First Comes GAY MARRIAGE, then POLYGAMY

Format for printing
Submitted by realitycheck on March 28, 2006 - 6:28am.

GAY MARRIAGE & POLYGAMY

Gay marriage has provoked another debate; to legalized polygamy and "polyamory" (group marriage).This marriage is transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals in every conceivable combination of male and female. A scare scenario? Hardly. Advocacy of legalized polygamy is growing. A network of organizations seeking legal recognition for group marriage already exists. The cause of legalized group marriage is championed by a powerful faction of family law specialists. Influential legal bodies in both the United States and Canada have presented radical programs of marital reform. Some of these quasi-governmental proposals go so far as to suggest the abolition of marriage. The ideas behind this movement have already achieved surprising influence with a prominent American politician.

During the 1996 congressional debate on the Defense of Marriage Act, which affirmed the ability of the states and the federal government to withhold recognition from same-sex marriages, gay marriage advocates were put on the defensive by the polygamy question. If gays had a right to marry, why not polygamists? Andrew Sullivan, one of gay marriage's most intelligent defenders, labeled the question fear-mongering--akin to the discredited belief that interracial marriage would lead to birth defects. "To the best of my knowledge," said Sullivan, "there is no polygamists' rights organization poised to exploit same-sex marriage and return the republic to polygamous abandon." Actually, there are now many such organizations. And their strategy--even their existence--owes much to the movement for gay marriage.

Scoffing at the polygamy prospect as ludicrous has been the strategy of choice for gay marriage advocates. In 2000, following Vermont's enactment of civil unions, Matt Coles, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, said, "I think the idea that there is some kind of slippery slope [to polygamy or group marriage] is silly." As proof, Coles said that America had legalized interracial marriage, while also forcing Utah to ban polygamy before admission to the union. That dichotomy, said Coles, shows that Americans are capable of distinguishing between better and worse proposals for reforming marriage.

When Tom Green was put on trial in Utah for polygamy in 2001, it played like a dress rehearsal for the coming movement to legalize polygamy. True, Green was convicted for violating what he called Utah's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on polygamy. Pointedly refusing to "hide in the closet," he touted polygamy on the Sally Jessy Raphael, Queen Latifah, Geraldo Rivera, and Jerry Springer shows, and on "Dateline NBC" and "48 Hours." But the Green trial was not just a cable spectacle. It brought out a surprising number of mainstream defenses of polygamy. And most of the defenders went to bat for polygamy by drawing direct comparisons to gay marriage.

Steve Chapman, a member of the Chicago Tribune editorial board, defended polygamy in the Tribune and in Slate. The New York Times published a Week in Review article juxtaposing photos of Tom Green's family with sociobiological arguments about the naturalness of polygamy and promiscuity.

All this was in 2001, well before the prospect that legal gay marriage might create the cultural conditions for state-sanctioned polygamy. Can anyone doubt that greater public support will be forthcoming once gay marriage has become a reality?

Why is state-sanctioned polygamy a problem? The deep reason is that it erodes the ethos of monogamous marriage. Despite the divorce revolution, Americans still take it for granted that marriage means monogamy. The ideal of fidelity may be breached in practice, yet adultery is clearly understood as a transgression against marriage. Legal polygamy would jeopardize that understanding, and that is why polygamy has historically been treated in the West as an offense against society itself.

What should be done?
*
*
*
*
*
*
Do You like Great Deabtes? Please give your opinion on:
MURDERER & RAPIST AUTHORS MAKING PROFITS FROM JAIL:
http://bloggerparty.com/murders_rapist_authors_make_profit_from_jail

SOURCES:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp?pg=2

Posted in Gay Marriage · gay rights · Group Marriage · Homosexuality · Ploygamy · Polyamory · Same Sex Marriage · Tom Green | Make Money Online Without Spending a Dime! · delicious · digg · reddit · 467 reads »

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"Marriage" vs. "Procreation"

#53568 On March 28, 2006 7:47am o ceallaigh said,
o ceallaigh's picture

Some of these quasi-governmental proposals go so far as to suggest the abolition of marriage.

What?!? Intelligence in government? Hoo hah!!

MARRIAGE, n. A union of convenience between (usually) two persons with otherwise opposite and incompatible desires and motivations, consummated for the sole purpose of making claims on public funds. Marriage benefits were originally intended to support the raising of children, but as the benefits have increased so have the reasons and the means for extorting them, while the children are left to roam the streets.

    - The New Millennium Devil's Dictionary

Just about every "marriage" style that humans can imagine, and 2,485 others besides, is to be found among the animals. The style that any given species uses is the one, that over time, gives the offspring the best chance of surviving to the next generation. In other words, it's not about you, it's about the kids.

Humans differ from other animals, in how they manage sexual behaviors, in at least four ways:

1) Humans do not have a "season" for copulation. The playthings spend 40 years and more singing the Coast Guard anthem, Semper Paratus (Always Ready).

2) Humans have a concept of sex as play. In fact, the "recreational" aspects of sexual behavior have become a nearly-essential part of the bonding process, to ensure that the breeding partners remain together through the 18 loooooooooooooooooooooong years needed to bring Matilda to adulthood. (Incidentally, the concept of maturity at 18 is a Victorian-era imposition on society. In earlier times, the age of maturity was, duh, at or shortly after the age of puberty. "Girls of 15 sexually knowing" was the norm, Mr. Townsend. Juliet was 16, and the Capulets Senior were already being needled for keeping their daughter an old maid.)

3) Humans have technology to control reproduction.

4) Humans can and do change their reproductive style to suit conditions. Single parenting reflects a condition where resources are available to the caregiving adult (usually, for obvious reasons, the mother); couples and polygamous arrangements (the "harems" of antiquity) reflect conditions where such resources are not available outside of some sort of partnership. In other animals, where resources for rearing offspring are available to the mother, the male exists only for the sex act; he is otherwise viewed as competition for those resources, and is driven away, or killed. And you wonder why it's guys who are usually in the vanguard of the "traditional marriage" forces ...

So, to repeat. It's not about you. As far as I am concerned, you can get your rocks off any way you choose, so long as I don't have to pay for it. In money, or the spread of diseases, or in tending for the offspring that you carelessly spawn in the process of recreating yourselves. Be sure to thank a scientist for the technology that allows you to do this.

It's about the kids. Convince me that you have the financial and personal/spiritual (for want of a better set of words) resources to raise children through to maturity, so that they're not walking the streets or "on the town", and then I will grant you a procreation license.

login or register to post comments

This is what rampant tolerance can lead to

#53825 On March 30, 2006 5:51am JohnnyP5379 said,

If we are going to allow gay marriage in the name of tolerance, then it seems only fair that we allow polygamy and other marriages. This would include adults to children, humans to animals, etc. This is only fair. How can we, as a liberal, tolerant nation, allow one group to marry, but completely exclude other groups? Who are we to determine what is considered appropriate? God knows, we can't use the Bible or any other religious text as a standard, especially when it comes to making laws.

Please note - most of this comment was written tongue-in-cheek.

login or register to post comments

Are you sure this comment was not just written...

#53831 On March 30, 2006 6:16am Maverick said,
Maverick's picture

completely ignorant? Do you think there are laws against adults marrying children? They are certainly very limited and anything but uniform if they exist. And, they certainly didn't come about due to the Bible.

Anyway, pointing out how ignorant you are is getting old so let me just address the polygamy issue real quick.

While the whole polygamy issue exists as a scare tactic of the religious right, is there really any foundation for this fear? Like with most of the cow dung that comes from the religious right, no. Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. In the adults marrying children discussion above, legal guardians of a child can substitute for one or both parties if underage.

Is the religious right shooting themselves in the foot over this one? Maybe. I don't know a whole heck of a lot about polygamy other than the fact that it happens illegally under abusive circumstances in Utah. Perhaps to legalize polygamy would save many children from sexual abuse. I don't really know. I do know I'd want information on the whole issue before making a decision, whereas before the religious right brought up this issue I was perfectly find just accepting their ban.

Doh!

As far as human and animal marriage... who ever heard of an animal entering into a contract?

login or register to post comments

Very simply,

#58586 On June 12, 2006 1:43pm IntricateGirl said,
IntricateGirl's picture

Gay marriage does not affect my own marriage. All the gay couples in the world can get married, and it does not affect the marriage between myself and my husband. All of MY benefits of marriage still exist.

Polygamist marriage fundamentally affects the status of my own marriage. If my husband chooses to take another wife, my own marriage is changed, and the benefits of marriage must be stretched between however many spouses there are.

I'd only come here seeking peace.
I'd only come here seeking me.
It seems I came to leave.
-VNV Nation

login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.