tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post1080778855426787903..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Same-sex marriages today, polygamous marriages tomorrow?Russell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-77066368223145341612008-05-28T10:00:00.000+10:002008-05-28T10:00:00.000+10:00The question of whether or not polygamy should be ...The question of whether or not polygamy should be used is mainly based on whether or not it is moral. Just because something benefits society or doesn't explicitly hurt anyone doesn't mean it is moral. For instance, you could kill all elderly people and you wouldn't have to pay for them, but that would be wrong. I have recently begun a blog, and the first post happens to relate to this discussion: <A HREF="http://kakyamer.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow"> kakyamer.blogspot.com </A>Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07150445532381304917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-82141861674620521802008-05-28T09:52:00.000+10:002008-05-28T09:52:00.000+10:00This comment has been removed by the author.Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07150445532381304917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-11767623195690298872008-05-24T15:37:00.000+10:002008-05-24T15:37:00.000+10:00Though by itself that sounds as likely to be an an...Though by itself that sounds as likely to be an anti-prostitution measure.Damien Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321329197063620556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-72083692604818180402008-05-24T02:45:00.000+10:002008-05-24T02:45:00.000+10:00It's widely asserted that ancient Sumerian civiliz...It's widely asserted that ancient Sumerian civilization practiced polyandry or at least dyandry, since a legal edict from Urukagina of Lagash (c. 2370 BCE) banned the practice. "If a woman takes a second husband, her teeth shall be bashed with an oven-fired brick," or words to that effect.Blake Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13977394981287067289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-25483528643532635942008-05-23T08:51:00.000+10:002008-05-23T08:51:00.000+10:00Oh, and while group marriages as a widespread thin...Oh, and while group marriages as a widespread thing are a thing of science fiction, they do exist; I know of two group situations over the Internet -- and from general SF/gaming, not ever hanging out in polyamorous circles per se -- and knew a long-term guy-girl-girl living arrangement. (I think girl2 was lesbian, so it was actually girl1 getting the two 'spouses'. Historicize that.)Damien Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321329197063620556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-45035692002068146612008-05-23T08:48:00.000+10:002008-05-23T08:48:00.000+10:00http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777190170/says...http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777190170/<BR/><BR/>says marriage in Egypt was entirely a private matter of who you were living with, with private contracts to handle economic support.<BR/><BR/>I wonder if part of the US reaction to polygamy is the fact that medical benefits are often tied to marriage, and worry that polygamy would break the system. Of course, I don't discount general Christianity either, or the history with the Mormons.Damien Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321329197063620556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-52210382337696005452008-05-23T07:23:00.000+10:002008-05-23T07:23:00.000+10:00Postscript: I discuss a closely related issue here...Postscript: I discuss a closely related issue here, <A HREF="http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=74" REL="nofollow">The Shifgrethor of Changelings</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-13843356378968792652008-05-23T06:50:00.000+10:002008-05-23T06:50:00.000+10:00The substantive difference between polygyny versus...The substantive difference between polygyny versus same-sex marriage is the relative power of the partners (something that applies to heterosexual monogamy as well, and is amplified in polygyny).<BR/><BR/>Polyandry and novel variations on group marriages occur more frequently in speculative fiction -- and are investigated almost exclusively by women, who tend to be more aware of power issues (Ursula Le Guin alone accounts for a substantial fraction of these gedanken experiments).<BR/><BR/>Socially, before the advent of romanticism marriage was about property and inheritance. Therefore, it's not suprising to see it mirroring the context of its time and place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-83794630612583296482008-05-22T13:15:00.000+10:002008-05-22T13:15:00.000+10:00Dan Dennett, in his Freedom Evolves had what I tho...Dan Dennett, in his <I>Freedom Evolves</I> had what I thought was a good point that is directly relevant here:<BR/><BR/><I>[O]ur attitudes on these matters have been shifting gradually over the centuries. We now uncontroversially exculpate or mitigate in many cases that our ancestors would have dealt with much more harshly. Is this progress or are we all going soft on sin? To the fearful, this revision looks like erosion, and to the hopeful it looks like growing enlightenment, but there is also a neutral perspective from which to view the process. It looks to an evolutionist like a rolling equilibrium, never quiet for long, the relatively stable outcome of a series of innovations and counter-innovations, adjustments and meta-adjustments, an arms race that generates at least one sort of progress: growing self-knowledge, growing sophistication about who we are and what we are, and what we can and cannot do. And from this self-understanding, we fashion and re-fashion our conclusions about what we ought to do.</I><BR/><BR/>The slope's not slippery because we're all tugging one way or another and we're not about to get to any bottom ... because by the time we approach today's bottom, there will be a new one. All too recently there were many places in the US where interracial marriages were outlawed and dire predictions made if they were allowed. Today, while many people might still not like such pairings, as a society we would be horrified and would raise a great outcry if anyone suggested reinstitutiing antimiscegenation laws.