Good Response To Polygamy Argument
I rather like John Corvino’s response to the nonsensical “if you support same-sex marriage, then there’s no longer a reason to oppose polygamy” argument:
The trouble with the slippery-slope argument from gay marriage to polygamy is that it’s a nice sound-bite argument that doesn’t lend itself to a nice sound-bite response. “Show us why polygamy is wrong,” our opponents insist, as if that’s easy to do in 20 words or less. (Try it sometime.)
But here’s a little secret: they can’t do it either, because their favorite arguments against same-sex marriage are useless against polygamy. “It changes the very definition of marriage!” (No: marriage historically has been polygamous more often than monogamous.) “The Bible condemns it!” (Really? Ever heard of King Solomon?) “It’s not open to procreation!” (Watch “Big Love” and get back to me.)
If there’s a good argument against polygamy, it’s likely to be a fairly complex public-policy argument having to do with marriage patterns, sexism, economics, and the like. Such arguments are as available to gay-marriage advocates as to gay-marriage opponents. So when gay-rights opponents ask me to explain why polygamy is wrong, I say to them, “You first.”
More.
The argument for Polygamy is actually a stronger argument than the one for same-sex “marriage”.
1. The potential market for polygamy/polyandry/“polyamory” is vastly greater than for ss “m”
2. Polygamy has a historical & cultural heritage that ss “m” does not.
3. Polygamy can make authentic religious rights claims that ss “m” cannot.
4. Polygamy avoids the strongest arguments against ss ‘m’. It provides children their natural born parents living together.
5. Polygamy’s children receive equal gender representation.
University academic arguments for ss “m” always leave open the possibility for Polygamy or more precisely “polyamory”. That is: The serious law and humantites professors and their organizations (like the ALI) do not endorse so called “conservative” case for gay marriage.
They want to de-privilege the privileged
(i.e. – traditional marriage)
And privilege the de-privileged
(i.e. – anything but traditional marriage)
Comment by Fitz — May 12, 2006 @ 10:55 am
As someone who thinks neither gay marriage nor polygamy should be proscribed by the government, I see the argument a bit differently.
Yes, it is a specious argument for the reasons you outline. But in attempting to corner you into justifying the ban on polygamy he's trying to force you into making an arbitrary distinction in granting rights to certain segments of the population while denying them to others. (You yourself seem to admit that the anti-polygamy argument is difficult to put forth in a convincing fashion.)
In that regard, I think he's quite right — such a distinction is arbitrary — but no more so than his position that both should be banned.
Comment by bazzer — May 12, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
Be careful, Fitz…
Terrorism, genital mutilation, and genocide can also “make authentic religious claims” as you define it - what defines authentic, or moreover “religious,” varies too widely to be used as valid logic.
Additionally, what does “equal gender representation” mean to you? If two women and a man, or two men and a woman (theoretically, since the heteronormative privilege and homophobia that plagues polygamous communities are too strong to allow such a thing) are raising a child, last time I checked, 2:3 is not 1:1 - meaning, NOT equal.
Check your logic, do your research, and then comment on an issue you clearly know little about.
Comment by Amanda — May 12, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
bazzer:
When you say “banned”, the implication is that it is something you could do if it wasn’t for those pesky legislators. So what exactly is it that was or is banned in the case of polygamous marriage (pgm) and ssm? Living together? Making a solomn committment? A ceremony? Wearing a white dress? Sex?
Some of these things may have been banned in the past, but they have been permitted in most liberal jurisdictions independently of ssm.
Marriage goes beyond the list of activities I gave, and similar, in one way only. It is a contract between state and two people - traditional man and woman. Ssm and any future pgm simply serves to extend the class of groups of people the state is willing to contract with. It’s not the lifting of a ban; it’s the extension of a legal right.
None of this speaks to the merits or demerits of pgm or ssm. It’s just a framing issue.
Comment by Daran — May 13, 2006 @ 1:52 am
Amanda
“Check your logic, do your research, and then comment on an issue you clearly know little about.”
