Previous Entry | Next Entry

mostly carefree
There is a compelling (but not sympathetic) article in today's Slate about how conservatives have brought polygamy and polyamory to the forefront in response to the American gay marriage debate. I would love to get some conversation going on this. For those of you who are new or not paying attention, your narrator (moi) is poly, but bare in mind that my friends list has equal amounts of poly and mono folks.

Don't Do Unto Others: The difference between gay marriage and polygamy. By William Saletan

Uh oh. Conservatives are starting to hyperventilate again. You know the symptoms: In a haystack of right-wing dominance, they find a needle of radicalism, declare it a mortal danger to civilization, and use it to rally their voters in the next election. First it was flag-burning. Then it was the "war on Christmas." Now it's polygamy. Having crushed gay marriage nationwide in 2004, they need to gin up a new threat to the family. They've found it in Big Love, the HBO series about a guy with three wives. Open the door to gay marriage, they warn, and group marriage will be next.</p>

My friend Charles Krauthammer makes the argument succinctly in the Washington Post. "Traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender," he observes. "If, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices," then "on what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?"

Here's the answer. The number isn't two. It's one. You commit to one person, and that person commits wholly to you. Second, the number isn't arbitrary. It's based on human nature. Specifically, on jealousy.



In an excellent Weekly Standard article against gay marriage and polygamy, Stanley Kurtz of the Hudson Institute discusses several recent polygamous unions. In one case, "two wives agreed to allow their husbands to establish a public and steady sexual relationship." Unfortunately, "one of the wives remains uncomfortable with this arrangement," so "the story ends with at least the prospect of one marriage breaking up." In another case, "two bisexual-leaning men meet a woman and create a threesome that produces two children, one by each man." Same result: "the trio's eventual breakup."

Look up other articles on polygamy, even sympathetic ones, and you'll see the pattern. A Columbia News Service report on last month's national conference of polyamorists—people who love, but don't necessarily marry, multiple partners—features Robyn Trask, the managing editor of a magazine called Loving More. The conference Web site says she "has been practicing polyamory for 16 years." But according to the article, "When Trask confronted her husband about sneaking around with a long-distance girlfriend for three months, he denied it. … The couple is now separated and plans to divorce." A Houston Press article on another couple describes how "John and Brianna opened up their relationship to another woman," but "it ended badly, with the woman throwing dishes." Now they're in another threesome. "I do get jealous at times," John tells the reporter. "But not to the point where I can't flip it off."

Good luck, John. I'm sure polyamorists are right that lots of people "find joy in having close relationships … with multiple partners." The average guy would love to bang his neighbor's wife. He just doesn't want his wife banging his neighbor. Fidelity isn't natural, but jealousy is. Hence the one-spouse rule. One isn't the number of people you want to sleep with. It's the number of people you want your spouse to sleep with.

We've been this way for a long time. Look at the Ten Commandments. One: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Two: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image … Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God." Three: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." In case the message isn't clear enough, the list proceeds to "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife."

Some people say the Bible sanctions polygamy. "Abraham, David, Jacob and Solomon were all favored by God and were all polygamists," argues law professor Jonathan Turley. Favored? Look what polygamy did for them. Sarah told Abraham to sleep with her servant. When the servant got pregnant and came to despise Sarah, Sarah kicked her out. Rachel and Leah fought over Jacob, who ended up stripping his eldest son of his birthright for sleeping with Jacob's concubine. David got rid of Bathsheba's husband by ordering troops to betray him in battle. Promiscuity had the first word, but jealousy always had the last.

Thousands of years later, we've changed our ideas about slavery, patriarchy, and homosexuality. But we're still jealous. While 21 percent of married or divorced Americans admit to having cheated (and surveys suggest husbands are more likely than wives to stray emotionally and physically), only one in four women says she'd give a cheating husband or boyfriend a second chance, and only 5 to 6 percent of adults consider polygamy or extramarital affairs morally acceptable. As the above cases show, even people who try to practice polygamy struggle with feelings of betrayal.

Krauthammer finds the gay/poly divergence perplexing. "Polygamy was sanctioned, indeed common" for ages, he observes. "What is historically odd is that as gay marriage is gaining acceptance, the resistance to polygamy is much more powerful." But when you factor in jealousy, the oddity disappears. Women shared husbands because they had to. The alternative was poverty. As women gained power, they began to choose what they really wanted. And what they really wanted was the same fidelity that men expected from them.

