I’m actually not much of an advocate for marriage in general. What I am an advocate for is tolerance and equality.
Personally, I have no objection to polygamy being legal, so long as it’s done in a fair and equitable way (all partners retain their rights, polyandry and polygyny are both legal, etc.). I think that for most people it’s a mistake, but it’s a mistake that they should be allowed to make. The difference, though, is in the effort required to change the laws. Polygamy is complicated. It would be a monumental achievement to try to put together a set of laws that would do it justice, and I, for one, am not going to be the one to put in that much effort. Gay marriage, by contrast, can be legislated with a stroke of a pen. “All rights and privileges afforded to opposite-sex couples through marriage shall also be afforded to same-sex couples.” That’s all you need to say, and presto, you’ve got gay marriage. Given that it’s so incredibly easy, there’s no justification for not doing it.
Then, why should I, and the majority of other people, care about same-sex marriage, not being homosexuals? The current laws suit our situation just fine. Why should we have any responsibility or interest in changing them?
Note that refusing to consider the issue of polygamy doesn’t solely have an impact on polyamorous people who have some novel alternate view of marriage but also on immigrant women who are already involved in a polygamous marriage and on their children. Africans (who are the most likely to be polygamist) might constitute a lower percentage of immigrants in the USA, but here this is a recurrent issue for social workers. The refusal to recognize or aknowledge the reality of polygamy only results in putting them and their children further down and denying them equal rights despite being in exactly the same situation as the wife who happens to be aknowledged.
If you can legitimely says “That’s not my problem, why should I care about them or about equal rights for people who aren’t like me?”, then following this reasoning, there’s no reason to blame any non homosexual for not caring the slightest bit about your quandary and letting you sort your particular issue with the Christian crowd who apparently cares about it. If they outnumber you, then, too bad for you.
But of course, supporting gay marriage nowadays is risk-free, popular and makes you part of the enlightened crowd. And you’re esentially at this point 100% certain to win the good fight in western countries, sooner or later. So, no doubt you’re getting and will get plenty of support. But considering the issue of polygamists (be them modern polyamourous people or immigrants’ second wiwes) isn’t nearly as sexy or likely to get you brownie points and since even aknowledging that there might remotely be a similar issue here could be detrimental to your cause, it’s way more convenient to push the problem under the carpet, stand on it and state vehemently that it has absolutely nothing to do with your cause, the fact that both happen to revolve around a need to redefine the traditionnal meaning of marriage in order to grant equal rights to people in an identical situation being just sheer coincidence.
Let me remind you this next time you’ll attempt to draw any comparison between two different situations both related to marriage, like the right for a black man to marry a white woman and the right for a man to marry a man.
Finally, neither of your posts adressed the issue of why the State should be in the business of putting an official stamp of approval on your union at this point in time. Should I ask for the right to have a State-sanctioned marriage with my brother, for instance? And it’s not at all a rhetorical question, but a very real one with significant practical consequences I used to argue about back when the right to a civil union was granted here to homosexuals, but explicitely denied to blood relatives. And it’s impossible to answer it without defining exactly what a marriage is supposed to be, what it is really about and why it should be State-sanctioned. Which, since we’re are supposed to be all rational and all on the Straight Dope can’t be done while ignoring the elephant in the room that polygamy is.
And why is this relevant to State-sanctioned marriage? Nobody is legally denying homosexuals (or polyamorous) the right to love each other or fuck each other in modern western societies. And loving or fucking your spouse isn’t a requirement for marriage, either. Not even being physically able to do so is, nowadays (it used to be).
State sanctioned marriage is all about rights, nowadays. It’s not about sex, sexual orientation or love. I know some think that they should a have a right to an official stamp of approval of their love story of sex exploits to show to their friends. I say it’s presumptuous and has nothing to do with the legal concept of marriage. Approval is to be sought in your family, your church, your trampoline team or whatever else, but not in the desk of a judge of peace.