Yet I seemed to have hit a nerve.
Wonder why?
Comment by Fitz — May 13, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
You know, it gets on my nerve when creationists argue that the third law of dynamics proves that evolution is sham. It gets on my nerve because it’s such a completely false argument.
Just because an argument annoys people doesn’t establish or even imply that the argument has merit.
Comment by Ampersand — May 13, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
What about the merit in this…
In Greek mythology, Narcissus was a hero of the territory of Thespiae in Boeotia who was renowned for his beauty and his pride.
So in love with himself, that when he happened upon a clear pool and caught his reflection he became paralyzed, incapable of looking away. There narcissus stood, frozen forever in time, so captivated by his own reflection that he was incapable of looking away.
Comment by Fitz — May 13, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
But we are hardly the only people on the planet are we? Narcissus was capable of looking at only himself. I on the other hand realize that more than my own ego aggrandizement is at stake. I have a Mother & a Father, and am at odds in finding either disposable. Having regard for children, I don’t view them as consumer goods fit for consumption and disposal at the wims of adult gratification. If one accepts that marriage is an important social institution than one is forced to peer into its present condition. One is forced out of a world of utopian idealism, radical egalitarianism, and an infatuation with rights based argumentation. One, in other words, is forced into the real world.
Within this real world(view), one is forced to reconcile oneself with 70% illegitimacy rates among the underclass, 30% illegitimacy rates among the population as a whole, 50% divorce rates holding steady, increasing numbers of young people remaining unmarried to later and later ages, and increasing numbers not marrying at all. Women going barren through no “choice” of their own, never having either the number of children they desired or any at all. Meanwhile verifiable social scientific consensuses continue to emerge about the ill-effects of fatherless ness, divorce, daycare, pornography and on the list grows. Young women & men are thoroughly sexualized by age twelve through a openly decadent youth/pop culture that continuously seeks to “push the envelope”. Resulting in a million abortions a year, teen pregnancy, unprecedented venereal disease, normative promiscuity in a “hook up” culture translates into a misogynistic, debased, sex-obsessed society well into adulthood.
One is forced to recognize that the link between sex and procreation is inevitable, and the need for that procreation to occur within marriage is urgent. One realizes that continuing to head down a path that reduces marriage to mere yuppie coupling, divorcing it from childbearing will only further erode a crucial societal standard. One must understand that all family forms are not inherently equal, and that further reinforcing that idea has (and has had) very real human consequences. And that those very consequences vie for competition with what we call social justice. One only needs a cursory glance at the black underclass to realize that this “institution” we call marriage is more than capable of destruction. In the face of this destruction its prudent to ask whether we are engaging in ideology or humanity?
Comment by Fitz — May 13, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
Fitz, do you ever cite evidence for anything you say?
For instance, you claim that the divorce rate is 50% and holding steady, when it’s below 50% (and has always been below 50%) and divorce is becoming less common over time.
You also claim that there’s a social science consensus about the ills of daycare and pornography, when in fact these remain very controversial issues within professional social science literature. (I could get you cites if you doubt me on this).
Please try citing sources for your so-called “facts.” Otherwise, I can’t really be expected to take them seriously.
I’m also bewildered by your opposition to later marriages, since people who get married later in life are far less likely to get divorced. (Source: pdf file, see Table E on page 7).
Regarding your anti-SSM argument, when you have a very visible class of parents who WANT to get married, it’s illogical to say “we can’t let you marry because that would erode the connection between marriage and parenthood.” The opposite is true - by forbidding these parents from marrying each other, forcing them to live in unmarried parenthood, you are undermining the parenting/marriage link.
I agree that society as a whole would be helped if more people got and stayed married (although not all people). But you won’t reach that goal by forbidding same-sex marriage. The problems marriage has were not caused by same-sex marriage; therefore they will not be solved by blocking same-sex marriage.
