Marriage is whatever society says it is. Since it looks like gay marriage is on its way to being legalized everywhere, we’ve pretty much decided that marriage is no longer the union of one man and one woman; it now includes the union of any two people. There’s no reason to think that our redefinition of marriage will stop there. The success of gay marriage proponents has shown proponents of polygamy how to fight their battle and has pretty much insured their success.
I started writing about the relationship between legalizing gay marriage and legalizing polygamy as a comment to a post over at TigerHawk:
And I know that it's considered the height - or depth - or bigotry and stupidity or some other detestable "y" to raise this issue seriously but once we begin redefining marriage I truly do not understand what the logical, rational argument is against expanding it to include polygamy. There is no rational reason to consider marriage something allowed only between a man and a woman; it is simply the way we've always done things. So why is there a rational reason to consider marriage something allowed only between two people?
All of the arguments that will be made against polygamy* were marshaled against gay marriage: it is forbidden by religion; it is unnatural; it will undermine the institution of marriage; it may well have unintended consequences; it is bad for children to be raised in such a situation. These arguments failed against gay marriage and they will fail against polygamy. Let’s look at these arguments in the context of polygamy and see how their lack of validity in the face of gay marriage will render them useless against polygamy.
Polygamy is forbidden by religion: This is simply a non-starter. No argument based on religious dogma is going to gain traction in a lifestyle debate. In the case of gay marriage, it was simply thrown out; in the case of polygamy, it probably can’t even be raised given the historical acceptance of polygamy among major religions.
Polygamy is unnatural: Based on the historical record, polygamy (or at least polygyny) appears to be for more “natural” than gay marriage. As for the argument that homosexuality is biologically based*, there is no shortage of people arguing that polygamy (at least in the form of polygyny) is what humans are biologically wired for.
Polygamy will undermine the institution of marriage and thus destabilize society: Why assume that legalizing polygamy would result in enough incidences of it to undermine the institution of marriage? Those who support gay marriage scoff at this argument when applied to same-sex unions. Surely, they say, people who are currently committed to heterosexual marriage will not fall by the wayside simply because those who are not can now get married. The same argument seems just as valid with regard to polygamy: Surely those who are committed to two-person marriage will not fall by the wayside simply because those who are not can now get married.
Polygamy may have unintended consequences: Any time you change a millennia-old institution, you’re taking a risk on the consequences. And, again, the historical record shows more support for successful societies that practice polygamy than that practice gay marriage.
Polygamy is bad for children: Supporters of gay marriage take as given that homosexual couples are as likely to be good parents as heterosexual couples. On what rational basis can one assume differently about polygamists? In fact, one could argue that in an age where both father and mother work to make ends meet, having an additional mother around to do childcare is quite a good idea. Having two fathers and two mothers (or four fathers or four mothers) is even better: three adults can work and one be the primary caregiver.
Beyond that, there is the normative argument that marriage is properly a relationship between two people. But there is no reason this argument is any more valid than the argument that marriage is properly a relationship between two people of the opposite sex.
It’s not just that the arguments that will be marshaled against legalizing polygamy failed when they were marshaled against legalizing gay marriage that makes it unlikely polygamy will remain illegal in this country for much longer. It’s also the characterization of those who argued against gay marriage. Those who opposed gay marriage, for any reason, were not considered simply people who preferred a different definition of marriage, who had genuine concerns about the effect on society, who believed that a millennia old institution was altered only at great risk, or who held sincere religious beliefs. No, those who opposed gay marriage were characterized as stupid, ignorant, bigoted, shortsighted, ridiculous, not worthy of response, or crazy. How can anyone who leveled those charges at those who opposed gay marriage now argue credibly against legalizing polygamy?
I do not object to gay marriage. However, I do not consider those who do object to it to be stupid, ignorant, bigoted, shortsighted, ridiculous, not worthy of response, or crazy. Instead I respect their position, acknowledge the validity of their concerns, and couch my position in terms of my own preferences and my opinion that legalizing gay marriage will not undermine the role marriage plays - or should play - in holding society together. This leaves me free to oppose legalizing polygamy when the time comes. I realize full well that when I do argue against legalizing polygamy, I will be denounced as stupid, ignorant, bigoted, shortsighted, ridiculous, not worthy of response, or crazy. I’ll have to put up with that but I don’t plan to give anyone grounds to also denounce me as inconsistent.
*****
* Cassandra has made a number of arguments against polygamy that could not be made against gay marriage. With one possible exception - inbreeding - I don’t think any of them will gain any traction against polygamy. I’ll address them in a later post.
