Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
This
is a well thought-out, coherent argument, but I still have a few issues with it.
Originally posted by: totalcommand (who quoted some lines from that page)
But satisfying individual needs is not ?the principle? supporting gay marriage. Instead, gay-marriage advocates should argue that any proposal for the expansion of marriage must be good both (1) for the individuals involved and (2) for the society in which they live. Gay marriage meets both of these criteria. The case for polygamous marriage is distinguishable (and weaker) on both counts, especially the second.
I think this is pure opinion, not fact. You can find *many* intelligent people who can argue that gay marriage satisfies neither of these requirements, as well. So what if you can find people to argue the same for polygamy? Without tangible evidence, this is just another 'fact' along the lines of "I believe it's wrong and harmful to society, therefore it must be."
On the first issue ? the effect of recognition on the individuals involved ? the deprivation to gays of the gay marriage ban is greater than the deprivation to polygamists of the polygamy ban. A polygamist may still marry someone if we ban polygamy; he simply may not marry many someones. The deprivation to the polygamist is large, especially if polygamy involves the exercise of his religious faith, but not total. The gay person, however, has no realistic choice of a mate available under a gay-marriage ban. The deprivation is total.
We can use the same logic here to say that a homosexual can still marry someone, just simply not someone of the same sex. They may still have homosexual relations with members of the same sex, just not be married to them. So they are only "partially inconvenienced," just like the polygamists. I think this is one of the weakest argument presented here. They are arguing that a polygamist can practice
some of his/her lifestyle under current laws, so they are better protected under law than gays. Again, anyone can argue the exact opposite along the same line of reasoning.
Further, there is no ?polygamous orientation? causing a person to need the close companionship of multiple partners (though some people may prefer it). There is, however, a homosexual orientation, causing a person to need the close companionship of a same-sex partner. The ban on polygamous marriage is the denial of a preference, perhaps a strong one; the ban on gay marriage is the denial of personhood itself.
This is a very sensitive and debatable statement. We still haven't "proven" that homosexuality is an "uncontrollable, natural orientation." There has not been a discovery of a "gay gene." And for every study that shows it "must" be genetic, you can find one that says it "must" be psychological. So as the present time, I argue that both homosexuality and polygamy may
both be caused by the same factors, whatever they may be, and should be treated equally. To do otherwise is to reach beyond our current scientific knowledge into personal beliefs. And for every gay who will say "this is just who I am," we can find a polygamist who can say the exact same thing. Who are we to argue otherwise?
On the second issue ? the effect of recognition on society ? the differences between gay marriage and polygamous marriage are more pronounced. There is ample evidence that people who live in stable, committed couples are healthier, happier, and wealthier than those who are single. Gay marriage is a good idea because it will benefit not only the gay couple but their families, friends, neighbors, and taxpayers whose burdens to care for the gay partners singly would be greater.
Umm, ok. I'm sure you could find "ample evidence" that polygamy is just as great a benefit over couple-marriages. I mean, perhaps the ability to have multiple wage-earners will boost the average "family" means. Also, the plethora of parental figures may expose children to a wealth of diverse thoughts and beliefs. Perhaps the polygamist family will be more socially and globally aware and considerate than current couples-only families? "It takes a village" and all. Perhaps current polygamist-oriented people are mostly single. So wouldn't the allowance of polygamy marriages give us the same "relief of burden" as homosexual marriage? I think you could argue that, yes. Again, no real "proof" here.
While multi-partner marriages might benefit the partners involved, the much greater potential for jealousy and rivalry among the partners make for a volatile arrangement, reducing the expected benefits to them and to everyone else. In a multi-partner marriage, it may be unclear who has primary caretaking responsibility if a partner becomes sick or injured; there is no such uncertainty in a two-person marriage. While we have some evidence that children do well when raised by same-sex couples, we have no evidence they do well when raised in communal living arrangements. Since multi-partner marriages will almost always take the form of one man having many wives, they present special risks of exploitation and subordination of women, which is inconsistent with our society's commitment to sex equality.
Again, no basis in fact. One could argue that most homosexual marriages will "almost always take the form" of two men. And men do not inherently have "motherly" instincts, and may be less than ideal for raising a child. That's just as valid an argument as the one presented here. And what is with the talk of "jealously and rivaly"? This is all pure opinion from someone who has no experience with polygamy arrangements. It would be no different than me saying "Homosexual marriages can't work because women are always jealous and petty and they would always be fighting over who leads when they dance and who gets to wear the red dress tonight." It's an absurd statement, that shows pure ignorance on my part. Same thing for that nonsense about polygamy. No points for this one!
Perhaps none of these considerations is a decisive argument against polygamous marriages. But at the very least they suggest that gay marriage and polygamous marriage present very different issues. Each should be evaluated on its own merits, not treated as if one is a necessary extension of the other.
Different issues, yes. But it seems they have more in common, than not. Are they separate issues? Yes. Doesn't that mean we can't address them together? No. Thay have enough in common that the arguments in favor for one almost always count as in favor for the other.
In short, this article does try to separate the issues, but it does so in a weak and sloppy way. It uses too many opinions and nearly no facts to back it up. In fact, I bet with a bit of editing, I could use almost these exact same lines to show why homosexual marriages are not the same as interracial marriages and why it would be absurd to support both. And I don't think many supports gay marriage over interracial marriage, do they? ( unless there are a *lot* of gay, klan members out there, which there just might be )