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-61963895843528412352008-05-22T11:32:00.000+10:002008-05-22T11:32:00.000+10:00I think your right about that the main barrier aga...I think your right about that the main barrier against polygamy (or polyarmoury at least) being the prejudices of the Baby Boomers and GenXers. My guess is that as these groups fade from power the resistance to gay marraige, and various forms of non-monogamy, will also fade.<BR/>Among my social group (aged around 20 through 30) there is already no issue with gay marriage and non-monogamous relationships. Admittedly this isn't a very useful sample, being heavily biased in education and political views. However I don't have access to a psych journal database as I'm not at uni this semester, and I can't be arsed searching around the net for useful numbers.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08345844882894801472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-36070458424313465252008-05-22T10:11:00.000+10:002008-05-22T10:11:00.000+10:00Yeah, Bad, I completely take your point that it mi...Yeah, Bad, I completely take your point that it might be politically expedient to argue that recognition of polygamy does not lie at the bottom of the slope. Note, though, that (1) that doesn't detract from my point that the horrible result argument fails (and I realise that you're not suggesting it does detract from this point), so my points are still worth making, at least in a quiet corner among philosophically-inclined people; and (2) the arguments that polygamy does not lie at the bottom of the slope simply don't strike me as very convincing. Maybe I'm wrong, but even Carpenter says that he doesn't claim they're conclusive.<BR/><BR/>Indulge me, please in a bit of thinking onto the screen without the length of it implying a ranting tone. I actually feel quite tentative about some of what I'm about to say and am very open to exploring it.<BR/><BR/>First, it's possible that an ideal of monogamy is so entrenched in the Western mind that we won't ever reach legal recognition of polygamy in practice. If that's so, the conservatives are jumping at shadows.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I think there's real doubt about it. My guess is that a couple of generations down the track it may look quite puzzling to generation Z or Z-plus why we don't give polygamous marriages recognition, and the sorts of reasons given by Dale Carpenter may look to them more like rationalisations. If the conservatives sense this, they may be correct IMHO.<BR/><BR/>Put another way, the main barrier against the slope may simply be the prejudices/ideals of the current generations that hold power: the busters, the boomers and GenXers. But generation Y seems to be very open to all kinds of sexual choices, at least judging from the views expressed by my students, and while there may be a retreat from that, it's possible (from the conservatives' point of view, all too possible) that <I>their</I> kids and grandkids will be even more so.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, though, there's a lot more to be said about these issues, and I'm starting to wonder whether I need to write an entire book or at least a long article. For example, it's worth exploring why so many (but by no means all) gay activists want gay marriage in the first place - and it's worth exploring the views of those gay activists who actually oppose it. It would be presumptuous of me to tell them what to think and feel, but from my perspective it's all slightly puzzling. If, as I do, you see marriage as essentially the social and, in complex societies, legal regulation of who can have sex and have children, it's puzzling why anyone is interested in it anymore as something to be recognised or not <I>by the state</I>.<BR/><BR/>After all, the state no longer persecutes gay couples with fire and sword. In the US, <I>Lawrence v. Texas</I> held that attempting to do so would be unconstitutional. It might even be said, without much exaggeration, that there's a sense in which everybody above a certain age is already married to everybody else above a certain age, in that it is perfectly legal for them to have sex or have children together (though it is still not technologically possible for gays to have children who are biologically related to both social parents).<BR/><BR/>I mean, I totally understand why people would want to be married for recognition by their cultural group, religious community, etc., and why they would want to celebrate a commitment with friends and family, but why they would want the apparatus of the state to be involved in their lives is a bit mysterious. There's a complex story to be told about why they automatically think it's important. It's also a bit mysterious why anyone feels so passionately that the apparatus of the state should <I>not</I> be involved when it's someone else's marriage, as when a gay couple want to be married or a group of Muslims want to have a polygamous marriage recognised.<BR/><BR/>After all, marriage no longer serves the purpose of controlling who can have sex or have children: i.e., we no longer ban so-called "fornication" or extra-marital sex. We do tie various benefits to marriage, but not so much outside of the US (does this explain why it seems to be such a big deal on both sides in the US in particular? or is the reason the usual culture wars stemming from American religiosity?). That can easily be changed, at least for couples, simply by giving the same legal benefits to de factos as to formally married people, and then treating gay de factos exactly like straight de factos. That is pretty much the policy direction in Australia (and probably in Europe, but I'm not sure).<BR/><BR/>At least outside the US, marriage mainly confers a certain kind of prestige on a relationship, and even that is being eroded. Here, in Australia, people are just as likely to talk about their "partner", and in many circles actually being married doesn't seem to have all that much cachet attached to it except perhaps as a way of pleasing parents (and now that the kids of the baby boomers and GenXers are at marriagable age, even that will be less of a factor than it was for the boomers and GenXers themselves).<BR/><BR/>The psychology of it all is fascinating, and I think that the theory of background conditions probably has something to say about it. I.e., the idea of marriage is simply so entrenched in our consciousness as a basic "given" about how society is organised that we tend not to notice - or to want to deny - that society is no longer organised around marriage in the way that it used to be.<BR/><BR/>But to get back to my original point, my sense of it is that the conservatives are not by any means being silly if they think that the logic of moving from recognition of gay marriages to recognition of polygamous marriages over a period of generations will prove inexorable, despite the best efforts of people like Carpenter to make the distinction. Proponents of gay marriage are too quick to be dismissive of this, as you noted on your blog. On the other hand, even if the conservatives are right about that, their slippery slope/horrible-result argument is weak.<BR/><BR/>Back to you. Let's kick these ideas around some more.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-8755520350734538562008-05-22T01:23:00.000+10:002008-05-22T01:23:00.000+10:00I don't think you have to recognize that the botto...I don't think you have to recognize that the bottom of a slippery slope is bad to recognize that many many other people think its bad, and to point out to them that this particular slope is unlikely, at least in the way they fear (and it is a legitimate fear: judicial decisions that cite a vaguely defined value of equal treatment under the law are inherently open to justify just about anything), which I think is more the point of Carpenter's arguments than they are to simply prove that polygamy is bad, per se. Heck, one of the arguments is "polygamist advocates will have to make their case independently of gay marriage," which isn't an endorsement either way.Badhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07225890125470949454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-3752456204159528302008-05-22T00:20:00.000+10:002008-05-22T00:20:00.000+10:00I'm curious -- is the decline in how important a m...I'm curious -- is the decline in how important a marriage (or marriage-like) arrangement is related to the amount of capital the people in question have (i.e. the "class" level, for lack of a better idiom).<BR/><BR/>It seems when looking at middle class society, who typically have some kind of capital, but not much, and live off of their creative or intellectual skills, that marriage is more about having a good life, and is in many cases optional. <BR/><BR/>Going either up to people with lots of capital, or down to people who own very little, marriage becomes much, much more an economic institution -- either who has to provide for the children, or which child gets all of the parent's property when they die. <BR/><BR/>i.e. as property becomes more important (because there's either none of it or very much of it) the laws governing that property in the marriage become more important than personal happiness (or, rather, the personal happiness of the parties becomes contingent on how the property is to be handled).<BR/><BR/>That could explain why middle class people who see nothing wrong with gay or poly marriages (like me) get so confused when other segments of society scream and yell at the prospect of non-standard arrangements.Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16878692095504962169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-28631205233578157092008-05-21T23:59:00.000+10:002008-05-21T23:59:00.000+10:00More generally, what prevents polygyny in Western ...<I>More generally, what prevents polygyny in Western societies is just that women (<B>far</B> more often than not) don't and won't want it.</I><BR/><BR/>Also the threat of multiple mothers-in-law.<BR/><BR/>OK, it's an old joke, but I firmly believe that what is funny should be repeated until it isn't, and what isn't funny should be repeated until it is. Come to think of it, this might also explain, at least in part, why I also am not conjoined in marital bliss with <I>N</I> persons of the appropriate genders.Blake Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13977394981287067289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-32309175307814506262008-05-21T17:19:00.000+10:002008-05-21T17:19:00.000+10:00Well said, of course I wonder if polygamy and poly...Well said, of course I wonder if polygamy and polyandry marriage is a slippery slope polyamdy? Which is a marriage where there are many wives and many husbands.<BR/><BR/>Of course, since Russell argues against the recognition of marriage everywhere, I suppose my point is kind of stupid - and making up a word because I didn't know the correct term doesn't help things.<BR/><BR/>I guess when reading posts like this I ponder exactly how liberal (is that the right word?) our society will come in the next 20, 50 and 100 years, and whether the one-to-one relationships really will remain the norm. Since they have been for so long I can't help but wonder whether this really is some sort of proof that they are 'normal', 'natural', 'correct', or however you would put it.<BR/><BR/>But I don't buy into that - straight marriage, gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry, will all be anachronistic in my version of the future, and the norm shall be individual people living their own lives, being strong enough not to need validation or ‘emotional support’ from others, but enjoying the all the physical satisfaction that they please.<BR/><BR/>To quote 'a history of violence':<BR/>"I've met a lot of pretty girls in my life, but I've never met one that made me forget about the rest".<BR/><BR/>Stu<BR/>PS. Yes I am 25 (and probably emotionally 14) – so sue me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-12632308911886837142008-05-21T15:15:00.000+10:002008-05-21T15:15:00.000+10:00Maybe it's because polyandrous traditions don't se...Maybe it's because polyandrous traditions don't seem to do well except in isolation, as in some tribal societies, so they tend not to be common these days. Where they did exist, the arrangements weren't simply a mirror image of official polygamy (which has undoubted drawbacks for women and often involves quite savage attempts to stop them having access to alternatives). <BR/><BR/>But there are certainly individual polyandrous relationships around in the West. I've not seen any statistics, but I've encountered people in such relationships.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-48222642250813680982008-05-21T15:03:00.000+10:002008-05-21T15:03:00.000+10:00Won't somebody think of the children? Russell, you...Won't somebody think of the children? Russell, you'll get a reputation as being an immoral type. Polyandry doesn't get much of a mention in these debates. I wonder why?Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.com