Why are social conservatives all so afraid of the future? I suppose it's an exaggerated fear of change. What social conservatives seem to want is for things to stay the same but get better somehow. Unfortunately, reality doesn't work that way. Yes, change is disruptive and upsetting at times but we can turn it to our advantage if we work together on problems. But that, alas, is also something social conservatives can't seem to get. It's winner take all. But their approach is self-defeating. When they are not the winners the other side will take all.
20
I agree that polygamy is not an acceptable societal arrangement, because it is a patriarchal device designed to subjugate women. Throughout its history, it has been the source of abuse, crime and societal conflict. It will never be accepted by a progressive move away from traditional marriage. However, Douhtat should not be so quick to dismiss other nontraditional arrangements such as polyamory. It should be noted that traditional monogamous marriage is a construct of agricultural and industrial societies. Many primitive peoples and certainly our primate cousins have a more fluid view on sexual relations, which applied to both male and female equally. Presently 50 percent of traditional marriages end in divorce, and if women would have had more rights prior to the 20th century, I’m sure divorce rates would have been high in the past. We have spent millennia trying to corral the strongest force on earth and squeeze it into a neat little box, and we have failed. Hopefully, we are evolving into a change that recognizes the rights of all partners to choose the lifestyle that befits them with the consent of all involved.
16
Ross, social liberalism is on the rise because when there is a generational change there is a societal change with a forward progression of attitudes. If that did not happen what would distinguish them from their parents and grand-parents? Just in our lifetime, there is a seismic shift in attitudes when you compare yourself with your grand-parents. We have made tremendous strides overcoming old taboos. What was once covert has now become overt and acceptable which is progression rather than regression. One does not have to stay in the closet to escape society's wrath. And the fact, that people accept change when it becomes personal ( Dick Cheney and his daughter ) or when sanctimonious people deride others ( Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton ). That is bald hypocrisy. Yes, polygamy will be shrugged of too. It is happening all over as we speak. The monogamy is self-inflicted, self regulating man's basic characteristics. Man is naturally a polygamous animal. Let's not try to clothe it by sanctimonious, righteous indignation. It is plain and simply hypocrisy!
8
Gay marriage and polygamy are not really comparable; the first is based on an innate sexual orientation, while the second has been historically related to economics or risk management. As an example of the first, in rural African families practicing polygamy, multiple wives and their husband form an economic farming unit. As for risk management, it often involves levirate marriage, where a woman and her brother-in-law must marry if her husband dies, but it could involve multiple husbands for the same reason--to protect the woman and her children in an environment where men face a high risk of death.
The conditions that have traditionally encouraged polygamy don't really exist in our society to a degree that would push us into recognizing polygamy as justified. We don't openly define marriage as an economic tool or an insurance policy; we base it on love, which is why marriage, gay or straight, will probably be monogamous in our society for the foreseeable future.
On the other hand, you could say that a certain kind of polygamy is recognized in countries (like France) where illegitimate children have the same right to inherit as their legitimate siblings. This is something we could adopt without changing our definition of marriage.
The conditions that have traditionally encouraged polygamy don't really exist in our society to a degree that would push us into recognizing polygamy as justified. We don't openly define marriage as an economic tool or an insurance policy; we base it on love, which is why marriage, gay or straight, will probably be monogamous in our society for the foreseeable future.
On the other hand, you could say that a certain kind of polygamy is recognized in countries (like France) where illegitimate children have the same right to inherit as their legitimate siblings. This is something we could adopt without changing our definition of marriage.
16
When the California legislature was debating its Civil Union bill ten years ago, the bill's sponsor was asked if this would lead to gay marriage. His response was that no one was talking about gay marriage. This bill would not lead to gay marriage. Gay marriage wasn't even on the radar. A mere ten years later, gay marriage may very well be declared a constitutional right.
Douthat is right. But if we get polygamy, it won't be because of the efforts of break-away Mormons or even Muslims. It will be because of bisexuals, pansexuals, and the other plethora of sexual orientations that seem to have cropped up overnight.
