Gay Marriage = Infedility and Polygamy?

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Antinor01

I don’t say the arguments apply or don’t apply. What I’m saying is it isn’t my fight. If people actually want it, it’s their fight to begin.

I suppose that gay people are lucky straight people don’t feel that way about gay marriage. My desire to be in a polygamous marriage is the same as my desire to be in a same-sex one: none. But I would like to live in a society where people can form the families they want to form.

The people generally making the “support of gay marriage means you must support polygamy” argument are saying neither deserves support, not people who may legitimately want legal polygamy.

That’s often true. But it’s because they’re playing into people’s prejudices about polygamy and hoping that they overcome their more rational consideration of gay marriage. I’m saying that they’re both worthy of support. Why don’t more people say so?

@sqweels

No, the argument for gay marriage is that if gay people can’t marry each other, they can’t get married at all. A distinct minority group is being discriminated against and having its rights violated. But if you want more than one spouse, tough luck. You can bloody well make do with just the one like everyone else.

People who oppose gay marriage could write basically the same response. Gay people can get married, just to people of other genders. If you want a spouse of the same sex, tough luck. You can bloody well make do with the opposite sex just like everyone else.

Adam and Eve! Not Adam and Eve and Jim!

It has victims. In places where polygamy is practiced, very young girls are often pressured into marrying the local patriarch and the relationship is usually very unequal. Meanwhile the young males often get run out of town.

This is true, but it’s not unique to polygamy. It’s to do with a marginalized culture that practices it. There are lots of places where poor young women are pressured into marrying rich old men. There are also cases where poor young boys are manipulated into sexual service of older male pedophiles. In fact, people opposed to gay marriage often bring up the latter (and conveniently leave out the former) when trying to disparage the idea of gay marriage. But there’s no reason that either would be the norm or the model for a legal concept of polygamy.

Monogamy is one of the great levelers in society. Wealthy powerful men have enough privileges. You can have all the money but you can’t have all the women.

Wealthy men already have access to as many women as they want and can convince to have sex with them. After all, you don’t have to get married, and there’s no social stigma to serial monogamy and little to having multiple partners simultaneously. The only thing, as far as I can tell, that they’re forbidden to do is form a legal family and get the rights and responsibilities of marriage, if say they actually do care about each other and want to form a lasting bond.

I don’t think there are a lot of women out there who could be convinced to be in a polygamous marriage but not convinced to be in a polygamous relationship without marriage. So I don’t see how allowing the marriage increases wealthy and powerful men’s ability to have more than their fair share of women.

@astorian

Dan Savage is just one of many prominent gay spokesmen who support gay marriage while insisting we have to get over this monogamy and fidelity stuff.

My understanding of Dan Savage’s position is that monogamy is not a necessary ingredient to a marriage. Fidelity still is, in the sense that you must be faithful to the agreement that you make with your spouse. That doesn’t necessarily mean only having sex with them; it means agreeing about who and how you’re going to have sex, and sticking to the agreement.

[Antinor01]

Did you miss the part where I said its their fight to begin? I haven’t heard of any strong push from actual polygamists wanting it to become legal, so there isn’t a cause for me to support or not support.

[bup]

I guess I’d be for polygamy, as long as I’m the only husband in my marriage, and I can marry all the women I’ve loved and still carry a torch for.

I’ll let y’all know how that works out for me.

[Miller]

@iamthewalrus_3

I suppose that gay people are lucky straight people don’t feel that way about gay marriage. My desire to be in a polygamous marriage is the same as my desire to be in a same-sex one: none. But I would like to live in a society where people can form the families they want to form.

For my part, all I ask from straight people on the subject of gay rights is not to oppose it. If there’s a proposal on your ballot expanding gay rights, vote “yes.” If there’s one limiting gay rights, vote “no.” Straight people who do that are fine in my book. If they want to do more, awesome, but I don’t expect it of them.

That’s how I am with polygamy. If it ends up on the ballot, I’ll vote pro-poly, but I’m not really interested in joining a movement over it.

In debates about gay marriage, polygamy is a red herring. The two issues are not connected. We can have a society that recognizes one but not the other, or both, or neither. There are some arguments that apply equally to both issues, but there are some arguments that are unique to gay marriage, and some arguments that are unique to poly marriage. They’re separate issues, and should be dealt with separately.

FWIW, the poly people I know generally aren’t too thrilled with the conflation, either.

[Peremensoe]

@Miller

In debates about gay marriage, polygamy is a red herring. The two issues are not connected. We can have a society that recognizes one but not the other, or both, or neither. There are some arguments that apply equally to both issues, but there are some arguments that are unique to gay marriage, and some arguments that are unique to poly marriage. They’re separate issues, and should be dealt with separately.

Do you, or would you, feel the same way about analogies between gay marriage and “interracial” marriage?

Yes, obviously, culturally none of these are quite the same as one another. But what deep moral principle is it that applies to any one but not to all of them?

FWIW, the poly people I know generally aren’t too thrilled with the conflation, either.

More than half the poly people I have known are gay or bisexual themselves.

But neither your acquaintances’s nor mine’s personal opinions on the comparison are really material, are they? A homophobic interracial couple, or a racist gay one, do not invalidate the moral argument that applies to both.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Miller

That’s how I am with polygamy. If it ends up on the ballot, I’ll vote pro-poly, but I’m not really interested in joining a movement over it.

Totally reasonable.

In debates about gay marriage, polygamy is a red herring. The two issues are not connected. We can have a society that recognizes one but not the other, or both, or neither.

I disagree. They’re very clearly connected. They’re both forms of marriage that some people want and that some segment of society doesn’t want to legally recognize. They’re not the same. I’m not saying that there’s no logical argument for gay marriage that doesn’t apply to polygamy. I’m saying that the effective arguments that I’ve heard for gay marriage apply to polygamy. And while we’re having an open discussion about how to expand the concept of marriage, it seems quite arbitrary to say that a broader expansion is totally unrelated.

Ideally, we’d have a society that based its rules on some kind of consistent values. For example, we could decide (as many anti-SSM arguers sort of badly argue) that marriage really is about procreation, and limit it to childbearing couples. I don’t think that’s a good idea, because I think that marriage is about more than that. The vast majority of the arguments (and I think they’re really good ones) in favor of gay marriage have been that marriage is about love, and building a family, and being able to freely choose whom to share your life with. In my opinion, those arguments apply equally to polygamy, but when people point that out, we get “this discussion isn’t about polygamy”.

I agree with Peremensoe’s point that considering the analogy between gay marriage and interracial marriage is apt. Clearly, there are differences in the specifics, but the broader moral argument that supports one supports the other. And it supports polygamy, too.

[Learjeff]

Well, frankly, and just to stir the pot (which really needs stirring, doesn’t it?) …

Gay marriage like polygamy in that both are marriages that aren’t based on the mores and traditions of Christian/European society of the last millenium or so. However, it’s totally unlike polygamy in that there’s a perfectly good legal framework for it in the US: the same one that applies to traditional marriage. Polygamy would require reworking a lot of legal issues!

Likewise, gay marriage is like infidelity in that it’s not supported by Christian tradition (despite the latter being routinely practiced, but of course it’s considered a sin). IMHO, infidelity shouldn’t be illegal. Married people should be able to screw whomever they choose, as long as it’s within the agreements between the married couple plus any partners they fool around with. And that’s a moral/ethical “should”, not a legal one. So, the two are alike in the regard that the legal system shouldn’t ban them (IMHO).

Critics of gay marriage “warned” that polygamy would be next. Many GM proponents dismissed this as ridiculous, and of course, they were wrong if they were talking about whether it would be discussed. But they were right if they meant that it’d be a much more difficult issue to sort out, and unlikely to have enough support to gain much momentum.

Personally, I have no problem with polygamy, as long as all the legal and ethical issues are ironed out. The ethical issues involve protecting women.

Regarding the youtube: there’s one crucial fact that wasn’t discussed. The host assumed the caller was “cheating” without finding out whether she either relationship had an agreement on or assumption of exclusivity. The caller is being naive as well, carryiing on two apparently committed relationships in secret. Most likely one or both guys assume the relationship is exclusive. But we can only guess, since they didn’t even discuss it.

There is no universal rule for “cheating”, other than “violating agreements”. Admittedly, “agreements” might be implicit. I strongly recommend against implicit agreements, but most people seem to make them.

In any case, Antinor is right: it’s up to would-be polygamists to make their cases, or hold their peace. If they’re smart, they’ll hold their peace for a generation or two. (But frankly, I shudder to think of all the laws that would need to be reviewed.)

[TheSeaOtter]

@Learjeff

If they’re smart, they’ll hold their peace for a generation or two.

I agree with everything you say… except this. I can’t think of any group that ever won any civil rights by staying silent.

[Miller]

@Peremensoe

Do you, or would you, feel the same way about analogies between gay marriage and “interracial” marriage?

I’m not objecting to the idea that you can find analogies between the argument for gay marriage, and the argument for polygamous marriage. I’m objecting to the idea that if I want to defend one, I’m obliged to defend the other.

Yes, obviously, culturally none of these are quite the same as one another. But what deep moral principle is it that applies to any one but not to all of them?

I didn’t say anything about “deep moral principles,” but since you asked, how about, “People shouldn’t be treated differently because of characteristics about themselves over which they have no control.” There is substantial evidence that sexuality is an inborn, largely immutable characteristic. I do not believe that similar evidence exists for polygamists. I’m also directly familiar with the emotional and material hardships caused by gay marriage bans. I do not know if there are similar hardships attached to polygamy bans. I’ve seen it argued that polygamy is inherently sexist, and that legalizing it would inevitably lead to a reversal of women’s rights. I don’t find that argument compelling, but it is unique to the polygamy debate. (For that matter, “God hates fags,” is a deep moral principle that’s unique to the gay marriage debate, although, obviously, it’s one I disagree with vehemently.) At any rate, unlike every argument that gay marriage will be damaging to society, at least this one has some evidence. Every current culture that condones polygamy is also absolutely horrendous on women’s rights. Obviously, when we talk about legalizing polygamy in the States, we’re not talking about the Saudi model, but it is evidence that we need to be at least a little bit thoughtful about how we implement it.

Which brings up an important issue with polygamous marriage that’s practical, not moral. What the hell do we mean when we talk about legalizing polygamy? Legalizing gay marriage is not much more than a pronoun swap. But there are a host of issues with polygamous marriage that don’t exist with monogamous marriage, gay or straight. If I’m married to Spouse A and Spouse B, what’s the legal relationship between Spouse A and Spouse B? Are they married to each other? If I divorce Spouse A, does she have any claim on Spouse B’s assets? When I married Spouse B, did Spouse A have any say in the matter? What legal rights does Spouse A have over children I have with Spouse B? What legal obligations? Gay marriage is just a pronoun swap. Legalizing polygamy means inventing a large number of legal structures, some of which, poorly applied, could be harmful.

More than half the poly people I have known are gay or bisexual themselves.

All the poly people I know are gay or bisexual.

On the other hand, none of the people I’ve seen who insist on injecting polygamy into a discussion on gay marriage have ever been poly themselves. So, I’m pretty comfortable writing off the entire argument as a distraction.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Miller

I didn’t say anything about “deep moral principles,” but since you asked, how about, “People shouldn’t be treated differently because of characteristics about themselves over which they have no control.”

I like this framing of the discussion quite a bit. It is indeed an argument for gay marriage that you can claim doesn’t apply to poly marriage.

There is substantial evidence that sexuality is an inborn, largely immutable characteristic. I do not believe that similar evidence exists for polygamists.

Here’s where I disagree with you, though. Humans are, like pretty much every other mammal, not a naturally monogamous species. Even with very strong cultural pressures to do otherwise, a majority of humans have more than one sexual partner during their lifetimes. In western cultures, we’ve pretty much accepted that serial monogamy is fine (even though many people argue that the ideal is pure monogamy with no serialization, few people honestly expect to meet that ideal).

Obviously, when we talk about legalizing polygamy in the States, we’re not talking about the Saudi model, but it is evidence that we need to be at least a little bit thoughtful about how we implement it.

I agree that we need to be careful about how to structure the laws, and the issue of exactly how to form the legal structure for polygamy is why it will be trickier to enact. But I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of people do not object to polygamous marriage because it’s hard to figure out which legal rights should be involved. They object for the same reason that most people object to gay marriage: It’s icky and unnatural and they don’t like it.

On the other hand, none of the people I’ve seen who insist on injecting polygamy into a discussion on gay marriage have ever been poly themselves. So, I’m pretty comfortable writing off the entire argument as a distraction.

Isn’t that basically the definition of the ad hominem fallacy?

