Accusations that legal same-sex marriage must lead to polygamy

Great Debates
1

First, I am completely in support of same-sex marriage.

However, some on the other side argue that we (that is, we who support SSM) must be consistent and thus also support legalized polygamy for the same reasons. They use this as a rebuttal to our claims, attempting to make us contradict ourselves.

(Or, they claim that the adoption of SSM will, in fact, inevitably lead to the eventual adoption of polygamy.)

I’m not aware of any good response or rebuttal to this claim.

After all, it seems that they might have a point, at first. If marriage is a private affair that is no one else’s business, why shouldn’t polygamous unions also enjoy the rights and benefits of civil marriage? How would polygamists be hurting anyone else?

How can we address these accusations?

2

It appears from your OP that you do not support polygamous arrangements. You wish to find something stemming from the polygamous lifestyle that is also not shared by SSM so you can denounce the polygamists.

If this is correct, why are you against polygamy in the first place?

Personally, I think “they” are right, and the only compelling argument I’ve seen has been a practical one: the laws regarding polygamy would be complicated and difficult to write.

I’m just surprised that so many anti-SSMers seem to detest polygamous relationships even more. I would think SSM would be worse, since polygamy is at least straight sex (usually, I think…).

3

Here’s the analogy I use:

We’ve outlawed heroin, and yet table salt is still readily available. Why? I mean, both are chemicals, right? How are we to decide that one chemical is legal and the other illegal.

The answer is that somewhere in between table salt and heroin is a line that we have drawn to determine this.

Somewhere in between gay marriage and polygamy is a line. Gay marriage should be on one side (table salt) with polygamy on the other (heroin).

4

I don’t see why SSM will necessarily lead to legal Polygamy. Why would it? It’s like saying if I have soup I have to have salad. Why? Why can’t I just have soup? We allow lots of things that are close to things we don’t allow. We allow alchohol and tobacco, but not marijuana.

There is a widespread movement for gay rights and gay marriage. There doesn’t seem to be one for Poly marriage. I suspect this is partly because there are fewer poly people than gay people and partly because polys have an easier time working around existing marriage laws.

I personally have no beef with polys, though I’m skeptical that more than a tiny percent of poly relationships will work, given human nature and all. As long as everyone involved is a consenting human adult, it doesn’t make a difference to me. (groups like the FLDS are pretty appalling, but I don’t think they define poygamy.) I don’t even mind poly families getting some legal recognition, though given the troubles gays are having, I don’t think it’s likely that they will.

Also, I don’t see being poly as an “orientation” the way being gay or straight or bi is. I suppose there may be some bisexuals who won’t feel fullfilled unless they’re screwing members of both sexes, but I don’t see having to “choose a team” being as big a burden as not being able to legally marry at all. Also I think changing the laws to accomodate polygamy might be a little more difficult than changing the laws to accomodate gays.

5

I think the fundamental difference is marriage is between two people, and poly is more than two. It’s easy enough to take laws applying to two people (man and woman) and apply them to any two people.

However, a lot of legal issues arising from marriage would be much more complicated in poly marriages.

For medical decision making is it majority rules? Do they all have to be in agreement? Do more “senior” members of the marriage have more weight in decision making?

For divorces, does everyone get divorced from everyone? What if some people want to divorce but others don’t, and they don’t agree on which.

Child custody and child support - applies only to the biological parents of each particular child? Can kids be adopted by the other partners in the marriage? Etc… etc… etc…

6

I don’t see the two situations as comparable. I also don’t have a problem with poly as long as everyone involved consents fully and is of age.

7

polygamy is fine with me…well, not fine with me, because I can barely keep the one wife happy, much less two…and I sure dont want the competition.

But polygamy between a dozen or so consenting adults only means better quality reality TV. What business is it of the goverments if people wanna do such a thing.

8

That’s based on a presupposition that there’s something evil about more than two people loving each another. How is it any different to say there is something evil about X-odd-persuasion persons loving each other or Y-odd-persuasion persons loving each other so long as in either case it is still all consenting adults?

Saying “Well goats are salt and their okay, but of course dolphins are over here with heroin” really doesn’t mean much without being able to say what makes one go on one side of the line or not.

9

This seems just as arbitrary (or just as unarbitrary, depending upon your view) as saying marriage is between a man and a woman.

10

IMHO marriage as far as the state is concerned has nothing to do with love, but has to do with 2 (or more) people creating a combined legal entity of sorts. This is allowed because the state has a vested interest in this type of union with one of the most important interests is the creation of future tax payers. Now this for the most part does not exist in SSM but does exist in poly marriages, so I can see more reason for state supported poly marriages then SSM.

11

For now, society does. For hundreds of years, gay marriage was on the evil side. I think for a lot of Americans the line has shifted. Soon, I predict that enough of society will have made the deterimination that gay marriage is acceptable that it will completely come over to the good side of the line, and the laws will begin to reflect that.

If that happens some day with polygamy, then so be it. But, it isn’t inevitable that it will. While I have no problems with gay marriage, I have reservations about polygamy. There are likely a lot of other people who feel similar and until polygamists can rally and make their case the way homosexuals have, then I’m unlikely to change that opinion.

12

Same sex marriage is a stabilizing force in society because it helps foster long-term relationships, encourages fidleity, discourages promiscuity. Polygamy is a destabilizing force. If legalized it would tip more power to powerful, wealthy males capable of maintaining many wives. Thus there’d be a shortage a women in the dating pool, and consequently an underclass of poor males with little hope of marrying–never a good thing.

