[cato_the_elder]

> polygamy is seen as the desirable goal (for men) and monogamy is the poor man's fallback.

But that's still heterosexual.

> And cultures where abstinence/celibacy etc. is revered.

> The Na of Yunnan is supposedly one such example

But those cultures aren't thriving, are they?

[wizofaus]

> But that's still heterosexual

I knew you'd say that. So you'd be ok with government subsidisation of polygamy?

I was only replying to your claim of universality. Who knows what will be the norm in another few centuries.

[cato_the_elder]

> So you'd be ok with government subsidisation of polygamy?

In the cultures which approve of it? It's none of my business. In my own country, no.

[wizofaus]

Then in your own country if the vast majority of the population approve of homosexual marriage, why is it particularly your business to be concerned about it?

[cato_the_elder]

Yes, because it's the country where I live in, and I (like most other people) care about my culture.

[wizofaus]

Ok, so what gives you reason to think subsidisation (or even just recognition) of non-traditional marriages is going to damage your culture at all?

I actually thought marriage itself was likely to die as an institution until I saw just how much support there was for gay marriage in my own country (it has something close to 70% support now. Maybe not "vast majority" but pretty close). FWIW the lowest divorce rates in the last 50 years were all recorded after same sex marriage was legalised.

[cato_the_elder]

> Ok, so what gives you reason to think subsidisation (or even just recognition) of non-traditional marriages is going to damage your culture at all?

Traditional nuclear family is a tenant of many cultures, including the one I have a feeling of belonging to. Also, the amount of propaganda and censorship which is needed to push these things is quite worrying.

> I actually thought marriage itself was likely to die as an institution

That's unlikely, at the very least because of Lindy effect [1]. In the traditional sense, it is under attack though.

> something close to 70% support now

First, these things are measured by polls, and the outcome of course depends on how do you ask the question. Do you think you'd get the same outcome if it was phrased as "subsidising" instead of "the right to marry"? Plus, how much propaganda and censorship did that take? Are people free to make fun of these things or harshly criticise them without fear of "consequences"?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect