here is an interesting post on marriage; its characteristics and its purposes. what do you think?
here is a bit to get you started:
The call for same-sex marriage involves a similar misdefinition. Marriage is often characterized today as follows: 1) two people 2) who love each other 3) want to perform sexual acts together, so 4) they consent to combine their lives sexually, materially, economically 5) with the endorsement of the community. Since same-sex couples can meet the first four criteria, how can society refuse the fifth?
It is easy to see why this would be a cause of aggravation, not only for same-sex couples who wish community endorsement of their relationships, but for millions of others. If the criteria stated above actually define marriage—and in contemporary Western society, many have come to view marriage as no more than this—then refusal to acknowledge and endorse same-sex relationships is a rank injustice, nothing but an exercise in bigotry or stupidity.
now read this piece by Ken Herman and tell him why he’s wrong, if you can.
again a tease to get you over there:
I’m sure I’m wrong on this but I’m not sure why.
Resolved: If a homosexual legally can marry the same-sex love of his or her life, then a polygamist should be able to legally marry the any-sex loves of his or her life.
It’s a notion posited by slippery-slopers who fear legalized same-sex marriage leads to legalized polygamy. I think they might be on to something, but I’m still sure I’m wrong.
Now think a minute. if marriage is only supposed to be the highest and best expression of romantic love, then why can’t any two or more adults who love each other get married? adult siblings? adult nieces and nephews with their aunt or uncle? adult child with their parent? why not?
as Ken Herman says:
But, legalities aside, if you believe same-sex marriage is OK, that everybody should be allowed to marry whomever they want, then what’s your argument against polygamy?
And please be careful not to use anything, such as religion or creepiness, that sounds like arguments used against same-sex marriage. This might be a bit trickier than you’d think.
so legalities aside and without invoking religion or creepiness, why is the “slippery slope” argument a bad argument in the defense of traditional marriage?
Here is a liberal anthropologist’s answer from my blog a couple of years ago. And here is my post a year ago about polyamory being on the way.
what do you think? how does that compare to the answer given by Stephen Heaney in the first article excerpted above?
It’s easy to outlaw polygamy while legalizing same-sex marriage! The entire basis for legalizing same-sex marriage rests on Equal Protection: that same-sex couples are similarly situated as opposite-sex couples and therefore are being unconstitutionally denied a right opposite-sex couples have. In addition, opposite-sex marriage results in singling out a group already recognized in federal law as a disadvantaged class: homosexuals.
Groups of three or more (as opposed to couples) are not similarly situated as couples: there are three or more of them, not just two. In addition, “groups of three or more” are not a suspect class under law, with no history of discrimination against them, and no self-identification: no one (yet) can claim multiple-partner love as a defining characteristic.
Done!
excellent Jack. Thank you for the nice attempt. however, the question is “legalities aside, if gay marriage is ok, then why not polygamy.” and in your answer you can’t use religion or creepiness.
You are making an arbitrary distinction between the number two and numbers higher than that.
If three or four people really love each other, want to have sex together, and want to formalize their relationship for the world to take note of them, then why isn’t it just mean to deny them the recognition?
I will toss in another twist for you on the issue of polygamy: find a biblical verse that explicitly condems polygamy…
I believe (though I may be wrong) that the closest you can come is that an Elder is to be a man with one wife (Titus 1:6) which is not a condemnation at all. In reality, the suggestion probably has more to do with practicallity than morality.
King David not only had multiple wives, he also had concubines (similar issue to polyamory)
p.s. another verse that would lead you to believe that polygamy is not optimal is the creation story of Adam and Eve (One man + One woman = good) but once again, it is not condeming polygamy.
Talking to a coworker about this, and he pointed out Romans 7, which calls a wife with multiple husbands an adulteress under “The Law.” So that would be a condemnation of one type of polygamy. However “The Law” doesn’t seem to have reciprocity with regard to the sexes in this matter which leaves a loop hole for a husband with multiple wives (a logical argument the pharaosies would be proud of I am sure.)