"Polygamy would have to be permitted"

  • Thread starter Thread starter markeverett49
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

markeverett49

Guest
Thus argues philosopher Martha Nussbaum, a stauch supporter of same-sex marriage. She also argues the state has no compelling interest in preventing siblings from marrying (-should they be of age and choose to), or parents and children.

I read Nussbaum’s early works, “The Fragility of Goodness,” and “The Therapy of Desire” some twenty years ago and thought her a forceful intellect. As for the argument regarding same-sex marriage, I disagree with her conclusion of course, though I can easily follow the logic that got her there.

The main reason I find this worth posting is that the ‘it will lead to polygamy’ line is usually seen as a “scare-tactic” by opponents of same-sex marriage. Here, Nussbaumn, a supporter of same-sex marriage argues that the same logic DOES mean polygamy would have to be permitted. (She just doesn’t think that is a bad thing.)

legalinsurrection.com/2013/03/polygamy-would-have-to-be-permitted/

The link is to an article about this at legal insurrection. Embedded in the story is a link to a video of Nussbaumn’s 2009 speech at Cornell.
 
The logic follws inexorably. “Marriage equality” means marriage equality for everybody. Oh, people will raise issues about marriage with minors, but even now, minors can in some places obtain contraceptives and abortion without parental consent. If minors are able to consent to those things, why not to marriage? The case will be made.
 
JimG said:
The logic follws inexorably. “Marriage equality” means marriage equality for everybody. Oh, people will raise issues about marriage with minors, but even now, minors can in some places obtain contraceptives and abortion without parental consent. If minors are able to consent to those things, why not to marriage? The case will be made.
Click to expand...
Of course. Major distortions will follow. Poligamy is just one of many. Christianity brought to the world the holiness of Matrimony as an indissoluble union between a man and a woman. Now, two thousand years later, the world of darkness is again subject to deception by the father of lies, the spirit of antichrist that has been roaming since the days of the apostles to cause divisions and injure the dignity of redeemed man and woman. Things will get bad, and when true persecution begins - as in risking prison for the faith - we will have truly fallen back to the darkest days of Christianity…if to this we add that Christianity is the religious group subject already to the greatest degree of persecution in the world (100,000 martyrs every year, on average), more than at any time in history, and that the Catholic Church - the Church of Christ, in whom resides the fullness of the Christian teaching - is subject to constant, almost instinctive hatred and criticism, then the picture is quite clear…or, rather, quite dark…

The bishops of the US asked us last year to offer as a special sacrifice throughout the Year of Faith an extra Rosary every day and strict fast and abstinence every Friday of the year, even beyond Lent, for the holiness of marriage and for life. Clearly the Holy Spirit guided them, for things have gotten to a critical point and much prayer and sacrifice is needed.
 
JimG said:
The logic follws inexorably. “Marriage equality” means marriage equality for everybody. Oh, people will raise issues about marriage with minors, but even now, minors can in some places obtain contraceptives and abortion without parental consent. If minors are able to consent to those things, why not to marriage? The case will be made.
Click to expand...
Further, polygamy has the rhetorical advantage of having been practiced and socially accepted before. (Not that I favor it!)
 
One should never assume logic will prevail in “societal change” movements, because it doesn’t.

We have, for instance, racial preferences as a “cure” for racial preferences. We have reduction of medical benefits for the elderly (many of whom are middle class) in order to provide medical subsidies “to the middle class”. We undertake to make abortion “safe, legal and rare” by making it unsafe, legal and anything but rare.

This society is perfectly capable of living with contradictory concepts such as approving homosexual “marriage” while denying polygamy or marriage to underage children.
 
Ridgerunner said:
This society is perfectly capable of living with contradictory concepts such as approving homosexual “marriage” while denying polygamy or marriage to underage children.
Click to expand...
I agree this is possible but I think it unlikely in the case of polygamy (and incestuous unions). For starters, polygamy has its advocates (-I’m unaware of a ‘movement’ advocating incestuous unions or for lowering the age of consent to marriage, though I am aware of movements to lower the age of consent for sex.) Further, their argument is the same: ‘all opposition to this is based on prejudice.’ Further still, polygamists are a minority who have been discriminated against in the past. Sounds like the perfect recipe for the discovery of a new right!

(Again, I am opposed to polygamy.)
 
Who knows what you will see wearing a wedding band in the next 20 years.
 
markeverett49 said:
I agree this is possible but I think it unlikely in the case of polygamy (and incestuous unions). For starters, polygamy has its advocates (-I’m unaware of a ‘movement’ advocating incestuous unions or for lowering the age of consent to marriage, though I am aware of movements to lower the age of consent for sex.) Further, their argument is the same: ‘all opposition to this is based on prejudice.’ Further still, polygamists are a minority who have been discriminated against in the past. Sounds like the perfect recipe for the discovery of a new right!

(Again, I am opposed to polygamy.)
Click to expand...
I’m much more opposed to gay marriage than polygamy. There’s an historic precedent and current financial need that justifies polygamy - neither can be said for gay marriage.
 
SamH said:
I’m much more opposed to gay marriage than polygamy. There’s an historic precedent and current financial need that justifies polygamy - neither can be said for gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Now that you mention it, I’m more opposed to same-sex “marriage” too.
 
SamH said:
I’m much more opposed to gay marriage than polygamy. There’s an historic precedent and current financial need that justifies polygamy - neither can be said for gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Obviously the supporters of marriage re-definition would argue the opposite – that polygamy offers support for couples on the basis of current financial need, especially if the state is allowing homosexual couples to raise children.

Legalized fornication is no better than legalized ‘marriage’ between persons of the same sex.
 
I would love to see the reactions of some of the supporters of SSM we have here. No doubt they’ll find some way to ignore her logic.
 
Lochias said:
I would love to see the reactions of some of the supporters of SSM we have here. No doubt they’ll find some way to ignore her logic.
Click to expand...
Her logic makes perfect sense to me. Whats the hu-hu? If two+ people who have the capacity to give consent decide to enter into a relationship, it ain’t my job to tell them they can’t do it.
 
Lochias said:
I would love to see the reactions of some of the supporters of SSM we have here. No doubt they’ll find some way to ignore her logic.
Click to expand...
Code: 
 One of the reasons the Equal Rights Amendment did not pass in the 1970s was that Phyllis Schlafly successfully made the argument that writing it into the Constitution would legalize marriage between women. The supporters swore up and down that this was an absurdity, that this was never their intention -- but in fact, it was definitely one of the motives of many women involved. It was very similar to the present, where the proponents are asserting 'We just want people to be treated equally!"
But even though support for polygamy might be the logic of the position, people don’t always hold to the logic of their position, and it’s wrong to taunt or sneer at them if they say “That’s not my intent.”
 

  1. *]Polygamy is “next logical step”, says Dutch same-sex marriage campaigner

    *]300 ‘LGBT and allied’ advocates have called for legal status for relationships which have more than two people: beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html

    *]Richard Goldstein wrote for the village voice:
    The core issue is whether any intimate behavior that doesn’t cause harm should be allowed. If you say yes, you must consider the possibility that plural marriage, like gay marriage (or any gay relationship), is part of the panoply of choices free people are entitled to make. I’m not surprised that the two largest national gay groups refuse to take a position on this case; it would be a public relations nightmare if they stuck up for [Thomas] Green. But our fates are intertwined in fundamental ways
    Click to expand...
    villagevoice.com/news/0122,goldstein,25140,1.html

    *]Opinion article in NYT by Stanford Law Professor Ralph Richard Banks calling for legal adult incestuous and polygamous marriage:

    nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/07/03/marriage-the-next-chapter/marriage-how-moral-norms-evolve

    *]
    The 2003 gay rights case, Lawrence vs. Texas, was also a criminal matter unrelated to same-sex marriage. The court overturned the conviction of two men found to have violated a state law against same-sex sodomy. But in reaching that conclusion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy offered a paean to intimate relationships defined by sexuality that easily can be transferred to the context of same-sex marriage, and potentially to polygamous marriages as well.
    Click to expand...
    articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/31/opinion/la-ed-polygamy-20110731
 
BillP said:
Her logic makes perfect sense to me. Whats the hu-hu? If two+ people who have the capacity to give consent decide to enter into a relationship, it ain’t my job to tell them they can’t do it.
Click to expand...
Biology will have to tell them that they can’t do it. Marital relations are impossible to same sex couples.
 
To be fair, there are perfectly logical reasons that children (and possibly animals, though to a lesser extent) can’t marry that don’t apply to homosexual marriage. The polygamy argument is fair, which is why I don’t support same-sex marriage.
 
There is also the incest argument. Nussbaum argues the state has no interest in preventing incestuous marriages either (-so long as both parties are adults and consent to it.)

From her perspective, this makes perfect sense: people may define marriage to suit themselves and it’s no one else’s business. When one starts with the position that there are no moral absolutes, or that there is no human good that all pursue but rather many humans pursuing the good of their own surmise, then so long as they harm no one else, so be it! (I do NOT accept this line of thinking but I do see how one gets to that point. It’s almost inevitable, really.)
 
BillP said:
Her logic makes perfect sense to me. Whats the hu-hu? If two+ people who have the capacity to give consent decide to enter into a relationship, it ain’t my job to tell them they can’t do it.
Click to expand...
So you’d totally be ok with polygamy and incest? And, because “consent” isn’t in the nature of non-sentient beings at all, you’d be ok with someone, say, marrying their dog?
 
In what some call a denial of a basic civil right, a Missouri man has been told he may not marry his long-term companion. Although his situation is unique, the logic of his argument is remarkably similar to that employed by advocates of homosexual marriage.

The man claims that the essential elements of marriage–love and commitment–are indeed present:“She’s gorgeous. She’s sweet. She’s loving. I’m very proud of her. … Deep down, way down, I’d love to have children with her.”

Why is the state of Missouri, as well as the federal government, displaying such heartlessness in denying the holy bonds of wedlock to this man and his would-be “wife”?

It seems the state of Missouri is not prepared to indulge a man who waxes eloquent about his love for a 22-year-old mare named Pixel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top