** My personal opinion on the issue of homosexuality being biological, a result of environment, or a choice, is that there is probably a continuum, just as there seems to be in an increasing number of human traits: some people who are simply biologically programmed to find the same sex attractive; some who have biological tendencies which can be expressed or not in response to environment; some who have no biological tendencies but become homosexual as a result of environment; and some who choose to live as homosexuals. I may be one the last people on the planet who remembers that some Feminists explicitly choose lesbianism as a reaction to male patriarchy and resent being lumped into the “mainstream” LGBT movement.
Posts
15 comments:
I have posted a link to this at the Hall, dear Elise; as well as a small, and initial, reply. I would like to hear what others say before I say more.
All of the arguments that will be made against polygamy...: it is forbidden by religion; it is unnatural; it will undermine the institution of marriage; it may well have unintended consequences; it is bad for children to be raised in such a situation.
I think this is a fair summary of the arguments, so I'll limit my comments to them.
forbidden by religion
Your own counterexamples notwithstanding, it occurs to me that what I do in the moral arena is between God and me. Others might have legitimacy in disagreeing with me and in remonstrating with me on the matter (subject to my own right not to have to listen to them), but they have no claim to authority to block me. And this includes the priests, reverends, imams, et al, who are, after all, men, not angels for all that they may have gone through a (human) ritual to become consecrated in some way. In this way, government has no claim for an authority to ban--or to mandate--polygamy, or any other form of marriage.
it is unnatural
Yeah, and? How is this ipso facto bad? Everything done for the first time--even if it's an evolution of something done before--is by definition, different: unnatural.
it will undermine the institution of marriage
The claim gets made a lot, but I've never seen anyone offer a pathway for that undermining. Certainly my own marriage is unchallenged by the marriage styles of others. And as you say, those committed to one man-one woman marriages are unlikely to find themselves prevented from marrying in that fashion when they choose to. Further, the whole "I couldn't find a spouse in a one man-one woman world, but now I can in a polygamous world" just strikes me as an any port in a storm excuse for a marriage, which makes a poor foundation for any sort of marriage.
it may well have unintended consequences
Yeah, and? Everything we do that's new and different runs this risk. This argument is useless.
it is bad for children to be raised in such a situation
This is the only argument that has any hope of any merit, and I'll be guided by empirical data that show polygamous parentage more harmful to children than dysfunctional parentage that already exists. However, my going-in position is much like yours. In a two-parents-working family, with latch-key kids, the children are at risk. Having a third parent committed to the family--even if working--increases the chances of having at least one parent home when the children are.
In essence, you and I line together, pretty much, on this one. Is that a first?
To be sure, there are secular practicalities/complexities involved: the residue of divorce and inheritance, for instance. But for the most part existing law can be applied almost directly to these. And the latter is easily preempted by doing what any responsible adult should do: have a will.
Eric Hines
Others might have legitimacy in disagreeing with me and in remonstrating with me on the matter (subject to my own right not to have to listen to them), but they have no claim to authority to block me.
They do, if the claim is that your marriage will entail a claim to benefits from those people. Thus, for example, it would be coherent to object to a Federal employee having seven wives and 70 children insofar as each of those wives and children would then be subject to benefits at taxpayer expense.
So, one function that monogamy might provide -- I think it is the part of a good philosopher to argue both sides of the question fairly -- is that it limits the claims that others may put upon us to some degree. Of course, the other side of that is that if he never "marries" them, we'd pay for the welfare-oriented benefits.
Further, this principle offers a dangerous precedent, which could be used to effect something like China's "One Child" policy. If it's legitimate to regulate the marriage to limit the number of children, why not limit the number of children directly?
Yeah, and? How is this ipso facto bad? Everything done for the first time--even if it's an evolution of something done before--is by definition, different: unnatural.
When we get to Aquinas, we'll see that he has an account here that I find satisfying, in part because it answers one of Cassandra's righteous complaints -- not on this subject, but a general one that she has often raised.
Aquinas says that there are two different kinds of things that are in accord with natural law; or perhaps, you might say, two different ways of being in accord with it. The first is to do something that is in common with nature, such as eating or sleeping. This, though, is the least important.
The other way is to direct your actions at the perfection of nature. Thus, for example, it is perfectly natural (in the first sense) for a man to desire to sleep with as many women as possible; but it is also very much in accord with natural law (in the second sense) to regulate the sexual urge so that he instead more perfectly completes it.
Why? Because the foremost point of sexuality is procreation; but the point of procreation is to produce not children but new adults. A man who is loyal to a wife is more likely not only to produce a child, but to raise it and educate it properly.
Thus, marriage (and a prohibition on fornication) is natural in the sense that it perfects nature, not in the sense that you find it in nature.
