Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktFourth is a four part series which closes out Pride Month.
I have previously discussed pedophilia and bestiality as slippery slope oppostions to to gay marriage. Another one frequently brought up is polygamy. When in doubt, the man whose name is synonymous with slippery slope (so to speak) metaphors, Rick Santorum is always good for a quote.
“So, everybody has the right to be happy? So, if you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that OK?”
Rick is prone to these Socratic rhetorical outbursts, but why did he pick that particular example when ‘man on dog’ had been such a winner for him in the past? Well, Eugene Volokh in the Hofstra Law Review explicitly endorses polygamy as a slippery slope gambit.
And as it happens, there probably is a large group of American listeners that neither firmly opposes nor firmly supports same-sex marriage, but pretty firmly thinks that polygamy ought not be recognized, and a smaller but nontrivial group that is open to same-sex marriage but skeptical about at least some kinds of bans on sexual orientation discrimination. People in these groups are thus potentially swayable by the slippery slope argument.
As I mentioned in my last post, the most common definition arrayed against gay marriage is that it is traditionally between one man and one woman. And while I find the gender distinction irrelevant, some people fixate on the ‘one’ part of the circumlocution. They feel that allowing gay marriage could lead to polygamy, not realizing that polygamy exists in lots of countries already, many of them highly opposed to gay rights of any variety, so the connection is tenuous at best. Polygamy is a Biblicly endorsed practice along with slavery and the shunning of menstruating women. As such, it is hardly novel or shocking.
These objections over tradition also seem oblivious to the fact that the religion of the Republican candidate had polygamy as one of its founding tenets, a practice it refuted only just over a century ago even though splinter sects still practice it. And the practitioners don’t go through the motions of civic marriage, even if they could, because that infringes on their gaming of the child welfare system that is part of their economic model.
Polygamy raises the hackles of many people including feminists who find it a patriarchal institution suppressive of women. I doubt you will find many lesbians, single or married, in support of ‘traditional’ polygamy.
The more modern form of multi-partner relationships is called polyamory in order to distinguish it from the older variety, but even it is nothing new as it is just a newer variation on the Free Love and Open Marriage movements which have been around for years. By taking the ‘gamy’ suffix out, it divorces (so to speak) the romantic/sexual relationship from the square traditional concept of fidelity. Also within the concept of polyamory is an implicit acceptance of bisexuality as at least one of the possible permutations.
For the most part, polyamory seems to be for people who just find the emotional tightrope of traditional relationships too easy and need a greater challenge. At least that is my impression from my major source of information on this topic, Dan Savage’s Lovecast podcast. Judging by his listenership the predominant paradigm in these relationships is a primary partnership, which may or may not be a legally married couple, and ‘special guest stars’ of indeterminate duration. The very ephemeral nature of the secondary partners makes absorbing them into the marriage concept complicated to say the least, and most likely unnecessary in the long term.
Conceptually the idea of extending marriage to multiple partners is simply to make marriage contracts non-exclusive. This could lead to all sorts of interlocking directorates of sorts which would really not do much except open new areas of practice for divorce lawyers. This would also require the elimination of bigamy laws which I have no qualms with since I have always considered bigamy its own punishment.
So when someone goes on clambering about how gay marriages are going to destroy society, try to realize how much society has absorbed already. Gay marriage was originally drafted as a conservative measure to draw homosexuals into society. Marriage in any form is a civilizing influence. It creates responsibility and fosters commitment, not just to a person but to a code of behavior and expectations. Love comes is all colors, sizes, and shapes and should be celebrated wherever it occurs and to whomever it happens.
On a personal note, my cousin had her civil union in Delaware on Wednesday. The Delaware rules make a ‘solemnized’ union literally indistinguishable from a marriage. Today four generations of all political stripes will gather to celebrate and honor the creation of a new family. I’m sure it will bring a tear to my eye because I find all brides beautiful and today’s ceremony will be doubly gorgeous.
Filed under: gay marriage |
All Things in Moderation 
yello:
So I have read this twice now, and I still am not sure of your point. Are you saying that the justification for state sanctioning of SSM does not hold for, and will not lead to, state sanctioning of multiple partner “marriages” or are you saying that it does and you welcome it?
LikeLike
yello:
Marriage in any form is a civilizing influence. It creates responsibility…
What responsibility is created by SSM?
LikeLike
So I have read this twice now, and I still am not sure of your point. Are you saying that the justification for state sanctioning of SSM does not hold for, and will not lead to, state sanctioning of multiple partner “marriages” or are you saying that it does and you welcome it?
Yes. The two phenomenon are unrelated. Given the hysteria over Sharia Law, I find the odds of plural marriages becoming legally sanctioned anytime soon highly unlikely. I don’t particularly welcome polyamorous arrangements as a legal matter because it complicates civic law much more than just fixing pronouns does to SSM. At a personal level, who am I to interfere with what two or more consenting adults and their domesticated animals do in the privacy of their own home? Just kidding about the domesticated animals part. That is still icky. Call me a zoophilicphobic bigot.
LikeLike
yello:
The two phenomenon are unrelated.
What qb said:
Given the hysteria over Sharia Law, I find the odds of plural marriages becoming legally sanctioned anytime soon highly unlikely.
The issue isn’t what you find likely. The issue is whether the logic behind state recognition of SSM applies equally to state recognition of multiple partner “marriages”. Saying that the state isn’t likely to sanction such a thing is non-responsive to the question being asked.
At a personal level, who am I to interfere with what two or more consenting adults and their domesticated animals do in the privacy of their own home?
If you think you have no standing to object to such things, then on what grounds do you have standing to promote them? If the state has no interest in officially objecting to what two, or four, consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, what interest could it have in officially approving of it?
LikeLike
What responsibility is created by SSM?
The same responsibilities created by opposite sex marriages. Love, honor, cherish, in sickness and in health, et cetera, et cetera…
LikeLike
Please give my congratulations to both of the brides, yello, and give them a hug. I’m so glad they’re being fête-ed by your family today!
I’ll have more later, as I have a lot to say about polygamy as it’s currently practiced in the US (living in Utah and all).
LikeLike
Gay marriage was originally drafted as a conservative measure to draw homosexuals into society.
I see no support anywhere for that claim. It isn’t consistent with what you have said in previous posts, either. And in no possible sense can SSM accurately be called conservative, unless, again, we are just going Humpty Dumpty.
The two phenomenon are unrelated.
They aren’t unrelated at all. Your desire to confine marriage to “two” is no less arbitrary than (in your view) its confinement to male/female.
At a personal level, who am I to interfere with what two or more consenting adults and their domesticated animals do in the privacy of their own home?
They don’t need marriage for that.
LikeLike
If the state has no interest in officially objecting to what two, or four, consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, what interest could it have in officially approving of it?
The state should not discriminate in its institutions based on the genders or sexual orientations of those who want to partake in them. Marriage is between two people and confers distinct state-sanctioned benefits. Currently there is no analog for arrangements of more than two people, nor are there likely to be any time soon. It goes against our Judeo-Christian heritage.
LikeLike
yello:
The state should not discriminate in its institutions based on the genders or sexual orientations of those who want to partake in them. Marriage is between two people and confers distinct state-sanctioned benefits.
On what grounds “should” the state discriminate in it’s institutions based on numbers but not gender or sexual orientation? All you have done above is re-assert you position. You have not provided any reasoned justification for it.
It goes against our Judeo-Christian heritage.
So does SSM. Obviously.
LikeLike
They don’t need marriage for that.
Exactly my point.
LikeLike
The state should not discriminate in its institutions based on the genders or sexual orientations of those who want to partake in them. Marriage is between two people and confers distinct state-sanctioned benefits.
That is just your own assertion and your own definition. Where is your proof? How can you show that your defintion isn’t arbitrary?
Currently there is no analog for arrangements of more than two people, nor are there likely to be any time soon.
Currently, there is no analog for arrangments of two people of the same sex. It is simply your assumption that gender is not relevant.
It goes against our Judeo-Christian heritage.
So religion is a valid ground for opposing redefinitions of marriage. After all this, we could just have started there.
LikeLike
It is simply your assumption that gender is not relevant.
Yes, yes. A thousand times, yes. That is the premise of my entire argument. For what reason should someone be discriminated against solely on the basis of gender or sexual orientation?
LikeLike
Yes, yes. A thousand times, yes. That is the premise of my entire argument. For what reason should someone be discriminated against solely on the basis of gender or sexual orientation?
They aren’t discriminated against. That is just your assumptions at work. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. When you start from the proper assumption, your problem goes away.
LikeLike
qb:
They aren’t discriminated against.
Exactly. I am reminded of a movie…
Stan: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: You can’t have babies.
Stan: Stop oppressing me!
LikeLike
The truth is that SSM is not an idea that should even be seriously entertained. The male-female pattern of marriage has an obvious basis in biology and the perpetuation of the species. It is historically pervasise and universal. The basic unit of mother, father, children appears from all the evidence of history and culture before us to be the basic organizational unit of society. The male-female element is as inherent in the institution as it is possible for anything to be inherent in anything.
It is a tragedy that so many people today have suddenly lost either the ability to see this or the courage to treat the idea as the outlandish one it is. And, no, I don’t use that language to provoke anyone but very deliberately to say exactly what needs to be said. The SSM movement is the epitome of radicalized ideology in which people think they can sit in an armchair and apply cockeyed logic to remake society into something they think would be better. It is the wisdom of conservatism that recognizes how dangerous and destructive this mode of thought is.
LikeLike
Test.
LikeLike
Should bathrooms be unisex then, if there is no reason to discriminate by gender?
LikeLike
Should bathrooms be unisex then
You wanna revolution? It’s bad enough sharing bathrooms with guys in our own homes.
LikeLike
Ok Lms, I’ll switch it to, say, locker rooms at the gym.
Yello, should gym locker rooms be made unisex, by force of federal law, to avoid discrimination? If not, why not?
LikeLike
“Yello, should gym locker rooms be made unisex, by force of federal law, to avoid discrimination? If not, why not?”
Not yello here, but is that a good analogy? It seems to conflate allowing something and requiring something.
LikeLike
Should bathrooms be unisex then, if there is no reason to discriminate by gender?
Strangely enough, I’ve been in several unisex bathrooms in other countries. The first time a woman walks by when you’re doing your business is kind of weird, but then after that — meh.
Of course, I don’t generally have to worry about the drunk guys peeing on the toilet seat …
LikeLike
Okie,
I get your point.
Should a male be allowed into a female locker if he want’s to, and vice verse, chick into dudes?
LikeLike
I thought that link that Scott shared last week sometime was pretty funny. I can’t imagine guys agreeing to sitting down to pee. What was even funnier was all the guys here thinking they could convince the girls to do it standing up with the right paraphernalia. I’d rather squat behind a tree than pee in one of those little pink cup things.
EDIT: Don’t tell Mark though. I’d like to find out how his wife responds if he buys her one for their anniversary. 😉
LikeLike
“It is the wisdom of conservatism that recognizes how dangerous and destructive this mode of thought is.”
Aahhh, qb, there are many things in your comment with which I disagree. But I have to say that the quoted statement made me laugh out loud. Thanks for that.
LikeLike
okie, I suppose I could give some more serious answer to that retort, but, … whatever. Taking ideas seriously isn’t for everyone.
LikeLike
qb, I would welcome a more serious answer that is not so hyperbolic.
LikeLike
qb
It is a tragedy that so many people today have suddenly lost either the ability to see this or the courage to treat the idea as the outlandish one it is
Sometimes it takes more courage to question and reflect on ones long held beliefs than to hang on to them for dear life. The tragedy here is that you’re so opposed to the possibility that you could be wrong.
