Queer Messages highlights another set of strange slippery slope type assertions from those who oppose same-gender love as if they are under the presumption that a reasonable secular argument exists to which they can make appeal. After all the arguments against same gender love are not just about the Bible and Christianity, they are about the "sanctity of marriage" or "pro-family" which is the "bedrock of American civilization." Thus, if two people of the same gender can marry, why not marry a robot, dog, or three other people? After all, same gender love will inevitably lead to that too. By the way, there is absolutely no evidence that suggests a chain of causality in which same gender love predicts even polygamy much less…robots and dogs.
I cant stand that slippery slope crap. If one can use that assertion, then all the assertions from atheists that Jesus must be no better than a pink unicorn that saves a bunny from a wolf is just as valid a story of salvation as Jesus – esp. if you believe with all you heart, mind, and soul that pink unicorns are real. But that foolishness aside there is a far more practical and evidential basis against polygamy, especially in the affluent West (or North as it is).
The best social control on population growth is wealth. Once people are affluent and do not need to maximize their share of the population through reproduction, and once a certain level of existential security is reached, pro-creation slows down. This is why polygamy is seen as a continual reasonable alternative in even Christian communities in poorer nations. That is, if marriage is primarily about pro-creation. In poorer societies with lower existential security, marriage is primarily about pro-creation for without more often than not male heirs, the property and social mobility of the entire clan, family, or tribe is as risk. However, in economies that are wealthier and focus on individual wealth and property rights, the game changes.
If we assert that marriage is not about pro-creation, which is absolutely true in nations that do achieve a certain threshold of wealth and existential security, then any elimination of same gender love becomes as suspect as the civil function of polygamy. The two are more likely negatively correlated with this functionalist view, than positively correlated in the stupid assertions of many on "the right." So much for that assertion. Lets take it one step deeper now.
As social networks become more diffuse, it is more difficult to maintain the same level of salience for each relationship. As families get bigger and where geographic mobility has pulled generations of families apart, the maximal level of nurture a parent or other close adult can give a child simply must go down. This becomes even more complex in polygamous relationships where essentially bureaucratic structures need to overlay the marriage relationships in order for the husband to manage three different relationships and the relationships that form between the wives. In short a hierarchy is established. While the presence of this many adults mathematically at least, benefits the proliferation of children, to some extent, it adds level of complexities and profound stresses to manage on the union of the parents themselves. It is simply not a maximal situation for the family because it adds levels of social control in order to achieve maximal nurture which is significantly reduced.
The most organic level of maximization of nurture in a familial situation is therefore with two parents and no more than two children. Even with one man and one woman, as the maximization argument goes from those against families with same gender parents, when more than two children are brought into the family, social diffusion increases exponentially and the situation is therefore no longer maximal. So much for that argument as well.
While I am not arguing against larger families, an argument for maximization of nurture as something intrinsically prohibitive of families with same gender parents, or even ambiguously gendered parents for that matter, must also include social diffusion by increasing the size of the family network. Polygamy and large families are therefore not maximal and the former even less so due to the structures of social control that must be added in order to raise the level of maximal nurture a family can provide. This social controls are unnecessary in monogamous paired relationships and these are in fact a more organic structure to maintain – regardless of gender with respect to love and nurture of children and ones partner.
This is why the argument that "same gender love" leads to state legitimated polygamy is false. Robots and dogs would just be a stupid idea. Although the film Blade Runner even offers a counter to that claim since the "replicants" are in many respects more humane than the human beings that created them.
Related posts:
The trouble is humanity keeps pushing the boundaries. No matter how succintly you make your argument, a permissive society keeps going beyond the normally acceptable. Each time a boundary is broken, a new one is fought against until there are no boundaries and human behavior becomes a free for all.
Here's an example: if marijuana is legalized, do you think that the drug pushers are going to give up their profits and livelihood? They will find a new socially accepted illegal drug and make people into addicts.
If anyone naively thinks that same gender marriage will finally define marriage in our society as a legally loving contract between two people, just wait for another decadent decade to arrive.
As for the poorer elements in society maintaining marriage as a pro-creational exercize, impoverished men in India marry dogs for good luck…
Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…
…
total agreement here. Slippery slope arguments, no matter how they're conceived are ridiculous. However, some folks, like Stushie, for example, still find them persuasive.
(Not to mention of course, that blaming LGBT people who want to get married for the actions of a completely separate group of other people, 99.99999% who are straight isn't particularly conservative. I thought conservatives were big on personal responsibility. I guess not.)
Unfortunately for those on the wrong side of this issue, in this particular instance, the leading cause of polygamy in this country is heterosexual marriage. Folks like Stushie suggest that, if gay marriage is legalized, polygamy will be next. In fact, polygamy already happens in this country, even though gay marriage is neither federally recognized, nor recognized by 49 of the 50 states.
If you want to stop polygamy, Stushie, ban straight marriage.
The fact that straight people have made such a complete and total mess of marriage (50% divorce rate, Las Vegas weddings, teenage brides, mail-order brides, 3rd, 4th, and 5th marriages, marriages given away on game shows, etc., etc., etc.) doesn't give them the right to blame their utter failure to protect marriage on LGBT people. I'm not sure how any rational person can continue to be so blinded to the fact that marriage in this country is a shambles and that it is, at the very least, unreasonable to blame those failures on people who have never been allowed to get married in the first place.