Eric -
I’m not saying that the arguments against gay marriage are invalid; I’m saying that since society has decided they’re invalid against gay marriage they cannot be marshalled against polygamy.
I think all the arguments I’ve listed against gay marriage have validity. I disagree with some of them but that doesn’t mean I give them no weight. They are all related in one way or another to a further, more fundamental issue: the organic nature of societal institutions. (See McArdle’s A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other)
People didn't wake up one morning, think hard, and decide marriage should be the union of one man and one woman. Marriage in that form developed organically as people who practiced a particular type of marriage produced flourishing societies. We simply don't know the extent to which one man-one woman marriage is holding up our society and whether changing the institution will do incalculable harm.
In supporting gay marriage, I’ve made a judgment call that changing the nature of the dyad in marriage from male-female to male-male or female-female is unlikely to shake the foundations of society. However, I’m really, truly, super-clear that that is a judgment call on my part rather than an unquestionable truth.
I do oppose polygamy because I'm convinced changing marriage from a two-person union to a multi-person union will shake the foundations of our society. I started this series thinking that was just a gut-level reaction on my part - oh, ick - but in the post I just put up, I've argued myself around to rational objection.
Grim -
I really appreciate your explanation of Aquinas and natural law. It provides a context for things I think but do not have the language to formalize.
They do, if the claim is that your marriage will entail a claim to benefits from those people.
This is a political argument applicable to anything I might or might not do; it is unrelated to polygamy, per se. As a political argument, there is another answer to the matter, and one which I favor: those "benefits" accruing to my several wives and more several children must not be from government: they can only be the responsibility of me. Of course taxpayers in other parts of the country should not be held responsible for making me whole from the failures of my decisions.
Of course there will be, even in my ideal world, some 14 people in the United States who cannot take care of themselves--or their multiplicity of wives (and what of their responsibility in this matter?)--but this is a corner case that does not obviate the principle.
Eric Hines
When we get to Aquinas....
This is a religious argument that I see only rarely. I was responding to the secular use of "unnatural" that I see much more commonly.
As to the religious aspect, I suggest it falls under my first argument above: this is a matter between God and me; others might remonstrate, and I might disregard, but none but God can command me on this moral matter.
Eric Hines
Elise--
I wasn't suggesting anything other than the arguments' applicability to polygamy and my own rejection of them as legitimate reasons for government intervention in the matter.
Eric Hines
...but none but God can command me on this moral matter.
Well, no, if you go out and try to marry a second wife while still married to the first one, you'll find that plenty of people will turn up to command you otherwise. They feel fit to do so based on positive rather than natural law; but natural law is indispensable, and not merely (if that is the right word) for religious reasons.
Natural law is extremely important to John Locke, who favors an entirely secular form of government, precisely because of its function as a limit on positive law. Why can't the government, through democratic means, decide to kill everyone with blue eyes and divide their property among the survivors? There is nothing in positive law to stop them. Presuming that enough people were in favor of it, we could obtain even a Constitutional amendment providing government with the power to do so.
The reason the government cannot do it, even in the case of consent of the vast majority and the full array of Constitutional means, is that blue-eyed people have a natural right to both their lives and their property. That natural right pre-exists any state, and the natural law of which it is a part serves as a limit on all states.
If we let that concept go, what goes with it is far more than you may have taken the time to realize. Once you admit natural law, though, you have to take into account Aquinas' arguments from it -- not because of God, but because of nature.
Elise:
It is my honor and my pleasure to have been of service.
...you'll find that plenty of people will turn up to command you otherwise. They feel fit to do so....
But this in no way qualifies them to do so.
...natural law is indispensable, and not merely (if that is the right word)....
Perhaps "not only...."
The reason the government cannot do it, even in the case of consent of the vast majority and the full array of Constitutional means, is that blue-eyed people have a natural right to both their lives and their property.
This is certainly a powerful argument, but it's unsatisfying, at least to me. Locke, and others, did make this assertion, and we repeat it in our own American social compact documents (and, as a matter of faith, I agree with it). But it strikes me as an assertion whose existence is driven by our desire for natural law because we don't like the outcomes if we don't have natural law. There's nothing here that requires it of necessity.
Eric Hines
If you're looking for the argument for natural law from necessity, you'll find it in Kipling's poem "The Gods of the Copybook Headings."
Eric -
It sounds like I sounded snippy to you. That was not my intention. I think you and I read/write things very differently.
Elise,
No worries, Ma'am. I never thought you were snippy, or anything of the sort. We do have different approaches, and that's all to the good.
Besides, even if you were (you weren't), I'm in no position to squawk. I really am too tactless and too unsubtle to be in any position to object.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment