How would you reply to same-sex marriage opponents who play the "polygamy" card?

And by this, I mean, not just folks who use the slippery slope argument that allowing same-sex marriage will naturally lead to polygamy. Specifically, I'm running into wack-a-loons who think that in order to be "consistent" in supporting equal rights for all, one must support marriage rights for polygamists as well.

To be honest, I think the wing-nuts who are using the "true equality" argument are being deliberately disingenuous to try to prove the "slippery slope" theory...

Most opponents of gay marriage cite the Bible, which has some pretty specific ideas about marriage that most people don't follow these days.

As Betty Bowers so brilliantly explained recently:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=319732&mesg_id=319732

concern of the government. Therefore, polygamy should not be illegal either.

That most humans are not advanced enough to accept this is our failing.

Problem is, if I express that opinion in debate with one of these wingnuts, he'll probably say "AHA! See, I told you that if we allow same-sex marriage we'll have harems, child marriage and box turtle love not far behind!"

threatens them. or their marriage. and it doesn't. any problems they have in their own lives has nothing to do with gays or polygamists or illegal immigrants. it's just easier to blame outside forces than to have to face your own problems or mistakes or whatever.

Because, frankly, arguing on it would require either mischaracterizing sane, consentual polygamy, or arguing rationally with an irrational person. My advice: change the framing. Ask them why gay people should be denied equal protection based on an inherent trait, in clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. If they cite the Bible, point out that it also forbids eating pork or shellfish, wearing clothes of two different kinds of thread, doing anything resembling work on the sabbath, and a crapload of other laws they cheerfully ignore. Also point out the Treaty with Tripoli, ratified by the US Senate in 1797, which reads in part "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

if two or more adults want to be in that kind of relationship, then it's none of my business. as long as they are there willingly, then what does that do to me?? nothing. it's none of my business.

matter? Please explain.

Is this some legal technicality that exists simply to complicate our lives, or do you really see a substantive difference?

Is one more or less binding than the other?

I really don't get it.

And we figured out that polygamy should most likely be legal.

The only argument against polygamy that holds some water is the issue with gender equality. It seems that polygamy has quite the history of reinforcing sexist gender roles. That could potentially be a problem if one of the many points of marriage is to foster an atmosphere of love an equality.

Any more than they prevent gay couples from forming even though they can't get married.

having more than one spouse is. Polygamy being illegal isn't discriminating against a group because of who they are since it would be illegal for everyone (including gays).

People don't choose to be gay just as they don't choose their natural hair color or eye color.

But people do choose to be hateful bigots, hypocrites, and religious freaks who think their ideas about religion should be correct for everyone else.

If you ask me, if anyone needs protection, it's the rest of us from these kinds of people!

So, if being gay were a choice, then same sex marriage should not be allowed? Would it be immoral were it a choice? I don't think so.

But, to apply the "choice" framework: do we really choose who we fall in love with? Wouldn't that include those who happen to fall in love with more than one person, and establish a functional relationship on the basis of that intimate bond?

Holding another group of people to a different standard because of who they are is discrimination.

Marriage between a man and woman does not discriminate against gays because each person has an equal opportunity to marry an individual of the opposite sex.

Homosexuality isn't a choice, deciding to get married is.

If you're concerned with appearing "consistent" then accepting polygamy is probably the road you should follow.

I don't have such a concern. I think that marriage is a societal institution, and our society is deciding that gay marriage is acceptable and state endorsed polygamy is not, I don't feel the need to play into the slippery slope argument.

It really is that simple despite efforts of some on Right (and sadly, the Left) to conflate issues.

because it prevents homosexuals from marriage a person they love. Would opposition to interracial marriage be considered discrimination? Everyone would have the opportunity to marry someone of their own race.


"If you're concerned with appearing "consistent" then accepting polygamy is probably the road you should follow."

That's not a concern at all. Personally, I don't have a problem with people marrying more than one person. I, however, disagree with the idea the one who supports gay marriage also has to support polygamy to be consistent.

Slippery slope arguments are inherent logical fallacies.

I was just setting up their argument that if we expand the definition to fit one class that claims a legitimate right to marry, why shouldn't the definition be expanded further to polygamists who feel their relationships are just as valid as two person unions of either gender.

What gives one the right to declare some unions as acceptable and others as not? What good reason is there for arbitrarily restricting marriage to two people? What was that you said about polygamy? Well that's the same thing people used to say about gay marriage.

Like I said, I don't find this to be a particularly compelling argument, but if you don't have a problem with society drawing a line in the sand on certain issues, then there is no conflict in supporting marriage equality as far as I'm concerned.

Our society is based on societal norms. Why is murder illegal? Because we as society decided it should be. Why is public nudity illegal? Because we as a society decided it should be.

The main criteria should be whether the societal norm uses an inherent, biological characteristic (race, gender, sexual orientation) to oppress a group of people. I don't believe wanting to marry more than one person is necessarily something that should be protected. What would supporters of polygamy argue, "I'm inherently driven to marry two woman." I don't find that to be a "particularly compelling argument."

