"So if you're not happy unless you're married to five other people, is that OK? Reason says that if you think it's okay for two, then you have to differentiate for me why it's not okay for three." -Rick Santorum, comparing same-sex marriage to polyamory
As a staunch defender of same-sex marriage and gay rights in general, I have found myself confronting this argument before: if we let gay people marry each other, who’s to say that one person can’t marry four people? I’ve tried to counter this by saying that marriage is a relationship between two people, and that not including any gendered qualifiers in that definition does not open the door for marriages of more than two people. But I’ve been thinking lately. Russ Shafer-Landau came to campus last semester to talk about marriage equality, and the argument he gave was essentially as follows:
The government should not restrict people’s rights, provided that there exists no good reason to do so.
There is no good reason to restrict the marriage rights of LGBT individuals.
Therefore, the government should not restrict the marriage rights of LGBT individuals.
I found the argument to be very compelling, but if I’m going to be intellectually honest, then I have to admit that the same argument applies to polyamorous relationships. That is, Rick Santorum is right: allowing gay marriage means allowing marriages between more than two people. Of course, for all I care, people can enter into relationships and subsequent legal contracts with whomever they like. But I have to admit that from a tactical perspective, I was worried by this realization. I’ve managed to convince family members, for example, that gay marriage today is just like interracial marriage in the sixties. It took a while, but these family members came around. The problem is, they might not have come around if they realized that the slippery slope really is valid in this instance.
I thought it made more strategic sense to get people to accept same sex marriage, and can cross the polyamorous bridge when we come to it. But the more I think about it, the more this approach makes me very uncomfortable. There is a relevant psychological phenomenon at work here. It’s called last place aversion. Simply put, most people don’t want to come in last. At times, people near the bottom will even oppose measures thatcould help them, if they would help those below them more. That is, even though everyone is better off, they don’t want to be last. A way of understanding this phenomenon is to look at slavery in the old South. Some of the most ardent defenders of slavery were poor white people who did not directly benefit from it. They benefited psychologically by being able to say, “I may be poor, but at least I’m not black” (sociologists call this a psychic wage). Something similar happens to atheists today: liberal public figures are almost unfailingly religious. This fact in and of itself seems harmless, but some ofthese figures are willing to repeat the same tired arguments about atheists having no basis for morality that one would hear from William Lane Craig (seeAl Sharpton).
It is this feeling of being thrown under the bus by people with whom we agree on almost every major issue that should make atheists think long and hard about their approach to discussing polyamorous marriage. When we refuse to honestly acknowledge the connection between same sex marriage and polyamory, we are no better than Al Sharpton claiming that "morality" is an explicitly religious idea; we are stepping on the necks of one group in order to raise another to recognized legitimacy. It is wrong, and I will take no part in it. So cheers to wedded bliss between consenting adults, regardless of age or number!
13 comments:
I too support the notion that people should be able to have whatever relationships they like, with whomever, assuming they're consenting and not otherwise harmful. It seems obvious.
But with polyamory, there are potential sociological and economic issues of harm. This is particularly true in any country with a high disparity of wealth- and as you know, the US has a massive disparity.
Almost always, polgyny is the form of polyamory that dominates in societies (read here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200806/why-are-there-virtually-no-polyandrous-society-0). The link is about why there are many polygynous societies but no know polyandrous societies.
In a society like ours, what is bound to happen is the wealthy (the 1% if you like) will take more wives (some will take more husbands, but probably not nearly as often). This will naturally result in a greater number of poor, young, straight males without a single wife, and worse, no chance at one whatsoever. Enlarging or creating a class of poor, childless males with no hope of ever getting a wife or children is an incredibly dangerous thing to do. Take a look at any violent crime you wish- murder, assault, rape, etc.., these are overwhelmingly committed by poor, young, childless, males. Statistically, getting married or having a child dramatically reduces the chances a given individual will commit a violent crime.
It's not hard to see why this might be the case. In Darwinian terms, this class of people has absolutely nothing to lose. This is not the kind of person we should produce more of.
There are other problems, too. When poly vs non-poly societies are compared (even correcting for economic development and other factors) there are some negative effects for women and the economy. For example, infant mortality rises. Economically, less money is available to industry and investment because males invest, in one form or another, in the "bride market". In other words, they invest in themselves and not in things that could be a greater benefit to society. Money is uselessly tied up.
Many, if not all, of these problems exist in our society today because our society is a shadow polyamorous one. The rich and powerful have wives, ex-wives, mistresses and girlfriends. Many people aspire to wealth and power just for this reason.
Perhaps in a society with a very low disparity in wealth, polyamory would be fine. But I can't help but feel if the US adopted it culturally and legally tomorrow, it would be a huge disaster.
