If we were to pass a law stating that anyone with blue eyes is forbidden to marry his or her sibling, but everyone else can, we'd have a minority rights issue on our hands. We'd be discriminating against a particular group based on a physical characteristic.
But if we pass a law stating that no one can marry his or her sibling, whatever else it might be it's not discrimination because the law applies equally to everyone.
Preventing gays from marrying discriminates against a group because of sexual orientation. It's a minority rights issue. But the argument that allowing gays to marry is some kind of slippery slope that leads to polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages and the possibility that the weird guy on the next block will claim the right to marry his pet parrot Polly is bogus. It's not the same thing.
So just cut it out.
Just so you don't misunderstand where I'm coming from, I want to clarify upfront that I support equal rights for everyone. This means, among other things, that if women can marry men, I think they should be able to marry women, too. So I don't disagree with you about the issue at hand. I do have some questions about your reasoning, though.
The law regarding no-sibling-marriage may apply equally to everyone, but I've heard the same argument made to justify the existing marriage laws. Gay people, after all, are not disallowed from marrying. They may absolutely marry people of the opposite sex; they just don't want to. Similarly, the law regarding no-sibling-marriage is only relevant for people who actually want to marry their siblings.
I've seen many people in these arguments stating baldly that "polygamous marriage is not the same thing," but without any arguments to back up their statements. There are many people out there in loving, equal, long-term, polyamorous relationships -- and yes, even in Canada. Some of them wish there were marriage rights for their relationships as well. How is that just baldly "not the same thing" as a man and a woman wanting to marry, or a man and a man wanting to marry?
-J
Jennie's right - your argument is not logically sound in this case.
Since we are only talking about civil marriages here, I don't think it boils down to a rights issue for the Government to say that it will recognize (i.e. support with tax breaks, etc.) one but not multiple spouses. The social/religious ability of people to have multiple marriages would not be affected.
I think the point that's evading everyone is this:
Marriage is not rooted in any one religious set of beliefs.
As soon as it was opened up for heathens like myself to get married (not belonging, not wanting to belong to, any organized religion), THAT was the only this 'slippery slope' argument would be even considered valid.
The fact that straight people outside of (because it's obvious, and easy) the Christian religion can get legally married without protest from the Pope (or anyone else, really), means that the Christian faith has given up all rights to the concept of marriage (at least in Canada).
So we've been on this 'slippery slope' for GENERATIONS now, and we're not all evil yet.
As for polyamory, I haven't been able to nail down how I feel about this. The knee-jerk reaction is obvious, but I don't know anything about the lifestyle, besides what I've seen on TV. So I'm not really informed enough.
I sorta digressed a little there. But what I'm getting at is that the way the argument is framed is wrong. If the slope got slippery, it was generations ago. But it's clearly not THAT slippery anyway.
Actually I'd like to see the opponents of gay marriage continue using that argument. It's so idiotic that it does more damage to their cause than all the arguments for gay marriage ever will.
Unfortunately, it's being treated as a valid argument. That's my problem. If they're forced to acknowledge it isn't one, all they have to rely on is hatred and bigotry.
That will do the damage.
Polygamy is the 800-pound gorilla in the room, folks. What's our moral justification for stopping consenting adults from entering into formal polygamous marriage? I say this as a wholehearted supporter of gay marriage. I have to admit I am opposed to polygamous marriage, but I can't even really articulate why.
What's our moral justification for stopping consenting adults from entering into formal polygamous marriage?
I'm not sure there is a moral argument, except that a lot of people are uncomfortable with it.
There are practical considerations, though - how do you handle divorce, or pension benefits, or child custody, etc? Is there some kind of hierarchy of husbands or wives, or are all spouses considered equal?
What's funny to me about the polygamy argument, is that if you look at bible, it could be considered a 'traditional' form of marriage.
The basic problem with polygamy is the large possibility of abuse within the relationships. Just google Bountiful, B.C. and you'll bring up news reports of trafficing across the border in child brides, sexual abuse etc. Young men who can't have girlfriends or wives because they're taken by the older men have no stake in the community and become criminals. Polygamy just causes alot of problems in society.
The same can be said of incest. Most incest victims are women. I don't think there could be any valid notion of "consenting adults" in an incestous marriage. One would assume incest was occurring before these people were adults. The state, if it recognized this type of relationship, would seem to be contenancing sexual abuse.
Flynn:
Can you provide evidence that there is a greater potential for sexual abuse in polyamorous relationships than in monogamous ones?
-J
There are many people out there in loving, equal, long-term, polyamorous relationships -- and yes, even in Canada. Some of them wish there were marriage rights for their relationships as well. How is that just baldly "not the same thing" as a man and a woman wanting to marry, or a man and a man wanting to marry?
Marriage is a contract involving two people, and two people only. And for those who want to bring tradition into the discussion, there's at least a couple of hundred years of English common law to back that up.
Allowing that those two people can be of the same sex instead of the opposite sex in no way establishes a precedent that marriage can now be a contract involving three people. Or five. Or twelve.
So I'm back to my original point. Barring people of the same sex from signing that contract discriminates against them because of their sexual orientation. Continuing to limit the marriage contract to two people isn't discriminatory because that limitation applies to all people.
I think my reasoning is quite sound. Changing the nature of the marriage contract to include more than two people is a separate issue.
...the law regarding no-sibling-marriage is only relevant for people who actually want to marry their siblings...
Relevance is irrelevant to my point. The law still applies equally to everyone hence there is no discrimination, no minority rights issue and same sex marriage sets no precedent that would apply here.
The law against murder is only "relevant" to people who want to commit murder. That doesn't make the law discriminatory.
The law still applies equally to everyone hence there is no discrimination, no minority rights issue and same sex marriage sets no precedent that would apply here.
In that case, what I said above still stands. That same argument has been made to justify discriminatory practices against same-sex couples. The current law -- that one man may only marry one woman -- applies equally to everyone. Gay men may marry women under the existing law, just as straight men can. Hence no discrimination, right? I'd argue no, but the way you're making the argument certainly leaves that wide open.
Allowing that those two people can be of the same sex instead of the opposite sex in no way establishes a precedent that marriage can now be a contract involving three people. Or five. Or twelve.
It certainly wouldn't. But my point was that there are many polyamorous people, some in Canada, who would *like* marriage to be a contract involving three people, or five, or twelve. The current law discriminates against them, and the potential laws currently being discussed would as well. And speaking only for myself, I think the veiled suggestion of "gay relationships are normal, but polyamorous ones are just plain sick, so that's *different*" in this kind of rhetoric is getting a little tiresome.
Current law specifies marriage as a contract involving two people and two people only. Current law also specifies marriage as a contract involving a man and a woman. There are people who want to change the "man and a woman" part, but there are also people who also want to change the "two people only" part of it. Both proposed changes involve bucking tradition, and both proposed changes involve groups of people with loving, committed relationships. There may not be a slippery slope, but there is a rather arbitrary line, whether under the older laws or under the newer proposed ones. That doesn't make it okay to discriminate against same-sex couples, of course, but it is a fact.
-J
I've got a perfect solution to the whole gay marriage issue which would also solve the divorce problem in on fell swoop. Let's just make it illegal for anyone to get married. Only civil unions will be allowed. There, now can we all get along now?
Hugh:
Marriage, or at least the practice of a man and a woman committing to each other, predates the Christian religion IIRC.... I don't think that slippery slope arguement you're pressing for is valid.
Why don't we let hockey players sign a contract with two different teams?
The current law -- that one man may only marry one woman -- applies equally to everyone. Gay men may marry women under the existing law, just as straight men can. Hence no discrimination...
Marriage offers certain legal and financial benefits in our society. When someone makes the argument you suggest here, in effect he's offering a gay man one of two choices:
a) In order to enjoy the benefits of marriage, choose a partner from the gender to which you're not attracted (possibly deceiving her as to who you really are in the process) and, if you take your marriage vows seriously, spend the rest of your life ignoring your natural sexual orientation.
b) Choose a partner from the gender to which you are attracted and forgo the benefits of marriage which the majority can take for granted.
I would argue that is discriminatory, and needlessly so since there is no harm done in allowing same sex couples to marry. I realize that there are many who argue that this development would somehow diminish the institution of marriage but I've yet to see a convincing explanation as to why.
...speaking only for myself, I think the veiled suggestion of "gay relationships are normal, but polyamorous ones are just plain sick, so that's *different*" in this kind of rhetoric is getting a little tiresome.
If this is directed at me, I think you're putting words in my mouth. I'll argue that this raises different issues than same sex marriage but I don't believe I've made any other judgement on the matter.
There may not be a slippery slope
Thank you! That was my point.
... but there is a rather arbitrary line
This is in reference to your previous argument that the law would still "discriminate" against polyamorous relationships. It may be an arbitrary line but it's a large and complex one. See Scott's comment above re: divorce, pension benefits and child custody. Add inheritance in the case of someone who dies intestate. I could probably add more if I really thought about it for a few minutes.
Legalizing polygamy/polyandry raises a whole host of legal issues whether you're comfortable with the morality of it or not. I would argue that these issues simply don't enter into the discussion when the only change to the law being contemplated is treating same sex couples in the same way that heterosexual couples are treated.
My interest here was in clearing some of the erroneous arguments against same sex marriage out of the way. If people want to oppose it, let them do so with arguments that make more sense than suggesting that it "opens the door" to other things when, on a strictly logical basis, it does no such thing. That doesn't mean that all the other things are necessarily undesirable either. It just means they're separate issues and conflating them with same sex marriage doesn't clarify anything.
The fundamental difference between the struggle towards gay marriage and that towards poly marriages is one of advantage: two consenting gay or lesbian people cannot (in some places, anyway) marry and reap the legal benefits (ie. pensions, health care &c), whereas consensual polyamorous people can legally marry *one* person they love deeply and have committed, loving relationships with as many more as they choose. I don't think the poly situation is especially bad: it would be nice from an emotional standpoint to be able to marry everyone you wish to and have that recognized by society; but from a legal standpoint, poly people *can* reap all the benefits that monogamous people can from marriage.
The slippery slope started 4 or 5 centuries ago when people got the idea that you could actually choose who to marry. At that time marriages were arranged and it was chiefly a mechanism for cementing alliances between families as well as solidifying and passing down wealth. Now you couldn?t have Squire Weston?s daughter running off with a bastard because the two ?fell in love? ( could you Tom Jones ? ) So the church and state got involved to make sure everything was on the up and up.
Gradually, freedom of choice has become the norm. First arranged marriages went, next your choice was not limited to just those of your faith, next your choice was not limited to just those of your race. Now it?s not limited to the opposite sex. Love has conquered. (except in the church - where it?s hardly about love and more about establishing an order - from God to priest to husband to wife to children ).
You have to divorce any idea af religion or love from civil marriages. It is just a legal entity that sets out rights and obligations between the parties on a number of matters ( ownership of property being just one ). It also creates in law an ? artificial person? just as a number of shareholders are though of as one person when they incorporate. ( as an aside - would there be any loud opposition today if we were changing a law that said ?only heterosexuals can form limited partnerships or corporations ??)
A polyamorous unit would have to show a denial of equal benefit/protection of the law. If a marriage is a legal entity for the specific and efficient determination of rights where only two people are involved there is no denial because there are more than 2 people involved. To open up marriage to more than 2 would ruin the specificity and efficiency of the entity. It would be similar to me - a sole proprietor - saying that I am denied equal protection of the law because I can?t form a partnership.
There would be a denial if a polyamorous unit was denied the right to form an artificial person but there is nothing, aside from the Criminal Code, that would prevent them from registering as a trust or nonprofit corporation.
As for incest. It, unlike homosexuality, is still in the criminal code. It, unlike homosexuality, has been shown to cause demonstrable harm and its prohibition has already been held constitutional. There are also public policy reasons to ban them. We think it?s a bad idea to tie up property and wealth for a long time. We have a ?rule against perpetuity? that sez you can?t control property for more than 99 years. If interfamily marriage was allowed you could keep wealth/property in the hands of one family ( by passing it down from generation to generation) and do an end run around the rule against perpetuity.
Flynn - there's no intrinsic reason why polygamous or polyamorous relationships should necessarily involve rigid patriarchal hierarchies or exploitation of young women. For that matter, there's no intrinsic reason why polygamous marriages should necessarily all involve one man and several women, as you seem to assume from your "wife shortage" argument.
goggleeyedwhore - from a legal standpoint, poly people *can* reap all the benefits that monogamous people can from marriage.
I take it you've never seen a poly relationship break up. A poly person might find themselves, for example, with no legal visitation rights for a child they've helped raise from birth.
Nbob - you wrote, If a marriage is a legal entity for the specific and efficient determination of rights where only two people are involved there is no denial because there are more than 2 people involved.
Yes, and if a marriage is a legal entity for the specific and efficient determination of rights where only one man and one woman are involved there is no denial because there are two men or two women involved. What's your point?
Sheesh. I'm with Jennie.