We will get polygamy, and it will be a lot sooner than 2040. Probably in the next ten years.
Douthat is right. But if we get polygamy, it won't be because of the efforts of break-away Mormons or even Muslims. It will be because of bisexuals, pansexuals, and the other plethora of sexual orientations that seem to have cropped up overnight.
We will get polygamy, and it will be a lot sooner than 2040. Probably in the next ten years.
7
“…as a social phenomenon polygamy is very different than same-sex marriage. It’s associated with patriarchy and sexual abuse, rather than liberation and equality.”
Ross Douthat’s imperious words have an unmistakable ring and rhythm to them. They harken back to the day when the Douthat-crowd was pontificating about the social ills of same-sex marriage. Back then the mantra was inter-racial marriage “is very different than” same-sex marriage, because…sexual abuse! Today, the shtick remains the same, just with new targets —it’s polygamy that’s the evil and same-sex marriage the comparative standard.
Whether it polygamy or physician-assisted suicide, or so many other harmless social behaviors, the busybody Douthat-crowd just cannot resist self-righteously imposing their religious dogma on others.
Ross Douthat’s imperious words have an unmistakable ring and rhythm to them. They harken back to the day when the Douthat-crowd was pontificating about the social ills of same-sex marriage. Back then the mantra was inter-racial marriage “is very different than” same-sex marriage, because…sexual abuse! Today, the shtick remains the same, just with new targets —it’s polygamy that’s the evil and same-sex marriage the comparative standard.
Whether it polygamy or physician-assisted suicide, or so many other harmless social behaviors, the busybody Douthat-crowd just cannot resist self-righteously imposing their religious dogma on others.
13
There is a major road block that stands in the way of polygamy becoming legally recognized: the 14th Amendment. With multiple spouses, you have multiple beneficiaries for Social Security, pensions, etc. Legalizing polygamy would create a class of families that receive MORE benefits than families with only two spouses.
What's more, polygamy is virtually always entered into for religious reasons, and there are churches who are willing to solemnize such unions already. This will continue, but state or federal recognition of multiple spouses will likely never come as long as the Constitution is amended the way it currently is.
What's more, polygamy is virtually always entered into for religious reasons, and there are churches who are willing to solemnize such unions already. This will continue, but state or federal recognition of multiple spouses will likely never come as long as the Constitution is amended the way it currently is.
4
Amazing, isn't it? Polygamy remains the favored gotcha of the marriage equality opponent: So if you're in favor of same-sex marriage, what's wrong with polygamy? Huh? Huh? I thought you were all about equality.
For roughly the 8,359th time, polygamy has has more than its fair shot in the course of human history. It's the Bible-beaters who should be pushing for polygamy: David, Abraham, and Solomon each had hundreds of wives, and God didn't seem to care. The religion of a recent unsuccessful presidential candidate (who at least had the sense to rethink trying again) only abandoned the practice a little more than a century ago. Saying that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy is like saying the internet will lead to television.
And no, it's not an equality issue. In case you haven't noticed, Ross, polygamy involved an unequal number of people.
For roughly the 8,359th time, polygamy has has more than its fair shot in the course of human history. It's the Bible-beaters who should be pushing for polygamy: David, Abraham, and Solomon each had hundreds of wives, and God didn't seem to care. The religion of a recent unsuccessful presidential candidate (who at least had the sense to rethink trying again) only abandoned the practice a little more than a century ago. Saying that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy is like saying the internet will lead to television.
And no, it's not an equality issue. In case you haven't noticed, Ross, polygamy involved an unequal number of people.
24
Too bad for the abortion exception, the most pressing issue mentioned here, a claim I find dubious. If not for that, America could claim to be "socially centrist" – certainly not progressive but "exceptional" none-the-less, if "regressive" and "counterculture".
“Humans see what they want to see.”
― RICK RIORDAN
American author
(b. 1964)
“Humans see what they want to see.”