(And even though it’s a different issue, I would note that whether or not homosexuality is a choice is, or should be, generally irrelevant in all gay-related discussions. Otherwise, it would mean that for instance a bisexual could be denied the right to have sex with someone of the same gender. Or that sodomy laws are perfectly OK since having oral sex instead of vaginal sex is a choice)
“It’s too complicated to give you that right” isn’t something that’s going to satisfy me. Also, what simple steps are taken or advocated to merely improve the lot of women involved in a polygamous marriage? I can tell you : none (at least not over here). Because that would be supporting the evil, evil polygamy, and fuck the real humans with real problems who are really here.
More importantly, that’s not really my original point. My point was that just dismissing the issue of polygamy by saying “none of my business” “not the same thing at all, should be as obvious to everybody as the fact that a marriage is between [del] a white and a white [/del] ..[del] a man and a woman [/del].. a person and a person”, “some men would have way too much women” when asked “why should same sex marriage be allowed but not polygamous marriage?” is disingeneous. Dan Savage didn’t say “I approve polygamy but it would be too complicated”. He said “I dissaprove polygamous marriages and anyway I’ve no reason to care about those other people’s problems. Let’s talk about the respectable issues of respectable homosexual people like me”.
And he said that because :
- He doesn’t care about other people and their issues
- He dissaprove of their lifestyle
- He knows it could undermine his stance in the eye of the public opinion
- Any mix of the above
He admited to 1) and 2) but I suspect the real reason is 3)
I’m not saying I can’t take a position or don’t care about polygamy. I’m saying it has nothing to do with gay marriage. It’s a totally different subject.
Fine- start a thread on polyamory, and we can discuss it. I’ll admit that I don’t feel like I have enough information on polygamy to have an informed opinion. Also, I haven’t spoken to any polyamorous couples. I have spoken to gay couples- and it was the gay couples who changed my mind on the subject.
I don’t say this- I just say that polygamy is a separate issue, and has no bearing on gay marriage. It’s brought up as a distraction- just like bestiality was brought up as a distraction to oppose interracial marriage.
I try not to let the “bravery” of a stance influence my position on it. I am not well enough informed on, nor have I even met a practicer of (that I know of) polygamy.
I actually would prefer if marriage was not a government institution. But if the government offers marriage, then in my opinion it must offer marriage to gay couples as well as straight couples.
I have not watched the debate and do not know the context of the remarks, but it sounds to me like Brown might have been talking about Marcian and the Council of Chalcedon.
clairobscur, just to be clear, are you suggesting that support for SSM extend to polygamy? Or are you decrying the lack of support for polygamy and pissing on SSM advocates out of the notion that they’re only doing so because its in vogue?
If it’s the former, tell me again how the two are fundamentally the same thing.
If it’s the latter, I freely cop to being largely ignorant about the matter. But don’t take it personally, there are a lot of Important Things I’m similarly ignorant about.
You’re repeating that (or words to the same effect) several times. How is it a totally different subject? Aren’t both issues about the right to marriage? Aren’t both issues about not discriminating?
As I already said, if you think so, I can make the case that interracial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage, either. Interracial marriage follows the pattern of traditional marriage : a man+ a woman. Also, interracial marriage was legal about everywhere in the western world (and outside it too, in fact) except in the USA. It being banned was a completely anomalous situation.
On the other hand, same sex marriage doesn’t follow the traditional pattern of marriage. In fact it didn’t exist anywhere until recently (OK with very rare exceptions for marriage with transvestites in some cultures). That’s a complete departure from traditional marriage, and opponents to it are perfectly right when they say so.
Legalizing interracial marriage was…well…doing what about everybody had done about everywhere during most of history. Same sex marriage is a complete innovation. They aren’t the same thing.
I would also mention something. You’re referring to comparisons made between bestiality and interracial marriage at the time. You’re forgetting about another comparison that has been made too. Of course, it’s with…same-sex marriage, not surprisingly. I wish I had a cite handy. I don’t. So, you’re free not to believe me. But will you accept, at least, that the idea of such a marriage would have been seen as totally ludicrous and as an insulting comparison at the time?
I can’t convince you, nor anybody else. But nevertheless I’ll state that when you’re saying that in the list : interracial marriage, same sex marriage, polygamous marriage two of the items are identical while the third one is a complete outlier, it’s a totally arbitrary statement on your part, and it’s based on prejudices, not objective assessment (by prejudice I mean any a priori opinion or feeling, it’s not intended as an attack on your character). You can decide that two of them are more similar because they involve only two people. Or that two of them are more similar because they involve people of opposite gender. Or because two of them are more traditionnal…or…or you can say : why on earth does it matter to me what people want to do and what gives me the right to decide what’s right for them? Why am I even searching for a difference?
A man and a woman want to live together, have rights and raise a child: obviously right.
A man and a man want to live together, have rights and raise a child : obviously right.
Two men and a woman want to live together, have rights and raise a child : judgment reserved. Because…well…why, exactly?
That’s just wrong?
Too much sex?
Too many parents? (Wrong reaction : there was an interesting link recently about one of those ludicrous Child Support cases, involving straight monogamous couples, where the obviously right and best for the kid decision wasn’t upheld in appeal because it would have been akin to state that the child had two fathers. Right answer : it’s not very unusual for children of gay couples to have in practice three parents, the biological father or mother being involved)
What would make this situation so special that it requires a lot of thinking and soul searching?
Fact is : the comparison between same sex marriage and polygamy has been demonized because it has ben used by homophobes (or Christians opposed to same sex marriages or whatever you want to call them) and because in the court of public opinion agreeing that such a comparison is valid wouldn’t fly well. It’s not rejected because it’s being seriously pondered and carefully considered. It’s rejected “prima facie”, and then only people search for a good reason why it can’t be compared (or generally don’t even bother and just state so). Polygamy is bad because…thinking…thinking…“Stray Mormons do it with 13 yo!!!” “That’s too complicated to change the law!!!” “Donald Trump would have too many wives and some other guy wouldn’t get any!!!”. Like any of those reasons could justify rejecting the concept on principle. Of course “Why should I care, I’m not polyamorous?” is even easier.
(Note that in this post I only took into consideration modern polyamorous relationships and not the issue of what to do about women who are in polygamous marriages because that’s the way things are done where they’re coming from. Also, my intent isn’t really to convince that polygamous marriages should be made legal, since as I said, I think that ideally the State should just give up regulating this marriage thing that has roamed absurdly far away from what marriage used to be while people, legislatures and courts try to pretend it didn’t. It’s to convince that the automatic rejection of the comparison isn’t justified and also if possible that, since marriage isn’t going to go away any time soon, accommodations should be made for people who aren’t involved in an usual monogamous relationship, regardless of the reason)
clairobscur, I’m neither for nor against polygamy because I don’t know enough about it. But I do think that we’re straying quite a ways from the OP.
You seem to have some good points to make. Maybe you should start a thread about polygamy so that people who want to discuss polygamy can debate polygamy with you.
All of the above? None of the above?
I was suggesting originally that Dan Savage was undeservedly and probably disingenuously dismissing the idea that a comparison could be made between SSM and polygamy and also that the reasons he’s enunciating for being opposed to polygamy aren’t good reasons.
Along the way, I expressed quite a lot of other personal opinions. Amongst them, to answer your specific questions :
-That polyamorous people have an equally legitimate right to ask for a recognition of their relationships . And again, that polygamy (people legally married in their countries) does exist in our societies, and that refusing to aknowledge it is a real problem (those are not really the same issue, but I insist on mentioning the latter that is often overlooked).
-That there are few if any objective reasons not to support polygamy for people who are currently supporting SSM marriage. In both case that’s just people wanting to live with the people they like the way they like. That I think indeed that a number of SSM supporters don’t support polygamy or oppose it for poorly thought or not thought at all reasons.
-That “That’s not my problem! I’m supporting SSM/ I want to marry a SS partner, that’s the only thing I care about and those other people whose relationships are unrecognized/despised should deal with their problems themselves” is not an acceptable response. It’s not like homosexuals aren’t seeking the support of heterosexuals despite SSM not being heteros’ problem either.
-That indeed it’s easy to “come and rescue victory” as we say over here, and it’s not particularly remarkable to support a position that most people nowadays agree is the right one and that will obviously prevail, and that dismissing out of hand/not being interested at the same time in a similar issue might show that maybe some people aren’t in fact that concerned about other people’s rights, just riding the wawe (or just self-serving, if they’re homos).
To sum up, I think there’s a double standard at work, here.
