Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPolitico's Jonathan Rauch: "No, Polygamy Is NOT the Next Gay Marriage."
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/polygamy-not-next-gay-marriage-119614.html#.VZs4EWC4mgwI am a gay marriage advocate. So why do I spend so much of my time arguing about polygamy? Opposing the legalization of plural marriage should not be my burden, because gay marriage and polygamy are opposites, not equivalents. By allowing high-status men to hoard wives at the expense of lower-status men, polygamy withdraws the opportunity to marry from people who now have it; same-sex marriage, by contrast, extends the opportunity to marry to people who now lack it. One of these things, as they say on Sesame Street, is not like the other.
Yet this non sequitur just won't go away: "Once we stop limiting marriage to male-plus-female, we'll have to stop limiting it at all! Why only two? Why not three or four? Why not marriage to your brother? Or your dog? Or a toaster?" If there's a bloody shirt to wave in the gay-marriage debate, this is it.
SNIP
In this article, I noted other research suggesting that societies become inherently unstable when effective sex ratios reach something like 120 males to 100 females, such that a sixth of men are surplus commodities in the marriage market. That's not a big number: "The United States as a whole would reach that ratio if, for example, 5 percent of men took two wives, 3 percent took three wives, and 2 percent took four wivesnumbers that are quite imaginable, if polygamy were legal for a while."
By abolishing polygamy as a legal form of marriage, western societies took a step without which modern liberal democracy and egalitarian social structures might have been impossible: they democratized the opportunity to marry. It's no coincidence that almost no liberal democracy allows polygamy.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/polygamy-not-next-gay-marriage-119614.html#ixzz3fAVtlHTx
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
8 replies, 757 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (12)
ReplyReply to this post
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Politico's Jonathan Rauch: "No, Polygamy Is NOT the Next Gay Marriage." (Original Post)
pnwmom
Jul 2015
OP
And bigamy is a choice, whereas sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic. n/t
Betty Karlson
Jul 2015
#6
Gothmog
(145,558 posts)1. Plural marriage is not the same as same sex marriage
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)6. And bigamy is a choice, whereas sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic. n/t
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)2. Thanks...amazing that you had to post the obvious, though...
Lots of paid disruptors deliberately trying to offend here these days...knr
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)3. rausch nailed it
one expands opportunity, one restricts it
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)4. Were women in any of these societies allowed to take multiple husbands? nt
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)5. Kick and fucking rec...
gay marriage and polygamy are opposites, not equivalents.
Sid
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)7. Who?
Oh, someone with journalism degree and a mainstream opinion. *yawn*
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)8. It was a toaster oven, dammit!