: You know, if we have a truly virtuous leader, naturally he'd lead the population on the path of virtue, and we'd have a largely virtuous populace, and then social moral would always be good, and there'd be no problem following it. BTW 90% of the Hong Kong population was atheist according to a news report some time ago (probably a stretch; they likely counted agnostics, apatheists, deists, etc. in) and I don't think the US can beat that :P. I also don't disagree with your definition of morality and think it's consistent with mine.
@Diqiucun_Cunmin What you said about a truly virtuous leader; There can't be progress without chaos. Remember matter complexifies upon itself. Thus creating friction. Yeah, china is one of the most secular countries.
@reece: I just checked and realised you weren't American (I've always thought you was, maybe because of your opinions or the way you speak :P), sorry! I'm not sure what you meant by complexifying though; could you elaborate?