That said, I’m going to stop posting in this thread, except maybe on details, because :
-I already spent way too much time doing so
-I think I said everything I had to say several times over. The response to whatever comment posters might want to make about my posts is probably somewhere in what I already wrote
-I’m not really that invested in the issue. I just wanted to make a brief comment about Dan Savage statement re. polygamy but the negative responses I got brought me to write lenghty posts about something which isn’t exactly my pet peeve.
No one is saying that “it’s too complicated to give you that right.”
Rather, people are saying, “Same sex marriage is trivial–cross out “man” and “woman” and write in “spouse 1” and “spouse 2”. Polyamory is complicated. Therefore, the arguments in favor of same sex marriage do not necessarily also require legalized polygamy.”
Arguably, polygamy should still be legal, anyway. Arguably, it shouldn’t. But the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are not by themselves enough to justify polygamy; additional, complex factors must be introduced and evaluated before a judgement can be made in regards to societies interest in legalizing or forbidding multi-person marriages.
Looks like a good reason to me, given the phenomenon of “lost boys”. Unless we start selectively reducing male fetuses or practicing male infanticide, of doing something to create a gender imbalance, we’re going to end up with some men who collect multiple wives, leaving numerous men with no wives, because in practice, “polygamy” has always followed this pattern. Further, though the vast majority of the population will not practice polygamy in any form, you’d end up with self-isolating enclaves of like-minded practitioners, i.e. cults, from which surplus males must be expelled.
Or at least this strikes me as a probable outcome based on actual examples, as opposed to fatuous assumptions that homosexuality leads to pedophilia.
It doesn’t have to be a majority for someone to have reasonable misgivings.
I don’t buy that homosexuals are avoiding the issue. It’s just beyond the scope of what they want - a minor (if not trivial) refinement of existing marriage law. Polygamy introduces complexities that gay marriage does not, i.e. how to handle divorce, how to resolve next-of-kin issues, what responsibilities (if any) the “sister wives” have to each other if the central male figure dies…
Yeah… and this is pointless overkill, in determined ignorance of the numerous legal advantages married couples now enjoy and would be giving up for no good reason. You’d be destroying marriage in order to save it, and you wouldn’t even be saving it.
You shouldn’t. You shouldn’t vote for any initiative that blocks gay marriage, and you shouldn’t give any support to a politician who makes a big deal about plans to block gay marriage (or at least not for that reason). Complete indifference to the issue would be a refreshing change from the active and willful spite we’ve been seeing.
I obviously don’t intend to save it since I’d rather have the State not recognizing it, and precisely it’s unobvious to me why married couples should enjoy those advantages (hence my comment about failing to see what public interests it still serves).
Then I don’t get why you care if Savage is in favour of polygamous marriage or not, since you’re arguing the entire institution, presumably in all possible permutations, should be abolished.
Huh? Sure it’s an acceptable response. Pro-polygamy advocates are totally free to seek the support of a wide range of people, and that wide range of people is totally free to say “Sorry, I don’t care” or “Sorry, I don’t agree.” If the poly-advocate wants to bring up gay marriage as a tool for gaining support, more power to him, maybe people’ll find it compelling, but the issues are significantly different.
Nobody is bound by his support of SSM to support other unorthodox unions, nor is there any logical imperative that he must.
[QUOTE=Reyemile]
Arguably, polygamy should still be legal, anyway. Arguably, it shouldn’t. But the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are not by themselves enough to justify polygamy; additional, complex factors must be introduced and evaluated before a judgement can be made in regards to societies interest in legalizing or forbidding multi-person marriages.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. If I support SSM, I know what I’m supporting - an arrangement just like the current one, only with two people of the same gender. Conversely I’m not going to come out in support of “polygamy” without knowing what that entails; there are too many different possible permutations and varying levels of individual and collective rights involved. I can envision some arrangements I would be entirely in favor of, and others I would utterly oppose.
I am willing to support a known I agree with; I am not willing to support an unknown I may well not. Hit me with a proposal for a specific type of legalized polygamy and I’ll let you know, but it’s got nothing to do with my support for SSM.
Because as far as I can tell, abolishing marriage isn’t on the table, and meanwhile I disagree with what he said for reasons I already explained?
Okay… I’m gonna go talk to someone else, now…