# Is the argument that approving gay marriage opens the door to plural marriage illogical or not? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 25, 2011, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801 "2011-06-25T04:37:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/21 "2011-06-25T07:15:47Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > I’ve got a 400 page book here outlining all the changes to the definition in California since statehood, and that’s just one state over a 161-year period. Here are some highlights:. We’re obviously referencing two different things. Per your note that “the legal definition of marriage changes routinely” I was under the impression you were referring to (per my OP) _who_ is allowed to marry and how, not all the various internal changes in property rights etc. within a standard heterosexual marriage. You are entirely correct that “the legal definition of marriage changes routinely” in terms of issues internal to the male-female marriage contract. I think for the “definition” of marriage to include the sanctioning of homosexual marriage is a point somewhat apart from that, and is a far more fundamental change in terms of the “legal definition of marriage”. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/22 "2011-06-25T07:19:10Z")
> [@astro](#): > > We’re obviously referencing two different things. Per your note that “the legal definition of marriage changes routinely” I was under the impression you were referring to (per my OP) _who_ is allowed to marry and how, not all the various internal changes in property rights etc. within a standard heterosexual marriage. > > You are entirely correct that “the legal definition of marriage changes routinely” in terms of issues internal to the male-female marriage contract. I think for the “definition” of marriage to include the sanctioning of homosexual marriage is a point somewhat apart from that, and is a far more fundamental change in terms of the “legal definition of marriage”. You may think that, but a lot of people thought that all these of these changes fundamentally altered the nature of marriage, and some of these changes were actually major changes from a legal perspective. All you are stating here is that you have arbitrarily decided some changes are more fundamental than others. ---
**Author:** ![humanafterall](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/humanafterall/32/19654_2.png) [@humanafterall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/humanafterall)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/23 "2011-06-25T12:35:10Z")
Hey, if some guy wants to practice polygamy, that’s fine by me. More power to him. I know for a fact I couldn’t handle more than 1 woman at a time. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/24 "2011-06-25T12:50:18Z")
Yes, it’s entirely wrong by definition. There are only two possibilities: you can present arguments against going from allowing same-sex marriage to allowing polygamous marriage, or you can’t. If you can, you’ve just established that same-sex marriage _won’t_ open the door to polygamous marriage, because you think there are legitimate barriers to that next step. If you can’t, you’ve just established that we shouldn’t _care_ if same-sex marriage opens the door to polygamous marriage, because you can’t think of a single reason not to. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/25 "2011-06-25T16:14:48Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > With polygamy, though, the laws would have to change. For instance, right now, if somebody dies intestate (without a will), his or her spouse has an automatic right to part of the estate. With polygamy, what would happen? Would every one of the person’s surviving spouses be entitled to an equal part of the estate? What happens now when a single or widowed parent dies intestate and has more than one child? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/26 "2011-06-25T17:39:09Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > well, the argument appears to have no basis in historical fact. > > There are 10 countries and 6 US states (soon 7 (NY) and maybe 8 (CA) which have same sex marriage. As well as 23 countries, parts of 3 countries, and 11 US states that have it under a different name (Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, etc.). > > And none of them has gone on to legalize polygamy or polyamory, in the 10 or 11 years that they have had same sex marriage. So thus far, this prediction has not come true. But we’ve now just turned a blind eye. Also, polyamory has existed in same sex couples for reproductive purposes. (For those who weren’t using a clinic.) > [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Maybe I can give an example to clarify my point: > > Let’s say, tomorrow, Congress decided to start a new type of corporation called an M-Corporation. It’s an S-Corporation, so it’s limited to one-hundred shareholders. But they all have to be men. > > Would any court uphold that? Clearly not. The court is going to say that Congress cannot prevent women from joining an M-Corporation. But the numerical restriction would still be in place. And I don’t see how you would be able to go to court and say that now because women are allowed in the M-Corporation, you should be able to allow 101 people in the M-Corporation. I just don’t see how the issues are related. That’s not a good argument. If I want to start a corporation, I can start one with 102 shareholders. It’s just not an S-Corp. Polygamists can only live outside the law and possibly be persecuted. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/27 "2011-06-25T19:12:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What happens now when a single or widowed parent dies intestate and has more than one child? Generally, the inheritance is equally divided between them. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/28 "2011-06-25T19:19:52Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Generally, the inheritance is equally divided between them. Exactly. So, polygamy doesn’t cause any new problems in that area. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/29 "2011-06-25T19:27:45Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > That’s not a good argument. If I want to start a corporation, I can start one with 102 shareholders. It’s just not an S-Corp. > > Polygamists can only live outside the law and possibly be persecuted. Wow, did you miss the entire point of that argument. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/30 "2011-06-25T19:33:55Z")
Heck, the children issue (heh) needs some work. Does the group marriage collectively have custody? What happens in a group marriage if the biological parents of a particular child or children die in an accident? What about marital privilege in court proceedings? Can one spouse invoke, preventing all other spouses from revealing certain information? ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/31 "2011-06-25T19:38:38Z")
They question to be asked is: Are states that have legalized gay marriage any closer to legalizing polygamous marriages? I think the answer is no. I don’t think the precedent of gay marriage empowers the legalization any further. Those wishing to argue for polygamous marriages may end up going back to the same precedents gay rights activists used but that’s not the same thing. Gay marriage and polygamous marriage may be similar in some peoples minds in terms of injustice but they are not the same thing and are not intertwined. It’s a similar comparison between the ban on interracial marriage and the ban on gay marriage, both injustices, both similar, but clearly not intertwined as one was overturned by the supreme court and one has yet to be. Polygamous marriage activates need to start their own band wagon if they wish to get anywhere. Those afraid of polygamous marriages if they were actually genuine in their concerns should be preparing to stop that one, but most aren’t genuine in that concern, shouting legalizing one will lead to the other is just a bigoted way to try and inspire fear of both. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/32 "2011-06-25T19:40:57Z")
Funny thing is, I could almost picture Utah permitting polygamy (well, polygyny) _before_ they allow gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/33 "2011-06-25T19:41:31Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Exactly. So, polygamy doesn’t cause any new problems in that area. Except spousal inheritance works differently than child inheritance. I’m not saying it couldn’t be done. It just would require making some choices and rewriting the law. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/34 "2011-06-25T19:58:16Z")
In California and Iowa, the court cases revolved around suspect classification analysis. Basically, in CA, the court’s reasoning went like this (I’m simplifying): (1) Sexual orientation is something you are born with, like race; (2) therefore, sexual orientation is a suspect class, subject to strict scrutiny analysis; (3) which means the state has to provide an extremely compelling reason to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; (4) and the state is unable to provide a compelling reason; (5) therefore, the state cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation for marriage. Now, to use the same argument of polygyny, you would have to argue that polygyny is a suspect class. Is it? Here’s the [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_class) on suspect classification. I don’t see how being a polygamist meets the test. And I don’t see how you would be able to draw a legal line from SSM to polygamy. Of course, from a political standpoint, you can go and argue anything you want to the legislature, and the legislature may decide to legalize polygamy one day. But it’s certainly not a necessary or even logical outcome of the legalization of SSM. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/35 "2011-06-25T21:56:26Z")
It’s illogical. Homosexuality is an innate attraction to the opposite sex. There is no evidence that polyamorous urges are innate. ETA: Kind of what **BrightNShiny** said. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/36 "2011-06-26T00:04:41Z")
For one thing, how many people are demanding the right to practice polygamy? The near-total lack of political support has got to be a factor. And anyone who wants multiple spouses can be told to make do with just one like everybody else. No one is being discriminated against. But what if polygamy–that is, polygyny–did become popular? What if wealthy and powerful men were encouraged to marry up all the women? That would deprive all the other men of female companionship. The fact that a man can only have one wife is a great leveler of society. The equality issues for women have already been brought up, but notice how young the girls who enter into these relationships tend to be. That can’t be good. > [@astro](#): > > I think for the “definition” of marriage to include the sanctioning of homosexual marriage is a point somewhat apart from that, and is a far more fundamental change in terms of the “legal definition of marriage”. I don’t think gay marriages _changes_ the definition of marriage at all. It’s still a commitment between 2 adults who are romantically in love with each other and share a sexual relationship. It just takes sexual orientation into account, which has previously been ignored. No one is advocating marriage between 2 straight men or a gay man and a straight woman. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/37 "2011-06-26T00:50:42Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > In California and Iowa, the court cases revolved around suspect classification analysis. Basically, in CA, the court’s reasoning went like this (I’m simplifying): > > (1) Sexual orientation is something you are born with, like race; (2) therefore, sexual orientation is a suspect class, subject to strict scrutiny analysis; (3) which means the state has to provide an extremely compelling reason to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; (4) and the state is unable to provide a compelling reason; (5) therefore, the state cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation for marriage. > > Now, to use the same argument of polygyny, you would have to argue that polygyny is a suspect class. Is it? Here’s the [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_class) on suspect classification. I don’t see how being a polygamist meets the test. And I don’t see how you would be able to draw a legal line from SSM to polygamy. > > Of course, from a political standpoint, you can go and argue anything you want to the legislature, and the legislature may decide to legalize polygamy one day. But it’s certainly not a necessary or even logical outcome of the legalization of SSM. “Suspect class” is legal definition of a social construct. Polyamorists could be declared such a class without much of a legal stretch. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/38 "2011-06-26T03:06:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > “Suspect class” is legal definition of a social construct. Polyamorists could be declared such a class without much of a legal stretch. Wow, I can already imagine the oral arguments at the Supreme Court: “Justice Scalia, the court should allow polygamy because it’s not much of a legal stretch!” Why, the briefs practically write themselves. If it’s such a short legal stretch, how come you are unable to provide even a hint of legal reasoning as to how polygamists qualify as a suspect class? How come nobody in this thread can provide any legal argument as to how SSM and polygamy are legally related? All you’ve done is engaged in hand-waving. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/39 "2011-06-26T04:11:04Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > But what if polygamy–that is, polygyny–did become popular? What if wealthy and powerful men were encouraged to marry up all the women? That would deprive all the other men of female companionship. The fact that a man can only have one wife is a great leveler of society. > > The equality issues for women have already been brought up, but notice how young the girls who enter into these relationships tend to be. That can’t be good. This is an important difference between SSM and polygamy; the anti-polygamy side has _plausible arguments for its position_. One can certainly argue against them, yes - but their position isn’t the baseless joke that passes for the anti-SSM side. They aren’t reduced to endless variations on “God says so!” and “it’s icky!” ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/40 "2011-06-26T04:41:54Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Wow, did you miss the entire point of that argument. No, you’re missing the point. Polygamy in its legal form (according to US Moral Penal Code and several state laws) is practiced all over the US. Have a wife and a mistress? Polygamist. And guess what? Only the Mormons are getting prosecuted for it. The de-criminalizatin of homosexuality happened decades ago…_Lawrence_ showed us how so-called ‘unused’ laws are harmful. I wouldn’t be opposed to a limit to the number of people on a poly marriage. Two, however, is rather unfortunate. And goes against human instinct. anyway, Scalia went [overboard](http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040729.html) in his dissent, but some of it is worth noting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801.md?page=3)