― RICK RIORDAN
American author
(b. 1964)
3
"...approval of physician-assisted suicide is up seven points..."
Funny, while Ross Douthat's views polls showing an increased social acceptance of assisted-suicide as lamentable, I see it as a remaining few suborn Americans are still willing to use government force to prevent other people from making decisions about their own life. Ironically, if someone must die, they prefer it be by the bullets of government agents, not by the assistance of a doctor.
Funny, while Ross Douthat's views polls showing an increased social acceptance of assisted-suicide as lamentable, I see it as a remaining few suborn Americans are still willing to use government force to prevent other people from making decisions about their own life. Ironically, if someone must die, they prefer it be by the bullets of government agents, not by the assistance of a doctor.
11
Well, Ross, when you support policy that destroys the family and the man, the family is destroyed. What did you expect from a culture that teaches some are better than others? Leaving the poor to die or languish on $7.25. Yes, you have a mess on your hands and sorry, but it is of your own doing.
10
who cares? why do douthat and others like him worry so much about everyone else's morality? mind your own.
19
I'm all for people choosing a polyamourous lifestyle. Every type of relationship has potential for harm and all future ones based on a similar model should not be banned because of it.
However, the state has an interest in marriage being between just two people. Our tax laws, inheritance laws, public assistance rules, certain legal protections are based upon two people in the marriage contract. Not four or five. Our legal infrastructure would need to change drastically to accomodate multiple players in a marriage.
Therefore, it would no longer be a marriage contract, but a business deal.
And nothing wrong with a good business deal.
However, the state has an interest in marriage being between just two people. Our tax laws, inheritance laws, public assistance rules, certain legal protections are based upon two people in the marriage contract. Not four or five. Our legal infrastructure would need to change drastically to accomodate multiple players in a marriage.
Therefore, it would no longer be a marriage contract, but a business deal.
And nothing wrong with a good business deal.
6
While it may not have the easy symmetry of the argument favoring same-sex marriage, the underlying moral question is really the same: if people want to get married, as long as they're competent to make a decision, why is that anybody else's business? At root, isn't it really amorally nosy to tell someone else what they can and cannot do in the ordinary course of life?
So, it can also come down to this: there's polygamy and polyandry. Probably most of this rather hypothetical discussion is about the former: me taking multiple wives, as in the Bible and modern-day Muslim countries. Do the women make a choice, or is this another example of they're being told what to do by men, who control everything? IOW, is this about people's individual decision, or about some people taking unfair advantage of others, based on gender?
So, it can also come down to this: there's polygamy and polyandry. Probably most of this rather hypothetical discussion is about the former: me taking multiple wives, as in the Bible and modern-day Muslim countries. Do the women make a choice, or is this another example of they're being told what to do by men, who control everything? IOW, is this about people's individual decision, or about some people taking unfair advantage of others, based on gender?
2
You can't pin this one on liberals, Ross. In the US, polygamy is primarily (almost exclusively?) practiced by conservatives -- Mormans. And no one else is really clamoring for it -- liberals or non-Mormon conservatives.
21
Douthat: "...social conservatism is countercultural and clearly in retreat."
If this is true, as asserted by Douthat, then it is because conservatives have not made a persuasive case for the lifestyle for which they advocate.
Conservatives are in the same boat as the U.S. Catholic bishops that have witnessed a significant decline in church membership (see Pew report). The bishops have not made a persuasive case for attracting to and keeping people in the pews. Of course, many of the bishops are the very same conservatives in society that cannot persuade folks to embrace the style of life for which they are exponents.
If this is true, as asserted by Douthat, then it is because conservatives have not made a persuasive case for the lifestyle for which they advocate.
Conservatives are in the same boat as the U.S. Catholic bishops that have witnessed a significant decline in church membership (see Pew report). The bishops have not made a persuasive case for attracting to and keeping people in the pews. Of course, many of the bishops are the very same conservatives in society that cannot persuade folks to embrace the style of life for which they are exponents.
