Queer links
About the strange marriage between marriage radicals and opponents of same-sex marriage.
A statement in support of civil partnerships: There's something special about marriage. It's not about religion. It's not about morality. It's about commitment ( Read more... )
A statement in support of civil partnerships: There's something special about marriage. It's not about religion. It's not about morality. It's about commitment ( Read more... )
Personally I'm more fascinated by the mental rigidity of some SSM advocates and the supposed claim that one partner is OK, but any more is simple not acceptable. Authors like Dale Carpenter, rather than trying to address the hurdles that Professor Robert George puts up, should simply side-step them. i.e., "So what if gay marriage leads to polyamorous marriages?"
Either we respect the ability of morally mature people to make their own living arrangements or we don't. At least Professor George is honest enough to acknowledge he doesn't.
Reply
Group marriage (adding extra spouses if all current spouses agree) is a more complex issue, but, as far as I am aware, is not a social form that has ever existed.
Carpenter doesn't argue his case well. There is a considerable difference between equal protection of the laws--that is, extending the ability to enter into the marriage contract (which does not itself change) to all adults regardless of their orientation--and changing the incentives for all existing marriages. Which is what polygamy, polyandry and polyamory all do.
To return to the immediate point, saying same-sex marriage means one must allow polygamy is like saying if we grant votes for women we cannot stop men asking for more than one vote. Actually, no it doesn't follow. Not even a little bit.
Reply
Would you care to elaborate? Because I far as I can see it any argument will have the same level of reasoning as disallowing SSM (i.e., no rational basis at all, only prejudice).
Group marriage (adding extra spouses if all current spouses agree) is a more complex issue, but, as far as I am aware, is not a social form that has ever existed.
Well, there's the Caingang people of Brazil for starters (about 8% group marriage)... But it's rarity is not an excuse to reject it - otherwise one would be in the same position as SSM which is historically and culturally rare also.
Actually, no it doesn't follow. Not even a little bit.
Actually it does if you are following Professor George's argument that universal moral rights must be applied without discrimination in order to remain consistent. Whilst Professor George supports the discrimination (and ergo opposes universal moral ( ... )
Reply
Interesting about group marriage actually existing somewhere, ta.
Reply
Equal protection of the laws are not the same as universal rights. The former says--take current laws, apply them to everyone. The latter says--make whatever changes to the content of the current law too.... So the point stands.
Umm... Yes, Professor George is applying the latter. As is the SSM movement.
Reply
I would argue that they would do better if they simply had equal protection of the laws as their banner slogan.
Reply
Reply
So what you're saying is:
a) You're against polygamy because that would provide relative disempowerment of women (true that)
b) You're against polyandry because that would extend instability (mere assertion and so what anyway? - do you oppose liberal divorce laws as well?) and because it's "very rare"*.
c) Ditto for group marriage.
I'm sorry, but with the exception of the first these are not sound principles imo.
* Polyandry has occurred in Tibet, the Canadian Arctic, Zanskar, Nepal, India, Ladakh, Toda of South India, Nairs of Kerala, the Nymba, Nishi and Pahari of North India, and Sri Lanka. It is also encountered in some regions of Mongolia, China (especially Yunnan- the Mosuo people), and in some Subsaharan African and American indigenous communities (notably the Surui of northwestern Brazil). The Guanches, the first known inhabitants of the Canary Islands, also practiced it until their disappearance.
Reply
It being rare is not an argument against, it is just an empirical fact. Though it does suggesting legalising polyandry along with polygamy would not be entirely even in its effects.
Suddenly changing the fundamental rules for all marriages is likely to be destabilising given that the change suddenly increases the possible points of tension. And the redistributing effects would still apply.
Reply
Oh, that's about the distribution of practising homosexuals isn't it? ;-)
Suddenly changing the fundamental rules for all marriages is likely to be destabilising given that the change suddenly increases the possible points of tension.
Which is what opponents of SSM argue as well.
Reply
But they're wrong. Giving women the vote didn't change the nature of voting. Just who could do it.
Actually, being pedantic, the polyandry figure was 1.7%, while estimates of homosexuals are in the 2-4% range. In all societies, though. Of course, our universality argues for equal protection, our comparatively small numbers does also (since a big deal for them actually won't have much of an impact on the wider society). Which is why all the other liberalisation for gays have also had very little impact except for gays themselves.
Reply
Further on the Kaingang people..
In 1949, Kaingang was the tribe with the most common occurrence of group marriage. Of recorded unions in 1941...
* 8% were group marriages
* 14% were polyandrous
* 18% polygynous
* 60% monogamous
Reply
Leave a comment