Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Polyamory marriage
We each get one life. What consolation is it to polyamorous people – good, decent people who have found others "precious" to them and who want to make a family together, with the security, social legitimacy, and benefits that come with “marriage” -- that maybe, if the majority ever gets comfortable with it, we’ll let future generations of polyamorous people get married, but not you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
We're not discriminating against a class of people (who are the way they are by virtue of inescapable biology) when we restrict marriage to two people.
Explain why Polys are not a "class." Explain the biology that differentiates straights, gays, and polys. Explain why marriage whould be restricted to two people.
I know of no science to suggest polyism is something people are born with.
I'm no biologist, but there are oodles of studies that find biological underpinnings of gayness.
Whether or not marriage should be restricted to two people is not relevant to the topic of whether it's OK to discriminate against gay people in the current 2-person marriage scheme.
Oh but it is very relevant and you know it. So polys have to wait for the science bf they're eligible? What consolilation is that to them?
No, I really don't believe it to be relevant. Simple, narrow topic: don't discriminate against gay people for the right to marry the one person they'd like to marry.
What you're doing, rhetorically, is akin to saying: "If we preclude discrimination against a black person applying for a job, then we'll also have to allow groups of people to apply for a job together." Nonsense, obviously.
Sorry Stephanie, but there are plenty of scientific observations that many mammals ARE poly. Why not humans?
and as someone IN a poly relationship AND planning a (non-legal) wedding, I find your attitude about 2-person only marriage not only frustrating but discriminatory.
Hi Tammy - thanks so much for weighing in and particularly for sharing your personal experience. I don't know any polys, so I'm no doubt insufficiently educated about it. Because I don't know any polys, but lots and lots of gay people, it's hard for me to think of polys as a class.
It's my experience that those who would deny gay people the right to marry often use "the slippery slope" to justify their position, saying that if we let gay people get married, then there would be no limit to alternative forms of marriage and therefor it's a bad idea. I prefer to limit the argument to two-person arrangements to get the other side to offer some other rationale for denying marriage to gay people.
Is Tammy a Michael plant?
I asked. He says no.
Stephanie, I understand your reasoning for using the 2 person argument. I think it's a great way to "smoke out" the anti-gay marriage crowd when you can limit their overactive imaginations to try to get a nonbigotted answer for denial. That said, what is really so wrong with opening marriage to consenting adults? People say "well, then a man could marry his dog!" Oh really? since when is the dog legally able to enter into a contract? Same with minors. No, as far as the state is concerned (not talking religion as they can do whatever they want), there should be no difference between entering a marriage contract as a business one... and therefore consenting adults should be able to do as they please. just my unasked 2 cents. :)
This discussion takes place from time to time around the polyamory community. There isn't a huge movement to get poly marriage legalized. As big a proponent of polyamory as a legitimate choice as I am, I despise the way polyamory is used as a political football in the same-sex marriage debates. Leaders of the same-sex marriage movement wish we'd just go away and not give the opposition any more fodder for the slippery slope debate. But the opposition is the same for us as it is for them. We're actually in this together.
I and many others prefer the idea of getting government out of marriage entirely. People who believe in one man, one woman marriage can have their church wedding and invite whomever they like to help celebrate their marriage. They can continue to do this by the thousands - no one is out to delegitimize the traditional form of marriage. Despite the screeching of the marriage movement, no one is out to destroy traditional marriage. They just want other forms of committed relationships to have an equal opportunity to the same benefits in place for traditional couples. Poly people can have their weddings wherever they choose and invite whomever they choose. And of course same-sex couples can do the same. Any of these would be able to register their union with the government in order to qualify for public and employment-related benefits. The idea that there is only one right way or the end of civilization will happen if we allow anything else is silly fear-mongering at best. What's really wrong with letting people have what they need without people telling them they can't when they aren't hurting anyone? And as for the slippery slope theory of same-sex marriage leading to pedophilia and bestiality, PULEEZ. Children and animals can't give consent, and sexual minority groups pretty uniformly state support for what consenting adults do and nothing else.
For more on the subject of establishing a fair means of allowing peole to marry without government bias, see
http://www.beyondmarriage.org/
Post a Comment