Ed,
Couldn't every one of those arguments be applied in a similar fashion to gay marriage (between two people)?
Women,if allowed to marry, will take wives, depriving some young man of a wife. Naturally, he may turn to crime. (loose conjecture based on small sample sizes?)
And since gays will be marrying instead of feeling alone and discriminated against, they will be investing money in gay marriages and preventing it from being used more productively.
And even though gays are coupling up today, I feel that if it were legalized it would be a disaster.
---
It seems like speculation based on assumptions. Wifeless males are dangerous - contributing to crime? (remember, same argument applied to gay marriage). Also, it assumes that money spent in the "wife market" will be significant enough to affect the macro economy. Those assumptions seem too loose to draw such a firm, and limiting, conclusion.
But I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.
As of right now I agree with Ed Clint on this issue. Dippold, I feel like your rebuttals are a little weak, but I could still be persuaded.
//And since gays will be marrying instead of feeling alone and discriminated against, they will be investing money in gay marriages and preventing it from being used more productively.//
Could you go into this a little more and explain what you were trying to say?
I personally practice polyamory myself. I'm a woman who has multiple committed relationships with men. And having been deeply engrossed in the polyamory community, I can tell you with sincere confidence that very little about polyamory has to do with our traditional notions of polygyny. If a man decides to marry two polyamorous women, chances are those women also have boyfriends, or another husband. The idea that we will gravitate towards a male-centric version of polygamy is highly unlikely because of the nature of people who choose to practice polyamory, mainly because of lack of a sense of human possessiveness and a very sex-positive attitude.
The whole point is not that you are 'claimed' by marriage. In fact the point is, that you are free to fall in love with multiple people, and that relationships that don't necessarily result in marriage are still valid, important, and rewarding. This is one reason why a scenario where low-income single males are suddenly without women to marry, is unlikely. The women who are already married, will more than likely want to marry other men. On top of that, polyamory is not centered around how many lovers you can support financially. Yes, it helps if you have money to buy gifts for all your boyfriends/girlfriends, but it doesn't stop you from dating/loving/marrying people with lower income. Plus, in our community, the women are just as likely to be bread winners as the men are.
The second reason why the scenario is unlikely (and probably the easiest one to verify) is that monogamy would still be the most prominent option. Culturally it's what we've come to accept as the norm, so it would likely proliferate. Also Polygamy and Polyamory require very high levels of emotional energy and awareness in order to work. Monogamy will always be appealing because having a relationship that is exclusive to two people is hard enough as it is. It's also rewarding enough for most people to have a monogamous relationship. The only people who would really seek out polyamorous marriages are the ones who can do the work (and if they can't they'll quickly realize it and go back to something less stressful and more enjoyable). It's sort of like saying that if we make gay marriage legal, suddenly everyone will want to get gay-married. That's just not the case. While polyamory can be described more readily as a choice, and is not as rigid as a sexual identity, there is definitely a predisposition in some people to being polyamorous vs monogamous, and vice-versa. If you've been monogamous with your spouse for years, and polygamy became legal tomorrow how many people would suddenly decide to start marrying extra people? Probably just the ones who were already living with extra lovers anyway.
One argument I hear regularly about denying polygamy is that it would lead to abuse. I do understand that it would open up the legality of polygamy for those who are known to abuse it. There are cults out there who take advantage of young under-aged girls, or girls who have been 'brainwashed'. But keeping polygamy illegal didn't stop them. Also the marriage shouldn't be the crime, the abuse should be.
For example, there are abusive men who pressure their girlfriends into getting married. Does that mean we should make all marriage illegal?
There are people who abuse alcohol and drive drunk. Does that mean that we should make all alcohol use illegal?
Some people hoard cats. Does that mean we should make pet ownership illegal?
It is important to address issues of abuse in any circumstance, but outlawing the institutions where the abuse takes place is not the answer.
Ed, while I agree such possibilities exist, I feel like you're assuming that these marriages will cross class boundaries, which rarely happens in this country. It's true that it may happen on occasion, but social mobility through marriage is definitely rare.
I actually should have thought my comparisons through more, and I want to retract that portion of my post.
My problem with Ed's argument is that it supposes that any of these affects would be large enough to warrant opposition to polyamory, which as he pointed out, is essentially happening already through mistresses, which seems to be common for the wealthy and well-connected.
The economic argument seems weak to me, because I cannot envision a scenario where money spent acquiring wives has a serious macroeconomic effect, or not one nearly strong enough to warrant opposition to Polyamory.
It seems like the idea is that it's a bad idea because of wealth disparity. And while this probably effectively denies the middle and lower classes recognized polyamory, the rich can still have something approximating polyamory through multiple wives / mistresses.
It's just not convincing.
