As a legal matter, the historical conception of marriage has been a union of two people (one male and one female) who enter into a joint personal and economic relationship. There are well-established rules governing the entry into, internal operation, and exit from (whether by death or divorce) that relationship.
The recent push toward same-sex marriage arises from the idea that there is no reason that the marriage relationship shouldn’t apply equally well to two men or two women. Based on equal protection and similar doctrines, some courts have been finding that legally there should be no discrimination based on the sex of the two people that enter into a marriage.
There is a distinction, however, in polygamous marriages, as they do not fit within the existing scheme of rules concerning entry into marriage, marital property, divorce, inheritance and the like. As such, there is no real equal protection or similar basis to claim that three or more persons should be treated like the two in our existing legal-cultural view of marriage. As to marriages between man and dog, gimme a break.
We’ve had some pretty good GQ answers here. However, I think the nature of the OP invites broader discussion that will probably be better served in GD.
As others have said - it’s not that you’re not seeing the logic, it’s that you’ve hit on the area where there isn’t any. There is no necessary chain of cause and effect that would make such a slippery slope inevitable.
I suppose it’s possible that, after same-sex marriages are fully accepted and legal, the folks who want polygamous, incestuous, inter-species, and other types of marriage legal might come out of the woodwork and cry “But you let them have what they asked for! No fair!”, but nothing would happen there without another decision being made. And it’s that series of decisions that is the key flaw of the slippery slope argument.
Well, they’re just expanding their interests. After all, for about the last 30 years, the people who’ve been spending the most time worrying about gay men’s sex lives hasn’t been gay men, really…it’s been the evangelicals and fundamentalists…
That’s assuming only polygyny (men with more than one wife) is allowed. If polygamy were allowed in western countries, polyandry (women with more than one husband) would also be allowed, and there would be at least some women who would take advantage of that, so restoring the balance to some extent.
I can’t imagine polygamy being legalized; there are too many complications.
For one, it has to apply equally to everyone. Right now, one person marries one person, they most likely share property and lodging. Very simple. So, suppose things change such that you’re allowed to marry multiple people. But, because the law applies equally, this applies to everyone, not just husbands having multiple wives. Let’s say you’re a man and you marry W1, W2, and W3. W1 has just as much right to marry whoever she wants as you do. So, W1 marries H1, a guy you don’t even like. What’s your legal relationship to him? As another spouse of W1, does that mean he’s entitled to live in the home you share with W1? And suppose H1 then marries W4, what’s your obligation to her now? She’s the wife of your wife’s husband; is she entitled to something as a member of the extended family?
And let’s suppose you get in an accident and you’re incapacitated. Right now, we have clear laws about who can make decisions on your behalf. Who gets those rights in a plural marriage situation? The wife you’ve had the longest? The wife you married most recently? Will you be at the mercy of H1, who no doubt can sway the opinions of W1?
And this all doesn’t even begin to address the nightmare that income taxes will become…
I know, some of you will say, “Well, we can just update the laws to cover all that!” The thing is, right now we have no idea how it will function in the real world. So, any laws that we might make in hopes of covering these situations will be “best guess”. It’ll be a nightmare.
I think the major error (and a trap people let themselves fall into) is that, if I support gay marriage, I’m under no onus to condemn or condone polygamy as a result of supporting gay marriage even if someone says “Yeah, but what if they want to marry!?”. I should simply make my arguments as to why gay marriage should be allowed and figure out the benefits and detriments and defend my case against criticisms towards it.
If someone else wants to do the same for polygamy, God bless 'em and let’s see if they can create a compelling case. But each idea should stand or fall on its own merits. If there’s legitimately valid reasons against polygamy or incest or bestiality or whatever else, then they’ll continue to be valid even after gays get to marry.
If you believe god created mankind then god created gays. Who are we to question gods wisdom or his creatures.
If however you believe that we should have laws against gods gays getting married and falling in love Why not go one step farther. Pass a law against being gay. That would work just as well.
Thank you. That was my basic assumption with Polygamy in Western Society; that it would go both ways and not just be “one male, several females”.
In fact, one of my more tongue-in-cheek suggestions for gold digging nympomaniacs has always been to hook up with multiple young socially awkward geeks and nerds. Having one wife and say, three technical geek husbands would provide one heckuva household income, ensure that the woman a very nice standard of living; and probably still manage to make those guys happy in the end, because they were getting some on, at very least, a semi-regular basis.
I think another factor at play is the notion that all things exist on a linear continuum with ‘good’ at one end and ‘evil’ at the other - and that by accommodating something a bit more ‘evil’ than we currently accept, the datum is reset and the step to the ‘next most evil’ thing becomes smaller than it was before.
I mean, I don’t think there’s a lot of merit in that notion, but I’m pretty sure it’s out there.
Do you also believe god created people who don’t desire monogamy? Who are we to question god’s wisdom or his creatures?
Do you believe god created pedophiles? Horse fetishists? Car enthusiasts? Who are we to question a person who wants to marry an underage goat blanket?
The main argument I hear against polygamy is that things would get complicated and require a lot of working out re: money and legal rights. To which I say “Well, good!” Maybe three or four or five people who want to get married SHOULD be talking about their financial and legal relationships to one another. Maybe so should two people.
Medical decision making is far from clear cut, even with our default assumptions about hetero marriage law. (See: Schiavo) Inheritance is far from clear cut (See: Anna Nicole Smith). Health insurance by many companies is already priced according to how many people you’re covering. I’m sure they’d be all too happy to limit it to one Spouse (you pick) or charge you more for a Secondary or Tertiary Spouse. They have people that can figure out the profit-making charge for that in a matter of seconds.
I say better to demolish the defaults of marriage and take it all on a case-by-case basis. Many, although I grant not nearly all, couples have prenuptial agreements, wills or other legal paperwork which contradicts and overrides the state defaults for these issues anyway. It’s, what, four documents to work out? Medical power of attorney, inheritance, social security and health insurance? Let’s see people go into these things after actually reading and signing paperwork that’s substantial and informative, instead of a marriage license that needs only name and birthdate.
ETA: Oh, right, there was an OP. Well, the short answer is that there are some people, like me, who see any change in the concept of marriage as a crack in the door to radical change for what I percieve to be the better. I don’t have the energy or political clout to do anything about it, mind, but it does get the ol’ noggin thinking. If “man and woman” isn’t critical, than why is “two”? It’s just the way of thinking of someone who might choose “WhyNot” as a username.
gonzomax, most people who believe in a creator god also believe in an antagonist - a Satan, if you will. How do you know gays, polys and pedo’s weren’t influenced or twisted by evil?
Now I don’t believe in such a thing, but I do believe there are lots and lots of perfectly natural things and people that we need, as a society, to repress because they cause harm. As I used to tell my herbal medicine students: “Syphilis is natural, doesn’t mean I want it!” Is polygamy one of those things that must be repressed in my book? No. But I do think that pedophilia (meaning sexual relations between adults and pre-pubescents) is one of those perfectly natural and god created things that causes more harm than I’m willing to allow in my society.
Insurance companies COULD (easily) handle multiple spoues, but they won’t want to !
N non-married individuals = N individual policies.
Or
N married individuals = 1 policy with spouses covered (for free, or substantially lesser premiums) ? = loss of income to the insurance companies
Should the laws be changed to force the insurance companies to take such a loss with mulitple spouses ?
As for taxes, certainly DEPENDENTS are already accomodated. The issue is with income-generating members of the household. It is the difference between:
N individuals filing single vs. N individuals filing jointly
Currently if you are married (depending on tax bracket) you get a break. But should this break expand (linearly) with the number of spouses in the union ? (Should the tax laws create an incentive to have multiple spouses ? And if not, why should one spouse’s income be taxed differently than the other two ?)
Have any of you, unlike me, actually read the courts decision? If there’s a factual answer to the question of whether the court has opened to door to inter-species marriage, somebody’s going to have to plod through those 252 pages. Until then, we’re all just farting into the wind.
Since this is based on the slippery slope technique, I’m going to save you all several steps. I’ll take it right to the point where all slope slippers end up.
Homosexuality is or has been illegal in many places though, so I think that’s just two different-but-related slippery slopes (slippery fallaciously, IMO)