LikeLike
Lms,
All of history is on my side. Biology is on my side. Culture is on my side. And I have not ever even mentioned religion.
What is on the side of SSM? Nothing but the nihilistic perspective that none of those things matters, and that we can just remake and redefine human nature and society based on someone’s abstract reasoning that can’t even draw lines that can be defended from itself. Just someone’s empty question, why does it have to be that way? We had this whole series by yello trying somehow to prove through logic that marriage “really” is or means what he says–any gender you want. It only two.
It isn’t a matter of my not considering the possibility of bei g “wrong,” although you should think about what it is you thi k I am “wrong” about. I have considered all the arguments offered, haven’t I? No one here has given any rationally compelling argument why he and you are right. No one has even presented an internally consistent argument , ie, one that is not just as arbitrary and discriminatory as the standard one. They all come down to, that’s just how we feel. If marriage doesn’t have to be what it is, it doesn’t have to be what you say it is either. Welcome to nihilism as a social theory.
The burden of proof shouldn’t be on us. It is on the people who say they suddenly are wiser than all the generations before us. It doesn’t take any courage to throw out the wisdom of ages on the chance or the belief that you know better. It just takes some hubris, some recklessness. It takes courage to say No to all the fractured logic, the special pleading, the slurs, and the false equivalencies.
LikeLike
Should bathrooms be unisex then, if there is no reason to discriminate by gender?
I’ve been in several restaurants with unisex toilet rooms. There is a common anteroom and each toilet is in a separate room with a locking door. Some have a lavatory within the toilet room and some have a common hand washing area in the anteroom. I prefer the latter because they you can see that everyone has washed their hands afterwards.
The brilliance of this system is that this eliminates the very contentious potty parity issue because there are no wasted toilets due to uneven user loading. The male/female division evens itself out.
I have been in situations where men’s rooms were commandeered as unisex to alleviate crowding issues. One was a Melissa Etheridge concert where we were told that since we didn’t use the stalls anyways, somebody should get to use them.
As a constitutional issue, this is one where separate but equal more or less works even though womens rooms tend to be more equal. I have yet to see a swoon couch in a mens room.
LikeLike
Yello, should gym locker rooms be made unisex, by force of federal law, to avoid discrimination? If not, why not?
According to Starship Troopers, in the future they will be. And we all know how prescient that movie has been.
(video not safe for work)
Starship Troopers by UZI4you
LikeLike
yello:
According to Starship Troopers…
Feeble dodge, yello.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on June 30, 2012 at 7:15 pm said:”
“As a constitutional issue,”
Here we get to the rub. I haven’t seen anything in your series so far (unless I missed it) that addresses whether or not you believe same sex/gay marriage is a constitutional right, or simply a good idea that should be enacted through the democratic process. If it’s the former, then there’s no more rational basis for discriminating against polyamorous/polygamous relationships than there is against same sex/gay relationships.
If it’s the later, then society through it’s elected representatives can make whatever distinctions they deem best when deciding whom will be eligible for specific benefits conferred by law based on their relationship status. This means they can draw a line that gives benefits to same sex/gay relationships and polyamorous/polygamous relationships, one but not the other, or neither.
My libertarian fundamentalist position has been stated in the past, but I’d note that there’s no constitutional basis for “discovering” a right to same sex/gay marriage that has eluded detection since the founding of the republic. I fundamentally reject the premise of a “living constitution” where the justices, through use of their secret decoder rings, find rights that have somehow escaped notice all these years in the plain text of the document. If you want to create additional constitutional rights, the way to do so is through the amendment process, not “penumbras and emanations”.
LikeLike
“quarterback, on June 30, 2012 at 2:20 pm said:
The truth is that SSM is not an idea that should even be seriously entertained. The male-female pattern of marriage has an obvious basis in biology and the perpetuation of the species. It is historically pervasise and universal. The basic unit of mother, father, children appears from all the evidence of history and culture before us to be the basic organizational unit of society. The male-female element is as inherent in the institution as it is possible for anything to be inherent in anything.”
Through technology, we have ceased to be slaves to our biology when it comes to reproduction and are now the masters of it. This will have far reaching implications, but there’s no going back. The historical norms will no longer hold going forward. I fully expect to see human cloning in my life time, along with human genetic resequencing.
With regards to the state’s recognition of same sex/gay marriage, I agree with you that the two parent male/female traditional marriage with biological children is the ideal, but that’s not the appropriate standard for the state to use. Rather, the standard that should be used is does being a same sex/gay parent (or a single parent) automatically render you unfit in and of itself? My answer is no. And as a doctrinaire libertarian, my view of the role of the state is only to prevent that which causes harm, not to prohibit that which is less than ideal. Down that road lies the nanny state.
LikeLike
Feeble dodge, yello.
You caught me again.
Mass lockers rooms are an archaic throwback. Nobody should have to be undressed in front of anybody else if they don’t want to. Naked people are more comfortable in single sex situations. It’s a matter of privacy not equality. But, if you want to be the first person to take on this obvious Brown vs. Board of Ed.-style slam dunk. I bet even Clarence Thomas will support you. I’m sure he can’t wait to get an eyeful of Justice Sotomayor’s goods in the SCOTUS gym.
And there is a public safety aspect as well. From a liability point of view I would hate to be the health club/college/military organization (are there any other places where gang showers still exist?) which has to defend a negligence lawsuit for a sexual assault for not properly supervising a co-ed locker room.
And wasn’t the extreme fear of homosexuals eyeing fellow soldiers in the shower one of the strawmen used to defend banning gays from the military?
LikeLike
I haven’t seen anything in your series so far (unless I missed it) that addresses whether or not you believe same sex/gay marriage is a constitutional right
As I said here:
“The state should not discriminate in its institutions based on the genders or sexual orientations of those who want to partake in them.”
It’s a fundamental right. The state should not be involving themselves in who one wants to marry. Saying a woman can’t marry a woman when a man can is unequal treatment. As I think you (or perhaps another ATiMer) once suggested, the alternative is to eliminate all preferential treatment a married person receives.
And as a doctrinaire libertarian, my view of the role of the state is only to prevent that which causes harm, not to prohibit that which is less than ideal. Down that road lies the nanny state.
I appreciate your doctrinal purity.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on June 30, 2012 at 9:17 pm said:
It’s a fundamental right. The state should not be involving themselves in who one wants to marry. ”
Then the polygamy/polyamory argument isn’t a strawman. It’s the exact same principle:
“The state should not be involving themselves in who one wants to marry.”
There’s no more rational basis for discrimination against multiple spouses as there is for same sex spouses and as you note, it has a lot more historical and cross cultural basis.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on June 30, 2012 at 9:08 pm said:
Feeble dodge, yello.
You caught me again.
Mass lockers rooms are an archaic throwback.”
A better argument can be made against women only gyms or “ladies night” where women receive a specific monetary benefit (no cover charge or reduced price drinks) where the men do not. If men’s only clubs are illegal discrimination, why are women’s only gyms valid?
LikeLike
There’s no more rational basis for discrimination against multiple spouses as there is for same sex spouses and as you note, it has a lot more historical and cross cultural basis.
Yup. That is why I had to fall back onto the Judeo-Christian heritage dodge.
LikeLike
why are women’s only gyms valid?
Like I said about segregated locker rooms, take one for the team and be the guy who insists on joining Curves. You’ll end up at least as famous as the guy who wants to be a Hooters waitress.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on June 30, 2012 at 9:47 pm said:
There’s no more rational basis for discrimination against multiple spouses as there is for same sex spouses and as you note, it has a lot more historical and cross cultural basis.
Yup. That is why I had to fall back onto the Judeo-Christian heritage dodge.”
If you are going to argue Judeo-Christian heritage then you’ve just undermined the case for same sex/gay marriage as well.
LikeLike
If you are going to argue Judeo-Christian heritage then you’ve just undermined the case for same sex/gay marriage as well.
What? I don’t get to cherry pick which cases I want to rely on an Angry God on for my moral decisions? I guess it’s multiple spouses for everyone then.
LikeLike
For those of you who don’t begrudge my cousin her marital bliss, here is a photo of her and her new wife:
The reception was at the farm my uncle owns where they raise chickens and hope to add some steers (castrated boy cows as they call them) to the property while my cousin works on her nursing degree.
The good thing about lesbian weddings is that you get two of everything. Two teary bridesmaids toasts, two father-daughter dancers. There was no garterr/bouquet toss, so I guess some traditions go by the wayside
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on July 1, 2012 at 5:14 am said:
If you are going to argue Judeo-Christian heritage then you’ve just undermined the case for same sex/gay marriage as well.
What? I don’t get to cherry pick which cases I want to rely on an Angry God on for my moral decisions? I guess it’s multiple spouses for everyone then.”
You do if you go through the democratic process. It exists for drawing exactly those sorts of granular distinctions. Judicial fiat is a more blunt instrument.
Congrats again for your cousin.
LikeLike
As long as NOBODY gets to marry more than one person it’s fair and not a constitutional problem. As for WHY nobody gets to, you have to fall back to the God of Abraham (who had Sarah) for your rationalization.
Thanks for kind wishes.
LikeLike
Nice picture yello and congrats on the wedding for your cousin, they look so threatening though. Also, I’m totally jealous of the farm although I probably wouldn’t raise steers. We’ve had chickens though and the eggs are wonderful.
LikeLike
So, if I don’t support state sanctioned SSM I’m not wishing them marital bliss? Even though there are churches that will marry SSM and I support their right to do so?
Is that belief the result of my homophobia?
LikeLike
It was a civil ceremony so it was solemnized (Delaware’s word) by a justice of the peace and is state sanctioned but not by any church. My cousin just quit her job as an elementary Catholic school teacher where she taught religion among other topics.
LikeLike
“As long as NOBODY gets to marry a person of the same sex it’s fair and not a constitutional problem. As for WHY nobody gets to, you have to fall back to the God of Abraham (who had Sarah) for your rationalization. ”
Same rationalization.
LikeLike
Also, hopefully we won’t have an impetus for a series in a few years from Yellowjkt on “Gay Divorce Strawmen”.
That’s my backhanded way of wishing them a long and happy marriage/[insert non-threatening relationship description here] together.
LikeLike
Very nice pic, yello. Best wishes to the newlyweds. BTW, thanks for this series. A relative I am very close to is gay and not so very long ago married his longtime partner, so I’m not exactly impartial on these issues.
LikeLike
Two beautiful brides–they look so happy!! Congrats again, to both of them.
jnc–I heard a story on NPR not too long ago about some of the problems that gay divorce is causing; seems a gay couple had moved to a different state from the one in which they were married and now wanted a divorce. Since their current state of residence didn’t recognize gay marriage they wouldn’t grant the divorce; don’t remember what the reconciliation of the situation was (if there was one at the time they broadcast the story), but the rule of unforeseen consequences. . .
LikeLike
Yello, you didnt answer my questions though. I’ll repeat them if you’d like.
LikeLike
Yello,
Here you go,
“So, if I don’t support state sanctioned SSM I’m not wishing them marital bliss? Even though there are churches that will marry SSM and I support their right to do so?
Is that belief the result of my homophobia?”
LikeLike
I’m not yello, but I will give you how I would answer your questions, George:
1) By not supporting state-sanctioned same sex marriage, then by definition you’re not wishing them marital bliss. You can wish them well, wish them happiness, wish them all the best (and mean all those things from the bottom of your heart), but you’re not wishing them marital bliss.
2) I don’t know. Are you homophobic? I’ve never thought you were, but I’ve been wrong about loads of things in my life.