:evilgrin:

Personally, I think the standard should be consenting adults.

We have the institution of marriage because of the social construct it provides to our culture. We have created a system of laws around it with respect to property rights, taxes, various forms of power of attorney, insurance, child custody, and probate. That entire body of law, not to mention its affect on various cultural traditions and institutions, is predicated upon a binary nature of the construct of the institution. Those laws and cultural arrangements are fucntionally incompatible with polygamy. Unigender marriage however (a far more accurate term by the by) between two people is functionally identical to dual gender marriages, and the truth is for all but the most superficial of cultural aspects, it is perfectly consistent with our cultural traditions as well.

We can have a discussion about the legality of polygamy or various other partnership models. However, one is talking about a much more complicated concept which is more than just removing gender considerations. One is talking about changing our entire body of law.

And any non-religious arguments made against legal polygamous marriage will bring up interesting points relevant to my larger hope for our society: the end of legal marriage altogether.

We should be able to specify whomever we want as next of kin, and for whatever purposes.

End the privilege of legal marriage!

Many of the examples of polygamists that we see clearly involve exploitation of minors. If there were indeed a movement comprised of people attempting to win legal recognition of polygamous relationships (I know there is indeed a very marginal one), then I would stop to think about it deeply.

I'm just not sure. On the one hand, I have a lingering predisposition to believe that monogamous pairings are "best." My personal experience is that other arrangements do not seem to work. But, who am I to implicitly and explicitly deprive others of legal protections for their loved ones due to my predispositions that are rather ill-informed in some respects in all likelihood?

Thank you for pointing out that many, maybe even most, polygamists groom children for exploitation long before they are able to make a reasonable decision. When a child or very young teen has been groomed, and is told she will go to hell if she doesn't submit to a marriage with some decrepit old man, that isn't a real choice. These people are sexual predators under the guise of religion.

Consenting adults? No objection if there hasn't been brainwashing going on before the consent. Raising children within the cult to submit to polygamist marriage is not exactly consenting no matter what the age.

But it opens the whole can of worms with regard to religion generally. I mean, this "grooming" occurs on so many levels, relating to so many things. We have those who refuse medical treatments due to religious beliefs that were acquired during childhood, for instance. Should churches have the right to inculcate those beliefs in the young, when they are patently socially harmful? The civil libertarian response is decidedly "yes." The authoritarian in me says "absolutely not." I'm of two minds.

So I guess that's how I'd reply.

and for the most part, their marriages are recognized and they can get state benefits for their wives and children. It is not the same thing at all. That being said, I have no problem with polygamy other than it seems from my exposure to it in Utah, a large number of polygamists tend to marry underage girls who cannot give their consent (the parents 'give' them away). I'm talking 8 year olds. Polygamy is rare in our culture, and so are people wanting to marry close relatives or animals, so this is an argument that is pretty much useless in trying to go the 'slippery slope' route starting with gay marriage. The gay marriage argument is closest to the hetero marriage argument by far.

"for the most part, their marriages are recognized and they can get state benefits for their wives and children."

One marriage is recognized between two individuals in the multi-partner relationship - provided the couple jumps through the hoops to gain legal recognition. Often it is the first, but it could be a later one as long as the operation of common law does make an earlier one the legally recognized marriage. A person in one legally recognized marriage cannot enter a second without ending the first. State benefits are not generally available for non-legally recognized spouses except as derivative of their children's rights (e.g. to WIC and Medicaid in connection with pregnancy and possibly nursing).

Children are a different matter - children have certain entitlements from their parents and/or the state regardless of who their parents are or what their parents' relationship is to each other. In other words, the children's rights are independent of marriage and are equally available to the children of same gender couples in similar circumstances - for example in a state which permits second parent adoption but which does not recognize same gender marriage - the child would be entitled to access to the resources of both parents even though their marriage is not recognized (or in the absence of parental resources, from the state).

As to death bed visits - that would be up to the whim of the local hospital for the non-legally recognized spouse (just as it is for same gender couples).

The rights in question are about the rights of homosexual couples. If polygamists want marriage rights, they're welcome to make their own argument, but that is simply a seperate issues. If they don't understand the difference in the two, then volunteer to help them learn to count.

Multiple people is an entirely different thing. Unless they want to form a corporate entity.

Not remotely related.

If the person believes that some other familial or tax arrangement should be created to allow for groups rather than couples to share in such an agreement, that's a separate argument that has nothing to do with marriage.

Keep it simple. Marriage isn't a sacred sacrament to be argued in terms of ethics or theology, it's a government institution giving certain benefits to two people willing to make such a commitment. How religions choose to deal with it is up to them. Polygamy is not a relevant comparison. It's all about whether the government has the right to discriminate based on gender. Can they require a person to marry someone of a specific gender, or should they treat all equally and allow a person to marry whichever gender that person wishes to marry.

