Agreed, we should also make sure to ban interracial marriage since same culture marriages are universal among all the countries in the world. I don't know of any thriving culture which frowns on same race marriage.

(Sarcasm if it wasn't obvious)

Not really, probably most people around the world have ancestors from different cultures and ethnicities.

There are definitely cultures where, for instance, polygamy is seen as the desirable goal (for men) and monogamy is the poor man's fallback. And cultures where abstinence/celibacy etc. is revered. I would be surprised if there'd never been a culture where heterosexual marriage (implying a life-long commitment etc.) was the exception rather than the rule. The Na of Yunnan is supposedly one such example though I know very little about it.

> 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?

> 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.

> 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.

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?

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

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.

> 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

"Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?"

Official nation-wide referendum, in 2017, with 61% responding yes. 80% participation.

No censorship that I was aware of, and I would very much have been concerned if there were. Lots of propaganda, arguably more on the "no" side, but accepted, that's not an entirely objective view.

You do not see the hypocrisy in your position?

Homosexuality is not unique to humans, it's common in the animal kingdom (including humans) and only unusual in some countries for cultural reasons.

It's also universal among all countries around the world. Just some criminalize it.

I'm saying there are gay men in all countries, whether they are in the open or not. Their existence might be underground or behind closed doors, but they are there.

If by gay you mean MSM, that's correct. But if you mean males wanting to marry each other, that's debatable.

> separating the institution of marriage and the state doesn't seem like a completely unreasonable idea

What does this mean precisely?

Marriage without the associated state components (shared property rights, child custody rights, inheritance, etc, etc) seems like it would be much less effective than our current approach.

Being able to legally form a union where are assets are shared is a really useful function of marriage, and that function relies on the state to work.

Well, the institution of marriage is older than the nation state. So, it's independent existence is within the realm of possibility.

I agree that it's a vague proposition in our era though. I'm just saying that it's not completely unreasonable.

>Heterosexual lifestyle is universal among all countries around the world.

If this were true then everyone everywhere would be in a heterosexual lifestyle. Demonstrably false.

Almost everyone isn't red haired, doesn't make it ok to exclude red haired people just because they represent 3% of the population.

Yet again, that's irrelevant. I think the point we are debating here is universality of heterosexuality/heteronormativity.

No, I'm not debating it. I'm asserting it. It is not a subject of debate. You might as well debate the existence of left handed people.

So no, no debate. Your positions are factually wrong.

Well, that kind of comment adds nothing to the discussion. It's certainly not as an unpopular position among the "experts" as you probably think it is [1]:

> "For the Greeks, the concept did not meaningfully exist at all; the social identities we today understand in the West as a gay man or a bisexual woman, for example, simply weren’t something that people recognized."

[1]: https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/rules-attraction