LikeLike
“Michigoose, on July 1, 2012 at 10:02 am said:
Two beautiful brides–they look so happy!! Congrats again, to both of them.
jnc–I heard a story on NPR not too long ago about some of the problems that gay divorce is causing; seems a gay couple had moved to a different state from the one in which they were married and now wanted a divorce. Since their current state of residence didn’t recognize gay marriage they wouldn’t grant the divorce; don’t remember what the reconciliation of the situation was (if there was one at the time they broadcast the story), but the rule of unforeseen consequences. . .”
The consequences of forum shopping. Fortunately, there’s a precedent from earlier times, i.e. Reno. One of them just has to move to a location with minimal residency requirements for a fixed period of time, then file for divorce. Or perhaps go back to where they were married in the first place.
“Why was Reno once known as the divorce capital? Because of its six-week residency requirement and reputation for the “quickie divorce.” Nevada was known for a willingness to shorten its already short residency requirement in order to pull in the economic benefits of divorce as early as 1898. Money that divorce seekers spent on attorney fees, hotels, with merchants, restaurants and in casinos was significant income.
When the movement for moral reform hit the country after the Civil War, Nevada’s residency laws went to six months and then to one year. Business owners and representatives lobbied for a reduction and gradually had the requirement dropped back to six weeks by 1931. The number of divorces filed in Nevada courts almost doubled each time the residency requirement dropped. By 1940, 49 out of 1,000 divorces filed in the United States were filed in Nevada.
Entrepreneurs looking to make a buck on the divorce racket established “divorce ranches” where divorce seekers could wait out their six-week residency requirement”
http://people.howstuffworks.com/question741.htm
There’s a free market solution for everything.
This is also why I don’t think DOMA will survive. It’s a pretty clear violation of “Full Faith and Credit”.
LikeLike
Sure, it sounds simple, but taking six weeks off from work? Or, if you’re a stay-at-home parent what do you do–take the kids with you? Something like Reno may work as a short-term, emergency fix, but it isn’t really a solution, is it?
And moving back to the state where they were married was the first thing I thought of, but what if there isn’t a job to go back to (not to mention housing)? I don’t know about any other states, but in order to get a divorce in Utah you AND your spouse have to have been residents of the state for a year prior to filing.
LikeLike
qb, and sometimes it takes courage to bend the rules, break with tradition or even change the rules. Personally, I think it takes courage to be gay in this world, not that they have any choice. As a parent I wouldn’t wish that on my children, but if it happened, I would embrace it as they are my children first and foremost. As a family we know and love many LGBT friends and family and their happiness is more important than any restriction on it. Not all of our rules and laws work for everyone and at some point people catch on that they’ve been left out of everything that life has to offer and they ask for more. I think it’s time we give it to them. It’s a marriage and happiness not some sinister plan to undue the laws of the land.
How it works legally or constitutionally isn’t really my concern as long as we figure out a way to make it happen.
LikeLike
And now I really am out for the rest of the day. I’ll check back this evening. Swimming, scampi and a gluten free birthday cake………………..:)
LikeLike
Yello, you didnt answer my questions though. I’ll repeat them if you’d like.
How come everyone assumes that when I don’t give them the answer they want that repeating the question will somehow change my response
So, if I don’t support state sanctioned SSM I’m not wishing them marital bliss? Even though there are churches that will marry SSM and I support their right to do so?
It’s not much of a marriage if there are no legal rights attached to it. All those Mormon polygamists are married in a (offshoot) church and that doesn’t help them any when the law knocks on the door.
Perhaps you are saying that nobody, even straight couples, should have a state sanctioned marriage. But it’s easier to give 5% the same rights as the 95% than to take away the rights of everybody and build a new civic legal system from scratch that imparts parental rights, inheritance rules, and a multitude of mutual power of attorney privileges. Not to mention the wholesale rewriting of the tax code. Although some would see that last item as a feature not a bug.
Is that belief the result of my homophobia?
I dunno. Do you hate gay people just because they are different from you? I didn’t get that impression from the question.
But if you genuinely think that homosexual acts are an abomination in the eyes of God and that the state should have no part in implicitly or explicitly sanctioning such grotesquely immoral behavior, just own up to it. You’d be in good company, including Pat Robertson, Marcus Bachmann and the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church.
LikeLike
Why was Reno once known as the divorce capital?
I thought it was because they were pioneers in the concept of no-fault and/or uncontested divorce. In other states you had to have one party admit to or have proven some sort of criminal activity such as abuse or infidelity (which is still technically illegal in some states). Eventually the available grounds grew to intangible things such as alienation of affection or other silly things celebrities make up.
But, having never contemplated divorce I am rather proud of my ignorance in this matter, so ATiM legal eagles should feel free to enlighten me. Particularly since they have never felt such qualms before.
LikeLike
This is also why I don’t think DOMA will survive. It’s a pretty clear violation of “Full Faith and Credit”.
I’m shocked there hasn’t been a challenge already. We can surely trust the Catholic-packed SCOTUS to consider the issue on strictly constructionist grounds and not invent weird justifications that would keep it intact.
LikeLike
BTW, thanks for this series.
I’m glad someone appreciated it. Equal rights regardless of sexual orientation has been a big issue for me ever since I had a gay roommate in college for three years. Homosexuals are just people and deserve the same dignity and respect as everybody else.
LikeLike
I am not available for awhile – so this is a “hit and run”. Thanks for the thought provocation, Yello.
I think same sex marriage legality is not mandated by the 14th A. and that state law will control, so that DOMA is dead, ultimately. Scott, this ties into the discussion of state sovereignty we will have.
EDIT – DOMA dies as an overreaching federal intervention in the state’s right to determine, absent BOR/14th A issues, who can marry. Will not mean, by itself, that states cannot deny FFAC to other states’ SSMs, as against public policy. SSMs will “migrate” to friendly states.
*********************
I think Roberts’ opinion hearkens back to the rift between Hamilton and Jefferson. Jefferson would have been strong with QB, Scott, George, and JNCP. Hamilton, otoh, would have thought Roberts’ opinion defensible, because he thought the first paragraph of Article I, Section 8, was expansive. I agree with QB’s core characterization of Roberts as a defender of legislative prerogatives. His reliance on the saving construction is basic here. BTW, the saving construction [i.e.. save a law if there is any honest way to find it constitutional] is what made me think that the statute would have been severed if the vote had been 5-4 to kill the mandate. I was surprised that the minority would have voted down the whole law.
A most curious issue for me is the nature of a tax for AIA purposes and the nature of a tax for constitutional purposes. They are arguably different, but explaining and applying the difference is not the strong point of either the Circuit opinion or Roberts’ opinion, IMO. I think in both cases the difference is described, but the effect is merely asserted. I do not have familiarity with previous cases here and one or the other interpretation may be more sound on the case law; I just do not know.
We are still left with limiting principles on taxation, George; but we certainly have fewer limits available to argue today than we had last week. QB’s position on free speech inhibition by taxation is a limiting principle, for example.
LikeLike
This is also why I don’t think DOMA will survive. It’s a pretty clear violation of “Full Faith and Credit”
The FFAC applies to states, not the federal government; hence, I don’t think one can say DOMA violates it. Moreover, FFAC clearly doesn’t require one state to recognize another’s SSM. Only a horrible perversion of the Constitution could permit a handful of states to impose their unpopular SSM policy on the whole country. Not that proponents aren’t trying, even while denying that they are.
I’m shocked there hasn’t been a challenge already. We can surely trust the Catholic-packed SCOTUS to consider the issue on strictly constructionist grounds and not invent weird justifications that would keep it intact.
So what exactly is your best “constitutional” argument that Section 2 is invalid? Section 3? How do you deal with the long-established rule that a state is not required to recognize policies and acts of other states that violate its own policy?
But if you genuinely think that homosexual acts are an abomination in the eyes of God and that the state should have no part in implicitly or explicitly sanctioning such grotesquely immoral behavior, just own up to it.
So now homophobia is the genuine belief that homosexual acts are immoral and an abomination to God, and that the state should no sanction them. Well that’s interesting. Genuine religious conviction is now homophobia. I am beginning to think you really have no idea what you mean by that word beyond what I originally said it means: “You are a bad person.”
and deserve the same dignity and respect as everybody else.
But you are just engaged in question begging to claim this entails SSM. Marriage is inherently opposite sex.
LikeLike
So now homophobia is the genuine belief that homosexual acts are immoral…
You are welcome to define homophobia however you want. I’ll stick to my earlier one of hating gay people just because they are different from you.
If someone opposes SSM out of religious conviction they should proudly say so or else the aren’t very effectively witnessing against moral depravity.
LikeLike
OT: saw yellow and jnc were posting, so assume they’re good to go.
Anyone heard from FB? — we got walloped with a severe storm Friday night and didn’t have power all weekend. Some significant damage to some of the neighbors, but the nova homestead is okay. downed power lines, trees through roofs, etc.
LikeLike
nova, looks like you guys got hammered from the news I saw, glad you’re okay. Haven’t heard from FB and I was wondering about John/Banned, he may be close to the storms and what about Brent, not sure where he is but I think in the general vicinity.
LikeLike
Brent is in the town next to mine. We had lovely weather all weekend.
LikeLike
I have power at home but I am currently in Maine about to slip across the New Brunswick border to investigate the misery of state controlled health care. I hope I don’t slip and fall. Somebody might apologize and take me to a hospital.
LikeLike
they’re saying it was like a hurricane, just without the warning. it was weird. was outside with the dog, had a “we’re not in kansas in anymore feeling,” the sky got purplish and got back inside before it let loose.
we’ve got lots of very old, very tall trees in the neighborhood, right next to houses. one came down a block away and had it fallen in any other direction it would have crushed a house.
apparently utility mutual aid is on the way from MO, FL, and OK.
LikeLike
I’ll stick to my earlier one of hating gay people just because they are different from you.
That seems simplistic. Perhaps a limbic brain reaction to the DNA-procreation challenges presented by same-sex couplings? People are different from other people in a myriad of ways, and folks who don’t approve of homosexuality don’t necessarily hate people who are different from them in other significant ways.
LikeLike
But you are just engaged in question begging to claim this entails SSM. Marriage is inherently opposite sex.
Well, it has been. Of course, that was before people could surgically “change” genders. Also, it was often a one-to-many relationship, which has changed over time, as well.
LikeLike
Well, it has been. Of course, that was before people could surgically “change” genders.
Has been and always will be, can’t be anything else, as I trust you will agree these discussions have undeniably demonstrated.
Also, it was often a one-to-many relationship, which has changed over time, as well.
One thing at a time. There have been pockets of plural “marriage” in history, but not SSM.
LikeLike
it was weird. was outside with the dog, had a “we’re not in kansas in anymore feeling,”
Don’t take this the wrong way but it sounds sort of exciting. We drove through a mini tornado once and I kind of loved it.
LikeLike
1) By not supporting state-sanctioned same sex marriage, then by definition you’re not wishing them marital bliss. You can wish them well, wish them happiness, wish them all the best (and mean all those things from the bottom of your heart), but you’re not wishing them marital bliss.
This assumes state-sanctioning has something (anything!) to do with martial bliss, and my sense is that this is far from established. Indeed, I would go so far as to say state-sanctioning has nothing whatsoever to do with marital bliss, otherwise you’d have no happy common law marriages or unmarried LTRs, and few unhappy state-sanctioned marriages ending in divorce.
LikeLike
What responsibility is created by SSM?
Any additional later of officialness arguably adds additional responsibilities. Any contract entered into creates some responsibility. Whether it improves behavior is another matter.
It also confers a responsibility on the LGBT community to enrich divorce lawyers, and you cannot underestimate the importance of enriching lawyers when considering which way the law is going to go.
LikeLike
it’s easy to forget how powerful nature can be. especially in the suburbs. but i’m happy to report most everyone was managing okay. people even seemed to treat blacked-out traffic lights at 4-way stops. for the most part.
Q for anyone with the knowledge. a neighbor was using a generator to backfeed his house through the dryer hookup. he said has long as turned off the main breakers, no problem. i’ll admit ignorance, but it seemed like one of those things that is a bad idea unless you really know what you’re doing. is this safe?
his set up allowed him to run some lights and the fridge. didn’t seem worth the trouble to me.
speaking of generators — report of people sick from CO poisoning. don’t put them in the garage people.
LikeLike
Gay marriage was originally drafted as a conservative measure to draw homosexuals into society.
I see no support anywhere for that claim. It isn’t consistent with what you have said in previous posts, either. And in no possible sense can SSM accurately be called conservative, unless, again, we are just going Humpty Dumpty.
Concur. SSM is inherently not-conservative (at least, it won’t be, until it’s been common practice and the law of the land for 100 years or so). Homosexuals need to be drawn into society? A lot of folks on the bleeding edge of gay marriage (that is, advocates for it, that I read) also seemed to be part of the polyamory and the 60’s “smash monogamy” crowd. That is, the folks trying to deconstruct the nuclear family and redefine parenting and sexuality and so on, not folks trying to conserve any kind of traditions.
Of course, many folks who advance the idea of gay marriage are not trying to “smash monogamy” or redefine the nuclear family. But this isn’t like the ACA, where the concept started with conservatives (or CINOs, anyway). When the same folks saying “we’re queer, we’re here, and we’re in your face” and referring to heteros as “breeders” and other epithets were at the bleeding edge of advancing SSM, I don’t think there’s any conservative impulse at the heart of it. For good or ill.
LikeLike
That is, the folks trying to deconstruct the nuclear family and redefine parenting and sexuality and so on, not folks trying to conserve any kind of traditions.
A woman needs a man like a bicycle needs a fish.
I always felt that was a little over the top.
LikeLike
Given the hysteria over Sharia Law, I find the odds of plural marriages becoming legally sanctioned anytime soon highly unlikely.
Why shouldn’t they? What is what consenting adults do in their own home have to do with anybody’s hysteria over anything?
Either people should get to decide what sort of state-sanctioned marriage contract that *consenting adults* get to enter for themselves, or marriage is a fixed thing (one man, one woman, and that’s that).
The *consenting adults* thing is an obvious qualifier. Folks arguing that gay marriage will lead to 50 year olds marrying 12 year olds in some legal sense tend to skip over the *consenting* adults part of the SSM argument. Children below the age of consent (and animals, for that matter) are not consenting adults. Thus, ineligible for any kind of marriage. I think we can all agree that people who want to marry inanimate objects are fruitcakes. That being said . . .
If a man wants to marry twelve women or his own sister, assuming all are consenting adults, why shouldn’t that be state sanctioned? What objection is there, other than tradition and precedent?
LikeLike
Marriage is between two people and confers distinct state-sanctioned benefits.
Why does it have to be between two people, as regards state-sanctioning? I can think of good reasons for it to be (too many cooks spoil the broth, and all that), but what is in the interest of the state? And there is certainly precedent for polygamy. And why shouldn’t consenting adults be allowed to enter polygamous marriages?
Incestuous marriages could easily be between two adults. Yet I believe these are also not state sanctioned. Though I imagine only a tiny minority of people are interested in such arrangements (yuck!).
LikeLike
A woman needs a man like a bicycle needs a fish.
Or a man needs a woman like wallet needs a vacuum cleaner. Ba-da-dum!
LikeLike
Has been and always will be, can’t be anything else, as I trust you will agree these discussions have undeniably demonstrated.
We’ve got folks trying to redefine genders. Either give us a 3rd (and where does that one man, one woman thing leave them), or let people claim to be something other than their born gender (even worse, there are some genetic disorders that give genetic boys female sex characteristics, having to do with the failure of testosterone receptors to respond to testosterone—giving such “women” much of the physiology of women, but no ovaries, no uterus, and insanely high levels of testosterone (since receptors do not respond, the body keeps “turning up the volume”).
But there have been those that argue gender is psychological, and that a person is any gender they say they are. Leading to a need for coed bathrooms at some educational institutions. 😉
LikeLike
Currently there is no analog for arrangements of more than two people, nor are there likely to be any time soon.
But three consenting adults want to get married, and the state says they can’t. This seems to me an arbitrary excuse to create a distinction without a difference. There have also been such arrangements historically, they had just been outlawed.
Let’s say there had been same sex marriage back in the 1800s, perhaps out on the frontier, and things went forward pretty well, until urbanization spread that SSM was outlawed by right-thinking people. Would that make a single-defintion of marriage as an opposite-sex union acceptable?
Put another way, there is an analog of people in a state-sanctioned relationship already. It’s call marriage. All we’re asking to do is add another person. Out of love. What kind of monster are you, saying three people can’t love each other?
Once we establish SSM in law, we have another analog. We already have marriage with two people of the same sex. Why can’t we have another marriage where there are two people of same sex, plus one of the opposite sex? Or three people of the same sex?
I see analogs everywhere.
LikeLike
The truth is that SSM is not an idea that should even be seriously entertained.
In a wealthy society where technology gives us longer lives and more and more leisure time and fewer life-and-death concerns, every idea will be serioulys entertained.
We do not have SSM already because it confers no benefits as regards procreation, or survival of perpetuation of the species. If it did, it would already likely have been established. If not in the US, in Europe, certainly. 😉
However, we are well past creation social structures and traditions based on real procreative benefit. At such a point, almost any concept will be serious entertained. Gay marriage is just one of those things. In a society governed by lawyers (no offense, QB), social arrangements that create more paid legal hours and services are not only going to be seriously entertained, they are likely a fait accompli.
LikeLike
The state should not discriminate in its institutions based on the genders or sexual orientations of those who want to partake in them.
It does not discriminate on genders. Both men and women can get married in our society. The institution of marriage is open to all genders.
Sexual orientation is different, though technically we don’t discriminate against homosexuals there, either. They can get married, just to someone of the opposite sex.
The argument seems to me that people of like sexual orientations should be able to get married, and it’s an unfair discrimination if they cannot. Ergo, if someone’s sexual orientation (for lack of a better descriptor) is polyamory, why should the state discriminate against them?
Multiple parents can raise children. Multiple people can fall in love. Multiple people can raise a family, and support each other. Why should they be occluded by the state while SSM is not?
LikeLike
Nice picture yello and congrats on the wedding for your cousin, they look so threatening though.
They are coming for my marriage! Hide the children.
In all seriousness, they look like the sort of folks who don’t want two guys and a girl that love each other to get mutually married. Bigots! They want to keep the magic and wonder of marital bliss all to themselves, and confine the polyamorous to the shadows.
LikeLike
Is there some sort of civil rights movement for polygamy that I’m not aware of?
LikeLike
lms:
Is there some sort of civil rights movement for polygamy that I’m not aware of?
I don’t know. Would you oppose it if there were?
LikeLike
Corked. Twice.
LikeLike
Whoa, KW is like some kind of Machine Gun Kelly this morning.
Is there some sort of civil rights movement for polygamy that I’m not aware of?
Does it matter? If so, why?
LikeLike
Is there some sort of civil rights movement for polygamy that I’m not aware of?
Spearheaded by Bill Paxton on Big Love.
There is none that I’m aware of, but irrelevant to the argument, oft made as regards SSM, that state-sanctioned marriage needs to be expanded to include SSM, but not anything else, because that would be wrong for some vague and incoherent reason.
The common argument in response to the Rick Santorum “gay marriage will lead to polygamy” play is that it’s entirely different (without explaining how) in principle, and often with the implication that there’s something wrong with polygamy, or that the polyamorous do not or should not have the same rights as individual couples, or that the state has a vested interest in what sort of marriages the polygamous would enter, but not couples, because, um, look over there!
I have yet to encounter a coherent argument that explains the principal under which it is fair or right to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples but, in principal, exclude other arrangements that might potentially made by consenting adults.
As for the practical concerns, there are few practical reasons for same sex couples to get married, and most of them could be addressed by changing laws as regards what rights a person can assign to another in terms of inheritance, power of attorney, visitation, etc., without the state sanctioning same-sex marriage.
But if we’re going to re-define marriage as an institution not between one man and one woman, but as a union between two adults who love each other, it becomes less clear to me as to why the expansion of the definition should, in principal, stop there.
If the response is, “Well, of course, consenting adults should be able to marry each other however they want to, there’s just not much demand for brothers and sisters to get married, but if they wanted to, I’m cool with it,” that’s a coherent position, IMHO.
If the response is, “homosexuals getting married is awesome, but polygamy is bad, an aberration, those people are entitled to decide the nature of their love relationships”, etc., then I find those arguments incoherent.
I also find arguments that SSM will lead to pedophilia or bestiality (or more marriages to inanimate objects) incoherent, as the discussions are clearly about the decisions, responsibilities, and benefits of consenting adults experience in a state-sanctioned marriage. However, if the argument is essentially that some adults are more consenting than others, I’d like to hear a good explanation as to why that’s the case.
I have not heard an argument that even remotely begins to satisfy me in that regards, so I’m a bit of a broken record on the question.
I’m not an advocate for polygamy, BTW. I think most marriages already have one too many people in them, for what I’ve seen. 😉
LikeLike
Whoa, KW is like some kind of Machine Gun Kelly this morning.
Still got lots of work to do, but the work is grinding me into powder. Trying to clear the head before I dive back in.
LikeLike
qb
It seems to me that when a group of people, for instance LGBT, begin begging/clamoring for rights and a fairly large segment of the population agree they should have them, we need to consider the idea that they deserve them. I understand your argument against it but like I said above I believe it’s time. I suppose if there were a movement for polygamy that has been sustained and lobbied for we could compare the two. I don’t see it as being equivalent in that way. If there is no constitutional/legal way to get there now perhaps an amendment would do it and for now not include polygamy? Funny thought, maybe we could get Roberts to work on it, he seems capable of threading a needle.
LikeLike
Or put another way, marriage is, and has been, a marriage between one man and one woman, with some wiggle room at the periphery, for a very long time.
Clearly, that definition is too confining, and needs to be expanded. So why should it be expanded in only one direction? Why should it only be expanded to encompass one limited group? What about others?
Or is state-sanctioned discrimination against the polygamous acceptable because, relative to opposite-sex and same-sex couples, they are a clear, clear minority? I find that an interesting argument, if that’s the tact being taken.
LikeLike
NOVA, very glad all is well with your household! I will also be glad when everybody else checks in.
it was weird. was outside with the dog, had a “we’re not in kansas in anymore feeling,” the sky got purplish and got back inside before it let loose. I had that same feeling in 1999, right before we got slammed by a mile-wide F5 tornado. It’s indescribably eerie and unforgettable. (And lms, I don’t think you would think a tornado was so exciting if you lived in a tornado-prone area, lol.)
LikeLike
I know okie, like I said, I didn’t mean any offense. I wouldn’t want anyone to get hurt. I like earthquakes also but only if they’re relatively not the worst thing that could happen. It must be the adrenalin or something. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree if you know what I mean.
LikeLike
” The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree if you know what I mean.”
unless the storm gets it. then it’s a projectile. 🙂
and thanks for lending us your utilities crews, okie.
LikeLike
Kevin
I find that an interesting argument, if that’s the tact being taken.
I don’t know if it is or isn’t other than by me. It seems to me that SSM is a cultural change in acceptance that is growing ever larger over time, but I haven’t seen the same with polygamy. I think the distinction is important but I don’t know how anyone else thinks. I don’t see why we can’t accommodate only a narrow addition to the marriage laws without incorporating every outlying possibility if essentially no one is actually asking for it.
EDIT: Does that qualify as a strawman argument?
