Posted by Tina
Man, I wish I could just ignore this…but the American people should be well informed about social trends.
It’s inevitable; Marriage will be defined by whatever individuals decide it should be. The precedent has been set using strong legal arguments that will be difficult to overturn. This is the opinion of self-identified leftist law professor Kent Greenfield, Boston College Law School, who says that the recent wins in court for gay marriage “will lead to legalized incest and polygamy”:
“Opponents of same-sex marriage have long argued that allowing such unions will lead to marriages among more than two people and between adults who are related. They’re right.”
So says Kent Greenfield, a Boston College Law School professor at the Catholic university who supports same-sex marriage, in a recent column for The American Prospect.
In it, he essentially acknowledges the successful legal arguments in favor of same-sex marriage could and likely should apply to polygamous and incestuous marriages, and arguments against those two types of unions fall short:If marriage is about the ability to define one’s own family, what’s the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If it’s wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn’t count as prejudice? …
We can continue to search for differences that make sense as a matter of constitutional principle. Or we can fess up. We can admit our arguments in favor of marriage equality inexorably lead us to a broader battle in favor of allowing people to define their marriages, and their families, by their own lights.
This is a law professor writing in a left wing publication who favors gay marriage…he’s not some right wing nut writing on an obscure blog.
Suddenly my position doesn’t seem to be so out there. If love is the only basis for marriage then anything goes! Good luck America.
So, Tina, what are your substantial objections to polygamy and incest? I have my own (mostly for the latter–not too concerned about the former), but I’d like to hear yours. Certainly you have critiques of each of them that don’t apply equally to same-sex marriage.
Chris if you’d like to share your “substantive objections” have at it, I’m sure our readers will hang on your every word.
When we have come to the point that we have to have a debate on incest and or polygamy using “substantial objections” We are really falling into the abyss.
I’ve shared them before. Incest is inherently coercive; even brother-sister pairings can’t be trusted to be fully consensual, and are rife for abuse. We should draw the line there because the potential for abuse and trauma is just so high. Siblings should not grow up seeing each other as potential romantic partners. Nor should we grant marriage rights to people who are already close family. One of the key purposes of marriage is to create a new legal family (note that this happens regardless of procreation).
The writer brings up first-cousin marriage, but he also points out that that’s already legal in more states than same-sex marriage is, so I don’t think that’s really relevant to the “slippery slope” argument he’s making.
I don’t really have any substantial moral objections to consensual poly marriage, as long as it’s equally legal for a woman to have multiple husbands as it is for a man to have multiple wives. I do see a lot of practical obstacles to the government recognizing such marriages. Our marriage laws are set up to deal with couples, not groups. Recognizing same-sex marriage does virtually nothing to change how marriage benefits are applied, while recognizing group marriage would change the entire system. That’s not a moral objection, but it does show that the slope is not as slippery as this writer claims.
So, what are your moral objections, Tina?
Because when I hear conservatives say things like “If we allow same-sex marriage, we have to allow polygamy and incestuous marriages to!” what it sounds like is that those conservatives have never given any thought to *why* they believe these things are wrong, nor do they feel they need to. At least the left-leaning writer above seems to be arguing that these acts are not necessarily immoral. I think he’s totally wrong about incest, but at least his arguments are somewhat consistent. He isn’t arguing that we should outlaw same-sex marriage to keep polygamy or incest from happening, he’s prompting people to consider the morality of all three. He’s saying that maybe we should reconsider; maybe we’ve been wrong all this time.
Conservative objections seem to rest on an arbitrary moral system; conservative opponents of same-sex marriage seem to think they shouldn’t have to articulate why any of these things are morally wrong. The implication seems to be that conservatives can think of no logical reason to oppose polygamy or incest, but that we must keep these taboos in place anyway. Case in point: you haven’t articulated why you think they’re wrong, even after I asked you.
Chris: “Because when I hear conservatives say things like “If we allow same-sex marriage, we have to allow polygamy and incestuous marriages to!” what it sounds like is that those conservatives have never given any thought to *why* they believe these things are wrong, nor do they feel they need to.”
Perhaps that’s because it’s acknowledged that the right or wrong of it is different for each individual and in terms of the basis for marriage, irrelevant.
