Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Big Love

I am typically not all that interested in polygamy and whether or not it should be legal. I don't like that it seems to foster oppression of women and I really don't like that it frequently involves very young "women". I can't, however, come up with a good reason for it being illegal. My family, my choice. I believe homosexuals should have every right to marriage and family as well. Some people believe these are completely seperate issues but they both come down to adults having the legal right to love other consenting adults in whatever way they choose. There is an article by William Saletan over at Slate that tries to distinguish between the two. Here are some interesting snippets:


My friend Charles Krauthammer makes the argument succinctly in the Washington Post. "Traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender," he observes. "If, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices," then "on what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?"Here's the answer. The number isn't two. It's one. You commit to one person, and that person commits wholly to you. Second, the number isn't arbitrary. It's based on human nature. Specifically, on jealousy.

Some people say the Bible sanctions polygamy. "Abraham, David, Jacob and Solomon were all favored by God and were all polygamists," argues law professor Jonathan Turley. Favored? Look what polygamy did for them. Sarah told Abraham to sleep with her servant. When the servant got pregnant and came to despise Sarah, Sarah kicked her out. Rachel and Leah fought over Jacob, who ended up stripping his eldest son of his birthright for sleeping with Jacob's concubine. David got rid of Bathsheba's husband by ordering troops to betray him in battle. Promiscuity had the first word, but jealousy always had the last.


I do like that last sentence and I guess the article makes its point that someone can support one without supporting the other. The problem I see is that he refers to human nature (specifically jealousy) when that's one of the arguments people use against homosexual marriage as well. It is in our nature to hook up with the opposite sex for procreation. Of course, homosexuals often still have the desire to procreate so are they really going "against nature"?
These are my unchecked, early thoughts...feel free to respond.

4 comments:

  1. Thats a pretty good argument for marriage being confined to 2 people.

    Although if you allowed multiple partners it wouldn't have to be one man to many women.

    It could be one woman, many men.

    Or even men to men, women to women, or men to women.

    Basically if you legalize polygamic marriage you can have any number of permutations of genders.

    But thats too confusing.

    So lets just stick to two people.

    ReplyDelete
  2. More than one partner tends to make a huge ego and the man thinks he can always have one more or would kill to replace one.Even thinking of having another partner will eventually lead to the downfall of your marriage.If not divorce you will be very unhappy and think everyone else is happy for being dogs in an alley.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Glad to see you here G. I agree with you competely. The jealousy argument makes perfect sense...I just feel like I need to see more of a societal impact before I'd want to make it illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Need a listening ear? have a problem that u would like to share?? or simply want a 3rd person's view or adivce???
    Email to Dearderrick@gmail.com with your nick name and your country's name. .

    ReplyDelete