This is a common fallacy I notice at the SDMB: the idea that all arguments must satisfy the demands of formal logic, or else be useless. That isn’t true at all.
For budgeting and health reasons, my wife and are considering a household rule limiting restaurant food to once a week. If we’re feeling lazy and want to order in on Tuesday, we aren’t allowed to eat out on Saturday. Now, say one week we want to cheat and order out twice this week. Now there is no *logical *reason why cheating just this once will inevitably lead to cheating next week – but common sense and human nature tells us there’s a good chance.
Similarly, we may have the opportunity soon to borrow a large amount of money at an absurdly low rate. Logically, we could borrow it even though we don’t need it, put it in CDs making a higher rate of interest. And yet we may not, because we’re very aware that $50,000 sitting in CDs may present a temptation to spend on things we don’t need.
The “open door” argument is not necessarily a logical one … but it doesn’t need to be to be in order to be persuasive; it’s an argument based on human nature and ideas about future political conditions.
Mind you, I say all this as someone open to changing the legal status of both SSM and Polygamy …
The difference is this: In your examples, it’s the same people who want to continue down the slippery slope. If you want to eat out twice this week, you are the same couple who might want to eat out twice again next week. So falling down the slope is likely
But in the issue of SSM possibly leading to polygamy, it’s different people. There was a large number of people trying to make SSM legal, but most of those are not interested in making polygamy legal. There’s nobody fighting for it in any serious way. Nobody is asking any court to make it legal. “Rights” don’t come about just because a judge thinks it’s the correct thing to do. Someone has to really want it, and either take it to court or to the legislature, which is what’s happening now with SSM. It isn’t happening with polygamy, and I don’t think it will.
You’re restricting yourself to what’s happening now and what people currently living think; they are thinking much longer term.
Fifty years ago, cohabitating, much less bearing a child out of wedlock was a source of scandal. Now “shacking up” is the norm (hell, the Prince of Wales did it), and the illegitimacy figures are nearing 50%. Rhett Butler saying “damn” in a movie was a big deal; now “Fuck” is pretty much omnipresent. A few decades ago, porn was something hidden and difficult to access; now any kid can find “lesbian pedo goat felch” in .023 seconds.
None of those happened overnight, and none were intended; they were the result of gradual change. The people who are alarmed by all the above are not concerned that “poly rights” will be an issue in 2012; they’re concerned about 2050.
Isn’t that the old joke? Something like, I barely have enough energy to disappoint one woman at a time.
State enforced monogamy is basically socialism for low status men, saving them from the ravages of the free market. But at the same time it can be good for the elite too, since having millions of unattached and frustrated men might not lead to the most stable society. Besides, there’s nothing stopping you from having 50 mistresses. That’s still winning!
I’ve never argued on EP grounds, not really. Sure, I’ve entertained a few arguments for the sake of the conversation, but I’ve said a few times that the various same-sex marriage and gay rights cases have been decided on different grounds. I think that it if SSM makes it to SCOTUS, it will depend on what grounds SCOTUS rejects or accepts it.
Generally, groups have been allowed to practice religious freedom when possible. The original ban on polygamy was racist and religious, as I said before. (Kind of like how the bans on SSM have been bigoted and religious.) So I’d be interested to see what the current argument against SSM would be.
SCOTUS refused to hear the last major poly case. It would seem to me that SCOTUS tends to cautiously follow where the wind blows. But given the current makeup of the Court, I don’t see SSM or polygamy being decriminalized right now. Not on a federal level.
Finally, I have problems with proponents of SSM thinking that I’m making some ‘slippery slope’ argument. Polygamy isn’t inherently bad, and making moral judgments on poly marriages smacks of the same sanctimonious attitude that the religious right has against SSM.
Maybe I’m wrong, but under traditional American morality I’d think the proposed slip would go the other way, from poly to SSM. Even today, after decades of pro-gay campaigning, I’m sure in many places it’d be better to come out as having multiple wives than being gay.
As someone who DOES identify as polyamorous, Dio’s essentially right here.
The issue with SSM is primarily and totally about the rights that go along with marriage–from property sharing to divorce/custody frameworks to hospital visitation.
Ultimately, the biggest argument for why there is no slippery slope between SSM and polyamory is that the frameworks exist in our society for a marriage between two people. It’s not discriminatory to say that you can only have, in essence, one LEGAL partner who is ultimately the one who shares your finances and makes decisions when you’re incapacitated and such.
While I wouldn’t mind someone trying to devise a fair framework for plural marriage analogous to a multiple partnership or private corporation–with explicit statements as to how divorce divides assets and custody, etc–I don’t think that’s likely to happen until/unless our current two-person marriages become buffet-style legally.
For reference–I do find anti-polyamory laws of the type CitizenPained discussed upthread (that ban arrangements with one married couple with additional cohabitating persons, regardless of legal arrangements) to be discriminatory. Idiocies such as the FLDS abuses you see on the TV can and should be dealt with using existing laws regarding spousal abuse, child abandonment, etc.
Also, to the dude who said SSM was a potential slippery slope to marrying animals–er, no. Animals can’t legally consent.
There are really two issues here: First, whether people should be allowed to live that lifestyle, and second, what if any legal recognition we should give it. Allowing people to live that lifestyle is something easy to do, and we should certainly do it. That’s just a matter of repealing laws against multiple cohabitation wherever they’re found (which probably isn’t all 50 states to begin with). I see no pressing need to prosecute people for willingly living with multiple other adults, or even calling each other all “husband” and “wife”. It’s when you get to the legal implications of marriage that things get complicated. I have no objection to that, either, but I’m not going to be the one to advocate for it, and I would say that those who are advocating for it need to take the responsibility for suggesting ways to modify all of the vast number of laws on the topic.
It was argued by SCOTUS that poly marriages were a former blight on European society and were of ‘Asiatic and African nations’. Not something ‘we’ do here in civilization.
edit: Poly marriages weren’t restricted to just Mormons.
First, I don’t believe there are any common-law states any more.
And when there were, the requirement was that a couple lived as man and wife for some number of years to qualify. Thus lived together exclusively; if a gy lived with 3 women it would not have satisfied the requirements of common-law marriage back then.
Fully concur. Those advocates also need to decide on a final form. More than one person in this thread has hand waved away the difficulties in adapting the law to multiple partners. But set aside for the moment examining the ramifications. Before you can get to that you have to decide on which marriages will be recognized, and in what way.
For example, is there any numerical limit? Can you have a marriage of 10, 100, 1000? I think we can all agree that if a marriage is so big you can never hope to know everyone’s name, then it is not longer really a marriage, but where is the line drawn. I guarantee, that no matter where you draw it, someone will want to add one more someday. Or you could draw no line, and then you can end up with companies or religious groups (or mixture of the two) forming large marriages of convenience.
Or, as I brought up in different thread on this topic, if A, B, and C are married, can B marry D, who is married to E without A and C also being married to E? [bold]CitizenPained[/bold] says no, but why not if everyone involved is aware and consents? Who is getting hurt?
Can a marriage continue forever? What if a couple in their 60s marry marry two 20 year-olds, who 40 years later, marry two twenty-year olds, etc.?
Can marriages have a built in time or liability limit? Can I marry one women for love, but have a temporary marriage to another so we can have a child, but no property entanglements?
The point here is all of these things are possible, but deciding on how to change marriage to allow for multiple spouses is a) not trivial and b) not agreed on by poly promoters. These barriers exist for poly marriage, but not for SSM where all that has to change is pronouns.
The idea that family law hasn’t changed besides pronouns is silly. Consider custody cases with s/s couples, eg, a gestational carrier v. a partner’s rights. It took courts awhile to figure out the obvious.
Perfectly reasonable. We put ‘18’ at the arbitrary age for adulthood, but ‘one’ spouse is a bit restrictive.
Those are practiced anyway.
As I said before, that doesn’t work unless all partners agree to the poly marriage.
If all are consenting parties marrying each other, who cares? It’s not that different than family estates.
Why are you trying to make this more complicated? When you get married, you get married. You can’t divvy up shit. :dubious: “Okay, Ritchie, I’m going to marry you for your sperm, Rachel for her cooking and Raphael for his money…”
Is a poly marriage with all agreeing spouses that hard to imagine?
Why can Bobby have two mommies but not two mommies and a daddy?
The law New York just passed doesn’t address those issues, and as far as I know, a lot of complications related to surrogacy have not been addressed by the law or by courts. As far as polygamy goes, I think you do have to admit there are are a lot of other issues that would need to be resolved by legislation or the courts.
This isn’t a good quote (or a full response.) Of course there are marriages of convenience. He was talking about arrangements that would change a company or a church into a marriage.
I don’t know how I feel about this. If we’re allowing polygamy for moral reasons, is it moral to give one spouse a veto like that?
I’m not sure about this either, since it might create some property issues. At least it does create any interesting ‘if you replace all the boards in a wooden ship, is it still the same ship?’ question.
I think he’s trying to illustrate just what he said: marriage between three or more people is more complex legally than a marriage between two people, and if it becomes legal, that has to be dealt with somehow. The arrangement in surrogacy is similar to a temporary three-person marriage, and there are some complicated issues there that I don’t think have been worked out.
Many polyamorous folks maintain multiple levels of relationships–should we grant legal status to those levels? How many levels? What legal status?
Polyamorous marriage isn’t usually considered to be transitive–if Alice is married to Bob and married to Chris, Bob and Chris don’t necessarily have a relationship. How is Alice’s and Bob’s interest in any shared property dealt with if Chris wants to divorce? What kind of record-keeping is this going to entail?
Custody issues get scary. Alice is married to Bob and Chris again. They have a child–who’s the legal father? Are paternity tests going to be mandatory? If Chris leaves, can he sue for custody even if it’s Bob’s biological kid, due to his marriage/paternal interest by way of Alice?