SSM, NONTRADITIONAL MARRIAGES, AND POLYGAMY: Mark Miller replies to R.K. Becker

Just to clarify, R.K. believes that the effort to legalize polygamy will be unsuccessful in the next 5 years due to the fact that the people who make these decisions want to prevent those who opposed SSM from saying "I told you so." But once SSM opponents are relegated to political irrelevance, since the logic behind the support of SSM is the same as for polygamy, polygamy will eventually become legal.

This does not hold for the reason that there are significant differences between the arguments (both legal and moral) for SSM and the arguments for polygamy.

In R.K.'s first example, he says that one of the pro-SSM rguments is based on the fact that denying gays to marry denies them the opportunity to marry the person they love in the same way straights can marry the person they love. I agree. He goes on to suggest that this same logic can then be applied to bisexuals who have attractions to both sexes and therefore, allowing them to marry who they are attracted to leads to polygamy.

The problem with this for me is that my argument for SSM is to allow people to marry ONE person whom they love. While I'm sure there are some who support unlimited marriage laws with no rules or lines drawn, I am not among them. There should be lines drawn with regard to marriage but I am not sure why that line should drawn based on gender. I am sure why that line should drawn at involving two people. The reasoning behind each is different. Therefore, my argument for SSM is not simply about "allowing everyone to be happy in life." I do believe there are other considerations. Obviously, I see a moral distinction between homosexual behavior and having multiple partners, where apparently R.K. does not.

In R.K.'s second example, he says that one of the pro-SSM arguments is based on the fact that denying gays to marry denies them the opportunity to marry the person they are sleeping with and, in many cases, raising children with. Again, I agree. He goes on to suggest that this same logic can be applied to same-sex couples who wish to add the other "biological" parent to the family so that the child can have both the legal mother and father, which is one of traditionalist positions.

I am not arguing that the laws of marriage should be based solely on the child having both a mother and father. There are already laws in place for which both the biological mother and father have legal responsibilities to their offspring. Those responsibilities are not affected by the laws of "marriage." In this example, I would argue that a choice has to be made by the parties involved which two partners should be legally married. In response to an argument made as to why not allow all three people to enjoy the benefits of marriage and raising the child, I would say that marriage is between two people. And that I believe that aspect of what we call marriage is central to the institution as opposed to it being opposite-sex.
posted by Eve at 4:06 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home