When someone like Santorum says what he does in response to the same-sex freedom to marry, the response should be "Why not let adults marry any consenting adults?" Throwing other people under the bus is not the way to go. It would be like an African American civil rights activist saying, "Don't compare me to those disgusting Latinos! I'm talking about rights for African Americans!"
I'm a bit torn on this issue. Certainly I support the right of consenting adults to make their own decisions about who they enter into relationships with. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, I support polyamory.
This is the same kind of support I extend to prostitution, however, because from an ethical standpoint my experience with polyamory has been rather poor.
Without revealing too much, I have family members who are polyamorous. My direct exposure to this style of relationship has made me privy to some of its drawbacks. My main qualm is the consent aspect of it. In my opinion, polyamory often results in one person getting what they want while another simply submits to that notion in order to continue to be with the person they love. This is not true consent, but instead a form of coercion.
We can say that this other person is not holding up their end of the bargain and failing to be honest about their desires...and this is also a type of relationship failure. It does not change the fact that this kind of behavior is more likely to occur within polyamorous relationship, though.
This does not mean that polyamorous relationships cannot be fulfilling...far from it. It just takes a special kind of person to remove themselves from the natural jealousy that comes with sharing a partner. In my opinion these people are few and far between. Many people even THINK that they are capable and end up in a relationship that makes them miserable.
In conclusion...is polyamory bad in and of itself? Certainly not. Should it be illegal? No. Is it something that we should endorse? I don't think so. Much like heroin users can lead happy lives, so may the polyamorous...however I think the basic premise means it will ultimately cause more misery than happiness for most that try it. Polyamory is nothing like gay monogamy in my opinion and should not be treated as such.
In re-reading my previous post, I think I may have seemed to assert that drug use or prostitution are the moral equivalents of polyamory. I am not trying to make that argument nor do I believe it. I suppose those references were a bit overblown. My apologies if that is how it came across.
"This does not mean that polyamorous relationships cannot be fulfilling...far from it. It just takes a special kind of person to remove themselves from the natural jealousy that comes with sharing a partner. In my opinion these people are few and far between. Many people even THINK that they are capable and end up in a relationship that makes them miserable.
In conclusion...is polyamory bad in and of itself? Certainly not. Should it be illegal? No. Is it something that we should endorse? I don't think so. Much like heroin users can lead happy lives, so may the polyamorous...however I think the basic premise means it will ultimately cause more misery than happiness for most that try it."
With around 10% of the population being gay same-sex marriage doesn't make sense for the vast majority of people. But we understand that, and that's the same point with polyamorous relationships. Being poly is not for everyone, nor should it even be expected to be for any sizeable portion of the population. However, for many people they are naturally wanting multiple romantic partners just as many of us naturally lean towards one.
Good point, Adam. However, I still do not see the same kind of power/consent discrepancies within monogamous homosexuality that I see within polyamory. Therefore I still do not find the two to be equivalent. Polyamory presents a totally different set of moral/ethical problems than homosexuality.
Going back to an example I understand (once again, not trying to assert moral equivalency in this situation); I think all drugs should be legal. I think marijuana is completely harmless and it is nonsensical to keep it illegal. I think the same way about homosexuality. Gay marriage is not only harmless but enriches many peoples lives in a way that cannot be equaled by any other act.
On the other hand, there is heroin. Now, I still think heroin should be legal...but I don't find it to be harmless. Such is how I feel of polyamory. I have seen it destroy people from the inside out...people who thought that it is what the wanted no less. Now this is obviously a bias I carry from being so close to the practice, and I could certainly be convinced otherwise if I saw some conclusive data showing that there is no more harm in polyamory than there is in monogamy. Until then, however, I don't consider polyamory to be on the same level as homosexual monogamy. I think attempts at this point of trying to put the two on equal footing will only harm gay rights and do little to advance polyamory rights.
(I don't mean to misquote you, let me know if I am.)
"Such is how I feel of polyamory. I have seen it destroy people from the inside out...people who thought that it is what the wanted no less."
The exact same can be said for just about anything that someone forms an emotional relationship with/to. For me, it boils down to personal responsibility. Just as in anything else I would expect that people would do what is best for them. Now, clearly that is easier said than done by uncountable measures, but I see nothing wrong with allowing the very small poly population to live their lives the way they want, and I would hope that people who don't fit in would not be forced or be able to escape.
John Stuart Mill would agree with you. He personally found polygamous marriages to be abhorrent, but he recognized that no harm was being done if the marriages were between consenting adults. I will try to find the exact passage that he discusses this when I get my On Liberty back.
The only real real reason I can see to not make polygamy legal would be for tax reasons and the potential polygamy has on gaming the system as a way to avoid taxes. But, this has nothing to do with polyamory.
Post a Comment