Elizabeth Marquardt makes one good point: once we abandon the core reality that marriage is the union of husband and wife, what's to stop "group marriage"?
Is the prospect of group marriage far-fetched? Probably not. There are several avenues that could soon lead to legal recognition of unions involving three or more people. The efforts come from the fringes of the left, from the darkest corners of the fundamentalist right, and from the laboratories of fertility clinics and hard scientists around the world.
... Get ready for the debate. And in the meantime, wedding planners: start figuring out how many brides and grooms you can fit down that aisle. -- Huffington Post
31 Comments
This reminds me a lot of something I have heard teachers say to kids "If I allow you to do it, then I am going to have to allow everyone else to do it too." Same with marriage. If same sex marraige advocates want gay marraige, then they are gong to have to allow all other types of marriage. It's either just traditional marriage, or everything. There is no in between.
Elizabeth Marquadt hit the nail on the head. She made great points about how many prestigious ssm supporters tend to favor polygamy, and have advocated for it in books, law journals, etc.
She did a good job reiterating what others have noticed: now that Canada has declared that a child can have three parents, isn't it unjust to deny children of three parents the benefit of those parents being married, thus necessitating legalized group marriage? (Hey, if a child can have something as fantastical as "two moms," then three parents is not that much of a stretch.)
I don't know where gays get the idea that their relationships are so valuable that they deserve a special place on the marriage pedestal, all alone with man-woman marriages. That sure isn't the end goal of the "contemporary families" movement. Trust and believe that polygamists will eventually replace gays as the apple of its eye.
Yes, and we lowered the voting age to 18....and now the 12 year olds want to vote! So I guess the "slippery slope" argument doesn't really hold water. But group marriage was a problem under the straight marriage regime, not the gay marriage one. And it was outlawed. No biggie!
Marriage corruption advocates do not care about the ramifications of their actions. They're wired wrong.
John,it's funny how people only see slippery slopes one way and call them "progress" when they run the other way.
I'll say again,I'm more amenable to any form of group marriage that includes both sexes than to anything with members of only one sex being called a marriage.
The polygamy argument is a farce. People choose to have polyamorous relationships, it is not an immutable characteristic of who they are as a person. Gay people deserve to have their relationships recognized by their government.
Rights are not predicated just on having an immutable characteristic. Being a Catholic is not an immutable characteristic, but the government cannot discriminate against someone because he is a Catholic. Being blind may be an immutable characteristic, but it does not entitle you to a drivers license for the purpose of driving a car.
Why does the LGBT community want to throw polygamists under their bus?
The slippery slope argument seems to be a last-ditch effort by the religionists to sound the usual alarm of doom. Ridiculous.
Adam,being in a relationship of any kind is a choice and not anyone's immutable characteristic,and having whatever relationship you choose recognized by your government regardless of what your choice is is not anyone's entitlement.Only opposite-sex relationships can merit public recognition,because it is their being opposite-sex that makes their existence serve the public interest.
Referring to legitimate, documented issues as a "slippery slope argument," is a last ditch effort to avoid discussion of those issues.
Louis, could you explain why being in an opposite-sex relationship is important enough to merit over a thousand benefits? What is it about being straight, in other words, that is of public benefit?
It's not "being straight",the benefits are not for single people.It's the showing by one's actions that one is committed to an opposite-sex relationship that merits benefits.
Why, Louis? Why is being a committed opposite-sex couple something of value to society, and being in a committed same-sex couple is not?
In what ways are SSM and plural marriage similar exactly?
Rob,as I have said time and again,committing to an opposite-sex relationship is to committing to a same-sex relationship as being sworn in as a police officer is to taking the oath as a "made man" in the Mob.Society needs there to be opposite-sex couples and it needs opposite-sex couples held up as a clearly preferred norm.There being same-sex couples exposes the deplorable weakness of those in them and the lack of caring of those who failed to prevent them from forming or staying in that relationship.They are a stain,a blight,a disfigurement on humanity's ideally exclusively opposite-sex pattern.
"explain why being in an opposite-sex relationship is important enough to merit over a thousand benefits?"
As my kids (the product of an opposite-sexed relationship) say, "easy peasy."
Only opposite-sexed relationships can reproduce. We-the-people have a vested interest in giving incentives to men and women to commit not only to each other in uniting the sexes, but also in taking mutual responsibility for the natural fruit of their sexual intimacy. That is the only reason for govt. interest (our interest) in someone's marriage. We don't need to regulate or license non-fertile (not to be confused with infertile) relationships, though individuals are free to contract those in their own privacy.
"The slippery slope argument seems to be a last-ditch effort by the religionists to sound the usual alarm of doom."
What slippery slope? This very issue is being debated in Canadian courts here and now. Since Canada has neutered marriage to the point of meaninglessness, there's no justifiable reason to reject polygamy. If marriage can be reduced to mere adult consent, with no acknowledgement of the meaning and natural implications between the union of the sexes, then why should marriage only consist of two persons? Why not three or four or more? Nope, Canada has no defensible legal leg to stand on.
Is it my imagination or has polygamy been around for thousands of years longer than SSM (Abraham, Jacob, Esau, David, Solomon,etc)? There are a number of countries that allow polygamy and none of them especially gay friendly. So how does the slippery slope argument work again?
"So how does the slippery slope argument work again?"
No arguments with your history lesson. And polygamy does preserve the opposite-sexed nature of nature and does provide children with both their mother and father. But we all know it was outlawed, and marriage has since been defined as an opposite-sexed union of two consenting adult citizens.
But if marriage is reduced simply to consent, i.e., if the sexes are no longer relevant, and consent and being adult are the only requirements considered rational, than anyone can argue for multiple #'s in the union.
Again, sexual orientation remains a non-issue.
" polygamy does preserve the opposite-sexed nature of nature"
Oops--should read, "polygamy does preserve the opposite-sexed nature of marriage."
And, if my point wasn't entirely clear, the slippery slope argument is that if we can introduce SSM, which panders to the lowest common denominators in public unions (a fundamental change to the nature and significance of marriage in society) then we can fundamentally change marriage into any # of constructs.
But at what consequence to society; specifically, how will a child's rights to be raised by their own married mom and dad, be affected?
It seems in so many ways our species is heading for oblivion:(
Rob, because same sex relationships do not EVER have the capacity to create a new human being!
We don't NEED to create more human beings. If anything, more parents willing to take in the children without families that we already have are much more vital.
"This reminds me a lot of something I have heard teachers say to kids 'If I allow you to do it, then I am going to have to allow everyone else to do it too.' Same with marriage."
True! And since straight couples are allowed to do it, the state has to allow gay couples to do it, too! That's not a very complicated argument, but it looks like you've managed to draw the conclusion opposite of what your point actually, y'know, points to.
Of course, what polyamorist groups want to do is different, allowing gay couples to commit to each other and only each other doesn't have anything to do with them at all.
Thinking is hard!
But God gave you that thinker. He expected you to put it to good use.
DoE -
Such a great point about a child's right to be raised by their own married mom and dad.
It's a tough world out there, but nothing gives a child a better chance of success and happiness than being brought up in a stable household with the people that created him/her. Same-sex "marriage" is premised on the notion that moms and dads don't matter.
Pat,God gave us the reasoning capacity to understand that if sexual dimorphism evolves in a species,then opposite-sex sexual relationships are the exclusive norm for that species.There is no excuse for "committing" to defy that norm.
"We don't NEED to create more human beings. "
Apparently you're not aware of the massive demographic winter we're facing as human beings. Check it out
here:http://www.demographicwinter.com/index.html
"Thinking is hard!
But God gave you that thinker. He expected you to put it to good use."
So true. Perhaps you could put your thinker to work by explaining to us what exactly sexual orientation has to do with defining marriage and setting standards of eligibility. And, if you could explain how neutering marriage will affect presumption of paternity, we'd love to hear about that, too. Can't wait to see what you come up with!
"since straight couples are allowed to do it, the state has to allow gay couples to do it, too! "
Hey, I'm all for gay couples raising kids. If a gay man procreates with a gay woman (or even with a straight one), or vice versa, they ought to marry their co-creator, and take mutual responsibility for each other and for their offspring. Isn't that common sense? Or should society let one or both of them off the hook?
Wow, DoE, you're hilarious. A gay man having sex with a lesbian? Lol.
Bryce,I've seen a cover story in the NY Times Magazine that refers to exactly that happening,though the child they did it for was brought up by one of the same-sex couples...
Bryce K, a man having coital relations with a woman is the basis of human procreation. The identity poliitics that you emphasize is irrelevant to what Daughter of Eve has said in her comments.
Is there a legal requirement that those who'd SSM must engage in this or that same-sex sexual behavior/ If so, is that behavior exacty the same for the all-male and the all-female versions? If not, why not?
In any case, what is the societal interest or significance in same-sex sexual behavior such that SSM merits special status on par with marital status?
Daughter of Eve is more than your match, SSMers.