Gays who seek to marry want the same thing. They're not looking for the right to sleep around. They already have that. It's called dating. A friend once explained to me why gay men have sex on the first date: Nobody says no. Your partner, being of the same sex, is as eager as you are to get it on. But he's also as eager as you are to get it on with somebody else. And if you really like him, you don't want that. You want him all to yourself. That's why marriage, not polygamy, is in your nature, and in our future.

William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.
©2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
Link to original article: here.

Tags:

Comments

[info]alice_ayers wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 03:04 pm (UTC)
In lieu of a full comment yet I gotta ask - do you want poly marriage to be a full legal option?

[info]cemeterygates wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 03:14 pm (UTC)
Assuming that after-the-revolution there is no longer a ridiculous prevailing social stigma and religious conontation to the term "marriage," i.e.: once we have transitioned to the legal identity of marriage being essentially the same as a business partnership with regards to tax law, I don't think it will make any difference how many partners are on the board. There would have to be a major legal overhaul of marital rights in order to establish this in a functional way, and I think that that would be about a century from now if it ever occured. So in short: do I want full, legal, poly marriage? Not in my lifetime, but I would like to think that our country might make their way there eventually on its own once we successfully separate church and state.
[info]sonofabish wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 04:05 pm (UTC)
Unfortunately, what we are now seeing is that those in power are looking to further couple church and state, rather than the contrary. Which makes me shake my head in utter disbelief when those very same people get all up in arms about Muslim countries being run by religious crazies seeking to oppress women because that's what their god tells them to do.
[info]cemeterygates wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 04:06 pm (UTC)
Yeah, we hang on for the ride for a while and see if we can win, and if the red staters win, we all move to Europe. Que sera.
[info]peacenjoy wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 03:34 pm (UTC)
oh the hypocrisy
of coures the author gives compelling examples and anecdotes of poly gone wrong, without a counter balance of examples of it going right. you gotta love how the proponents of hetero marriage ignore all the ways it can wrong or be unhealthy or bad for people, while pointing fingers at how poly can go wrong and ignoring how it can be healthy and fulfilling.
[info]cemeterygates wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 03:52 pm (UTC)
Re: oh the hypocrisy
Yes, exactly! Think of how many relationships of all types begin and end every single day, and how many causes there are for their blossoming or self-destruction. It is truly useless to try to pigeonhole all multi-person relationship entities into one type of outgroup and then pin one underlying cause on their eventual dissolution. Not to mention the fact that "jealousy" is just an umbrella term comprised of countless other personality flaws and weaknesses, many rooted in insecurities and codependence. Saying "poly relationships are doomed because of our innate jealousy" is no more successful of a statement than the commonly poly-prosthelitized, "monogamous relationships are doomed because of our innate drive for deeper interpersonal connections than are allowed by platonic morés," both statements ignore large swaths not only of the socialized human existance but of the introspective process used to overcome socialized expectations.
[info]alice_ayers wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 04:07 pm (UTC)
Re: oh the hypocrisy
Can I ask you both what examples of poly gone right the author has in the mainstream media?
[info]cemeterygates wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 04:15 pm (UTC)
Re: oh the hypocrisy
True, in the mainstream media, we've got zero good press, but there are plenty of examples of poly gone right on the internet... and since the other links to polyamory.org we know he could have found some. He was mining for information to prove a point, rather than provide a balanced argument.
[info]alice_ayers wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 04:36 pm (UTC)
Re: oh the hypocrisy
I guess that might be my biggest point- there aren't mainstream precedents.

And in regards to I do proving a point I do think it was written as an editorial....


[info]already2late wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 03:54 pm (UTC)
I think that assigning legal/tax advantages to marriage is complete BS based on the fact that this country still wants to reward people who decide to partner up and have a bunch of kids in a traditional "family." I would like to do away with the civil benefits of marriage altogether and then people will be free to interpret it however they want to. If "Christian marriage" involves just one man and one woman, good for the Christians. Whatever. There are plenty of other religions and organizations that could grant other types of marriages. Issues of property, power of attorney, etc, should be handled via living will, and the government should stay the hell out of people's bedrooms. Why force everyone to conform to such a narrow definition of family?
[info]cemeterygates wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 03:59 pm (UTC)
I agree on all counts. Marriage as we know it today should be devoid of all legal conontation and defined purely by the individuals engaging in the bond and their own social customs or unique chosen moralities. "Legal Marriage," should be nothing more than a business partnership chosen in order to simplify property, custody, POA... very much like one is able to do in their living will without "marrying," now, if they choose.
[info]peacenjoy wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 04:08 pm (UTC)
legally sanctioned relationships are just a form of social control. setting up life partnerships in a legal way like business partnerships seems so much more rational and reasonable.
[info]already2late wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 04:11 pm (UTC)
I like the legal system. It is rational, and fortunately, it still allows a decent amount of free will.
[info]billetdoux wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 11:18 pm (UTC)
Playing devil's advocate here...

