First Gay Marriage, now polyamory

[yochumjy]

The devil is just warming up…

Polyamory on NRO

Rick Santorum Was Right
Meet the future of marriage in America.

I have seen the future of American family law, and her name is Elizabeth F. Emens. A whiz kid with a Ph.D. in English from Cambridge University and a J.D. from Yale Law School, Emens, who teaches the University of Chicago Law School, has published a major legal and cultural defense of polyamory (group marriage).

Rest is in the link. And so it continues… Pretty soon we’ll have the right to be pedophiles…

John

John

 

[Lisa_N]

Well that has been one of my objections all along. Unless marriage IS limited to one man and one woman, the very same “human rights” or “civil rights” issues that would allow homosexual marriage would allow plural marriage or marriage to people who are currently ineligible (close relatives etc). I am not sure that bigamy could be prohibited for that matter.

Lisa N

 

[JimG]

yochumjy:

Pretty soon we’ll have the right to be pedophiles…

Organizations like NAMBLA and gay rights groups are already working on that. After all, pedophiles can easily make the same argument as gays: “We didn’t choose this orientation. We were born this way. We should have a right to marry our lovers. If that involves lowering the age of consent laws, that should be done. Why should we be denied the right to marry? It is discrimination because of who we are.”

There have been articles defending and normalizing what is being redefined as “inter-generational love.”

 

[fix]

From the start I claimed “group” marriages were next. The road is easy and the gate is wide…

 

[Arkalem]

I think it’s very important to note that Polyamory and Group marraige are NOT equivalent terms.

Polyamory is the sharing of mutiple romantic (not neccessarily sexual) relationships at the same time. This can certainly be done in various incredibly unethical and morally dangerous manners, but it doesn’t always need to be. There are occasions in which this type of relationship can be done in an ethical, conservative, and morally defensible way.

The term for a group marriage is Polygamy. In this arrangement, the multiple partners actually consider one another tied together in the Holy Sacrament and sanctioned by whatever version of the diety they revere. By Catholic doctrine, this form of marriage is completely indefensible.

It should ALSO be noted, I’d argue, that the majority of monoamorus relationships suffer the same pitfalls and dangers that practitioners of Polyamory are accused of.

Furthermore, the argument that Polyamory leads to Pedophilia is a textbook example of the Slippery Slope fallacy. I think there are many valid arguments against the practice, just as there are many valid arguments against gay marriage. “If this, then this” however, is very rarely a valid point unless that eventuality can be proven and codified in some real way. Flat speculation isn’t a sound platform.

-Arkalem
-An ethical Polyamorist

 

[Seeker2010]

Actually, polyGAMY is one husband, more than one wife, whereas polyamory is just 3 or more people in a romantic/sexual relationship regardless of gender. Could be FMM, MFF, MFMF, you name it.

That said, I personally have no objection to legalized poly marriages as I don’t see any harm to myself or to society were it to come to pass. Those inclined to poly lifestyles are already living that way, legal recognition of the relationships doesn’t really change anything in the real world.

The idea that legal poly will lead to legal child molestation is ridiculous and not even worthy of debate. One thing has nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

For what it’s worth, the equal protection argument that was used by the anti-Prop-8 team doesn’t hold water on the question of poly marriage. The argument (that is compelling, IMO) is that laws apply differently to gays than they do straights, which is a de-facto violation of the constitution. Anyone seeking poly marriage does not have the same case, as regardless of same or opposite sex issues, nobody currently has the right to more than one spouse. As I said, I personally have no objection to it, but I would think it would have to come from the legislative branch, as I don’t see a constitutional point, though I’m not a lawyer so I suppose there could be things I’m missing.

 

[JimG]

Gay is not the opposite of straight. When it comes to marriage, there is traditional marriage, and there is everything else. I don’t see how applying “equal protection” ONLY to same sex and opposite sex couples, does not leave all other varieties of sexual preference in the lurch. Slippery slope or not, there is no basis in granting marital rights to one particular variety of sexual preferences while ignoring others. Or, we could just leave traditional marriage alone.

 

[mcteague]

Well that has been one of my objections all along. Unless marriage IS limited to one man and one woman, the very same “human rights” or “civil rights” issues that would allow homosexual marriage would allow plural marriage or marriage to people who are currently ineligible (close relatives etc). I am not sure that bigamy could be prohibited for that matter.

Lisa N

The fact that in a world of almost 7 billion people we can find some advocating something can hardly be used to justify the slippery sloop argument. When some people make arguments here like, ‘If we allow gay marriage, next thing people will be able to marry their dogs’, it is hard not laugh in their faces. Saying that we as a society will accept something does not mean we have to accept everything. It does however mean that the correct legally consistent argument against those things has to be made. One may not be able to argue that those things can be objected to simply because they are not one man and one woman anymore. But that does not mean no other arguments exist.
If you are really concerned that people will start trying to marry a 6 yr old, their sisters, or a fire hydrant, think of arguments that don’t depend on a definition that is essentially discriminatory to a large segment of the population.

 

[JimG]

The fact that in a world of almost 7 billion people we can find some advocating something can hardly be used to justify the slippery sloop argument. When some people make arguments here like, ‘If we allow gay marriage, next thing people will be able to marry their dogs’, it is hard not laugh in their faces. Saying that we as a society will accept something does not mean we have to accept everything. It does however mean that the correct legally consistent argument against those things has to be made. One may not be able to argue that those things can be objected to simply because they are not one man and one woman anymore. But that does not mean no other arguments exist.
If you are really concerned that people will start trying to marry a 6 yr old, their sisters, or a fire hydrant, think of arguments that don’t depend on a definition that is essentially discriminatory to a large segment of the population.

Traditional marriage is not discriminatory at all. Every woman and every man has an equal right to marriage, to a person of the opposite sex and not otherwise prohibited by laws of consanguinity. If you remove only one part of the definition–i.e. opposite sex–then is no reason not to allow marriage to those with other sexual preferences as well.

As to the slippery slope argument, I recall that when the 1930 Lambeth Conference first approved artificial contraception, it was to be for married couples and special circumstances. Others argued that it would become more widespread. The same with abortion–extreme cases only. But the slope got a lot more slippery along the way. It always does.

 

[Arkalem]

Jim,

Perhaps the hill moistens as the ball rolls down it, bit a leap from respecting Polyamory as a cultural choice to tying it inexorably to polygamy to people marrying children is a collection of complete and utter nonsense.

As stated before, Polyamory is, at its heart, a choice regarding a personal understanding of morality, romance, and sexuality. Obviously, as a Catholic, the party line is pretty well-trod on this particular set of issues, but there are those of us that have trouble seeing things from that point of view (I, for instance, am a convert).

Polyamory is not interchangeable with Polygamy. The two things may be similar (depending on how the relationships in a Polyamory situation are handled) or may be entirely different. To say that a married Polyamorist couple isn’t monogamous is, in most cases, insulting at best.

Now, before I delve any deeper, let me lay my cards a bit flatter:

I do not support the idea of Polygamy. I also do not support the idea of gay marriage. I also do not support the idea of state sponsored marriage. I believe firmly that the ONLY answer to our current set of issues is to remove all federal and state incentives to marry. This will eliminate all argument on the matter, as without these tax breaks and insurance packages, there won’t be a punitive difference in “Married” folk and those that cannot partake of our religious practices. That gay couple is welcome to believe that their union is as legitimate as mine. Without the high ground of having a government sanction, I am welcome to disagree with them. In the end, it doesn’t really matter.

Finally, to say that allowing two consenting men to get married, or two consenting women and one consenting man for that matter, is paving the way for the brutalization of children is specious and boorish at the VERY best. If you want to point at the potential of this most recent upset of traditional marriage to tip the whole craft, why not point at this argument of Polygamy and stop with that?

Even most Gay couples understand (I think…I obviously can’t really quantify that statement) that allowing Polygamy would undermine the entire foundation of what they’ve fought for. I doubt they’d give up their fight, but it might at least make a few of them pause and think. Throwing in dire predictions of a future in which Man can marry Beast is only going to evoke irritation and will eventually coagulate discourse so throughly that we’ll never get it moving again.

-Arkalem

 

[pinctor]

Oh dear! I thought polyamory meant something about being vile with parrots!

 

[Fidelia]

Actually, polyGAMY is one husband, more than one wife, whereas polyamory is just 3 or more people in a romantic/sexual relationship regardless of gender. Could be FMM, MFF, MFMF, you name it.

Actually, the term “polygamy” is not gender specific. It just means any person having more than one partner. Most often it has been a man with more than one wife, hence the common confusion. But the term for one man having more than one wife is polygyny (gyne means woman in Greek, same root as the word gynecology). The term for one woman having more than one husband is polyandry (from aner, the Greek word for man).

Polygamy (from πολύς γάμος polys gamos, translated literally in Late Greek as “often married”[1]) is a form of marriage in which a person has more than one spouse at the same time, as opposed to monogamy in which a person has only one spouse at a time.[1] When a man has more than one wife, the relationship is called polygyny; and when a woman has more than one husband, it is called polyandry. If a marriage includes multiple husbands and wives, it can be called group marriage.[1]… … In popular speech, polygamy is often mistakenly assumed to refer to polygyny alone rather than including the other forms, as more polygamous relationships in human history have been polygynous.

from Wikipedia

ETA: I’m just an etymology nerd who majored in classics, and likes pointing out such things, like the roots of words. Sorry not to have an actual comment to the discussion yet.

 

[JimG]

Jim,

Perhaps the hill moistens as the ball rolls down it, bit a leap from respecting Polyamory as a cultural choice to tying it inexorably to polygamy to people marrying children is a collection of complete and utter nonsense.

As stated before, Polyamory is, at its heart, a choice regarding a personal understanding of morality, romance, and sexuality. Obviously, as a Catholic, the party line is pretty well-trod on this particular set of issues, but there are those of us that have trouble seeing things from that point of view (I, for instance, am a convert).

Polyamory is not interchangeable with Polygamy. The two things may be similar (depending on how the relationships in a Polyamory situation are handled) or may be entirely different. To say that a married Polyamorist couple isn’t monogamous is, in most cases, insulting at best.

Now, before I delve any deeper, let me lay my cards a bit flatter:

I do not support the idea of Polygamy. I also do not support the idea of gay marriage. I also do not support the idea of state sponsored marriage. I believe firmly that the ONLY answer to our current set of issues is to remove all federal and state incentives to marry. This will eliminate all argument on the matter, as without these tax breaks and insurance packages, there won’t be a punitive difference in “Married” folk and those that cannot partake of our religious practices. That gay couple is welcome to believe that their union is as legitimate as mine. Without the high ground of having a government sanction, I am welcome to disagree with them. In the end, it doesn’t really matter.

Finally, to say that allowing two consenting men to get married, or two consenting women and one consenting man for that matter, is paving the way for the brutalization of children is specious and boorish at the VERY best. If you want to point at the potential of this most recent upset of traditional marriage to tip the whole craft, why not point at this argument of Polygamy and stop with that?

Even most Gay couples understand (I think…I obviously can’t really quantify that statement) that allowing Polygamy would undermine the entire foundation of what they’ve fought for. I doubt they’d give up their fight, but it might at least make a few of them pause and think. Throwing in dire predictions of a future in which Man can marry Beast is only going to evoke irritation and will eventually coagulate discourse so throughly that we’ll never get it moving again.

-Arkalem

I haven’t said anything about bestiality or marrying animals or inanimate objects. My concern is only with the varieties of interpersonal sexual relationships among humans.

As to removing all federal and state incentives to marry, we have nearly reached that point already. Traditionally, the state did offer incentives to marry, because the state had a stake in establishing and preserving stable families from which would spring the next generation of citizens, workers, and taxpayers. There were even pretty good tax advantages for being married, as indeed there ought to be, as long as marriage serves the general welfare. But only traditional marriage does that. I think that is why even those societies which routinely accepted homosexuality, prostitution, and pederasty as par for the course, maintained marriage as a separate and unique institution. Acceptance of homosexual behavior did not lead to acceptance of homosexual marriage, because it was not deemed to be in the state’s interest.