But then, many people seem to forget the old school yard adage that when you point a finger, there are three pointing back at you.
When those on the wrong side of these issues start to at least pretend to actually be concerned about protecting traditional marriage, then maybe I'll start to pretend to believe their rhetoric. When they actually demonstrate they have some concept of morality when it comes to marriage, then maybe they can begin to preach to the rest of us. Until then, their actions speak louder than their words.
The notion of "permissive" is very arbitrary though. Remember, no mater what we think the bible says about slavery and women now (well some of us) it is clear that in the past women were socially inferior to men and slavery, especially indentured servanthood where the slave is not necessarily "stolen", were also viewed as acceptable. Are we more permissive now with those issues? Yes. Is that "bad"? No. "Permissiveness" is a very arbitrarily drawn social boundary and in my argument, it creates an unreasonable proscription on same gender love.
The bit about "Each time a boundary is broken, a new one is fought against until there are no boundaries and human behavior becomes a free for all." I would ask for examples. To live without social boundaries is an inherent impossibility to any organization of people. People cannot live in total anarchy since human nature is communal and relational that that requires boundaries around given group of people, identities, etc.
The marijuana argument is a non-sequitur. There are already far more profitable market streams than MJ that are used with no doubt at greater decadent harm than MJ ever will be. If we legalize MJ that will free up our security programs to get the highly addictive and far more destructive substances off the street than focusing so much energy on something that is actually less addictive and harmful than alcohol.
BTW – the idea that each successive generation is somehow more decadent than the previous is false. The 50's Ozzy & Harriet culture is a myth we have confused with reality. The reality is that the 50's bore a vibrant subculture that only became public in the 60's. The "revolution" of the 60's was already accepted by a lot more people than we seem to remember. That's the problem with histories. They tend to redact and select only those parts that fit a given ideology rather than look at the big picture in which every generation of humanity seems to be more permissive, but is not.
total agreement here. Slippery slope arguments, no matter how they're conceived are ridiculous. However, some folks, like Stushie, for example, still find them persuasive.
(Not to mention of course, that blaming LGBT people who want to get married for the actions of a completely separate group of other people, 99.99999% who are straight isn't particularly conservative. I thought conservatives were big on personal responsibility. I guess not.)
Unfortunately for those on the wrong side of this issue, in this particular instance, the leading cause of polygamy in this country is heterosexual marriage. Folks like Stushie suggest that, if gay marriage is legalized, polygamy will be next. In fact, polygamy already happens in this country, even though gay marriage is neither federally recognized, nor recognized by 49 of the 50 states.
If you want to stop polygamy, Stushie, ban straight marriage.
The fact that straight people have made such a complete and total mess of marriage (50% divorce rate, Las Vegas weddings, teenage brides, mail-order brides, 3rd, 4th, and 5th marriages, marriages given away on game shows, etc., etc., etc.) doesn't give them the right to blame their utter failure to protect marriage on LGBT people. I'm not sure how any rational person can continue to be so blinded to the fact that marriage in this country is a shambles and that it is, at the very least, unreasonable to blame those failures on people who have never been allowed to get married in the first place.
But then, many people seem to forget the old school yard adage that when you point a finger, there are three pointing back at you.
When those on the wrong side of these issues start to at least pretend to actually be concerned about protecting traditional marriage, then maybe I'll start to pretend to believe their rhetoric. When they actually demonstrate they have some concept of morality when it comes to marriage, then maybe they can begin to preach to the rest of us. Until then, their actions speak louder than their words.
The notion of "permissive" is very arbitrary though. Remember, no mater what we think the bible says about slavery and women now (well some of us) it is clear that in the past women were socially inferior to men and slavery, especially indentured servanthood where the slave is not necessarily "stolen", were also viewed as acceptable. Are we more permissive now with those issues? Yes. Is that "bad"? No. "Permissiveness" is a very arbitrarily drawn social boundary and in my argument, it creates an unreasonable proscription on same gender love.
The bit about "Each time a boundary is broken, a new one is fought against until there are no boundaries and human behavior becomes a free for all." I would ask for examples. To live without social boundaries is an inherent impossibility to any organization of people. People cannot live in total anarchy since human nature is communal and relational that that requires boundaries around given group of people, identities, etc.
The marijuana argument is a non-sequitur. There are already far more profitable market streams than MJ that are used with no doubt at greater decadent harm than MJ ever will be. If we legalize MJ that will free up our security programs to get the highly addictive and far more destructive substances off the street than focusing so much energy on something that is actually less addictive and harmful than alcohol.
BTW – the idea that each successive generation is somehow more decadent than the previous is false. The 50's Ozzy & Harriet culture is a myth we have confused with reality. The reality is that the 50's bore a vibrant subculture that only became public in the 60's. The "revolution" of the 60's was already accepted by a lot more people than we seem to remember. That's the problem with histories. They tend to redact and select only those parts that fit a given ideology rather than look at the big picture in which every generation of humanity seems to be more permissive, but is not.
[...] social contract in order to reproduce the population. Perhaps that is what it once was, but it is not that way anymore. As God loves us not because of our ability to procreate, but by the mere fact that we exist, so we [...]
[...] let's say, cool… polygamy is next. So what? I am not convinced it's the best way to go, but still so what? Well then we will all be having orgies in church and invite the farm animals [...]