[Peremensoe]

@Miller

I’ve seen it argued that polygamy is inherently sexist, and that legalizing it would inevitably lead to a reversal of women’s rights. I don’t find that argument compelling, but it is unique to the polygamy debate.

It is pretty hard to see how a triad of lesbians constitute an inherently sexist relationship inevitably leading to a reversal of women’s rights. So, yeah, “not compelling.”

Which brings up an important issue with polygamous marriage that’s practical, not moral. What the hell do we mean when we talk about legalizing polygamy? Legalizing gay marriage is not much more than a pronoun swap. But there are a host of issues with polygamous marriage that don’t exist with monogamous marriage, gay or straight. If I’m married to Spouse A and Spouse B, what’s the legal relationship between Spouse A and Spouse B? Are they married to each other?

In the model I’m directly acquainted with, yes. There are other models.

If I divorce Spouse A, does she have any claim on Spouse B’s assets? When I married Spouse B, did Spouse A have any say in the matter? What legal rights does Spouse A have over children I have with Spouse B?

In the triad or group model, the only way to detach yourself from A would be for you to leave the group; they would still have each other. In effect the triad would devolve to a standard same- or opposite-sex couple, as the case might be (unless you all wished to dissolve the marriage at once).

If you were already married to A, I’m sure she’d have something to say about your marrying B–and she would have to, for a triad/group, because it would be her marriage (and children) as much as yours.

Gay marriage is just a pronoun swap. Legalizing polygamy means inventing a large number of legal structures…

It means writing some careful new law. Not really inventing anything; the ideas have all been worked out by the people who would like to apply them. It’s just a matter of recognizing in the law the arrangements that people already, in some cases, recognize among themselves.

In any case, the practical difficulty of writing the law surely pales beside the challenge of overcoming cultural prejudice.

[Miller]

@iamthewalrus_3

Here’s where I disagree with you, though. Humans are, like pretty much every other mammal, not a naturally monogamous species.

Perhaps, but if all humans are naturally non-monogamous, it’s hard to argue that laws against polygamy discriminate against a particular group.

I agree that we need to be careful about how to structure the laws, and the issue of exactly how to form the legal structure for polygamy is why it will be trickier to enact. But I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of people do not object to polygamous marriage because it’s hard to figure out which legal rights should be involved. They object for the same reason that most people object to gay marriage: It’s icky and unnatural and they don’t like it.

Sure. But so what? I’m not trying to convince people to support polygamy, I’m just pointing out how it’s a different issue with different concerns than gay marriage.

[Miller]

Peremensoe, thanks for the answers, but my questions were rhetorical. There are more than a few poly relationships in my extended social circle, and I don’t think any two of them would answer all those questions in the same way.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Miller

Perhaps, but if all humans are naturally non-monogamous, it’s hard to argue that laws against polygamy discriminate against a particular group.

Like any other human trait, there’s a continuum. Some people are happy to live in a monogamous relationship. Some aren’t. I’m sure there have been plenty of gay people throughout history who were happily married to someone of the opposite sex. Culture, society, family, and commitment can all be more important in some circumstances than sexuality.

[Annie-Xmas]

Marriage has not always been between “a man and a woman.” It was originally between “a man and a woman of the same race.” How is changing it from “two people of the opposite sex” (and to hell with races) to “two people” going to lead to polygomy?

[MaxTheVool]

An even stupider argument against gay marriage: gays can’t marry because they don’t face each other during sex.

[Miller]

@MaxTheVool

An even stupider argument against gay marriage: gays can’t marry because they don’t face each other during sex.

Okay, that’s not just stupid, that’s got to be some kind of mental disability.

[Marley23]

For those of you who were wondering how to say “Michele Bachmann” in Spanish, I think you have your answer.

[Learjeff]

@MaxTheVool

An even stupider argument against gay marriage: gays can’t marry because they don’t face each other during sex.

Not only is that ignorant even were it true, but (as I learned while watching a movie about Oscar Wilde) it’s not true: they can face each other!

But regardless … sheesh!

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@Emtar_KronJonDerSohn

The argument is that marriage is and always has been one man married to one woman.

But it’s just an argument, because it’s certainly not a fact!

Many of the marriages in the Bible were not one-man-one-woman. Solomon and his 700 wives, for example. Or Abraham and his multiple wives. And then there are records of Roman Emperors who married both female and male spouses.

So marriage certainly has NOT “always been” that.