Sunday, November 16, 2008

Polygamy Haiku (with blog)

Being a husband
to just one wife is enough
for me anyway

In discussions with gay marriage oponents, one of the common arguments is the slippery slope of, "If we allow gay marriage, then what's to stop us from allowing ____________." The most common thing to fill in the blank is polygamy, of course.

Of course, some people will also bring up pedophilia and bestiality too. Well, I'm not even going to dignify those arguments with a comment. After all, if you're so stupid that you can't see the difference, then I can explain it forever and you still won't get it.

And let's say that when we're talking about polygamy, we're not talking about these cult leaders who basically brainwash their children and marry girls at the age of fourteen or even younger. For argument's sake, let's take a look at consenting adults who want to be in a polygamous relationship. What about that?

Well, as far as the law is concerned, you really can't compare it to same-sex marriage. After all, with same-sex marriage, the only thing that changes is that it's between any two consenting adults instead of solely adults of the opposite sex. There's nothing in the marriage laws that say anything about procreating or anything like that. As for allowing polygamy, the very nature of having a relationship between more than two people completely changes the dynamics of the situation. Who gets the inheritance? How are divorces handled? Who gets child custody rights? And who exactly is going to determine how all of this is straightened out?

Essentially, a whole new legal contract would have to be created for polygamy. And polygamists can't say that they're being denied equal protection because NOBODY currently has the right to have more than one spouse - whether you're straight or not. With gay marriage, you currently have straight couples with rights that gay couples don't have. That's where there's inequality. With polygamy, it's a completely different situation that currently has no equivalent under the law.

So, what about polygamy? As of right now, I don't think that there's enough of a demand for it for the government to start getting involved. Personally though, so long as it is indeed between consenting adults, I don't have a problem with it. Just like gay marriage, it's not the lifestyle that I'd want for myself, but who am I to deny anybody happiness? So, I don't really think that it should be illegal either.

But what if the demand for it starts to increase? Honestly, I just don't see that happening, but I certainly could be wrong. Perhaps if it does, then society needs to start figuring out a way to protect these people and their children.

Still, the bottom line is that it's not so simple that it's the automatic next step after same sex marriage is allowed. There are far too many questions that would need to be resolved first.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Such thought provoking posts. It makes me wonder why marriage at all? You never did answer the previous question from the other "anon" commentor:

So, why is marriage between two people? Who said it was between two people? If it's all about people's rights and freedoms, why do we hold certain truths like "marriage is between two people"?

Why do people even feel the need to marry? Why did you marry? Did you take vows? Do people that decide to shack up love each other less? Was this a personal moral thing for you? If so, why?

I feel like a kid asking his dad, "why is the sky blue?"

Since you seem to have some good logical thoughts on the subject, just thought you might want to tackle this stuff.

Why do we have personal moral standards regarding anything? If enough people say something is okay and want to do it, than the government should sanction it and the laws should protect it?

I understand that you find some things unacceptable and immoral.

Lance, what's your ruler? Is it just something that you "feel" inside. How much are you influenced by your upbringing and/or the culture?

I'm just thinking out loud. No need to respond. I realize that some of these things you won't be able to answer.

As usual, great post.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Your questions are slowly inspiring another, longer post. However, I just had two beers, so I'm not going to tackle it now.

But let's just say that my "ruler", in a nutshell is that we should be free to do what we want so long as nobody else is harmed. You know, Golden Rule and whatnot.

As to why I married...hmmm...again, worthy of a longer post.

sfben22 said...

Whatever your answer ends up being to why you married, whether or not you post it, it was a beautiful ceremony and I am still thankful all these years later that I was able to share it with you guys. Thanks. Miss you both! Come to the East Coast!
BEN

Ingrid said...

I watched Larry King yesterday. He had the couple on where he was once a woman, went through some sort of gender transformation, like breast amputation and hormone treatments to become a man. Now he decided that he wanted to pass on his genes and with the help of his wife had himself insaminated with sperm from an anonimous donor, and gave birth to a beautiful baby girl. Now he is pregnant again. Do children have a right to be protected from people who, just to satisfy their own sick ego, bring them into the world? Of course, once the child is born, it's a valuable human being, but the parents are still freaks. The "wife" is not lesbian, so she says, she was married and has two adult daughters. He says that he is not homosexual, he claims to be able to have "normal" sex because of his enlarged clitoris. I'd like to see a picture of that one. Where is it going to stop? Why are people so confused? Just asking.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

I'd be lying if I told you that I didn't find that situation to be odd, but do we really want the government intervening in things like that?

Humans are resilient - I'm sure the children will be fine. They might go through a lot of confusion while growing up, but people have certainly survived much worse. So long as they're loved and cared for, that is.