The point is that denial is based on sexual orientation (which is prohibited under s. 15 of the Charter ) Poly people would have to say they are being discriminated on grounds of faith. The answer is that they are not being discriminated against. It is distinction not discrimination. The distinction is based on numbers ( i.e. form not capacity ). There are other legal entities that are formed to address rights between 3 or more people as long as poly people have a legal capacity to enter in to one of those forms there is no discrimination.
A poly person might find themselves, for example, with no legal visitation rights for a child they've helped raise from birth.
You're quite right; I haven't. I have, however, seen disenfranchised parties of broken monogamous marriages lose all access to their children. Such are the pitfalls of relationships, marriages, and a flawed justice system, and not just for poly people.
Today in Alberta:
Samesex couple: We?d like to create an artificial person please ?
Registrar: Will that be provincially as a ?Domestic Partnership? of federally as a nonprofit corp or both?
SC: We were thinking federally - as a marriage.
R: Oh but that?s only for a man and a woman!
SC: But that?s discrimination !
R: No that?s distinction. Look folks you can set up your domestic partnership so that it has the exact same fiduciary duties between two people as marriage.
SC: But marriage already sets out a system of fiduciary duties as between two people!
R: Yes - but between a man and a woman - see this nonprofit corp is separate but exactly equal.
SC: Same fiduciary duties but different name? And the only reason it has a different name is because you think we?re different?
R: Well you?re not a man and a woman!
SC: So we need a different set of fiduciary duties !?
R: Right! no no wrong - you just need a separate name.
SC: But if we have the same fiduciary duties the only reason you?re keeping us separate is because of our sexual orientation. That?s prohibited under s. 15 of the Charter.
Some time in the future:
Polyperson unit: We?d like to create an artificial person please ?
Registrar: Will that be provincially as a ?Domestic Partnership? of federally as a nonprofit corp or both?
PU: We were thinking federally - as a marriage.
R: Oh but that?s only for 2 people!
PU: But that?s discrimination !
R: No that?s distinction.
PU: But you ?re saying my faith is not as valid as another because you won?t let us marry like them! That ?separate but equal? thinking is prohibited under s. 15.
R: I?m not here to validate anyone's faith. You are separate because you are more than 2 (that is drawing a distinction). But you are equal in that you have a mechanism to establish a fiduciary relationship and an artificial person. If I refused to recognize you?re right to that then that would be discrimination. I?m only here to establish and recognize fiduciary relationships.
PU: But marriage already exists for that.
R: It exists for that if you happen to be two people. Numbers help define fiduciary relationships. When there is only one other person there is no question of loyalties. You must share your loyalties between more than just one other. So a fiduciary system designed for 2 will not work for you.
PU: Well- you opened up marriage to same sex couples - you should open it up to more than two people.
R: Two lesbians have the same fiduciary relationship as a hetro couple. Two persons have a different fiduciary relationship than 3 or 8 by the very fact that two persons do not have to share loyalty.
Does that help- or just confuse the issue ? Pogge , hope I?m not threadjacking too much?
Nbob: No problem.
I'll happily admit that poly relationships aren't an issue I'd given a lot of thought to. I suppose my own initial reaction is what it would be on a lot of social issues: if it's not going to hurt anyone, why is it any of my business? In a perfect world, the burden would be on those who oppose to demonstrate the harm it would do.
But we don't live in that perfect world. There are those who will try to roll homosexualty, polygamy, incest, bestiality and anything else they can think of into one big package and try to claim that accepting one of them means accepting all of them. It's a scare tactic designed to obscure the debate rather than clarify it.
I'm concentrating on same sex marriage because, for obvious reasons, that's the debate we're having in this country right now. We're a month or so away from having legislation introduced in the House of Commons. So my interest is trying to strip away what I see as fallacies and irrelevant arguments so that this debate can proceed on its merits.
And I'd submit that if anyone wants poly relationships seriously discussed you'll have to go through the same process. Confront the real issues it raises while trying to cut through the static created by those for whom having the discussion proceed on its merits is the last thing they want.
Andrew:
You may well be right. And if you are, I don't think it invalidates my argument, rather solidifies it. If marriage predates organized religion, why should religion dicate who can get married?
Margaret Wente put it well in the Globe yesterday, but the article's one of those stupid insider things that you have to pay for. The gist:
The government should never have married anyone, rather it should only issue civil unions. We wouldn't be in this predicament if that was the case.