LikeLike
Scott
I don’t know. Would you oppose it if there were?
I would oppose polygamist marriage for now as I haven’t seen a compelling argument in favor and haven’t actually heard of a movement for it. It seems to me we shouldn’t open a can of worms uninvited.
There, three corked questions, answered.
LikeLike
lms:
I would oppose polygamist marriage for now as I haven’t seen a compelling argument in favor…
The argument in favor is precisely the same argument used for SSM. If it is not compelling for polygamy, I’m not sure why it would be compelling for SSM.
LikeLike
Scott
Are polygamists making the argument? If not, then what’s the point in discussing it at all? If they were, and perhaps someday there will be a societal acceptance of polygamy, then y’all can decide then…………I imagine I’ll be dead and gone so I won’t have to worry about it one way or another. And you guys are right, it’ll probably be the same or a similar argument, I understand that.
LikeLike
lms:
Are polygamists making the argument? If not, then what’s the point in discussing it at all?
Because yello introduced it as a subject to discuss.
I don’t believe we should deny same sex couples the right to marriage because polygamists could possibly, at some point in the future, make the same argument
I don’t either. I think we should reject SSM primarily because the state has no interest in involving itself in such relationships. The introduction of polygamy is just a way of demonstrating that the argument for SSM is not based on any principle. It is at least as arbitrary as the argument against it is claimed to be.
Of course, if one rejects the utility of logical thinking, then this won’t be a bother.
LikeLike
What if as a society we simply confirmed that marriage exists between “two” consenting adults and leave it at that? There could be some future argument for polygamy based on a civil rights issue if polygamists have a burning desire to be married. Of course, as you noted the other day marriage seems to be a dying institution so that scenario may never come to pass.
This is just an observation and I don’t mean to be derogatory in any way but sometimes I think some people here take their logical train of thought too far. Not every logical conclusion exists in the world as we know it. Maybe we shouldn’t worry about every possible scenario that could result from one decision or policy change when it’s not actually being considered in the near future. I understand there are unintended consequences sometimes but I don’t believe we should deny same sex couples the right to marriage because polygamists could possibly, at some point in the future, make the same argument if they can get a sizable percentage of the population to agree with them. If that time comes, then you have the argument.
LikeLike
scott
Because yello introduced it as a subject to discuss.
As a strawman or in a comment?
The introduction of polygamy is just a way of demonstrating that the argument for SSM is not based on any principle
Isn’t it based on the principle that marriage equality should not be denied to consenting adults? If we change that to two consenting adults we don’t even need to worry about polygamy. My point remains that since there appears to be no societal enthusiasm or lobbying for polygamy, why worry about it? It may not be particularly logical but society seems to be moving toward SSM but not polygamy………….who knew?
I think we should reject SSM primarily because the state has no interest in involving itself in such relationships.
Then we should be debating marriage not SSM.
if one rejects the utility of logical thinking
If I had said that I would agree with you I suppose.
LikeLike
lms:
As a strawman or in a comment?
He introduced the relationship between polygamy and SSM as a topic to be discussed.
If we change that to two consenting adults we don’t even need to worry about polygamy.
And if we keep it (as it has always been) to two consenting adults of the opposite sex, we don’t need to worry about SSM.
My point remains that since there appears to be no societal enthusiasm or lobbying for polygamy, why worry about it?
I’m not worried about it. I am simply pointing out that there is no principled argument to be made in favor of SSM that would not also be applicable to polygamy. If you simply refuse to even consider the logical implications, then obviously this won’t matter to you.
Then we should be debating marriage not SSM.
Perhaps, although the fact that the state has no interest in same-sex sexual relationships does not necessarily mean that it has no interest in opposite-sex sexual relationships.
LikeLike
Kevin (going WAY back upthread): when I said that I didn’t think that George could be wishing them marital bliss I was referring to the “marital” part of that phrase rather than the “bliss” part. If you don’t think they should be able to get married I don’t think you can wish them “marital” anything.
FWIW, and this is pure speculation on my part because polygamous/polyamorous relationships have popped up throughout history and in a number of different cultures for different periods of time, I suspect the “no polygamous marriage” feeling here in the US is due to the Mormon church. The Prophet was forced to have a revelation banning the practice in order for Utah to become a state. The fringe groups that continued to practice it have turned it into a horror of pre-pubescent girls being forced into marriages with men old enough to be their fathers and grandfathers, along with young boys and men forced out of the community under the slightest pretext in order to either (1) prevent their marriage in the first place or (2) re-assign their wives to a “more deserving” man.
I’ve personally known two polygamists who find those practices as reprehensible as I do, but they’d also be the first to tell you that that is, unfortunately, the norm for what passes as polygamy nowadays.
LikeLike
Mich:
I suspect the “no polygamous marriage” feeling here in the US is due to the Mormon church.
Since the cultural tradition of marriage being between one man and one woman long predates the establishment of the Mormon church, that seems extremely unlikely.
LikeLike
Michi,
What I asked yello was if the only way to wish his cousin Marital bliss was to be in favor of state sanctioned SSM. You, and he, seemed to say yes.
I think the state shouldn’t sanction marraige at all, regardless of who is getting married, and that I have no problem if people get married, whether it’s gay marraige or bigamy. If a church wants to marry consenting adults, or my neighborhood watch captain, I wish them all the best. But, I guess, under your’s and yello’s very narrow (and, it seems to me, intolerant) definition of who can legitimately wish a couple marital bliss, I’m cannot.
LikeLike
michi
The fringe groups that continued to practice it have turned it into a horror
I think of that and “swingers”. I believe that most people understand marriage as monogamous which easily encompasses SSM IMO. That all marriages don’t end up that way is a whole different issue.
LikeLike
Scott
I am simply pointing out that there is no principled argument to be made in favor of SSM that would not also be applicable to polygamy.
Monogamy is a much more logical and principled aspect of marriage that encompasses both traditional marriage and SSM so maybe we need to be considering that instead of an outlier like polygamy.
And if we keep it (as it has always been) to two consenting adults of the opposite sex, we don’t need to worry about SSM.
Except that as a civil rights issue, people are worrying about it and trying to change it. It may not be obvious to you yet but the idea is growing in acceptance and support.
LikeLike
lms:
Monogamy is a much more logical and principled aspect of marriage…
In what way is it more logical? What principle implies that a marriage must be monogamous, but not between a man and woman?
Except that as a civil rights issue, people are worrying about it and trying to change it.
The fact that a group of people, even a large group of people, are trying to do X doesn’t justify X.
LikeLike
George, you’re deliberately misreading what I wrote.
Scott:
Since the cultural tradition of marriage being between one man and one woman long predates the establishment of the Mormon church
I was speaking of objections to it in light of the current discussion that we’re having in 2012.
LikeLike
Mich:
I was speaking of objections to it in light of the current discussion that we’re having in 2012.
So was I. Popular opposition to polygamy almost certainly derives from a centuries old cultural tradition of monogamy, not some dislike of Mormons. In fact, it is far more likely that there would be less animosity towards Mormons if they weren’t associated with a culturally taboo thing like polygamy than that polygamy would be more accepted if Mormons were not associated with it.
LikeLike
Ok Michi, I didn’t read it closely enough. I don’t think the state should sanction any marraige. But I think people should be able to form whatever relationship they want and call it marraige. In that context I wish those two marital bliss. I still think I’m right about yello’s opinion on who is legitimate is wishing marital bliss.
LikeLike
I think a lot of the comments still miss the point about polygamy. It is not a slippery slope in that we should not allow X because X, which is okay, will lead to Y, which is not okay. The point is that it is a way of showing that the principle being used to invalidate the traditional idea of marriage is itself arbitrary and invalid, if it can be called a principle at all. And since it is arbitrary and invalid as a principle, we shouldn’t use it to overturn marriage as it is.
The other thing I am struck by is lms’s argument that we should recognize SSM because there is a social movement for it but not polygamy because there isn’t a social movement for it (or not one as big). This, it seems to me, is a circular argument. The fact that people are demanding something does not vindicate their demand.
LikeLike
Corked.
One for you Scott!
LikeLike
qb:
One for you Scott!
A rarity.
LikeLike
George:
I don’t think the state should sanction any marraige. But I think people should be able to form whatever relationship they want and call it marraige. In that context I wish those two marital bliss.
Interesting! And when you phrase it that way, I agree that you’re wishing them exactly the same thing that I, in my context, am. I wonder if you can get qb to agree with you, though (about marriage and whether or not it should be sanctioned by the state).
LikeLike
Scott:
Popular opposition to polygamy almost certainly derives from a centuries old cultural tradition of monogamy
Probably mostly, but given that you were arguing that proponents of same sex marriage logically can’t argue against polygamy, I was giving you an example of why I, for instance, do. I practically daily see the unfortunate results of modern polygamy, since this (SLC, and especially the University Hospital and Primary Childrens’ Medical Center) is where the outcasts and those with dire medical conditions usually end up. “Big Love” is not the norm in Utah when it comes to how polygamous relationships come to be.
The rest of your statement I agree with.
LikeLike
And if we keep it (as it has always been) to two consenting adults of the opposite sex, we don’t need to worry about SSM.
Except when it’s been between a man and however many consenting women. 😉
LikeLike
And if we keep it (as it has always been) to two consenting adults of the opposite sex, we don’t need to worry about SSM.
That’s just an example of picking a principle because you favor the result you prefer.
You would make a great Justice if Obama got another nomination!
LikeLike
In what way is it more logical? What principle implies that a marriage must be monogamous, but not between a man and woman?
That seems the question in a nutshell. Either we’re redefining marriage from something very specific (a union between a man and a woman, most normally meant for the bearing and raising of children) to something that is a legally recognized commitment between consenting adults, or we’re not. Whether it’s a slippery slope or not, there doesn’t seem to be a good argument as to why polygamy is philosophically illegitimate, or unworthy of being legally recognized, but same sex marriage is legitimate, and worthy of state sanctioning.
Goose: I was giving you an example of why I, for instance, do. I practically daily see the unfortunate results of modern polygamy, since this (SLC, and especially the University Hospital and Primary Childrens’ Medical Center) is where the outcasts and those with dire medical conditions usually end up.
There may be practical objections to polygamy as it is currently practiced (in the shadows!), but I’m not sure there is a good principled objection as to why consenting adults shouldn’t be allowed to enter legal recognized marriage contracts as they wish. I imagine divorces would be complicated, but the lawyers should be up to it. 😉
*Edit to actually quote Michigoose, which I somehow managed not to do the first time.
LikeLike
Scott
What principle implies that a marriage must be monogamous, but not between a man and woman?
I think you answered that one yourself.
Popular opposition to polygamy almost certainly derives from a centuries old cultural tradition of monogamy
The point being that the polygamy issue is a strawman argument, as yello claimed, as virtually no one is actively seeking the legitimization of polygamy as part of the institution of marriage.
The fact that a group of people, even a large group of people, are trying to do X doesn’t justify X
Perhaps not initially but as more people agree that it does, it will be interpreted that way by society. Isn’t that pretty much how change occurs? We may not always like the changes but it’s hard to hold them back as the numbers grow in support.
LikeLike
lms:
I think you answered that one yourself.
If I did, I am unaware of it. So please fill me in.
The point being that the polygamy issue is a strawman argument, as yello claimed, as virtually no one is actively seeking the legitimization of polygamy as part of the institution of marriage.
It appears that you, like yello, do not know what a strawman argument is. And again, the number of people who do or do not support polygamy has no bearing on whether arguments in favor of SSM are equally applicable to polygamy.
We may not always like the changes but it’s hard to hold them back as the numbers grow in support.
We are talking about what should happen, not what will happen. The question isn’t how many people do or do not support something, but rather what is the thinking that drives support or non-support, and is it consistent with other things they do or do not support.
LikeLike
The point being that the polygamy issue is a strawman argument, as yello claimed, as virtually no one is actively seeking the legitimization of polygamy as part of the institution of marriage.
As far as an objection to SSM, this is no doubt true. As to why one should be legalized and the other not (in principle), it makes an interesting topic for conversation, as there does not seem to be a philosophically coherent answer as to why SSM is legitimate marriage structure but a polygamous marriage is not.
Perhaps not initially but as more people agree that it does, it will be interpreted that way by society. Isn’t that pretty much how change occurs?
This is an interesting point. I think it’s hard to disagree that change (especially in Western democracies) is often a function of majorities becoming comfortable with that change. I consider SSM inevitable, based on that.
And, if the same were true of polygamy (and it may one day be, if progress and technology give us enough leisure time, and solve enough problems, that polygamous marriages have few practical consequences in regards to feeding the kids, running a household, dealing with medical concerns, etc) then I suspect we might see the change. I’m just interested in the argument that redefining marriage as being between two consenting adults is somehow obviously different that defining it as being between two or more consenting adults. The dividing line seems arbitrary to me, meant to defang polygamy as an objection to SSM, rather than providing any kind of real argument as to what’s wrong with polygamy in principle (not as practiced by cults and radicals, in the shadows, in their current extra-legal form).
Why should consenting adults, of sound mind and body, be forbidden from marrying more than one person at a time? Legally, as a legal and philosophical principle? I can see some practical objections, but similar objections could be raised about lots of folks getting married, or allowing lots of people to have children . . . 🙂
LikeLike
Kev:
but the lawyers should be up to it.
Indubitably!
LikeLike
Goose: heh! Just corrected that originally comment to quote you. Somehow, first time around, I quoted Scott again instead of quoting you. Whoops.
LikeLike
Kevin:
Why should consenting adults, of sound mind and body, be forbidden from marrying more than one person at a time?
And now you’re sounding more and more Heinlein-ish! 🙂 I don’t remember Asimov going down this road, but Clarke may have if I remember a couple of his later Rama novel correctly.
LikeLike
Whoops.
All is forgiven (sooner or later) here at ATiM, Kevin. At least, so it seems.
LikeLike
“marriages have few practical consequences in regards to feeding the kids, running a household, dealing with medical concerns, etc”
i read that quickly and thought it was “dealing with media concerns” — who doesn’t have a PR firm on retainer anymore.
LikeLike
Goose: Heinlein! I love Heinlen. Of course, Heinlein had Lazarus Long going back in time and falling in romantic and sexual love with his own mother, then pairing up with (much younger) twin “daughters” of his that were in fact genetic clones of himself by swapping (or someone swapped) the Y chromosome for an X before gestation. Heinlein was pretty much for any kind of relationship, with anybody. Lazurus Long also had a good friend that died and he left in orbit of Jupiter (or one of Jupiter’s moons, I think), but he discovered technology that allowed him to retrieve him and revive him, and his friend decided to switch to a woman in his/her new life, and I think Lazurus paired up with his former friend, too. Preferred his mates in girl form, but I think that was just a preference.
Heinlein envisioned a future where pretty much everybody was down for anything. 😉
LikeLike
Lazarus Long ends up enlisting in a war where he suspects he’s sure to die (being he already knew the body could of WWI) in order to score with his mother. Heinlein was a very Oedipal fella.
LikeLike
much younger
IIRC, “much younger” by around 600 years! 🙂 I’m trying to remember that friend’s name, and yes, Lazarus has a kid with the former best friend.
Then there was also “Stranger in a Strange Land” and the multiple relationships in that novel. . .
LikeLike
in order to score with his mother
Well, she corked him because she had the hots for her Dad!
LikeLike
scott
If I did, I am unaware of it
By saying that monogamy is a centuries old tradition, which is, by the way, still valid. The difference being the other part of tradition, marriage being between a man and a woman, is being challenged while monogamy is not.
A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position
Focusing on the supposed similarities between SSM and polygamy in relation to marriage, when proponents of SSM are not advocating for polygamy, is I believe a strawman argument is it not? You may not be arguing that in your comments but I think yello’s point was that it does happen. That’s why I asked you if it was in his original post or as a comment I may have missed.
The question isn’t how many people do or do not support something, but rather what is the thinking that drives support or non-support, and is it consistent with other things they do or do not support.
For you perhaps the question is consistency but for me it is not. For me the question is have we evolved on the issue of SSM differently than we have on polygamy and why? That’s why I say your logical straight line doesn’t always get you the result you seem to want.
LikeLike
lms:
Focusing on the supposed similarities between SSM and polygamy in relation to marriage, when proponents of SSM are not advocating for polygamy, is I believe a strawman argument is it not?
No, it is not. Indeed, the fact that proponents of SSM are not also advocating for polygamy is precisely what gives rise to the point about polygamy.
For you perhaps the question is consistency but for me it is not.
Clearly. I think we had a similar discussion some time ago, but I really don’t think there is much point to a debate in which one side is unconcerned with logical consistency. And so we might as well end it here.
LikeLike
Thanks Scott, very consistent as usual.
LikeLike
One last thing and then I’ll take my inconsistent pretty little head and skedaddle out of this thread.
the fact that proponents of SSM are not also advocating for polygamy is precisely what gives rise to the point about polygamy.
Yes, I’m sure that would go over really well with the voters but what a fantastic bumper sticker.
SSM and POLYGAMY……………kill two birds with one stone.
I can certainly imagine the other sides response as a slogan.
LikeLike
It’s been written before, but the reason the advocates of SSM marraige dismiss other types of marraige possibilities as strawmen is because it makes the acceptance of SSM a harder sell. It’s the same reason Scott Walker excluded police and fire from the restricting of collective bargaining rights or Roberts hung his hat on the taxation dodge. It’s about marketing, not logic.
LikeLike
It’s about marketing, not logic.
Unless you’re being inconsistently consistent and believe in monogamy.
LikeLike
I want what I want and I don’t want what I don’t want. A fantastic standard on which to base objective law.
LikeLike
“Objective Law” as in Ayn Rand? Really? Even jnc fell on his sword over anti-trust laws.
You’re the one who said monogamy was a centuries old tradition. Why isn’t that more logical and consistent with SSM than polygamy?
LikeLike
lms:
“Objective Law” as in Ayn Rand? Really?
No, not really. I said objective law, not Objectivism.
You’re the one who said monogamy was a centuries old tradition. Why isn’t that more logical and consistent with SSM than polygamy?
Because monogamy as a centuries old tradition is inextricably tied to an equally old tradition of the union between a man and a women. Or, in other words, marriage.
LikeLike
“but I really don’t think there is much point to a debate in which one side is unconcerned with logical consistency. And so we might as well end it here.”
Interesting. Not all participants here want to debate. Sometimes it’s good to have just a discussion about the practical effects of a policy without requiring logical purity.
LikeLike
Not all participants here want to debate. Sometimes it’s good to have just a discussion about the practical effects of a policy without requiring logical purity.
Is there someone scoring the debates? Because otherwise how do we know who won? And I never get back the scores on all the pop quizzes I am always given. They must count toward the final grade because I always get reminded when I turn them in late.
LikeLike
okie:
Sometimes it’s good to have just a discussion about the practical effects of a policy without requiring logical purity.
Perhaps, but we were not discussing the practical effects of anything. We were discussing the legitimacy and implications of an argument. It seems that some people like to discuss that, too, without the stress of being logical. I don’t.
LikeLike
Perhaps a limbic brain reaction to the DNA-procreation challenges presented by same-sex couplings?
That would be the same as the Ick Factor I got pilloried for. Like a gag reflex, it can be overcome.
People are different from other people in a myriad of ways, and folks who don’t approve of homosexuality don’t necessarily hate people who are different from them in other significant ways.
That is why there are so many different ways to hate people. You can hate them based on gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, hair color. The possibilities are literally endless.
LikeLike
It’s been written before, but the reason the advocates of SSM marraige dismiss other types of marraige possibilities as strawmen is because it makes the acceptance of SSM a harder sell. {snip} It’s about marketing, not logic.
Bingo. That is exactly why Volokh in the OP quote pushes to have the two conflated. We can only push through one society-destroying paradigm shift at a time. You closet polygamists are going to have to wait your turn. And we are quickly hitting the point of diminishing returns on fringe sexual perversions the Democratic party can embrace as voting blocs. Bringing the transgendered into the fold is about the last demographic group worth chasing.There are just aren’t that may polyamours and zoophiles out there to woo.
Polygamists are also going to have a large uphill battle since polygamy is associated with offshoot cults like Mormonism and Islam. Gay marriage with its poster children being Neil Patrick Harris and Rosie O’Donnell is a much easier sell.
And as michigoose points out, the polygamy-pedophilia connection is a lot easier to make because of the insular and incestuous (figuratively and literally) groups currently practicing it.
LikeLike
Props for this over on the PL, qb–made me laugh out loud!
In response to someone complaining that the conservatives aren’t slamming Roberts:
You mean my slamming is insufficiently slammy?
I will try to do better.
LikeLike
Heinlein envisioned a future where pretty much everybody was down for anything.
Just how big a perv Heinlein was is a frequent lunchtime topic at my office.
And to use an example from this century, the short-lived Battlestar Galactica spin-off Caprica featured both same-sex marriages and massively polygamous families as perfectly acceptable within at least portions of the Twelve Colonies.
LikeLike
There are just aren’t that may polyamours and zoophiles out there to woo.
Zoophilia isn’t between consenting (human) adults, while polyamory is just a feller or a gal having too much love for one man (or woman, or both). Talk about conflation!
LikeLike
Kevin:
Talk about conflation!
Or inflation!!
Couldn’t resist. . . .
LikeLike
That would be the same as the Ick Factor I got pilloried for. Like a gag reflex, it can be overcome.
Indeed, it’s just a legitimate question. Why do (some) straight people have a problem with homosexuality? Seems there’s got to be more to it than they are stupid, backwards people and thank goodness we’re so much more enlightened than they, but isn’t it kind of nice to have them, because of how good we look in comparison? I think I need to pat myself on the back. Etc.
Polygamists are also going to have a large uphill battle since polygamy is associated with offshoot cults like Mormonism and Islam.
These are practical, real-world problems, not issues of abstract principle! The point is that there is no reason, in principle, to exclude polyagamists if we’re going to be redefining marriage, anyway.
Gay marriage with its poster children being Neil Patrick Harris and Rosie O’Donnell is a much easier sell.
You won me over with Neil Patrick Harris (yay!), and lost me again with Rosie O’Donnell (boo!). Good branding, not so good branding. 😉
LikeLike
And as michigoose points out, the polygamy-pedophilia connection is a lot easier to make because of the insular and incestuous (figuratively and literally) groups currently practicing it.
Polygamy, as being discussed, involves adults in consenting relationships with other consenting adults. Pedophilia, obviously, does not involve everybody being a consenting adult, thus conflating polyamory with pedophilia is no different than conflating homosexuality with pedophilia. Just a point of argument.
LikeLike
I want what I want and I don’t want what I don’t want. A fantastic standard on which to base objective law.
It does seem to apply to the law, often enough. Especially those writing it.
LikeLike
Scott:
I don’t.
That much is obvious. But, at some point, it’s time to move on, and you’re a much better conversationalist when you’ve moved on than when you’re stubbornly still arguing a point that the rest of a group is trying to move away from. . . this post is three days old and there are three newer posts. I, for one, am sure that I know where you stand on same sex marriage and yello’s series of posts, so you’re just perseverating now.
C’mon, Scott, come talk about martinis (Bites & Pieces), or the Constitutionality of pedicures (Sunday Funny) or $$$$$$$$$$$$.
LikeLike
Mich:
But, at some point, it’s time to move on, and you’re a much better conversationalist when you’ve moved on than when you’re stubbornly still arguing a point that the rest of a group is trying to move away from. . .
You mean the rest of the group except lms, okie, yello, Kevin, McWing…
Thanks for the advice. I will take it under advisement.
LikeLike
the fact that proponents of SSM are not also advocating for polygamy is precisely what gives rise to the point about polygamy.
I would not necessarily expect SSMers to advocate for polygamous marriage, but that there tends to be a reaction to polygamy, from the SSMers, that polyamory is aberrant or equivalent to zoophilia or pedophilia. Which I find ironic. 😉
“No! SSM could never lead to polygamy! The thought is repulsive! Repugnant! Icky! It’s beautiful and wonderful if two men get married to each other. If three men get married to each other, it’s a crime against nature!”
LikeLike
I gotta confess, I’m kinda like Scott on the SSM vs. polygamy thing. I want either a coherent explanation as to why, in principle, SSM is acceptable but polygamy isn’t, or a confession that there is no valid reason, in principle, to accept one and yet not the other. And I’m going to beat that dead horse until the cows come home, or I mix my metaphors. Whichever comes first.
LikeLike
Until the pigs come home and cows fly?
For me, there is no coherent difference in allowing SSM and polygamy, but in principle democracy takes care of the details. If, and I concur with lms, there is no societal movement for polygamy, why spend time distinguishing the underlying differential principle? If polygamy becomes an issue in the future, which I think is far-fetched, it can be dealt with as seen best at that time. It is not possible to foresee all policy consequences. Yes, it’s a very good intellectual exercise and might cause one to “tighten up” their thinking, but IMHO pretty irrelevant in terms of current policy needs.
I find it more interesting that “pure” logic should prevail over the desires of the populace on a cultural issue. What the fuck else is a democracy (republic for the purists) for? And that statement, from me, is going out on a limb in the sense that I do think there are principles worth standing for no matter what, e.g., due process issues (indefinite detention, drones, etc.).
LikeLike
Okie:
If, and I concur with lms, there is no societal movement for polygamy, why spend time distinguishing the underlying differential principle?
Because yello wrote a post about it, that’s why.
I find it more interesting that “pure” logic should prevail over the desires of the populace on a cultural issue. What the fuck else is a democracy (republic for the purists) for?
No one said anything about pure logic prevailing over the desires of the populace, what ever the fuck that means. We were discussing the legitimacy and implications of a proposition. That discussion can either take place rationally, ie according to rules of logic, or it can be irrational, disregarding the rules of logic. I’m not interested in the latter.
LikeLike
I vote we all go talk about our favorite mixed drinks. I’m not much of a cocktail gal, but I sense that there may be a whole world out there for me to explore. . . we can ALWAYS (which means that we inevitably will) revisit same sex marriage and/or polygamy (and especially that old lecher, Lazarus Long).
LikeLike
Sorry, kevin, my last comment was not intended to be as strident as it appears on rereading.
LikeLike
Hey all,
I’m back online (and the minstrels rejoiced, yay). I figured this was coming in the strawman series and completely, utterly disagree that it is a straw man. There is a particular reason.
Plural marriage (>2) only involves consenting adults. That makes it different from the previous notions (pedophilia, bestiality, and, umm, maybe I shouldn’t have driven 14 hours with kids and then drunk half a bottling of a very nice sparkling rose that my wife thoughtfully purchased and chilled). Oh wait, it’s something about the kids. Happy to see a good study on that sometime. Heh.
Plural marriage is quite traditional and, with modern legal protections, isn’t that unreasonable. There is the related concept of a line marriage in which people marry in (and out). One of my very favorite books, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, explores this concept in detail.
Step 1:
Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman.
Step 2:
Marriage is a covenant between two consenting adults.
Step 3:
Marriage is a covenant between two or more consenting adults.
It is not an unreasonable suggestion. Marriage then becomes something akin to incorporation and so we have nicely separated legal and moral.
Here is a problem for all the slippery slopers. It’s possible to simply say NO. Making it three or more is way too complicated, so do it if you want, but we’re not adding legal protections. Someone says if you think A B C then you must accepted D. Well, sorry to screw with your world view, but no I don’t have to do that. Deal with it.
By the way, Rush went on a 10 minute rant today about gay marriage leading to bestiality. So, if Pat Roberts is discounted as a convenient quote source for libs, I think we should add the man with three hours a day on AM that you will be able to find.
BB
LikeLike
FB:
Here is a problem for all the slippery slopers.
There are no slippery slopers, at least not here. No one has said that SSM must inevitably lead to polygamy, and therefore should be disallowed. We have simply pointed out that the exclusion of polygamy from arguments for SSM shows that the argument is arbitrary and without principle, and therefore should be rejected.
It’s possible to simply say NO.
It is also possible to simply say no to SSM. So why should opponents of SSM face a higher burden of justification than you would allow opposition to polygamy? That is, to use your words, when supporters of SSM say, as they have here, that marriage admits heterosexual couples that have no intention of having kids, and infertile couples who can’t have kids, and couples too old to have children, then it must also admit homosexual couples, is it a sufficient defense of traditional marriage to say “Sorry to screw you and your world view, but no we don’t have to do that, deal with it”?
LikeLike
“No! SSM could never lead to polygamy! The thought is repulsive! Repugnant! Icky! It’s beautiful and wonderful if two men get married to each other. If three men get married to each other, it’s a crime against nature!”
That is a truly beautiful strawman. My gay college roommate was in a threesome relationship for a while. He got his contact lenses all mixed up with someone else’s one weekend.
LikeLike
That is a truly beautiful strawman. My gay college roommate was in a threesome relationship for a while. He got his contact lenses all mixed up with someone else’s one weekend.
It might be colorfully phrased, but it isn’t a straw man at all, because it accurately captures your position. From all you’ve said, it appears that you believe that two men getting married is a beautiful thing but that three getting married isn’t–three is something we should reject. It isn’t proper marriage at all, per you. It’s just plain wrong.
LikeLike
Why do (some) straight people have a problem with homosexuality?
It can’t be the act itself. Far more heterosexuals have anal intercourse than all the homosexuals combined.
LikeLike
We’ve treated this before, but a straw man argument is a mischaracterization of one’s opponent’s argument. None of the four “straw men” labeled as such by yello is a straw man. They do not mischaracterize the argument for SSM. As Scott and I have both repeatedly explained, they seek, however effectively or clumsily executed, to examine the principle and logic behind the demand for SSM. And my objections to SSM are not based merely on a belief that it would lead to polygamy, etc. What ironically are straw men, therefore, are yello’s series of four arguments themselves. They mischaracterize the arguments.
What we see here is a very typical dilemma of radical movements to deconstruct social structures. It is easy to tear down institutions, beliefs, practices, etc. by subjecting them to demands for “proof” but not easy to turn off that engine after it has started its work. (What’s that old Jim Wright saying? Any jackass can kick down a barn?) This is part of why it is important in my mind to keep pointing out that the “straw man” objection is being misused here. If you are going to tear down institutions and beliefs because they can’t be sufficiently defended against rationalistic attack (or sentimentalistic attack, for that matter), then you must be prepared to defend your own preferred arrangement of social rules and practices against the same attacks.
Some of the comments above now seem to suggest that we should not be concerned with logic, principle, or consistency but simply with … well, I’m not sure what. If that is, in the end, where the case for SSM ends up, then its proponents ought not to try to pretend that it has some principled basis when in fact it is based on nothing more than one group’s arbitrary preferences. We aren’t dealing with reason at that point, just sentiment and desire.
LikeLike
Any jackass can kick down a barn?
I prefer to think of it as adding a room.
LikeLike
By the way, Rush went on a 10 minute rant today about gay marriage leading to bestiality
Because the four-times wed Rush should be everybody’s voice of reason when it comes to the sanctity of marriage.
LikeLike
That would be the same as the Ick Factor I got pilloried for. Like a gag reflex, it can be overcome.
You weren’t pilloried for anything. You were challenged on your claim never to have used the word “homophobia” in your posts, and then for your inability to give a coherent definition for it or explain how you were not calling all opponents of SSM homophobic. (I’m quite sure my views qualify me as homophobic in your view, and, as I’ve said, I don’t care in the least about your view in that regard.)
There is an assumption running throughout your arguments that there is something wrong, something immoral about what you call the “ick factor.” Why? What is the basis for this assumption? I agree that it is a typical and normal reaction for people to find homosexual behavior revolting. Why is that something to be “overcome”? Why do you find it any less natural than you find homosexuality itself?
That is why there are so many different ways to hate people. You can hate them based on gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, hair color. The possibilities are literally endless.
The funny thing about “homophobia” is that it’s such a nonsense word that it’s etymology doesn’t even refer to hatred. It is just psychobabble, really, a propaganda word invented by advocates to tar people with normal attitudes about homosexuality. From wikipedia:
“Weinberg is known for several major contributions to psychotherapy. He coined the word “homophobia” (in his revolutionary 1972 book, Society and the Healthy Homosexual) to clarify that those who harbor prejudice against homosexuals, and not homosexuals themselves, are suffering from a psychological malady, an irrational state of mind. Weinberg, though heterosexual himself, became a leader in the ultimately successful struggle to have homosexuality removed as a diagnostic category from the DSM, the professional therapeutic handbook. He has been instrumental in shifting public perception of homosexuality.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Weinberg_(psychologist)
How about this gem:
“The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the May 23, 1969, edition of the American tabloid Screw, in which the word was used to refer to heterosexual men’s fear that others might think they are gay.[10]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
LikeLike
qb: It’s my assertion that you can consider homosexual behavior “not revolting” (in fact, there’s a huge library of girl-on-girl pornography that would suggest that a majority of porn consumers do not find homosexual behavior revolting, but appealing) while still considering marriage to be an institution of union between one man and one woman.
Myself, I don’t have any issue with homosexuality or homosexuals, but consider marriage to be between one man and one woman for a reason.
By the way, Rush went on a 10 minute rant today about gay marriage leading to bestiality
Again, unless we’re talking about unions involving consenting adults, this slippery slope argument seems unlikely, and largely irrelevant. Bestiality exists, as do other things, with or without SSM. There are those who want to normalize all manner of sexual fetish and perversion, but they are few, and there is little relevance between them and homosexual who want to marry.
LikeLike
It can’t be the act itself. Far more heterosexuals have anal intercourse than all the homosexuals combined.
Yes, but not nearly often enough. The women have to be “in the mood” and they almost never are. 😉
LikeLike
Well since all my arguments have been ostensibly shredded, there’s nothing left for me to do but move on to the next debate. I do hope that same sex marriage survives this apparent consistency assault from the logic police at the ballot box as society grows ever more inclusive of the LGBT community. It’s interesting that the debate has centered primarily on polygamy, at least in this thread, which has virtually nothing to do with same sex marriage between two people, but if that’s the logical direction we must explore who am I to question the sensibility of that.
LikeLike
That is a truly beautiful strawman. My gay college roommate was in a threesome relationship for a while. He got his contact lenses all mixed up with someone else’s one weekend.
It may be a straw man, but what I’m saying is that that *sounds* like the argument being made (if, indeed, any argument actually is being made). If two women getting married is awesome, why isn’t three ladies getting married even more awesome?
If it’s because too many people in a marriage is “icky”, then how is that a straw man? if not, then what is it?
LikeLike
That discussion can either take place rationally, ie according to rules of logic, or it can be irrational, disregarding the rules of logic. I’m not interested in the latter.
Man. You’re what the beatniks would call a “square”. You need to “chill out” and “expand your horizons”. 😉
LikeLike
lmsinca: there’s nothing left for me to do but move on to the next debate. I do hope that same sex marriage survives this apparent consistency assault from the logic police at the ballot box as society grows ever more inclusive of the LGBT community.
I don’t think you have much to worry about there. Gay marriage is coming (well, it’s already here, but will become more firmly established). Politicians are predominantly lawyers. Stable gay couples are ever more well-represented on TV and other media, and, as yello pointed out, with popular figures from Neil Patrick Harris to George Takei to Zachary Quinto acting as standard bearers, popular acceptance is just going to grow. Even the original, Earth-1 Green Lantern is in a monogamous homosexual relationship now.
LikeLike
It’s interesting that the debate has centered primarily on polygamy, at least in this thread
That’s sorta the topic of the original post. The relevance seems clear to me. Polyamory is not only a sexual orientation, but an almost universal one. While most primates and many other mammals (and even some birds) exhibit pair-bonding behaviors, there is great survival value, genetically speaking, in spreading DNA across multiple partners, and the drive to polyamory is both stronger and more common than practiced (indeed, how many divorces involve one or more spouses in extra-marital relationships?). It is a natural orientation with a long history, often legitimately sanctioned (at least with men having multiple wives, but, in some cases, women with multiple husbands, or multi-wife, multi-husband relationships).
If we should not exclude homosexual from marriage based on their natural sexual orientation, then why is it acceptable to exclude polygamists from entering marriages that embrace their natural sexual orientations? And homosexual share the same basic limbic brain system, and the drives that lead to multiple sexual partners. Why should they be discriminated against if they want to marry two same-sex partners?
LikeLike
FB: Plural marriage (>2) only involves consenting adults. That makes it different from the previous notions
This.
LikeLike
Well since all my arguments have been ostensibly shredded, there’s nothing left for me to do but move on to the next debate.
Ah, sweet victory! And as bernie always says, conservatives care about nothing but victory over opponents.
It’s interesting that the debate has centered primarily on polygamy, at least in this thread, which has virtually nothing to do with same sex marriage between two people, but if that’s the logical direction we must explore who am I to question the sensibility of that.
Just as SSM has nothing to do with marriage. ; )
LikeLike
Kevin
Thanks for your thoughts but honestly I’ve already discussed all this and while I find the subject fascinating I don’t have much to add except that I do understand it was the subject of the thread. I was just surprised there was so much support for polygamy as a legitimate life style choice comparative to SSM or whatever the point everyone’s trying to make. I must live a very sheltered life or something because I’ve never heard anyone I know personally talk about it except in terms that you mentioned above re divorce for infidelity or other negative terms. I understand the “logic” of the discussion I just disagree with the conclusion I guess and fail to see why monogamy isn’t at least as logical. The values I have rely more on that traditional aspect of marriage than the sexual orientation of the couple. I fail to understand why my opinion isn’t also logical.
LikeLike
I don’t think you have much to worry about there. Gay marriage is coming (well, it’s already here, but will become more firmly established).
Don’t bet your house yet. This still isn’t Europe, and people like me are not leaving the ramparts any time soon. It is going to be a bloody fight.
One of the ironies is that gay rights are making much of the headway they are making through might of soulless corporate America. The left normally hates corporate America and its power over us, but they are happily using corporate America to try to drive dissent out of polite society. It’s a very disturbing phenomenon.
LikeLike
If, and I concur with lms, there is no societal movement for polygamy, why spend time distinguishing the underlying differential principle?
Because it interests me. An argument is made which, to me, lacks coherence, so I look for clarification. I’ve already said I consider SSM a fait accompli. While I think marriage, as traditionally recognized, should still be between one man and one woman (and that we should get rid of no fault divorce), I think lots of things. T’aint going to happen, and the slippery slope arguments have no bearing on my position.
And, in the end, I think we will survive SSM all right.
If polygamy becomes an issue in the future, which I think is far-fetched, it can be dealt with as seen best at that time.
SSM marriage would have seemed more far-fetched fifty years ago, I suspect, than even polygamous marriage did 50 years ago. In any case, when technology and other advances eliminate that downside to an arrangement, and provide us with more leisure tim, it’s much more likely to become an issue. Human beings are hardwired for polyamory as well as pair-bonding. Back to a previous point, it’s the hardwiring of polyamory that makes high-speed internet pornography so addictive—it fools the brain (usually, the male brain) at the limbic level that it is fertilizing woman after woman after woman. It is the compulsion towards polyamory that makes that so addictive.
Polygamy has a social stigma attached to it, but there are also practical concerns. Women prefer a mate whose resources are focused on their offspring, not offspring that contains none of their DNA. Multiple partners can introduce disease, an present a restraint on resources if they don’t hold up their end of the multi-partner marriage. Yet as technology alleviates many of these practical concerns, and leisure time leads society to explore other arrangements out of opportunity, interest, and perhaps boredom, I would not be surprised to see polygamy become an issue, and the arguments for discriminating against polygamist seem exceptionally weak, once the definition of marriage is expanded.
Which is not a “slippery slope”, it’s an observation that the arguments for inclusivity for homosexual unions but not polygamous ones seem exceptionally weak. The best argument for traditional marriage is just that—tradition. It has been proven to be a superior familial relationship over millennia. Once we dispense with that (and perhaps we should), then there is no rational argument against polygamy, in principle.
Sorry, kevin, my last comment was not intended to be as strident as it appears on rereading.
We’re cool.
LikeLike
Don’t bet your house yet. This still isn’t Europe, and people like me are not leaving the ramparts any time soon. It is going to be a bloody fight.
No doubt! I just don’t see generations raised on Will & Grace and Modern Family and Gay Green Lantern, etc., finding the visceral motivation to keep the fight going. It’s not our generation that’s going to cede the battle, although many more of our generation are prepared to cede the battle than of our parents generation. To quote Doc Brown: “It’s your kids, Marty! Something has to be done about your kids!”
One of the ironies is that gay rights are making much of the headway they are making through might of soulless corporate America. The left normally hates corporate America and its power over us, but they are happily using corporate America to try to drive dissent out of polite society.
The left “hates” corporate America, one might argue, because “hate” is a powerful manipulator. Corporate America tends to respond to the “hate” of potential customers by changing. When being “enlightened” becomes a marketing bullet point, well, then, Katy bar the door.
LikeLike
I was just surprised there was so much support for polygamy as a legitimate life style choice comparative to SSM or whatever the point everyone’s trying to make.
Well, that was the point at the start, but then Yello made the point that women should be much more open to anal sex, and lots of it, and I think his point is much better. 😛
The values I have rely more on that traditional aspect of marriage than the sexual orientation of the couple. I fail to understand why my opinion isn’t also logical.
Well, the one-man, one-woman thing is perhaps the cornerstone tradition of marriage and, without that, for good or for ill, you are deconstructing the tradition. I’m not saying your opinion isn’t logical, or that I’m going to take my ball and go home if you don’t discuss it my way, only that I personally find the arguments that are pro-SSM, anti-polygamy logically incoherent (or possibly too advanced for me to understand, with my limited Cro-Magnon mind).
I also dispute the “slippery slope” defense, as I argue that if you accept X, then you must accept Y, but don’t see that as automatically leading to accept “ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP, etc”. Just that an argument that broadens the definition of marriage for he and me but not for thee does not seem coherent, to me.
In a world of polygamous and same-sex marriages, a marriage between one man, one woman still remains highly logical, and I expect it will remain the most common form of marriage, whatever the state ultimately recognizes as being legitimate marriage unions.
LikeLike
BTW: For polygamous marriages (or relationships) outside of religious sects, who do we normally find in them? Most of the time?
Yello knew some guys in college. I knew a few folks in three-member relationships in college. I have read stories about some rich folks and Hollywood types, and then there are very rich and very powerful men in various countries (and probably here, too).
But it’s usually the young (often spared adult responsibilities by parents and youth) and the very rich or very powerful. That is, folks with fewer practical concerns and plenty of practical resources.
If we ever achieve some future world of too-cheap-to-meter energy and eradication of disease, etc., I would expect more polygamy.
The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress strikes me as an unlikely scenario, as the world they lived in was still constrained of resources and difficult in many ways. Multi-partner marriages are for folks who have few practical concerns in life, and few limitations on resources, and few demands on their time.
LikeLike
Well, the one-man, one-woman thing is perhaps the cornerstone tradition of marriage and, without that, for good or for ill, you are deconstructing the tradition.
I don’t believe I disputed that anywhere and by the same token I think everyone believes a father/mother parenting couple is probably the ideal for children. The point is, that is not the world we live in, and in my opinion a monogamous same sex marriage can also be a coupling that promotes stability in marriage and responsible parenting without worrying about some state sanctioned acceptance of polygamy. What happens on the internet or in bedrooms across the country regarding polyamory has less to do with where we’re headed as a society than the current issue before us and I believe it degrades the debate. Obviously, I’m in the minority here which is fine, I know when to move on.
LikeLike
I understand the “logic” of the discussion I just disagree with the conclusion I guess and fail to see why monogamy isn’t at least as logical. The values I have rely more on that traditional aspect of marriage than the sexual orientation of the couple. I fail to understand why my opinion isn’t also logical.
This is an interesting statement that I overlooked. I tried to address this point previously from several different angles.
I think the first point about it is that our argument isn’t so much that it can’t be a logical position to say yes to SSM and no to polygamy as that it isn’t logical to attack the traditional concept as arbitrary without admitting that yours is just as arbitrary.
At this point in the argument, a conservative outlook says, we respect the traditions and institutions we inherited, which grew organically over generations. We don’t just throw them out in favor of someone’s idea that they aren’t inevitable. If you are going to do something as radical as redefine marriage to include homosexua relationships, you have to give reasons, and not just reasons but really, really good reasons that stand up to rigorous examination, and that is where the case for SSM fails.
LikeLike
I couldn’t NOT link this awesome video when I found it (looking for an article on natural law and SSM).
I would embed it in a post if I knew how.
I don’t know who makes these, but I find the combination of the strangely robotic voices with the rhetoric hilarious, and this one does capture much of the debate here in four minutes.
LikeLike
lmsinca: The point is, that is not the world we live in, and in my opinion a monogamous same sex marriage can also be a coupling that promotes stability in marriage and responsible parenting without worrying about some state sanctioned acceptance of polygamy
That is a possible, real-world outcome. As I tried to clarify at the outset, I was debating the principle. Redfining marriage so that it becomes inclusive of SSM but continues to exclude other love relationships between consenting adults seem philosophically incoherent to me. Which is all I’m talking about (and, in this case, though not always, it’s even relevant to the original post).
LikeLike
Slippery slope was brought up in the original post, so my comment addressed that. I accuse no one here of greasing the hill, but Rush spent a good ten minutes on it on Monday. I think I can be in favor of letting two men marry each other without favoring Roy Rogers to have a ceremony with Trigger.
I think the arguments regarding pedophilia and bestiality to be qualitatively different than polygamy. There is one specific reason: only polygamy involves consenting adults. Well, not in certain communities in Utah, but let’s postulate that it’s only for the 18+ crowd. So, I see allowing same sex marriage, but not plural marriage to be one more of line drawing. It’s akin to picking ages for drinking alcohol, marriage, driving, voting, etc. I’m OK with a bit of arbitrariness in the law, because I don’t see how one can get away without it.
BB
LikeLike
And as if on cue….California bill would let children have more than 2 parents
LikeLiked by 1 person
One of the many possible parental configurations from the Scott’s article:
“A same-sex couple who asked a close male friend to help them conceive, then decided that all three would raise the child.”
But of course. The logical progression from SSM and the arguments for it to this seems ironclad.
I am really curious whether any proponents of SSM support it.
LikeLike