Here’s a fact for you to chew on: The states with the lowest divorce rates are Masschusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticutt, New Jersey and New York. Yet those states are (relatively speaking) very pro-gay and relatively pro-gay marriage; Massachusetts already has same-sex marriage, and a recent poll shows that more people in Rhode Island favor SSM than oppose it.
If pro-gay-marriage attitudes were actually strongly correlated with divorce, shouldn’t those states have very high divorce rates? And wouldn’t you expect, say, Alabama to have a very low divorce rate, rather than a high divorce rate?
(For the record, I don’t think that pro-gay attitudes prevent divorce - correlation is not causation, although lack of correlation is evidence against causation. My guess is that pro-gay attitudes and low divorce rates have a common cause, rather than being causually related).
It’s a common tactic of gay-bashers to speak about same-sex relationships as if they are nothing but sex (or “coupling,” as you put it). That’s an unfair, bigoted anti-gay stereotype. If you don’t want to be taken for a bigot, you should try to avoid such statements.
Comment by Ampersand — May 13, 2006 @ 4:41 pm
I welcome discussions of justice and of necessity, and I remain open to the idea that the demands of justice and the demands of necessity may conflict. I think this is part of the argument Fitz is making.
But that’s about as far as I got. Amp questions Fitz’s factual assertions. I’m questioning the logical connections. In short, even if every assertion were accurate, what exactly do these distressing factual assertions have to do with same-sex marriage or polygamy?
Comment by nobody.really — May 13, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
Did you mean the second law of thermodynamics which in my experience is most often used by creationist as a bogus argument to challenge evolution?
The third law of thermodynamics would hardly appear to be even superficially relevent, but I suppose the Newton’s third law of motion (i.e., dynamics) could be misapplied to the issue.
Comment by Daran — May 13, 2006 @ 11:05 pm
Okay, I completely screwed up what I was trying to say - I did indeed mean the second law of thermodynamics. Thanks for the correction.
And if you were irritated with my stupid error, that would in no way indicate that my argument had any truth to it.
Comment by Ampersand — May 14, 2006 @ 9:12 am
Marriage (as traditionally defined) is limited to a class of people, namely a man & a woman. While any member of that class may not have children, or cannot have children; the class itself is capable of having children. Same-sex couples are members of a class that can never have children. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples separates the institution necessarily from childbearing.
It also, by its very instance on changing the definition, androgynizes the institution. Marriage as a social institution will lack any necessary relationship to either maleness or femaleness and indeed, any relationship between the two.
I submit that for the vast majority of the human race, this new definition will serve them very poorly indeed. That this new form of marriage will be incapable of successfully inspiring men & women to come together and stay together for the good of themselves, the good of their children, and the good of all society.
(It will however serve the goal of making some people feel wonderfully included {for a while} Just as the lack of it makes certain people feel wonderfully put upon)
Comment by Fitz — May 14, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
Just to avoid any derailment of Fitz’ argument, let me correct his syntactic logic, as the point is sound (if debatable) once corrected:
Marriage as traditionally defined is limited to a class of people consisting of pairs of sexually dimorphic beings - i.e., one man and one woman. While any particular dyad within that class may not have the potential for jointly creating new human life using only their own biological selves, some dyads within the class as a whole are definitely so capable. The class, accordingly, is associated with the ability to intrinsically reproduce.
The class of dyads of sexually unimorphic (i.e., same sex) pairs does not have that intrinsic ability. Redefining marriage to include the class of sexually unimorphic dyads represents an intrinsic separation between the institution of marriage and the physical act of childbearing.
Comment by bobhayes — May 14, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
Marriage as traditionally defined is limited to a class of people consisting of pairs of sexually dimorphic beings - i.e., one man and one woman.
Except that this isn’t true, unless you define “traditionally” as “a selective reading of the particular marriage traditions I like, ignoring the rest”.
Comment by mythago — May 14, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
Still not following this. Any chance we could get a version of this argument in the form of “If X then Y because Z”? Let me get you started: If states legally recognize same sex marriage or poliamourous marriage, then [list of bad results] because [reason for believing the result would happen].”