We complicate this too much, arguing about whether homosexuality is a choice, about whether religious organizations must recognize marriages that the government ordains, and all of that. None of that matters--a person should be able to choose whom they marry, without discrimination based on race, gender, religion, creed, place of origin, or age--assuming on the latter the capacity for consent.

Simple.

as long as everyone is an adult.

next.

And who are you to say who can or can't get married.

polygamy is against the law. The laws against gay marriage are in violation of the 1st amendment. Since the opposition to gay marriage is church based it is unconstitutional.

as long as it is consensual among adults?

would help limit the abuses of polygamy, specifically underage or coerced participants, by the religious nuts that practice the shit now.

It might also shine a brighter light on the abuses of underground polygamy, as legal polygamists would probably be unimpressed by cohorts who went underground to 'bleed the beast'.

Just a thought.

as long as there are strings attached. Meaning that all parties involved must consent. I've read Escape, so I know the dirty side of polygamy.

ETA I also believe that all parties should be at least 18.

If they're consenting adults, why do I or the government need to butt in and dictate how they live their lives?

Of course, those that use the 'slippery-slope' argument to assume people will marry BOX TURTLES - that's where I draw the line. I mean... what'll the kids look like?

Is everyone in that situation an adult?

Do they all want to enter the group?

Fine, who cares. It's their life.

I would ask those presenting the "polygamy" card to show proof of fact that allowing marriage equality for two consenting adults leads to polygamy? Like any slippery slope argument it's based on what-ifs not tangible facts. When you ask people who are not well-versed in the debate to present facts it usually gets them to shut down pretty quickly. I would only suggest that you do your own research so you can present the facts they will undoubtedly not have.

So I usually bring up polygamy for them.

Incidentally, I have nothing against polygamy being recognized in some way if those who practice it feel the need to have it be recognized.

After all, we don't see any woman with several husbands now, do we?

But I've known more than a few women who commanded a large squad of suitors, and if the option to make that arrangement a formal one existed, I'm sure some would take it.

"I'm here to support gay marriage. Let's try to stay on the subject instead of obfuscating the issue with things that don't pertain."

Forgetting the religious component of marriage, as I think the United States should due to the First Amendment, it is more or less a revenue and resource-sharing contract. It is currently confined to two people, usually of the opposite sex.

The opposite sex part seems to me to be unfair, because it denies that relationship to any two adults, without a simple alternative path for those who do not meet the requirements. People who wish to financially partner up but who do not meet the opposite sex and other requirements are therefore denied the rights of those who do, and I think that is unfair.

But contracts can and usually do limit the number of participants, and the argument that that part of the equation is also unfair doesn't wash with me. Polygamy obviously involves more than two individuals. It may or may not be unfair that polygamists cannot team up in ways similar to marriage, but it necessarily has to be a different kind of contract, one that can accommodate more than two people.

But hey, I'm not a lawyer, as the lawyers here regularly prove time and time again, so don't take my word for the above, eh? I'm really just asking the world and dog if my line of reasoning is sound.

I just read your other posts above. We seem to be on the same page. I wonder if there are any court decisions which discuss it?

Because if its truly a slippery slope it started with the current system - dont blame gays for wanting everything the country offers heterosexuals.

Consenting adults, people. Gah.

multiple HUSBANDS for women or just multiple wives for men?

There's nothing inherent in your biology that says you have to have lots of wives (or husbands for that matter, I guess).

Homosexuality, however, is a part of your being from the momenet you are born. It is who you are. To me, the gay rights debate hinges on this fact.

Polygamy is truly a choice. The GLBT never had that opportunity.

That said, the slippery slope argument works both ways. Let's say the federal government bans gay marriage. What is to stop them from banning interracial marriage? What is to stop them from going a step further and banning marriages of different income levels? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

There is no good argument against gay marriage, polygamy included.

That is the PERFECT response!

My question was, of course, rhetorical. I'm willing to bet their response would be no! Men only, as far as polygamy goes.

You are absolutely right, though. Polygamy, and the religion(s) that allows for it is truly a choice. Homosexuality is not.

Say that comparing a couple to a multiple is an apples/oranges comparison.

That is the response.

I can never understand people here getting into the other's business.

I guess no one ever taught them MYOB!!

why it would matter to them what ANY consenting adult (or group of adults) chooses to do.


Honestly, is serial marriage all that much to be proud of?

Does having three or four or five (or more) spouses, consecutively, uplift the sanctity of marriage any more than polygamy would?


Shit...I don't care what consenting adults want to do with themselves or their relationships with each other...

to get married.

There are reasons that have nothing to do with the relationship (health benefits)... but considering that the relationship is the crux of the issue... it makes no sense.

Remind them that David, who was loved by his God, had many wives and concubines. Solomon who was especially favored by his God, had even more wives and concubines than his dad, David. And you can remind them that the Biblical patriarchs all had several wives and concubines. Finish up by asking why they are opposed to a clearly favored form of Biblical marriage.

Slippery slope arguments are cheap shots.