(On some browsers you'll need to refresh this page in order to see the comment you just left.)

Paula - 2004-03-21 07:23:50
The comments section works again!
-------------------------------
Dan - 2004-03-21 20:54:09
There was a bigamy discussion recently on loud-fans. I dunno, I think the bishop's point is interesting. Seems to me that there are more or less two ways of supporting gay marriage: "People should be free to marry whom they want"; or "Society should add gay marriage to its list of officially sanctioned behaviors." Most of the rhetoric focuses on the freedom angle, but my sense is that most people aren't wild enough to want all the things that marriage-freedom entails. In actuality, the second formulation is probably closer to what most pro-gay-marriage people are really thinking, and probably also closer to what society can absorb.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2004-03-21 23:28:16
I think the bishop's point is interesting.

His statement seemed to me taunting, disrespectful and disingenuous. What did you find interesting about it?
-------------------------------
Tim Walters - 2004-03-22 14:11:55
If the bishop had just used polygamy as his example, he would have had the sort of point you're talking about. But his bringing bestiality into it was, well, taunting, disrespectful and disingenuous. Dogs can't consent to marriage (or any other form of contract), or even understand what it is, so the idea that marriage-freedom encompasses them is nonsensical. And as was pointed out by many loud-fans, polygamy is not isomorphic to current marriage, the way gay marriage is. So it's possible to argue for the latter but not the former while remaining intellectually consistent. I'm "wild enough" to support polygamy for consenting adults, but I don't think there's a slippery slope there.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2004-03-22 14:21:34
I guess I'm coming at this from an even more primal, less political or intellectual place: I thought it was repulsive to equate one partner in a gay marriage with an animal. It sounds like KKK-level reasoning. And that's as far as I got in trying to understand the bishop's p.o.v.
-------------------------------
Dan - 2004-03-22 23:58:50

Isomorphism is a bit subjective, though, no? It depends on what you consider the most important characteristics of marriage. Twoness? Consent? Man-woman? Opponents of gay marriage see it as deforming the institution in essential ways.

I didn't read the bishop's statement carefully - maybe he was being nasty. Still, I think that the reason gay marriage is on the horizon is because society is on the verge of accepting gayness, not because of any general principle. And maybe it's not possible to do it any other way: maybe the institution of marriage is a fusion of legal privilege and social custom, and the two angles might be so intertwined that they have to change together.

A bit, maybe, but no more. In theory, there's no longer any legal distinction between the man and woman in a conventional marriage, no set role for each to play. Legally, it's just two people bound by certain covenants, each with the same responsibilities toward the other. Changing the sex of one party doesn't alter any of that, as much as it may squick some people. A chair is still a chair, even if it's painted an unapproved color.

But some of those covenants (e.g. "presumptive heir", "power of attorney") don't translate directly to groups of more than two. I'm fairly confident that analogous covenants could be worked out, but they would require working out, and hence there's some uncertainty about what polygamous marriage would be. There's no such uncertainty about gay marriage--whether you're for it or agin it, you already know exactly what it entails without needing to be told.

Still, I think that the reason gay marriage is on the horizon is because society is on the verge of accepting gayness, not because of any general principle.

I don't disagree, but I think that a consensus on the legal meaning of gay marriage--as opposed to its permissibility--is also a necessary condition, and one that will be much harder for polygamy or (thankfully) bestigamy (?) to achieve.
-------------------------------
Dan - 2004-03-23 01:10:34
One could mention incestuous marriage, which I understand doesn't pose as grave a risk to progeny as many believe. In terms of understanding all the implications of the relationship, human-animal marriage wins over all the others, hands down! Would that human-human relationships were anywhere near as stable and affectionate. Oh, well - I don't mean to be a provocateur. Thinking about this issue has actually been quite educational for me.
-------------------------------
Tim Walters - 2004-03-23 01:49:40
I don't have a problem with incestuous marriage either, with the usual consenting-adult proviso--which means that it would be very rare, since we seem to be hardwired to avoid it if the siblings are raised together.
-------------------------------
Tim Walters - 2004-03-23 13:09:27
Lest I seem a little cold-blooded, I should point out that I have many friends among the Newsom Twosomes, and in no way is this just an abstract issue for me. But fortunately logic and emotion are on the same side here.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2004-03-23 14:55:29
And I have a bunch of incest-marriage friends, so I really take that issue to heart, too. :)
-------------------------------
Tim Walters - 2004-03-23 18:42:55
"He killed his pa and he married his ma/They don't even do that in Arkansas."

Mark Graham, "Oedipus Rex"
-------------------------------

add your comment:

back to the entry - Diaryland