There are a myriad of reasons why the government encourages certain behaviors - it's pretty much the role of government to ensure the well-being and strength of the nation - and this often involves tweaking laws to improve things like literacy, mortality, longevity, retirement age, income, etc. part and parcel of a democratic government's ability to control these things is through the management of incentive. That is, rather than passing a law that says "you MUST do such-and-such" (such as the one-child-per-couple law in china), they tweak the cost/benefit ratios of things to encourage people to do what is in the best interest of the country as a whole.

Assuming we stick with the same broad form of government we have now (ie we're not gonna go full on libertarian or anything), I have no problems with incentives and penalties, etc. Personally, I think they're a bit skewed in their attentions, but the ACT doesn't bother me. If marriage were legal in all the forms we're discussing here, but the government applied certain incentives to certain forms of marriage, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed. It's their right to try and persuade us to do things.
[info]already2late wrote:
Mar. 25th, 2006 01:01 am (UTC)
Well, then, what about tax incentves for the literate? The consistently employed? The never-been-convicted? Those would seemingly address these behaviors more directly. When you begin defining "family" and "morality", you're treading awfully close to the thin line between church and state. Things like literacy, employment and a clean criminal record are easier to define outside of a traditional or religious context.

Additionally, don't you think that it's the responsibility of the government to reflect the people it governs? Part of the reason American democracy has worked so well, to date, is the inclusiveness of it. Sure, there are all sorts of things (take it from the girl who spent the last two days researching blue laws in Bergen County, NJ) that are rooted in religious traditions, but overall, we've been successful for a long time in setting up a system of government that wasn't overly exclusive. I think we're moving away from that. I sure as hell don't feel represented by this government. If we make concessions that a two-parent-heterosexual households with kids is the way to go, and those people get the tax breaks, that's only the beginning of excluding anyone who doesn't buy into that norm. Like, say, just about everyone on this thread.
[info]billetdoux wrote:
Mar. 25th, 2006 01:29 am (UTC)
It's absolutely the responsibility of the government to reflect the people it governs, while simultaneously protecting the rights of those who hold unpopular views. One popular way to do this has always been the use of incentives and disincentives. Think "sin tax." People shouldn't drink too much. Sure, it's legal for them to drink too much, and prohibition didn't work, but they SHOULDN'T drink so much. So we'll dis-incent them with a tax. It's unfair, sure. But it's also a solid compromise in a lot of ways. Public health, even when it touches upon family and morality, is a legitiate purview of government.

All I'm saying is I think it's important to distinguish between prohibitions and disincentives. A government that allowed the various the forms of marriage we are discussing, even if they disincented them, would be a far fairer government than one we have now.
[info]already2late wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 03:57 pm (UTC)
BTW, checking in as mono/hetero/in a relationship, in case that makes a difference.
[info]cemeterygates wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 04:01 pm (UTC)
Thanks, it actually does, because so few falling into that chosen lifestyle can see eye-to-eye about the political travesty that is the modern marital institution.
[info]already2late wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 04:07 pm (UTC)
It makes me absolutely sick that the #1 reason for me to get married is tax advantages... I don't give a damn whether any church/society recognizes or validates my relationship, I'm not having kids so that's not a consideration, and all of the outdated stuff that makes up a traditional marriage, like the woman changing her name, doesn't really work for me.

So, how unfair is it that I could decide that I want to save money on my taxes, and be able to do so, just because my boyfriend and happen to have the appropriate anatomy?