Let me first say the idea that we “allow” people to marry is nonsense. Marriage wasn’t established so as to “allow” benefits to some and “deny” them to others.
Marriage (1man/1woman) is a union both literally and figuratively…a union that produces blood relations for produced children. Those children, and by extension our society, benefit from that union being sustained, encouraged, and nurtured. It is for this reason that government acknowledged marriage (between one man and one woman). Stability for the offspring first and foremost and stability and strength in the community is the benefit society gains. Marriage in the old dynamic, is an obligation of the man and the woman to children, to each other and to the community. People who can grasp this concept have the ability to approach the subject selflessly, seeing marriage as an commitment to serve greater purposes. If not for these greater purposes there would be no need for something we called marriage at all.
My generation has dealt a terrible blow to society because we have carelessly discarded the most basic of societies strengths…the intact family unit. It doesn’t take being straight to honor this unit for its value, likewise, honoring this unit doesn’t dishonor, discount, or reject whatever alternatives others might choose to create for themselves.
But, as I have said, the future belongs to you now and whatever arguments are made in court or in social media for expanding the boundaries that define marriage will be up to you to defend or embrace as you see fit. I am the loser in this argument and as such will attempt to back away as gracefully as I can.
Chris you’ve won. Your side has successfully transformed the word and meaning of marriage and of husband, wife, mother, father…and apparently in the future, uncle and aunt as well. The legal basis for marriage is LOVE now. The legal basis for marriage is whatever an individual(s) decides “by his own lights” is legal, moral, right and good.
“At least the left-leaning writer above seems to be arguing that these acts are not necessarily immoral. I think he’s totally wrong about incest, but at least his arguments are somewhat consistent.”
But don’t you see…whether it’s immoral or not is irrelevant. As with “abortion rights” and “women’s healthcare rights” the push is for individuals to decide “by their own lights”. We are now a nation of little gods who can do whatever they want in the name of L-O-V-E….self love, group love, incestuous love…there are no boundaries.
The LGBT community’s in your face position has won the day and set the precedent for future activism in the courts. You can argue that this is absurd, that it won’t happen, that the slippery slope is an illusion all day long, the fact remains that the notion of civil morality and civil boundaries has basically been torn to shreds…it’s possible that the notion of a higher power being the guarantor of our basic rights as human beings has also been damaged severely.
Harriet: “When we have come to the point that we have to have a debate on incest and or polygamy using “substantial objections” We are really falling into the abyss.”
Why? Are you actually saying that we shouldn’t base our morality on logic or reason, but on tradition or instinct?
You do realize that polygamy is “traditional marriage,” right? You can’t even argue against it using religious reasons; the Bible not only permits it, but blesses highly many men who practiced it. “Father Abraham / had many wives / Many wives had Father Abraham…”
To see conservative, religious gay marriage opponents claim to be all in favor of “traditional marriage” one moment, then express disgust for polygamy the next, is amusingly ironic to any slightly informed person.
Harriet I guess that’s what we get when we fall for a transformational gambit from those who see themselves as little gods rather than sticking with the wisdom of the ages.
Chris, if you like the idea of polygamy go for it, but reverse it, you be one of the many husbands of one woman.
Tina: “Harriet I guess that’s what we get when we fall for a transformational gambit from those who see themselves as little gods rather than sticking with the wisdom of the ages.”
Hilarious. As I already pointed out, had we stuck with the “wisdom of the ages,” polygamy would still be accepted and encouraged. Why do you so often say things that make you sound more ignorant and uneducated than you actually are?
Harriet, your comment was just stupid. I never said I like the idea of polygamy for myself. You didn’t answer my question about whether you think morality should be based on reason, but given the quality of your arguments, I am going to go with “no.”
Tradition is not wisdom, smarta$$! If you want to find wisdom you will have to go a little deeper. Wisdom, by the way, transcends the minds powers to reason. Human beings can make just about anything reasonable…and we do…often to our own ruin and demise.
There is absolutely nothing “reasonable” about a man calling another man his “wife”. This little exercise is a fraud…a game of let’s pretend. The love cause has been won through manipulation more than honesty and self-interest over responsible political or legal means:
Tina: “Wisdom, by the way, transcends the minds powers to reason.”
