Gay Marriage and the Slippery Slope to Polygamy

Inside Catholic ^ | June 23, 2008 | David Mills

[NYer]

The juxtaposition of same-sex "marriage" being approved in California with the raid on the Texan polygamists seems to have made a few people ponder the logical connection between homosexuality and polygamy -- and, in some cases unhappily, reflect that former senator Rick Santorum was right when he said the Supreme Court's Lawrence decision would lead to sexual arrangements few people now approve.

 

And if so, the Unitarians will have gotten there first. A few years ago, a group called Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness declared that they wanted to "take their place beside the divorced, the intentionally single, gays and lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people as fully accepted people." They defined "polyamory" as "the philosophy and practice of loving or relating intimately to more than one person at a time with honesty and integrity."

 

They held a workshop at the Unitarians' General Assembly that year, and issued a report afterward. According to Peter Steinfels in the New York Times,

 

The group is quick to distinguish polyamory from "swinging" or "cheating." Polyamory "involves intentional open long-term loving relationships," not recreational or covert sexual activity. U.U.P.A. speakers at the workshop left open whether polyamory was "a choice or a genetic predilection," the report said, but they urged that being "openly polyamorous" should be as accepted as being openly gay and not subjected to prejudicial "labels such as 'adulterer.'"

 

The Unitarian Universalists' public information officer called the group "cutting-edge in the sense that its time has not yet come -- but I wouldn't want to say it won't."

 

Its time will come, I am sure, and not only in the Unitarian Universalist Association. It will come in the mainline Protestant churches and the dissenting Catholic groups. It will come with bells on. Polyamory's time will come for all of them, because they have already approved it in principle. Only an unadmitted and irrational conservatism keeps them from leaping to approve polyamory as an alternative lifestyle.

 

 

The average liberal still seems to believe in monogamy. He believes in the temporary sort called "serial monogamy," but he insists that you should only have sex with someone, and just one someone, with whom you are in "a committed relationship." You may climb into bed with only one person at a time, for a period that should last some years, and only if the two of you have some sort of formal commitment, so that others will recognize you as a couple.

 

The liberal wants to extend this privilege to people who desire sex with their own sex, and wants to let people try again if their current commitment fails. ("Fails" is a word he usually defines to include boredom and the transfer of one's affections to another, both covered, or covered up, with words like "growth, "forgiveness," "pastoral sensitivity," and "the need to move on.")

 

As I say, he believes in monogamy, but his theology does not in any way require him to believe in it. He does not accept the biblical and traditional restrictions. He believes that sex and marriage are primarily modes of self-actualization, and that they depend upon a continuing mutual commitment. He believes that sexual desire (for an adult, anyway) is part of "who you are," and that a man must be able to act upon his desires if humanly possible.

 

He may not always speak this way. He will often use the traditional language, and use it sincerely. But note what he says and what he does not say: Does he ever speak of "the bond of matrimony," or in other ways say marriage is not easily escaped? Does he ever invoke the traditional causes of marriage, like the procreation of children and the prevention of fornication?

 

No, of course not. He talks about love and fulfillment. He talks about personal happiness. He talks about freedom. And he talks of these as if they were rights the Church must serve.

 

Think of how he argues for homosexual marriages. He does not refer to any biblical rule, except to argue that it does not apply. Most of the time he tells stories of homosexual couples suffering because they cannot solemnize their relationships that, despite the Church's rejection, have made them happy, and helped them make others happy, too. They say that they love each other and therefore must be free to marry in Church. It is the only way they can be fully who they are. In other words, he argues as if marriage were a way to self-actualization, to which we have a right.

 

 

Hearing all this, the polyamorist naturally demands the right to "relate" (now there's a euphemism) to more than one person at a time. It is what he wants, what fulfills him, part of "Who I am." In insisting that one ought to have sex only with someone for whom one has forsaken all others, the sexual liberal is, on his own grounds, just clinging to a tradition and to social mores he does not believe in. The polyamorist takes the liberal's principles and draws the logical conclusion.

 

And so one can plot the trajectory of polyamorousness easily enough: It has started with the Unitarians and it will end with the Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and We Are Church. Once you have replaced the Dos and Don'ts of Christianity with some idea of sex as self-actualization, you cannot rationally resist anyone who wants to be more liberal than you are, and there will always be someone more liberal than you are. Begin with the principles of sexual liberalism, and reason is always on the side of the person who wants to be more liberal still.

 

You want contraception; someone else wants easy divorce. You want easy divorce; someone else wants homosexual marriages. You want homosexual marriages; someone else wants threesomes. You want threesomes; someone else wants children. You want children; someone else wants sheep. And his reason for wanting sheep will be just as good as yours for wanting contraception or easy divorce or homosexual marriages.

 

At some point, of course, most sexual liberals will say, "But I don't want that!" Nevertheless, the liberal cannot say no to the man more daring than he. To resist his proposal to increase sexual freedom -- meaning receiving wide social approval for having sex with more than one person within a shorter period of time than hitherto allowed -- you must give a reason for resisting, and reasons for resisting one thing have a way of ruling out many things you would like to keep ruled in.

 

A reason for saying no to threesomes may well turn out to be a reason for saying no to homosexual marriages, and a reason for saying no to homosexual marriages may well turn out to be a reason for saying no to easy divorce, and a reason for saying no to easy divorce may well turn out to be a reason for saying no to contraception. It may not, of course, but the risk is too great to run.

 

Hence you must never say no to any expansion of sexual freedom, even if you do not want to go so far yourself. And hence my certainty that the Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness will eventually succeed, not only in the Unitarian/Universalist Association but in the mainline churches as well. The polyamorist leaving Susan's house to drive to Linda's, while planning tomorrow's meetings with Caitlin and Betty, lives the life the sexual liberal of today has provided, but more thoroughly than the liberal feels he can.

[NYer]

What’s next? I understand the state of Massachusetts is considering reducing the penalty for bestiality.

[Always Right]

What’s next? I understand the state of Massachusetts is considering reducing the penalty for bestiality.

Reduce the penalty? They might as well endorse it. What any animal does to get off should be blessed by the state.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Get the government out of marriage. There’s an insane amount of energy spent on this idiotic issue. Free citizens make their own decisions about how to organize their personal lives, and they don’t need permission or rules or licenses from the government. And the government has no business giving certain citizens preference over others, based on whether they’ve signed up for a government-sanctioned “marriage”.

[Tanniker Smith]

PETA would never allow that.

Notice that embryonic stem cells are never used for animal testing.

Or rather, there are folks out there that wouldn't take a, for example, diabetes vaccine that was the product of animal testing, but wouldn't have a problem if it was developed through the use of embryonic stem cells.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

There’re never satisfied. After they get gay so-called marriage, they will claim “discrimination” and demand animal-human marriage or some other perversion.

[floozy22]

Get the government out of marriage. There’s an insane amount of energy spent on this idiotic issue. Free citizens make their own decisions about how to organize their personal lives, and they don’t need permission or rules or licenses from the government. And the government has no business giving certain citizens preference over others, based on whether they’ve signed up for a government-sanctioned “marriage”.

Hmmm. My view is a bit different than yours. I agree that government has no business being involved in many issues, but sanctioning marriage between one man and one woman is not one of them. Monogamous, heterosexual marriage is the best thing a free society and a responsible government can endorse. A man and woman who love each other enough to procreate, raise and nuture their offspring - benefit society and humanity in untold ways.

[tbw2]

G*d, I wonder what sexually transmitted disease will now spread to humans from livestock via these practices.

[GovernmentShrinker]

If it’s the “best thing”, then it will flourish without government intervention. It it can’t flourish without government intervention, then it’s not the best thing.

[Ransomed]

I completely agree, although I think we are very much in the minority. I don’t think the institution of marriage has prospered much by being involved with gubberment. I can’t say that I am shocked that the gubberment is messing it up, it’s not like the gubberment is great shakes with anything.

I think traditional marriage has been hurt by folks letting gubberment define it and be involved with it.

Freegards

[thefrankbaum]

I'm torn on this issue, and I haven't really figured out where I am yet. I normally agree that government should not be involved in the minutiae of its citizens’ personal lives, and thus should do away with the idea of state-instituted marriage. HOWEVER, I believe there is a compelling societal interest in promoting marriage for reasons of health, economics, and creation of a stable family unit which, IMHO, is the fundamental building block of society - not the individual. Additionally, if you get the state out of the marriage business, you get into tricky legal questions concerning agency (you're in a coma on life support - who decides what to do with you if you have no instructions?), intestacy (you die with no will - where does your estate go?), taxes, etc. It is a very difficult question.

[thefrankbaum]

Ping to 11 - thoughts?