That being said, I'm not completely anti-marriage, and it's something I may do one day. I just recognize that the current definition and application of it here in the US is awfully discriminatory.
[info]peacenjoy wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 04:25 pm (UTC)
you know what, the saving money on taxes is BS. that is one of the three reasons why my partner and i got married, and we have had to pay more in taxes becaues we are married than we did when we were single filing seperately. you only get tax breaks IF you are married AND you have dependents AND only one spouse works. you aren't rewarded for being married - you are rewarded for upholding traditional family values.
[info]already2late wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 04:25 pm (UTC)
And, I do think that there are a lot of us mono/hetero people who "get it" but it's much easier just to go along with the mainstream. Plus, sometimes I feel like a giant phony with my gay rights buttons and "radical" ideas about marriage. Does that make any sense?
[info]underwatercolor wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 04:24 pm (UTC)
There's no logical argument here. The text can be summarized as "Poly is bad because jealousy is natural and... look at this handful of unhappy people." Ignoring the anecdotes, naturalism argument is also pretty shaky. The author cannot show that jealousy is inherent or inevitable, only that it is prevalent. But prevalence does not make truth or a moral right.

Unfortunately, I think it's also clear that poly can't win this battle at this time. Sometimes I'm pleased to see it getting discussion, but the [voting] public is not ready for it yet. Current lawmakers are more likely to punish poly lifestyles than help them gain acceptance. In ten or twenty years, it should start to backfire. ;)

Saletan paints humans as all having the same motivations as he does. Normally I like to think humans are motivated more similarly than they think, but not right now. ;)

Thanks. :)
[info]cemeterygates wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 04:40 pm (UTC)
It does make me warmfuzzy to have people on my friends list who understand and appreciate this particular swath of my moral fiber. On the same note, I wish some well-spoken rabble-rousers would get in here and give me some shit.
[info]patmolloy wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 05:48 pm (UTC)
----> Well since i completely support your choice of lifestyle, i can only rabble for the sake of argument, however...

The author does conclude by saying that polyamorists do in fact have the right to carry on multiple relationships. Also, as far as i know there is nothing illegal about a primary couple being married, and living an open and consensual poly lifestyle.

However if two polyamorists of the same gender who are in a primary relationship wish to be married, they're shit out of luck. To me, that's a more pressing issue.

At the risk of being guilty of a double standard, homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice the way polyamory is. Certainly, monogamy is not a biological predisposition. Besides ducks, i can't think of any other animals off the top of my head that are monogamous creatures. However, marriage is a legal union (unfortunately there is no Water Foul Divorce Court - i would kill to see a duck in a suit giving a closing argument) The legal contract of marriage affords those who enter in to it an wealth of rights and privileges.


As stated above, a lot of the financial issues can probably be taken care of through living wills, and binding contracts. However not to sound like Rev. Lovejoy's wife for saying this, but what about raising children? Divorce is nasty enough as it is, and i can't imagine a custody battle that involves multiple parents.

What i'm trying to say is, a heterosexual couple can get married and live a polyamorous lifestyle while reaping the legal benefits of marriage, while poly or not, homosexuals are still denied that right.

[info]bareflix wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 09:29 pm (UTC)
details?
I'm not disputing your comment, but do you know of any official list of the "wealth of rights and privileges" marriage brings? I've heard many people talk about all these benefits, but I haven't been able to find many.
The tax thing is only a benefit if one of you doesn't work. There are health insurance benefits, but progressive companies have extended that to non-married couples. I know there are some automatic inheritance mechanisms, but I'm perfectly capable of writing my own will. That's all I can think of, so what am I missing?
[info]cemeterygates wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 11:50 pm (UTC)
Re: details?
[info]deadwinter wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 04:57 pm (UTC)
I'll admit that the logical premise of the argument is very, very shaky. But I have to admit to liking this quip:

"One isn't the number of people you want to sleep with. It's the number of people you want your spouse to sleep with."

Many, many people feel that way. I struggle with it myself. And it's a constant struggle to convince myself that the rewards of openness are worth the stings of jealousy.

