Dan Kimball blogged this same sentiment (substituting polygamy for dogs), and has since removed the post. Regardless, Zach Lind has written a cogent defense of why the legalization of same sex marriage will not lead to polygamy. Money Quote:
Polygamy, as it stands in the mainstream culture of marriage, is already dead and buried and it's not coming back. You can put together the most effective and convincing argument for polygamy and spend billions of dollars promoting your argument and it wouldn't change a damn thing. It's been rejected because whatever argument you come up with can't breakthrough the negative, demeaning experiences of human beings that polygamy has left in its wake. On the other hand, SSM isn't facing the same stiff opposition. Yeah, it confronts the dogma and certainty of many, but those certainties are sinking in the face of experience and empathy for our gay brothers and sisters who want to be accepted and have their relationships honored like everyone elses. The success of the opponents to SSM won't hinge on whether they can convince you it's inherently wrong. Their success will come from the ability to show that the overwhelming majority of experiences of those involved in or touched by SSM have proven to be hurtful and devaluing.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Regarding the slippery slope. Way back in about 1973 when the men in black robes overthrew abortion laws in all 50 states, pro-lifers argued that abortion would lead to infanticide and then euthanasia. They were routinely dismissed as alarmists and told no such thing was on the horizon. Today, we have a president who has stood in the way of laws against live-birth infanticide, repeated attempts to block partial birth abortion have been actively resisted by various groups on the secular and religious left and Oregon and Washington are moving down the path of active Euthanasia. I guess a slippery slope argument isn't quite as silly as we were once told.
There is no question Mormons in parts of Utah would favor polygamy, as would many fringe Christian groups and for that matter many Muslims. There is no question the North American Man Boy Love Association would love to see marriage further redefined to include various "rights" for "consenting" minors.
Those who think gay marriage won't lead to further and further erosion of sexual restraint are simply not being honest with themselves or anyone else. Nor will they own up to the wreckage such relationships will cause to individuals and society at large.
I'm pretty sure I wrote, "Polygamy, as it stands in the mainstream culture of marriage, is already dead and buried and it's not coming back."
So if there are is a situation in Denmark or a fringe political party in my own state who are clamoring for polygamy, that hardly puts a scratch on my point.
Their success will come from the ability to show that the overwhelming majority of experiences of those involved in or touched by SSM have proven to be hurtful and devaluing.
Perhaps this has already been hashed out...Who is going to make that call about "hurtful and devaluing"? Not an expert by any means but "what if" somebody is in a SSM as a result of being hurt and devalued? Could those circumstances "cloud their perspective" as to whether or not their present reality (SSM) is hurtful and devaluing? Does the obvious hurt and devaluing that is so easy to identify with regards to polygamy reveal itself in the same way to those who are outside looking in? Is it comparing "apples to oranges"?
Glenn, you wrote:
Should we really expect bisexuals to live in fidelity to one specific individual? Isn't this a denial of their bisexuality?
Where did you get that idea? Bisexuals are attracted to both sexes but they are perfectly able to make a commitment to one person just like you can.
Glenn - you wrote: Should we really expect bisexuals to live in fidelity to one specific individual? Isn't this a denial of their bisexuality?
Where did you get that idea??? Bisexuals are attracted to both sexes but can make a commitment to one person just like you can - it might be with a person of the same sex or the opposite sex. Being in a committed relationship with one person would in no way be a "denial" of their bisexuality.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.