Same-sex "Marriage" and Polyamorous "Marriage"

In an earlier post, I taked about the Newsweek article on polyamory. I believe that those who are for same-sex "marriage" today will be in favor of polyamory tomorrow, even if they don't know it yet. Why? Because there are no cogent arguments in favor of SSM that don't also justify legalizing polyamorous "marriage" (hereafter PM and SSM).

Here is a thesis for debate:

"You can't justify legalizing SSM and not legalizing PM."

This is what I think. But I'd like to hear arguments on the other side. If you want to take a crack at proving the above proposition false, all you have to do is e-mail me your argument (500-1000 words) and if it is any good at all I'll make it a guest post. [ccarter@tyndale.ca] Then I'll reply to it and give you a chance to reply to my reply. (Since it is my blog, inevitably I'll get the last word!)

One rule: you can't dismiss my thesis with a reference to "slippery slopes." That is a red herring. My contention is not that being for SSM leads to being in favor of PM, it is rather that anyone in favor of legalizing SSM is already in favor of legalizing PM whether he or she realizes it or not. There is no slope. To be in favor of one is already to have adopted the necessary arguments for justifying the other. If you are in favor of SSM, you already believe in PM, even if you have not thought your way through to your conclusion. In order to avoid supporting PM, you would need to change your arguments for SSM.

Is anyone up for it? Any takers? Keep it clean, as they say on the sports pages blogs, and we can have a real debate.

Polyamory: The Next Frontier

Polyamory is defined by the Polyamory Society website as follows:

"Polyamory is the nonpossessive, honest, responsible and ethical philosophy and practice of loving multiple people simultanously. Polyamory emphasizes consciously choosing how many partners one wishes to be involved with rather than accepting social norms which dictate loving only one person at a time. Polyamory is an umbrella term which integrates traditional mutipartner relationship terms with more evolved egalitarian terms. Polyamory embraces sexual equality and all sexual orientations towards an expanded circle of spousal intimacy and love. Polyamory is from the root words Poly meaning many and Amour meaning love hence "many loves" or Polyamory. Of course, love itself is a rather ambiguous term, but most polys seem to define it as a serious, intimate, romantic, or less stable, affectionate bond which a person has with another person or group of persons. This bond usually, though not necessarily always, involves sex. Sexualove or eromance are other words which have been coined to describe this kind of love. Other terms often used as synonyms for polyamory are responsible, ethical or intentional non-monogamy."

Legal recognition of polyamorous "marriage" is what comes after same sex "marriage." Forget Morman or Muslim polygamy. Those are conservative institutions compared to triads and quartets of various mixes of genders. The logic is clear: a society that cannot say no to same sex "marriage" cannot logically say no to polyamorous marriage. Of course, a society can illogically say no as long as certain conditions exist. But these conditions will not be in place for long.


What is needed to change the law to include legalized polyamorous "marriage" are three critical factors, as we learned from the campaign to legalize same sex "marriage."

1. A group representing the polyamory "community" needs to band together and become vocal about their rights.

2. The natural resistance to novel approaches to such sexual behaviour needs to be broken down by media examples of "responsible polyamorous relationships" so that such behaviour can be normalized in the minds of the public. A few psychologists and doctors giving interviews to magazines and newspapers about how "normal" and "loving" polyamory is comes next. Then we have the process of public figures coming "out" and admitting that they live in such relationships. Stories about how "natural" polyamory is based on stories from the animal kingdom will seek to establish a "scientific" basis for the practice.

3. Then claims to victim status and the charge of discrimination against those who unreasonably favor monogamy comes next. Simultaneously, the evils of monogamy -the hypocrisy, how it doesn't "work" etc. - are shouted from the rooftops. Finally, only conservatives are said to favor monogamy and all right-thinking, progressive people are seen as open-minded about alternative living arrangements.

So how far have we come? Condition number 1 is in place. See the website referenced above. Condition number 2 is just beginning. Don't expect condition 3 to be emphasized before number 2 is well-advanced because these things have to be done in stages or a backlash is likely. But it does not requre a prophet to see the next frontier in the destruction of the traditional family and the construction of a society based on alternatives to it.