But, as I sit here in an air-conditioned office wearing clothes and having eaten cooked food, I have to disagree with the "natural" argument.
[info]cemeterygates wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 05:05 pm (UTC)
Seriously, "natural" is such a cop-out. What the hell. Nature didn't make us have the industrial revolution, human intellect created it and humankind accepted its benefits. Just because social structure is less tangible than innovations of technology doesn't make it any more or less "natural" to abide by. ::eyeroll::
[info]autumnsshadow wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 05:58 pm (UTC)
i just spent an hour writing a really awesome response to this, but it got eaten and now i'm too pissed off to write it all again.

to summarize though: his argument is pretty much baseless, as his point was that marriage is designed to stave off jealousy, but i would contend that it doesn't really work to do that very effectively and really just creates a situation in which there is "cheating". if you actually have a healthy relationship, mono or poly, there is no such thing as cheating; either because you're not doing it, or because what you're doing isn't "cheating".

logically though, conservatives labeling polygamy/amory as, "what will happen if you let gays get married," is an obvious choice because they most readily fly in the face of what people think "marriage" is. "values-based"(fear-based) individuals eat that shit up.

do i think the government should promote family? of course. they'd be foolish not to. do i think the government should realign what "family" can consist of? absolutely. marriage as an embedded religious institution is ridiculous though. i completely respect straight, monogamous people who choose to get married, but holding it to a higher standard than any other functional relationship is no longer useful.
[info]starrai wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 06:25 pm (UTC)
As a nice contrast, here's an article from the Village Voice that not only is down with polyamory, but writes it from the POV of women in such relationships. I dunno about you, but it seems that so many of the arguments against poly-relationships throw in how demeaning it is to women, because, of course, it's really more of a guy thing to want multiple lovers.

I mean, I won't deny I've met my share of shady dudes just wanting to fuck around, but you know what I mean,
[info]bareflix wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 09:20 pm (UTC)
The issues I wish *someone* would discuss is what marriage is any of the government's concern. You mentioned it being like a business partnership, and that's my point, we already have contracts and wills that can be used to define any kind of arbitrary relationship between parties.
The government has no need to define this special "magical" marriage relationship. Of course the conservatives are never going to want to hear that. It's really just a facet of seperation of church and state. Marriage is primarily a religious institution, and should therefore be none of the government's concern.
Why is it SO hard for many people to understand that letting people do what they want, even if it's not what you would want, is just fine? (provided its, concenting, no one gets hurt and all that jazz)
[info]catalyst wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 09:59 pm (UTC)
     here's my little rebuttal to mr. saletan. it's not nearly as much fun to reply in kind as it is to fuck with all the other nitwits on slate's forum, tho...
[info]patmolloy wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 10:10 pm (UTC)
Re: details?
----> from www.buddybuddy.com


State Laws Triggered by Legal Marriage - a Sample

Assumption of Spouse's Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Certain Property Rights
Child Custody
Crime Victim's Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner's Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Name Change if Desired
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner's Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

Couples married by a state government are automatically granted a broad range of rights at the federal level. These rights affect federal employees such as civil servants and the military.


Federal Laws Triggered by Legal Marriage - a Sample

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse's Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks for Married Couples
Veteran's Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison


For the purposes of nearly all of the above items, same-sex couples are considered legal strangers, and thereby unable to be covered by them.

[info]commodorevic wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 10:58 pm (UTC)
Does breaking up other people's relationships count as a relationship preference? I'll go with that one.
[info]cemeterygates wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 11:02 pm (UTC)
Whatever floats yer boat.
[info]commodorevic wrote:
Mar. 24th, 2006 11:37 pm (UTC)
I forgot to include the

Ba Dump CRASH!
[info]alphabetically wrote:
Apr. 19th, 2006 04:36 pm (UTC)
Re: oh the hypocrisy
Hey. Strange Quark sent me over here after I posted a thing about this to my Livejournal. My furious response was basically, "Hey, you jackass, MOST relationships don't work. How's the divorce rating treating you?"

I get angry when all poly relationships are defined in articles like this as being one man who has multiple wives who treat each other like sisters. My boyfriend's wife and I do NOT treat each other like sisters.

I get angry because there are so many variations.

And because, even if we ARE talking about polygyny only, and it's bad for women, wouldn't legalizing it HELP them? Give them legal protection? Give them resources when divorces happen? Help them with custody and children?

*sigh*

I'm not ever going to be able to marry my loves, not in my lifetime, not in this arrangement, not legally. And sometimes the weight of that is crushing. It's hard not to get sad, you know?
[info]cemeterygates wrote:
Apr. 21st, 2006 12:13 pm (UTC)
Re: oh the hypocrisy
I do so love it when miss quark sends the cute chix0rz to my eljay to talk about polyamory! ;-)

I do certainly share a lot of your frustrations on this issue, even though I personally don't really want to be married to anybody. That might change if marital institutions were ever impressively redesigned... but then again, maybe not. I'm pretty independent.

Nice to meet you.

Latest Month

September 2008
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner