The classic liberal will advocate for gay rights, anti-abortion, and increased spending on social welfare for the less fortunate. But what about his (or her) stance on polygamy? Most shy away from the controversial subject. Allegations of sexual abuse within Mormon sects have obviously given plural marriage a bad name. (God forbid we remember that assault occurs in every type of relationship.) This editorial, however, cites the flip side that most don't consider: polygamists are simply people who wish to live together and not be criminalized for their personal decisions.
My belief is that you can do whatever you wish with your partner(s), as longs as you're not hurting anyone or yourself. I was pleased to find that the author felt the same. Mr. Turley took the high road, which was especially evident in his condemnation of Justice Scalia's atrocious comment.
If you (correctly) reason that a same-sex couple's partnership is no different from that of a heterosexual couple, you can use anecdotes to support the statement. It's more than likely that you know of children who are raised by either two moms or two dads and are completely 'normal' - that is, you would never realize the absence of a father or a mother. The same is true for single or divorced parents. Still, it's likely that you haven't met anyone with one dad and four moms or two dads and three moms. You can't resort to the standard arguments of normalcy. But why should you? It's not a question of who does the better job of parenting (for instance). Rather, it's a matter of giving people the right to live freely. You can't blame these people for wanting to pursue lifestyles with which they feel most comfortable. Again, if they're not hurting anyone, what's the big deal?
So why is plural marriage such a taboo for us to swallow?
(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/opinion/21turley.html)
*Note: I do realize that in most cultures, polygamy is a very misogynistic practice and the women partake only because they are taught nothing else. I'm just playing devil's advocate...
4 comments:
While I agree with you fully, I think that we need to take things one step at a time. We all know that the same-sex marriage issue is a hot button topic right now, and has major controversy surrounding it. If we throw in yet another marriage equality issue, we might even ruin the chances of same-sex marriage becoming a nation-wide privilege.
Some politicians even claim that with the passing of the same-sex marriage law, people are going to want marriage equality from all areas of the spectrum.
Though I believe that people should be able to marry who they please, it's premature to inquire about the polygamy issue. Maybe in due time, but now is time to finish the battle for same-sex marriages.
This is such an interesting concept, because I see there to be two definitions of Polygamy:
1. Classic Polygamy
(ex. Big Love, some sects of Mormonism, other cultures)
This is the kind of polygamy in which A (usually a man) is married to a number of other individuals, say, B and C (usually women). However, B and C are not married to each other. Instead, they are, at least with Mormons, referred to as "sister wives" and while they are spiritual bound to each other via their mutual husband, they themselves are not married to one another.
I'm not particularly supportive or critical of this form of polygamy, except that it statistically higher to involve spousal abuse, the marriage of minors (and thus statutory rape), incest, and coercion. However, it's already such a cultural taboo, I don't know anyone who would be chomping at the bit to enter into polygamy. Unlike the fight for same-sex marriage, which Sofia so shrewdly pointed out, polygamy has no real movement in it's favor.
2. Group Marriage
This is the idea of multiple people all being married to one another. Currently, it is mostly only seen in fiction, but it usually involves three people of any gender, each involved in emotional and sexual relationships with the other two.
I think this is incredibly cool and I don't know why it doesn't occur more often. Opposed to the flawed system of Mormonistic Polygamy, Group Marriage promotes total equality among it's members. If each person loves the others, it seems like a successful relationship to me.
Check out the wikipedia page about it, especially the idea of "Line-Marriage":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_marriage
The author of the article made an interesting point about children from Polygamist families. On that level, I see there being less of a problem. These children, despite the ever-so-slight traces of brainwashing, are relatively normal. In fact, I'm willing to put forth that children of polygamist households are similar to to children with divorced parents who have remarried. They may, in effect, have two fathers and two mothers. Although these new parents are step parents, they take on some level of authority over their step-child, which could easily be likened to the role of a sister-wife. Though not fully their parent, they are married to their biological father or mother. And yet, we do not bar this somewhat polygamistic type of remarrying to take place. It is a divorced American's right to remarry. Indeed, hopefully often, the step parent turns out not to be evil at all, but rather to be an extension of the love of the true parents, again resembling the role that sister-wives play. One may argue, probably successfully, that in the sects of Mormonism in which polygamy occurs, there are many issues that children have to deal with. For girls, under-age marriage and for boys, expulsion from the colony and their lives to offset the unbalanced gender-ratio created by polygamy. However, the institution of polygamy as a parenting system is not itself wrong.
I don't think America is even close to legalizing polygamy, but there's no real call to do so anyway, so it works out.
Whooooooo I'm all for polygamy. That being said, there are so many things that can go wrong with plural marriage, I understand why it's so hard to swallow, or legalize it, at that. When someone says polygamy, most people's minds go straight to something like "Big Love" or "Sister Wives" as Henry was saying. I do not think that this kind of plural marriage should be legal, with one main focal person who's getting all the lovin while everyone just revolves around them, whether or not it's really what they want. No matter how much they say they like it on "Sister Wives", to me it seems so clear that none of the wives, especially the first ones, are enjoying it. Buuut a group marriage is a totally different thing. For someone like me, who likes a full house but space when I need it, it seems perfect. You'd get to have two people that really love you, and two people you can love (or more, whatever works), and you wouldn't get as sick of each other, but if you did need a break you just leave your partners in the bedroom, shut the door, and then go get some alone time. To me it sounds like the ideal situation, as long as everyone is consenting and loving everyone. However, I can see that that's where it would be tricky, because there's no real way to tell. Maybe in the future there will be an interview process before marriage to make sure everyone is consenting, but who knows, only time will tell.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/opinion/l28polygamy.html?scp=1&sq=polygamy%20op&st=cse&gwh=ED1E0092BCA62220B6BEB623CEBD1D60
Post a Comment