Comment by nobody.really — May 14, 2006 @ 6:17 pm
Mythago, I look forward to your disquisition on widespread polygamy, polyandry, and SSM in the marriage traditions of European, and specifically Anglo-Saxon, culture of the past (say) 500 years. That’s the tradition from whence we draw our laws - and you know perfectly well that within that tradition, marriage has been between one man and one woman.
Yes, that’s a “selective reading”. I read out Native American, Asian, African, and Pacific marriage traditions because they are almost entirely immaterial to the legal and cultural apparatus American marriage has historically relied upon. Maybe the Algonquin did things differently; that doesn’t mean shit to our laws today, because our cultural tradition does not draw from Algonquin sources. I read out European flirtations with alternative structures in times long past because those traditions died out and are largely not contributory to our structure. Maybe Boswell found all kinds of deliciously homoerotic marriage ceremonies; they mean shit to our laws today, because our mainstream cultural tradition rejected those ideas a long time back.
Comment by bobhayes — May 14, 2006 @ 6:30 pm
Wow, it’s not often I see bobhayes dismiss the influence of Biblical tradition on Western culture.
Comment by nobody.really — May 14, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
Biblical tradition has a huge influence on Western culture. On our laws, not nearly so much, don’t you think? Probably 95% of what was codified in Biblical law(s) has been rejected over time - even as the cultural acceptance of the values motivating those laws has proceeded apace.
Comment by Robert — May 14, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
Yet people have this bizarre obsession with getting the Ten Commandments displayed on public property….
Comment by nobody.really — May 14, 2006 @ 10:51 pm
Here is the argument against polygamy in a nutshell. It requires an imbalance of male to female birthrates that do not exist. Young males in the large polygamist groups are used as underpaid and often unpaid child labor, i.e. slavery until they are kicked out on the streets when they become of interest to girls. In groups where they are not physically kicked out they are used for labor, denied an education and denied normal dating patterns with girls. Eventually the excess leave with no hopes for a normal life. The females do not fair better although the families do want daughters as they have value for bartering i.e. trading for wives for the man if he doesn’t have a lot of money to pay to leaders who assign the wives. The leaders take literally tens of teenagers for wives often ending up with 30 or more wives. The children created from this vast number or supported by the tax payer as the man cannot or in some cases like the multimillionaires in the Kingstons refuse to support their children who live in abject poverty. In order to supply the unending need for wives, teenagers, nieces, stepdaughters, sister-in-laws (sisters to the older wife), biological daughters, biological sisters, aunts, cousins, and little children are married to older married men. In order to maintain the power it takes to produce wives, they are taught that it is the will of God or even that the victims will burn in Hell if they do not follow polygamy. You will notice that whether it is so-called “Christian” polygamists (Christ never advocated polygamy - so that is a misnomer) or Mormon off-shoot polygamists they need religion to get their victims. Polygamy is neither advocated in the Old Testament, Abraham took a handmaiden against the will of God and ended up exiling his own son Ishmael into the wilderness (just like today); Lot, Abraham’s nephew, took up incest with his daughters (just like today); Joseph’s half brothers through polygamy sold him out of jealousy into slavery (excess boys must go); David had a man killed so that he could have his wife Bathsheba (polygamists have killed over 50 persons in the United States since 1970 including a 7 year old girl, an 8 year old girl and a 18 month old girl) America has its own brand of honor killing in polygamist groups, one of David’s sons killed another for raping a half sister (just like today). I really don’t see any Biblical commandment to practice polygamy or any lesson that polygamy is good in the Bible. Religion is a false excuse not a reason to satisfy the base desires for power, and sex which is what polygamy is about. Polygamy has so many inherent human rights abuses that it cannot be considered as a viable form of marriage. Look if it was so great - they wouldn’t have to use religion to coerce young girls into it. I don’t see gays out there telling people that if you don’t become gay and have homosexual sex you will go to Hell - there is the basic difference. One is an abuse of human rights and the other isn’t.
Comment by Lorna Craig — May 26, 2006 @ 6:27 pm