Also, if we offered legal recognition to any polygamous union, there’d be plenty of oppoprtunity for abuse. For instance, routinely unethical companies such as WalMart might require that all employees join the WalMart “marriage” in order to get certain benefits.

13

AFAICT, the only drawback of polygamous marriage would be the legal problems arising from multiple partners. Also, I would let the polygamists make their case instead of worrying about the effects of polygamy. So far, I haven’t found anything compelling about their cause. I’ve yet to see any study pointing to a genetic cause for polygamy. I’ve yet to hear any argument showing that a polygamist marriage is anything but less-than-ideal. While SSM doesn’t lead to procreation (as does a hetero polygamist marriage), it is most similar to marriage as we know it today. It is arguably good for society as it promotes fidelity and lessens promiscuity. I really can’t say the same thing for polygamist marriages. Cultures where polygamy exists have generally been very patricarchal and oppressive. I believe that is a key ingredient to maintaing any stability to a polygamist marriage. I’m not sure how it would work out in a much freer society as what you have in the US.

14

Saying legal polygamy is inevitably going to be brought about if SSM is made legal is like saying SSM is inevitably going to be brought about if opposite-sex marriage is made legal. I’m always amazed at people who say there’s such a slippery slope and then say that OSM is sooooo totally different.

Having said that, I too am not against polygamy as long as everyone can give their consent.

15

That kinda strikes me as an almost sexist arguement, you seem to be implying that rich powerful males would ‘capture’ all these females who would be powerless to resist?

Hey, if it did happen it would represent a fundamental shift in the direction of human evolution. Currently poorer people reproduce more and are therefore “selected for” by evolution. Keeping them from having partners would certainly stop that. But of course if marriage has become open by that point they could just marry each other!

16

In other words, the slope, far from slippery, is covered in sandpaper.

17

What has been completely missed in the trenchent analyses offered thus far is that it’s critical in the debate to uncover how - by what method - SSM becomes legal.

If we assume the legislature is granted great deference by the courts, and if the legislature creates a vehicle for SSM, then we can easily point to the reason that polygamy need not be recognized: the legislature has a rational reason to differentiate between the two.

If, on the other hand, we assume that SSM comes about through judicial imposition, as a recognized Equal Protection right, then the line becomes a bit less clear. I believe that an honest interpretation of the EP clause in light of such a decision would require a recognition of polygamous unions.

So – it all depends on how you get there.

18

It seems to me you could say OSM is just as likely to lead to polygamy as SSM. What’s the difference? Once you let someone marry one person you just know they’re then going to want to marry two, then three, etc.

Actually, SSM might lead to a healthier form of polygamy if we required all parties to the marriage to marry each other, and take vows affirming their mutual and equal love for each other participant in the marriage. If a religious nutter man wants two wives he has to find two bi-sexual women who love each other as much as him, which would probably be forbidden by his nutter religion.

19

Civilly, the essence of marriage (whatever else it may be, which many of us would agree contains a great deal of “whatever else”) is a contract between two people creating a theoretically lifelong partnership of all that they are and all that they have. (This does not automatically create community property or dominance of one over the other, lest my wording be misunderstood.) It is easy to describe the relationship created in such a binary partnership, what happens when it is dissolved, etc.

To extend this to same-sex couples differs in very little from changing the age of consent from 18 to 17. “'Two persons of opposite sex not already married, not within prohibited consanguinity, who have reached the age of 18 years, may contract a legal marriage within the state of West Colozona.” Change 18 to 17 to make the latter change, strke “of opposite sex” to make the former.

On the other hand, creating a relationship between three or more people requires extensive changes to existing law. If two women are married to the same man legally and he dies, do they remain married to each other, or is his death the dissolution point of the marriage? If so, what if it’s one of the women who dies – does that dissolve the marriage of the survivors? Does whether the women are sexually attracted to each other enter into the picture? If so, why? If a marriage of four men and three women is dissolved, who has custody of the children, and why him or her or them?

This is not to argue against legalizing polygamous unions, but to show the difficulties that can arise.

To me, that makes a clear distinction, a level spot on the slippery slope. Legalizing the union of two people previously barred from engaging in marriage with each other is simply done, and requires very little revision of the laws. Creating a marriage relationship for a polyfamily creates much more complexity, and requires some detailed thinking through of how the laws should deal with that sort of relationship.

Short note to Kanicbird re the post above: I agree that marriages should support families and provide for progeny. I wonder if it will come any clearer from me than from others who have said it in the past: many gay couples in fact do have children, either from previous heterosexual events (not necessarily relationships, much less marriages), from chosen in vitro fertilization, or from adoption. We have a member here, Seven IIRC, who is the (straight) son raised (very successfully, from his account) by two fathers. Frankly, my dear, that dog don’t hunt.

20

I fancy myself a realist. I’ve seen more instances of women marrying ultra-wealthy men than vice versa; I know no male equivalent of Anna Nicole Smith. Currently a wealthy man is limited to one trophy wife at a time. With legal polygamy there’d be no limit. I certainly don’t think there’d be a shortage of women willing to join a union of that sort.

First, the rich currently reproduce more than the poor. Second, evolution only selects genes; wealth and poverty are amounts of money, not genes. Third, keeping the poor from having sexual partners would stop them from having children, but keeping them from having marriage partners certainly would not.