I see. So you can’t logically explain your point with any kind of rational argument…and you’re using that as evidence of its rightness? That’s a new one.
Are you saying Abraham wasn’t a wise man? What about Noah? Moses? David? Jacob? Saul?
Throughout many centuries and many different cultures, polygamy has been viewed as not only a wise choice, but has been practiced by men who have been seen as the wisest among their cultures.
“Traditional wisdom” is not responsible for phasing out polygamy, and adhering to traditional wisdom will not stop it from making a comeback.
“There is absolutely nothing “reasonable” about a man calling another man his “wife”.”
W.T.F are you even talking about?
Have you ever once met a gay couple? Or even, like, heard anything about them, from anyone? Ever seen them on TV?
Because married gay men typically do not refer to their gay male spouses as their “wives,” unless one of them is transgender.
Now, I don’t believe for one second that you are stupid enough NOT to know that, so the only explanation is that you’re intentionally misrepresenting your own beliefs in order to…what? I really can’t fathom what a person’s goal could be in saying something so absof***inglutely stupid as what you just said.
I ask again: “Why do you so often say things that make you sound more ignorant and uneducated than you actually are?”
Chris: “Are you saying Abraham wasn’t a wise man? What about Noah? Moses? David? Jacob? Saul?”
I don’t recall bringing up Bible figures, but God is the one you are dying for me to bring into this conversation. I have attempted to remain in the secular, biological realm but God is the red meat that you want to take on, right? Go ahead, Chris, refute the wisdom of God who made woman for man as his helpmate (and the two shall be as one)…and told them to be fruitful and multiply.
“I see. So you can’t logically explain your point with any kind of rational argument.”
Chris there is logic in my argument that marriage between one man and one woman AS A STANDARD is good for children and the health and civility of society. I think a person who is actually willing to think, rather than simply be driven by agenda, can look around and see that the destruction of the family unit has been very bad for our society and then see the wisdom of encouraging traditional marriage AND not think that constitutes a threat to other lifestyle choices. I also think that it is reasonable and honest to describe LGBT relationships as different (not less) since they are, in fact, different. I also think it is not only logical but also more honest to realize it is our tax laws that have created an unfair situation for LGBT’s and a number of other people, not marriage.
I think I have logically explained my position. I’m beginning to think you are too heavily invested in being right, and emotionally fraught, such that you cannot entertain a simple difference of opinion. Your arrogance will not allow that I may have a point that is not only worthy of consideration but shared by a great number of people, many of whom are more highly educated than either you or I.
Attacking me is desperate, Chris, and incredibly immature.
“…married gay men typically do not refer to their gay male spouses as their “wives,” unless one of them is transgender”
I know one personally that does, and have heard others do it, and none were transgendered! I have also posted evidence of parent one and parent two being exchanged for mother and father on birth certificates so that those who are actually mother and father must now bend tot the will of this fraudulent scheme to muddy and cloud the definitions of words.
You apparently do not have much knowledge about those that have organized and funded this incredible farce for the very reason that this article reveals. There is nothing a pedophile wants more than for his “preference” to be made legal. Why not use the gay community to arrange it for them? Ignorance and naivete will out when wisdom has not been passed along to future generations. Evil forces often appear benign, and often scoop up and use others to push poisonous intent.
“Ever seen them on TV?”
It’s impossible to have missed seeing them on TV, or in movies, unless one avoids both. A visitor from another planet would assume the entire world is made up of gay people who must be royalty…this hyper exposure too is a fraud.
“Why do you so often say things that make you sound more ignorant and uneducated than you actually are?”
Why do you resort to insults if your argument is so damned sound? Why all the shrieking, puking hate? It suggests that while you may have valid points, there are holes in the overall argument that this article reveals at least in terms of the law and the intent of those who pushed the notion of gay marriage, something that was not even in the lexicon a mere decade or two ago?
I won’t respond again should you continue to hurl insults and unless you have something I find truly interesting or worthy of comment you are more than welcome to the last word.
You know Chris you are so full of yourself.