[GovernmentShrinker]

Additionally, if you get the state out of the marriage business, you get into tricky legal questions concerning agency (you're in a coma on life support - who decides what to do with you if you have no instructions?), intestacy (you die with no will - where does your estate go?), taxes, etc.

It wouldn't be hard to simply default to next of kin, as is already the case with minors or unmarried adults. And we all saw how well the "let the spouse decide" system worked for Terri Schiavo. Michael Schiavo's ONLY standing to interfere in legal and treatment decisions for Terri was derived from his holding a government-issued marriage license. When push comes to shove, a person holding a piece of paper from the government saying s/he is "married" to you, is no more likely to follow your wishes than your next door neighbor or your dentist. In fact the neighbor and dentist are LESS likely to have any ulterior motives for wanting you to die quickly and/or cheaply.

As for the "good for the children", "stable economic unit" arguments, again the license from the government is not the causative agent. People who raise their children in a sane and stable environment aren't doing so because they have a piece of paper from the government saying they're "married", nor is the issuance of such a piece of paper going to cause irresponsible/criminal/substance-abusing parents to set up sane and stable households.

What's needed is for the government to stop all the handout programs that enable personally and financially irresponsible people to maintain homes and keep possession of children. Then sane and stable and economically self-sufficient family arrangements will once again predominate. Units consisting of a man and a woman and their biological children will likely be a big portion of those arrangements, and many of those will regard themselves as "married" through their membership in a religious body. But to the extent that other arrangements function without taxpayer handouts, government has no business showing a preference for one type of arrangement or another. Social engineering is simply not an appropriate function of government.

[thefrankbaum]

It wouldn't be hard to simply default to next of kin, as is already the case with minors or unmarried adults

But if no legal relationship exists between two people, how can the law recognize one? Or are you saying the widow(er) is just outta luck?

And we all saw how well the "let the spouse decide" system worked for Terri Schiavo. Michael Schiavo's ONLY standing to interfere in legal and treatment decisions for Terri was derived from his holding a government-issued marriage license. When push comes to shove, a person holding a piece of paper from the government saying s/he is "married" to you, is no more likely to follow your wishes than your next door neighbor or your dentist. In fact the neighbor and dentist are LESS likely to have any ulterior motives for wanting you to die quickly and/or cheaply.

I don't think the Schiavo case is a fair one, because I don't think it is the common experience, and she wasn't on life support - she was on a feeding tube. And I would like to think the person I marry would have my best interests in heart. Maybe I'm just not that cynical, but they don't get that piece of paper until we've already pledged our lives to each other - it just provides the legal ability for the spouse to act on their behalf.

As for the "good for the children", "stable economic unit" arguments, again the license from the government is not the causative agent.

Not trying to argue it is causative, but government is the most legitimate and authoritative social entity and allowing for civil recognition of marriage indicates that society as a whole values marriage.

But to the extent that other arrangements function without taxpayer handouts, government has no business showing a preference for one type of arrangement or another. Social engineering is simply not an appropriate function of government.

Maybe, but then do you support polygamous and other such arrangments? Or even beastiality? I would argue under your take on things, criminalizing such acts amounts to a type of social engineering.

Regarding social welfare from the government, you'll find me in complete agreement.

[Ransomed]

Frank, in my faith marriage is a Sacrament. I wouldn’t consider the state sanctioning this Sacrament to make it any more or less real, but why put the gubberment in a position where it can start approving of marriages that just can’t be marriages no matter what the state says?

I think state sanctioned marriages conditioned folks to look at least partly to the gubberment to define marriage, to the point that some would accept any combination of mobile protein masses as married if the state says ok-dokey. And of course gubberment eventually meesed up and said ok-dokey. Also, I bet divorce is a lot more common too because after all, you’re just breaking a gubberment contract and the gubberment doesn’t inspire a lot of fidelity to itself.

As far as the legal stuff goes, you have some really good points and I’m not sure if there are good solutions, or at least any from me. But all these issues somehow get handled for single people. And nothing would stop a couple from going and getting a private contract of some sort to handle these issues if they would wish. I wonder if gubberment got out of marriage if there would be more or less of the legal system devoted to marriage issues?

Freegards

[RightWhale]

Slippery Slope is a fallacy. Whatever they are talking about when SS comes up, usually an ethical or moral topic, they don’t have anything and are blowing smoke.