Not only that, but most families provided “social security” for the aged and the disabled. Now, that function has been socialized, but that only means that while families no longer seem to accept a direct responsibility for their aged relatives, they do expect that the mass of taxpayers will do the job for them.

Contraception and no-fault divorce has already all but destroyed marriage. Only with the institution in its current decrepit state would those with other categories of sexual preference wish to have it for themselves. Nobody wants that “till death do us part” no matter what, stuff anymore, not even heterosexual couples.

But society is the worse off for that. I don’t think that gay marriage will be the sole cause of death for marriage, just another toxic virus in the mix.

 

[Arkalem]

Jim,

In my mind, bestiality and pedophilia are on the same tier. Accusations that Gay marriage or polygamy would lead to one are, to my mind, the same as saying that they would lead to the other. They are both crimes of victimization against a defenseless subject. Gay/Poly marriage are not.

However, I tend to agree with you that the institution is a broken shell when viewed from the position that it is a state-mediated affair. I simply disagree with how to defend it. We have moved beyond the time when marriage and procreation should be incentivized by the government. You said earlier that the only way to avoid relaxing all discrimination was to avoid relaxing any of them. This doesn’t make sense. Discrimination is inherently untenable in any form in today’s world.

So let’s draw back. Remove the benefits of marriage. On one hand, this will cut down on superfluous weddings, as there is no real benefit to be had. On the other, it will allow us a freedom to strongly believe as we do without having to defend ourselves against a never ending wave of attackers. If our marital status confers no additional benefit over theirs, what reason would they have to attack us?

For many Catholics, marriage would still be heavily attractive, since it is the only way one can legitimately engage in sexual behavior. Catholics (and many Christians) will continue to marry out of tradition and this very fruitful draw. I submit that others may enter the institution less frequently, and even when they do it is much easier for us to simply personally deny the validity of their unions.

And for the record, I DO want that “until death do us part, forever no matter what” stuff. I just happen to want it with two wonderful people instead of one.

-Arkalem

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Gay is not the opposite of straight.

Elucidate.

 

[buffalo]

and they said this kind of thing would never happen. Yeah right.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Polygamy is the practice of being married to many different people. ie: One woman has more than one husband, and those husbands have more than one wife.

If anyone is familiar with the TV show “Enterprise”, Flox (the doctor) is a polygamist- he has four wives. Each of those four wives has four husbands. Each of those husbands has four wives, and so on.

What is thought of as “polygamy” is actually polygyny- the practice of being married to more than one wife at a time.

As for the slippery slope, it is possible. Whether or not it happens is yet to be seen.
But we already have men marrying cows, horses, and such, so…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I wonder if the guy will be able to claim married with dependents if he marries the cow? Will the milk, cream, and dairy products have to be reported as income to the IRS? They’re also going to have to let out that wedding dress bigtime!

As for the slippery slope, it is possible. Whether or not it happens is yet to be seen.
But we already have men marrying cows, horses, and such, so…

 

[Adam1986]

Organizations like NAMBLA and gay rights groups are already working on that. After all, pedophiles can easily make the same argument as gays: “We didn’t choose this orientation. We were born this way. We should have a right to marry our lovers. If that involves lowering the age of consent laws, that should be done. Why should we be denied the right to marry? It is discrimination because of who we are.”

There have been articles defending and normalizing what is being redefined as “inter-generational love.”

Why would you equate the demonic NAMBLA to gay rights groups?? There are no GAY rights groups that are pushing for the rights for pedophiles to marry their victims! NONE! Are you really that ignorant or just trying to spew hate!?

And I’m not trying to make a pro gay rights argument here either just calling out your mistake.

 

[Arkalem]

Adam,

Let’s not attack one another here. I think the analogy was a bad one, sure, but I don’t think Jim was trying to “spew hate,” and he certainly doesn’t seem ignorant.

He isn’t directly comparing the groups. He’s saying that if Gay rights groups get their way, it may theoretically open the doors for other rights groups to make legally compelling arguments based solely on precedent.

I think the point is off the mark, as I have (a little) more faith in the legal system than that, but his argument isn’t corrupt or despicable.

-Arkalem