Posted on 07/15/2015 8:50:17 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Last week, I railed against the persistent doubts of equal marriage rights. I said that marriage should be solely about consensual love of adults, and not based on the traditional, archaic, child-rearing institution of one man and one woman. Well, there was one concern that opponents of same-sex marriage often raised that I did not address, and I’d like to do that now.
Yes, you’re right, if we allow same-sex marriage, then we should also allow legal rights to polygamy, a marriage to multiple partners.
Because yes, if we define marriage to be about the pillars of love and consent, there is no logical or moral reason to deny that same right to polygamists. If we’re not going to legally advance an agenda of “one man and one woman,” why should we anymore advance an agenda of only two people, male or female, at all? Aren’t modern group relationships also built on the pillars of love and consent?
But no, that doesn’t help you make some kind of slippery-slope argument against equal marriage rights. The same reasoning applies to this debate as to the last one (which deniers lost, just so we’re clear): it doesn’t harm marriages to expand it to relationships that deserve it, so what is the problem with it? Your dreaded slope still clearly ends at love between consensual adults, so I had better not hear the same, very stupid arguments of leading to bestiality or child-marriage.
If your argument against has anything to do with the complication of the actual legal contracts of marriage, then you are also on shaky moral ground. Legal contracts between many vested parties have existed for a very long time, and besides even that, the ending of marriage contracts now (divorce) are already potentially complicated and arduous legally. It makes no moral difference at all between having a marriage contract between two people, or three people. If it’s morally acceptable for plural marriage, then we’ll build up the legal infrastructure for it.
In his June 26 Politico article, “It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy,” Frank de Boer writes to proponents of same-sex marriage that “given what you know about the advancement of human rights, are you sure your opposition to group marriage won’t sound as anachronistic as opposition to gay marriage sounds to you now? And since we have insisted that there is no legitimate way to oppose gay marriage and respect gay love, how can you oppose group marriage and respect group love?”
We can’t limit consensual love in this way; the exact same arguments for same-sex marriage apply. But don’t worry, it’ll be awhile before the country is ready to have this debate, and there are a few reasons for that.
First of all, polygamy has a similar kind of stigma of misunderstanding and mistrust that same-sex relationships had merely a few decades ago. But don’t you think they’ll be a similar growth of understanding that follows this latest marriage victory? I don’t see any reason why not.
Secondly, the July 6 article “Why Obergefell is Unlikely to Lead to Polygamy” on Real Clear Politics describes a few reasons why the debate will be a while yet, including familiarity: “But for now, it seems unlikely that a spate of relatable polygamists will emerge into the mainstream culture in the next few years. That remains a crucial distinction.”
And thirdly, there is an issue of political pragmatism. The gay-rights movement took up so much political capital, it is simply unrealistic for equal-rights proponents to immediately jump into the fight for plural marriage.
But keep in mind that it is entirely possible that after the undeniable (and rightful) success of the gay-rights movement, the argument for plural marriage already has some headway towards legalization.
Al Jazeera’s July 13 article “Could polygamy be legalised in the U.S.?” cites a reason for optimism for a speedy debate: “A recent Gallup poll shows that polygamy has been gaining acceptance over the last decade – from 5 percent in 2006 to 16 percent today.”
So, this political battle isn’t here quite yet, but we can certainly see it on the horizon. It is coming, but you have plenty of time to think it through for yourself. So please do; the argument is looming.
We have another path: take the definition of marriage out of the hands of usurper government and return it to the private sphere.
Government regulation of marriage has been taken over by the Pink Swastika crowd. Bake the cake or they will send government to destroy your family business. They will grind you into the dust as far as they can like they did to the former CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich. This is homo-fascism in action.
If we have a separation of church and state, in order to protect godly marriage, we must separate marriage and state. It is time to get government out of the business of defining and regulating marriage.
When marriage is a private matter once again, the Pink Swastika crowd cannot force anyone to bake a cake they don’t want to.
#LoveWins => #BakeTheCake => #PinkSwastika => #LoveWins
Excellent post. I agree. The “bake the cake or else” crowd is an evil case of 1% freaks hating 99% normal people.
The writer of the essay above is a lousy writer:
“Yes, you’re right, if… If your argument against has anything to do… But don’t worry, it’ll be awhile… But keep in mind…”
The writer probably was one of 57 Valedictorians at his high school.
Very unfortunate to note: a great grandfather veteran of the Civil War, migrated from Michigan to Manhattan, Kansas in 1871 as a great place to raise his young family.
The once slippery slope has migrate to the bottom and we are living in a world that is foreign to all believers.
There are no more elections to pull us out, only another Great Awakening.
Child rearing is archaic? Polygamy isn’t the next thing the left will impose on society? What fresh hell is this?
Reproduction is archain...so breathing oxygen, and drinking water i guess
Um, well, er, NO, gays have NOT been fighting for marriage for 50 years. 20 at best, and even then nobody, not even liberals like Hillary and Obama took it "seriously" until... 3 years ago. Hasn't anyone heard of arranged marriages, or marriages of convenience?
That's been going on for millennia.
But it has ALWAYS been man/woman.
If you asked Freddie Mercury if he wanted to get married, he would have laughed at the very notion.
Getting "married" was about the LAST thing he wanted.
It would have interfered with having sex with multiple anonymous males every single night.
Why stop at polygamy and homogamy? Why should siblings not enjoy the same rights? (Can anyone come up with a better word than fratrigamy.) And why stop at consenting adults? What if your dog loves you and you love your dog? (doggamy?)
But their very logic, that Constitution must respect and dignity any loving relationship, means there is no basis to deny polygamists and polyamorists what they want.
Logically, polygamy should have been first, at least all the body parts fit correctly.
#LoveWins => #BakeTheCake => #PinkSwastika => #LoveRedefined => #HumanityRedefined => #GodRedefined => #LoveWins
I've worked in academe for 30 years now and I learned a long, long time ago that student editorials are appallingly bad, even when they are right on an issue (which I doubt this guy ever is). I've talked to a couple of former student editorial writers who have gone on to careers and have matured and they are always embarrassed by their writings in the university papers.
When marriage is a private matter once again, the Pink Swastika crowd cannot force anyone to bake a cake they don’t want to.
The issue in the cake baking flaps was discrimination in the marketplace...it had nothing to do with who performed the wedding...
The facts of the case are that the issue was that the wedding cake baker had objections based in sincerely-held religious belief that the ceremony the cake would celebrate was immoral as defined by God.
It is “discrimination” only because government has defined it as such no matter how much that definition violated the First Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion.
When government can force a person to work for another, as it did prior to the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, that is slavery. When a government can force a person to work for another in a capacity that violates their understanding of right and wrong, that is tyranny.
Apart from those salient points, you are right. Who performed the “marriage” was not at all the issue. I don’t recall reading anywhere if this same-sex marriage was to be a civil or a religious ceremony. But that goes to my contention.
Just as government has done the absurd thing and declared corporations to be a “person” for purposes of enjoying the right of free speech, government has given itself the power to declare that two people of the same sex can be married. But as Václav Havel wrote in his famous essay The Power of the Powerless, the more that government defines truth based on power and ideology, the more absurd that government becomes, and the more it destroys the very fabric of society with corrosive thinking. Same-sex marriage is the “artificial construct” that so many feminists complain about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.