[thefrankbaum]

Frank, in my faith marriage is a Sacrament. I wouldn’t consider the state sanctioning this Sacrament to make it any more or less real, but why put the gubberment in a position where it can start approving of marriages that just can’t be marriages no matter what the state says?

I think state sanctioned marriages conditioned folks to look at least partly to the gubberment to define marriage, to the point that some would accept any combination of mobile protein masses as married if the state says ok-dokey. And of course gubberment eventually meesed up and said ok-dokey. Also, I bet divorce is a lot more common too because after all, you’re just breaking a gubberment contract and the gubberment doesn’t inspire a lot of fidelity to itself.

It is a Sacrament in my faith as well; however, there are a lot of people in this country who don't share my faith or your faith. I don't believe government is an entity in and of itself - the government we have is a reflection of society. Look at the members of "the Greatest Generation" - they all had state sanctioned marriages, but they didn't face the issues faced by marriage today. Why? Because of their faith, and the social mores and norms that say you are supposed to stay together.

In order to fix the problem, IMHO, we need to start at society and go bottom up. It is on us to fight the other side, and make the arguments - if we are successful and show the "squishy middle" why we are right, and we do it rationally and in charity, the government will reflect the changes in society.

As far as the legal stuff goes, you have some really good points and I’m not sure if there are good solutions, or at least any from me. But all these issues somehow get handled for single people. And nothing would stop a couple from going and getting a private contract of some sort to handle these issues if they would wish. I wonder if gubberment got out of marriage if there would be more or less of the legal system devoted to marriage issues?

I suppose they could create private contracts for such actions...and what, just not call it a "marriage contract"? Because, in the eyes of the legal system, isn't that all a marriage is? Conveying rights and privilges to a couple? Also, what about compelling testimony and such between spouses? You can't contract immunity. Maybe if the government never got into the marriage business, we wouldn't have this problem. However, it exists and I think we all know how hard it is to undo law!

[Ransomed]

“...they all had state sanctioned marriages, but they didn’t face the issues faced by marriage today. Why? Because of their faith, and the social mores and norms that say you are supposed to stay together.”

I don’t reckon they considered themselves more married because the state agreed with their faith. In fact, the reasons the majority of those marriages lasted has nothing to do with having to get permission from the gubberment, as you stated: faith, social mores and norms.

You can’t trust gubberment to keep it’s standards. So why put gubberment into something as important as marriage, where sooner or later it will put forth an impossability like declaring two men married? I mean, are you shocked that it messed up marriage?

Do you think that gov’t sanctioned marriage has helped or hurt the state of marriage?

“I suppose they could create private contracts for such actions...and what, just not call it a “marriage contract”? Because, in the eyes of the legal system, isn’t that all a marriage is? Conveying rights and privilges to a couple? Also, what about compelling testimony and such between spouses? You can’t contract immunity. Maybe if the government never got into the marriage business, we wouldn’t have this problem. However, it exists and I think we all know how hard it is to undo law!”

Well, I’m not sure what rights and privileges a state sanctioned marriage vs.a non-state marriage contract would have if gubberment got out of the marriage business. It would ‘probly vary from couple to couple, and some would choose for no contract, I reckon. I agree that it would be a lot better if gov’t had never got into the marriage biz, but since it is it would be a lot harder to change. But that’s the same for any gubberment involvement in anything.

Freegards

[MrB]

Hyperbole aside,

there is only one definition of marriage,

what the California court did was UNDEFINE marriage, not REdefine it.

If the one definition of marriage isn’t “valid”, then there is NO definition of marriage.

This is probably what they had in mind all along.

Communist goals for the takeover of America:

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

[thefrankbaum]

You can’t trust gubberment to keep it’s standards. So why put gubberment into something as important as marriage, where sooner or later it will put forth an impossability like declaring two men married? I mean, are you shocked that it messed up marriage?

Do you think that gov’t sanctioned marriage has helped or hurt the state of marriage?

See, this is where you and I differ I think. I don't think it is government that has messed up marriage - I think society has messed up marriage. The "sexual revolution" in particular. People stopped caring about marriage, clamored for no-fault divorce, and then the government reflected that change in society - it did not happen the other way around. Which leads me back to my point that society is the problem, not the government.

Government is in marriage because of the legal concepts involved - prior to modern times, the state defined marriage by what the Church said, and then attributed legal rights to the marriage. With modern seperation of Church and state, the legal system does not provide the same protections and rights simply because of the Sacrament.