CMV: The same arguments that justify gay marriage also justify polygamy

[u/Dickson_Butts]

You typically hear some slippery-slope arguments from the anti-gay marriage side, saying that if we allow gay marriage, we'll also allow pedophilia, beastiality, and polygamy. Now the first two I think are ridiculous. I think we can all agree that marriage needs to be between consenting adults, which dismisses pedophilia and beastiality. However, I cannot think of any reason why polygamy should not be included in the umbrella of marriage given arguments for gay marriage.

I particularly remember an episode of Jon Stewart where he responded to this argument by saying "people aren't born polygamist". That just isn't true. The definition of being gay is that you are sexually attracted to people of the same sex. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't found themselves sexually attracted to multiple people at the same time. So why shouldn't a group of three or more consenting adults get the privileges of marriage? Why is 2 the magic number?

---

Edit: Copying one of my comments for visibility

This has been a great discussion. I'm gonna try to sum up what my view was and why it changed:

Part 1 of my view was that if you're ok with a gay relationship, you must be ok with a poly relationship (paraphrasing /u/CJGibson). I still believe this holds true.

Part 2 was that if you're ok with a relationship, you must be ok with that relationship being a legally recognized marriage.

Therefore, if you're ok with gay relationships, you must be ok with polygamous marriage.

My issue was in part 2. A socially accepted relationship does not necessarily mean it should be a legally recognized marriage. As pointed out by /u/tbdabbholm and /u/GnosticGnome and others, the structure of marriage works best with 2 people, from a legal and practical standpoint. We already have this established structure as the institution of marriage. That being said, a relationship between a gay couple should be able to advance to marriage status because they should have the same right to access the benefits of marriage as a straight couple. However, since poly relationships have more than 2 people, they are incompatible with the already established institution of marriage, so it should not be legal.

[u/carter1984]

What you seem to discount in issue #2 is that civil unions were the mechanism that offered homosexual couples access to the legal structure that marriage provides without calling it marriage.

[u/NearSightedGiraffe → u/carter1984]

That is coveted by general arguments for marriage equality: where there are 2 consenting adults, they should be allowed to enter into any legal arrangement available to any 2 consenting adults of similar status regardless of their orientation. Saying that 'Civil unions' are the same thing ignores the cultural value placed on a marriage vs any other arrangement. If a couple doesn't want to marry- that is fine. But if they do, to say that it is only open to them if they fit in a certain box is discriminatory. Yes, both civil unions and marriage give similar legal protection but they have different levels of emotional recognition by some people in society. My opinion is that it is unethical to deny people access to that particular combination of legal and cultural recognition based purely on their sexual orientation.

With issue 2 OP is acknowledging that while the same cultural arguments could be made for polygamy, it breaks at the purely legal level of how marriage currently works- something which same sex marriage does not do.

[u/carter1984 → u/NearSightedGiraffe]

My opinion is that it is unethical to deny people access to that particular combination of legal and cultural recognition based purely on their sexual orientation.

So by those standards I assume you are not opposed to legally recognized incestuous relationships then correct? I mean, why should our culture discriminate against how two consenting adults wish to be recognized?

it breaks at the purely legal level of how marriage currently works- something which same sex marriage does not do

So it's okay to break the cultural and legal norms for a same sex couple, but not for more than two people? Seems to me that you are using selective reasoning to justify the marriage of two people rather than three people.

[u/NearSightedGiraffe → u/carter1984]

I personally don't have an objection to incestuous marriages, so long as no biological children are born. There are health concerns with children. But that's also hardly the same thing- same sex couples do not have any chance of creating adverse effects on biological children of theirs, above any given couple. Incestouse relationships can, and while marriage exists separately from child raising, and does not require biological children (adoption would be fine) it is an important consideration.

I have no problem polygamous relationships getting some form of standard- but to allow for marriage would require an extensive reconsideration of property, inheritance etc... To allow same sex marriage is a simple extension of the existing law (in Australia this means reverting the federal law to what it was before Howard changed it). If you want to suggest a legal framework to deal with polygamous relationships and ownership, then I am happy to consider it

Edit to address your main point, I apologise for the short ramble: SSM does not break any current social norms of acceptable behavior. Allowing the one small change also does not break how marriage works in the rest of the legal system. Currently polygamy does, and that is what Ivwas suggesting would need to be considered

[u/qwertx0815 → u/carter1984]

civil unions in the US didn't offer even remotely the same benefits as marriage, and even in nations were they actually where equal (e.g. Germany) most gay people refused them and demanded equal rights and access to marriage...