9
There is a fairly simple argument that negates the slippery slope theory. The gay marriage movement is posited as anti discrimination. Polygamy is illegal for everyone so the comparison fails.
10
Social liberalism can be twisted to fit illogical arguments that serve to bolster Conservative arguments including what was once considered aberrant behavior. The massive cultural shift towards embracing gay marriage was due to a long & courageous battle fought by forward looking gay activists who displayed their responsibility & loving commitment to their partners. Thus, gay marriage was softened & humanized thereby no longer creating a demonstrable threat to the norms of the society.
Sexuality has always been about control & access to privilege as well as legal rights. Thus, when gays sought to normalize their sexuality by pushing for the right to the convention of marriage rather than emphasizing an irresponsible & wreckless abandon of societal mores, they were rewarded by the majority. Similarly, transgenders are seeking a normalization of their expressions of sexuality by the popular culture in order to allow them more access & acceptance by the mainstream. Polygamy, on the other hand, is patriarchal in nature, thus serving to further oppress women into subservient roles within society. This idea is counter to the social liberal push to allow equal access to opportunity for group who have traditionally been oppressed by the majority. It is interesting that a Conservative pundit would suggest that polygamy be included in a social liberal agenda when traditionally the practice was only accepted by deeply conservative Mormon outliers who viewed women as less than equals.
Sexuality has always been about control & access to privilege as well as legal rights. Thus, when gays sought to normalize their sexuality by pushing for the right to the convention of marriage rather than emphasizing an irresponsible & wreckless abandon of societal mores, they were rewarded by the majority. Similarly, transgenders are seeking a normalization of their expressions of sexuality by the popular culture in order to allow them more access & acceptance by the mainstream. Polygamy, on the other hand, is patriarchal in nature, thus serving to further oppress women into subservient roles within society. This idea is counter to the social liberal push to allow equal access to opportunity for group who have traditionally been oppressed by the majority. It is interesting that a Conservative pundit would suggest that polygamy be included in a social liberal agenda when traditionally the practice was only accepted by deeply conservative Mormon outliers who viewed women as less than equals.
8
"In just 15 years, we have gone from being a society divided roughly evenly between progressive and traditionalist visions to a country where social conservatism is countercultural and clearly in retreat."
Even though I'm an atheist, I still have to say "Amen".
Even though I'm an atheist, I still have to say "Amen".
13
With all the pressing problems we face as a society, who really cares about forms of marriage? Poverty, economic disruptions, terrorism, climate change, attacks on education and shrinking access to it, the disappearance of the middle class. Who really cares about polygamy? Hopefully, one day the state will get out of the marriage business altogether, and marriage will be abolished as a legal institution, if not as a socially recognized one; something without a license, without a tax status, or any system of rewards and exclusive rights. The rationale for marriage as an institution is long outdated in a society based on the individual as the central legal category and focus of rights and obligations. The forms of sexual partnership individuals enter should not matter to anyone else. It's the least of our problems.
4
I think Douthat defeats his own argument by using the term "polygamy", with all of its non-politically-correct associations with patriarchy, subjugation of women, and biblical values. Polyamory is actually a different animal, where all participants in the marriage are equal.
Gay rights advocates will make the argument that gay marriage is harmless to society, while polyamorous relationships are inherently unstable and cannot allocate property fairly when they end. However a polyamorous marriage has the advantage that a child can grow up with his or her biological parents and will have at least one other adult around to help out, something that will never be the case with a gay marriage.
The main thing holding back polyamorous marriage at this point is that people in such relationships have not stood up and demanded their "rights". It is likely that this will happen in the future as these relationships become more common, and gay marriage advocates will look awfully hypocritical if they oppose them.
Gay rights advocates will make the argument that gay marriage is harmless to society, while polyamorous relationships are inherently unstable and cannot allocate property fairly when they end. However a polyamorous marriage has the advantage that a child can grow up with his or her biological parents and will have at least one other adult around to help out, something that will never be the case with a gay marriage.
The main thing holding back polyamorous marriage at this point is that people in such relationships have not stood up and demanded their "rights". It is likely that this will happen in the future as these relationships become more common, and gay marriage advocates will look awfully hypocritical if they oppose them.
4
Where is Douthat's outrage over sexism, a far more corrosive social element that has permeated the traditional mores he has long embraced? Keeping the little woman down, not a problem.
7
Ah the slippery slope from same-sex marriage to polygamy (and undoubtedly beyond). Another way to change the subject away from the rights sought by same sex partners and back to sexual activities that social and religious conservatives condemn. Same-sex couples can already have as much sex as they'd like. It's the tax, inheritance, hospital visitation and decision-mkaing, legal parenthood, spousal benefits (health insurance, worker's compensation), etc. that they want. Please stop pretending that the same-sex marriage movement is about sex. It is about civil rights.
To paraphrase Ted Cruz, "Is there something about the right - and I am going to put the right wing media in this category – that is obsessed with sex?”
To paraphrase Ted Cruz, "Is there something about the right - and I am going to put the right wing media in this category – that is obsessed with sex?”
6
If the Bible is your moral authority then God sanctioned polygamy a long time ago. Don't blame the heathens (the commune-and-ganola set) Christianity isn't under attack, they're joining you
7
Are you really that freaked out by same-sex marriage?
15
It must be tough when all the low fruit has been picked...
Jeez, Ross, the well run dry?
Jeez, Ross, the well run dry?
11
Under a system of gender equality, there is no good reason to deny that we must keep evolving until an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, monogamy or polyamory, race, or religion is free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (and any of those without the others) with any and all consenting adults. Polyamory, polygamy, open relationships are not for everyone, but they are for some. The limited same-gender freedom to marry is a great and historic step, but is NOT full marriage equality, because equality "just for some" is not equality. Let's stand up for EVERY ADULT'S right to marry the person(s) they love. Get on the right side of history!
3
Why be concerned about same sex marriage, or even polygamy, when the majority of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. ,
7
This article is what comes from conflating traditional patriarchal polygamy, Mormon- and Muslim-style, with the liberal polyamory movement that is flourishing in places like San Francisco, and which owes a greater debt to Free Love than to Abraham and Isaac. The former is based on arch-Conservative repression and subjugation of women, in a context where women's, but not men's, economic and personal choices are limited. The latter is based on acknowledging the reality that most people are attracted to multiple people at once and that there may be a better relationship arrangement than the monogamy-and-cheating standard, to accommodate this fundamental feature of being human.
Support is rising for the latter, not the former. It's about time.
Support is rising for the latter, not the former. It's about time.
39
Ross, I am continually amazed where your head is at. Polygamy? Really? You think this is some kind of preoccupation with a large chunk of America? Right after you open with your obsessive concern for abortion, you canvas the social landscape and come up with- say again? Then, after a nod toward suicide, you bring up the "murder" of embryos. I'm not sure about whether you are talking about blastulas just before the formation of a primitive streak, or weeks later an organism as well differentiated as a chordate worm. Why do you insist on worrying about embryos? Just push for legislation outlawing any attempt to impede the coming together of two gametes and, God willing. if the egg is fertilized, any action to interfere with implantation. Start with the gametes Ross- it'll simplify your life. Then you can make sure the spermatozoa come from just one male, how ever many females there are, and whatever their ages. But polygamy and a possible adoption by the cultural left? Right now their main concern regarding one man having children with different mothers is more about the 70-75 percent of black children born out of wedlock. You need to get out more, Ross.
5
This may be the snarkiest column ever. If you look at it from another perspective if you stick to a traditional vision of society what possible reason can be given for allowing women to own, and not be, property? Social Conservatism wants to freeze in place a lukewarm vision, women subjugated but allowed to own themselves. Removal of dowries and brideprices but keeping a the essentially patriarchal vision of the 20th century intact. Really polygamy is a very conservative vision, not a Progressive one.
6
Why are religious Christians, like the author of this column, so willing to take as fact the bible verses that condemn homosexuality but feel free to ignore the ones that support polygamy, slavery, genocide, etc.? You have chosen to accept this set of texts as God's own truth about the world, you cannot now pick and choose which parts of the text you will accept and which parts to ignore, depending on how that jibes with current Republican orthodoxy. The fact of the matter is the bible does not forbid polygamy and if any thing only presents it in a positive light.
Why aren't, you, Dothan, as a believer, in support of this? Is the bible wrong?
Why aren't, you, Dothan, as a believer, in support of this? Is the bible wrong?
11
Polygamy won't ever be recognized "with a shrug," because that shrug would support a form of archaic humiliation that women have been working to get past for generations. By 2040, women will have more power, not less. Perhaps, there may come a time when a woman has multiple husbands and THAT will be recognized with a shrug.
5
let us recall that the Mormon world was a believer in polygamy until the govt banned plural marriage and then, years later, the conservative republican party presented Mitt Romney with his converted wife as presidential candidate. Should we have worried, Mr Douthat?
4
I have no idea whether or not polygamy will eventually be supported by the legal right for groups to marry, and I don't really care. If it turns out that such groups can make an argument that marriage confers benefits to them without placing undue burdens on the rest of society, then great! Let them marry.
Society is moving forward is ways I'd think Republicans would embrace: Let people live as they choose; accept the wide variation of individual choices people make, and understand that each of us has our own needs that are better met in a culture that does not punish people for being outside a narrowly defined norm.
Of course, it's the religious element that prevents Republicans from embracing this philosophy. Religion is about structure, routine, ritual and moral framework; all good, except when one group is absolutely convinced that their chosen framework is God's word and unassailably true.
Society is moving forward is ways I'd think Republicans would embrace: Let people live as they choose; accept the wide variation of individual choices people make, and understand that each of us has our own needs that are better met in a culture that does not punish people for being outside a narrowly defined norm.
Of course, it's the religious element that prevents Republicans from embracing this philosophy. Religion is about structure, routine, ritual and moral framework; all good, except when one group is absolutely convinced that their chosen framework is God's word and unassailably true.
4
If polygamy were to come back, who says it has to be one husband and multiple wives. If that is possible, why couldn't we have one wife and multiple husbands. Given men's greater earning power, it seems to me that families would have greater opportunity of remaining middle class. Also mothers might be able to stay at home and rear their children themselves rather that working and leaving it to others. Perhaps a one wife/multiple husbands form of polygamy holds prospects for being the most "family-values" form of marriage in the future. What say you all?
5
Ross - What sexist nonsense! Why no mention of polyandry?
5
... and the problem with that is what, please? Griswold v. Connecticut recognized Americans' right to privacy fifty years ago. What compelling state interest does the government have in preventing polygamy?
4
Mr. Douthat:
why did you chose to "highlight" the 'polygamy' question in the Gallup survey
without telling your readers that Gallup defined 'polygamy' in their questionnaire
as follows:
"Polygamy (when a married person has more than one spouse at the same time)"
that is, a completely-sex-blind construct.
not "patriarchal-in-design" at all.
tsk tsk tsk .... ... ..
now that definition alone might be worth a few column-inches for discussion.
on the other hand:
you could have picked the Gallup question about "Cloning Humans" ---
the survey showed a change from 7% to 15%,
nearly the same as the result for polygamy.
could have been an interesting idea to explore.
or the result that abortion was found to be equal for the first time in Gallup's experience.
or that a married person having an affair still records an 89% morally-WRONG response,
while birth control --- shudder shudder --- merits an 89% morally acceptable result.
your continued cherry-picking of subject matter in a not-so-veiled attempt to reenforce your own idea of Sharia-type-law-enforcement is becoming quite tedious.
more-seriously: is there no shame remaining?
8
As Betsy S notes, "Both polygamy and polyandry are rooted in the economic environment. The patriarchs of the Old Testament had lots of wives and concubines and it didn't seem odd or immoral to anyone at the time."
Here's our economic environment: There are a certain percentage of women who want to have children, but haven't found "one one" or their "soul mate" — the pressures we have put on our romantic relationships. And, there are a smaller number of men who want that, too. What if those people came together and married, thus not only finding someone to have children with, but will also help in the financial and hands-on upbringing of those children? Is that any worse or better than choice parenting or those who are entering into parenting partnerships through websites like Modamily.com and Coparenting.com? Might that not even be better for the children, especially since they will have "a village" — or what anthropologist Sarah Hrdy called "alloparenting" — to help raise them plus the legal and financial protections our marital laws offer? Obviously, we don't want to see anyone forced, duped or coerced into such an arrangement. But if a group of people willingly and transparently sign up for such a marriage, hopefully with a marital plan set up with the advice of legal experts and counselors, wouldn't that benefit everyone? Why should a person's sexual or love life determine how he/she creates a family?
Here's our economic environment: There are a certain percentage of women who want to have children, but haven't found "one one" or their "soul mate" — the pressures we have put on our romantic relationships. And, there are a smaller number of men who want that, too. What if those people came together and married, thus not only finding someone to have children with, but will also help in the financial and hands-on upbringing of those children? Is that any worse or better than choice parenting or those who are entering into parenting partnerships through websites like Modamily.com and Coparenting.com? Might that not even be better for the children, especially since they will have "a village" — or what anthropologist Sarah Hrdy called "alloparenting" — to help raise them plus the legal and financial protections our marital laws offer? Obviously, we don't want to see anyone forced, duped or coerced into such an arrangement. But if a group of people willingly and transparently sign up for such a marriage, hopefully with a marital plan set up with the advice of legal experts and counselors, wouldn't that benefit everyone? Why should a person's sexual or love life determine how he/she creates a family?
Why polygamy will never become widespread -
One deep committed relationship is difficult enough to maintain. Can you imagine trying to juggle five at the same time? That sounds like no fun.
One deep committed relationship is difficult enough to maintain. Can you imagine trying to juggle five at the same time? That sounds like no fun.
4
Mr. Douthat seems very concerned about some fantasied future acceptance of polygamy in this country. Perhaps he should be more concerned with the happening-now cult of extreme Christianity actually practiced by the like of the Duggars, where molesting of little girls seems to be met with a "boys will be boys" attitude. Members of his beloved Republican party have cozied up to this bizarre family in unseemly ways.
13
i was following along with the abortion poll and single-parent families and even "support for research that destroys human embryos for research", but where did physician-assisted suicide come from? and how did we get to polygamy? and does that cover polyandry? or group hugs? or kibbutzim?
Why not live as you like and die as you can? The question is always, who decides?
Why not live as you like and die as you can? The question is always, who decides?
1
So where do we think we are going in this hand basket? Perhaps the increasing popularity of Islam is due to it's strict set of rules regarding behavior. What do we suppose happens when there are no limits of human behavior?
It's about time! As long as they're consenting adults, who cares how many wives a man has or how many husbands a woman has? The government needs to get out of the marriage business.
4
Polygamy favors males because sperm are cheap, eggs are dear.
2
It is a mistake to think of all polygamy as polygyny, where one man has multiple wives. Let us not forget polyandry, where one woman has multiple husbands, and group marriage, with multiple partners of both genders.
Polygyny arose as a cultural adaptation in warlike societies, where a shortage of men required it to maintain the population of the group. No such circumstance is prevalent today, so the only cultural benefit of polygamy today would have to be economic. Are there factors in modern societies favoring polygamy? Perhaps, but only in limited circumstances. In the modern West, we favor serial polygamy, where individuals have multiple spouses, but only one at a time.
Marriage continues to be an economic arrangement, and it might be best to allow all families to choose the familial structures best suited to their needs. I favor getting government out of the marriage business altogether, allowing every family to make whatever arrangement it finds most beneficial. A good start would be a system of single-payer health care, which would greatly simplify decisions about when or with whom one enters into a marriage contract.
Polygyny arose as a cultural adaptation in warlike societies, where a shortage of men required it to maintain the population of the group. No such circumstance is prevalent today, so the only cultural benefit of polygamy today would have to be economic. Are there factors in modern societies favoring polygamy? Perhaps, but only in limited circumstances. In the modern West, we favor serial polygamy, where individuals have multiple spouses, but only one at a time.
Marriage continues to be an economic arrangement, and it might be best to allow all families to choose the familial structures best suited to their needs. I favor getting government out of the marriage business altogether, allowing every family to make whatever arrangement it finds most beneficial. A good start would be a system of single-payer health care, which would greatly simplify decisions about when or with whom one enters into a marriage contract.
2
Mr. Douthat, Times Readers and Editors,
I agree, polygamy sounds unseemly, but why do we ignore that our society's single mothers are punished with poverty? Isn't that unequal and of much greater consequence to us all? Isn't that why so many women are not having children? I myself have four children, one of whom was fathered by another man, he pays no child support, spends no time with his child. My wife was a single mother previously. Just because the biological father of our first does not live with us, does not mean his presence isn't felt. In a sense I live in a polyamorous arrangement. I believe that this condition grows from a state offering child bearing women few protections in the first place, where resources are vastly unequal. What difference does it make if a man leaves his first wife for a Trophy wife or adds her to the same household? How is one arrangement any more equal or unequal? Or the Sports star who fathers multiple children with many women that he pays child support for but never sees?
I agree, polygamy sounds unseemly, but why do we ignore that our society's single mothers are punished with poverty? Isn't that unequal and of much greater consequence to us all? Isn't that why so many women are not having children? I myself have four children, one of whom was fathered by another man, he pays no child support, spends no time with his child. My wife was a single mother previously. Just because the biological father of our first does not live with us, does not mean his presence isn't felt. In a sense I live in a polyamorous arrangement. I believe that this condition grows from a state offering child bearing women few protections in the first place, where resources are vastly unequal. What difference does it make if a man leaves his first wife for a Trophy wife or adds her to the same household? How is one arrangement any more equal or unequal? Or the Sports star who fathers multiple children with many women that he pays child support for but never sees?
5
The actual issue is whether we live in a democracy or theocracy. If so-called conservatives have their way, the United States will become more like Iran where religious leaders determine civil law.
Instead American history has shown that over time, individual conscious triumphs over religious dogma. Thus, we have gay marriage, but are not likely to see the widespread return of biblical era polygamy.
Instead American history has shown that over time, individual conscious triumphs over religious dogma. Thus, we have gay marriage, but are not likely to see the widespread return of biblical era polygamy.
All societies have developed some form of marriage between adults. The main purpose of a culturally and legally recognized marriage is to hold the adults responsible in those marriages where a child is born or adopted. Traditionally, the marriage assured that the children involved (whether of polygamous marriages, or one-man, one woman, and now same sex marriages) would be provided food clothing, shelter until they themselves were adults. If the adults were remiss in these provisions, legally the society would know who to go to and enforce the care of the child.
The form of the marriage matters little, that children are raised with enough food, clothing and shelter (and one hopes lasting love and emotional support--which can not be enforced) is what society is most concerned with. Who is raising the children into healthy adulthood? Who is responsible--legal marriages answer this question most expeditiously and this is why the vast majority of societies even predating the bible, take marriage so seriously. The more folks wanting to be legally married, the better for the children involved.
The form of the marriage matters little, that children are raised with enough food, clothing and shelter (and one hopes lasting love and emotional support--which can not be enforced) is what society is most concerned with. Who is raising the children into healthy adulthood? Who is responsible--legal marriages answer this question most expeditiously and this is why the vast majority of societies even predating the bible, take marriage so seriously. The more folks wanting to be legally married, the better for the children involved.
It is far more likely that legal polygamy will emerge, not from the permissive left as Mr. Douthat implies, but from the numerous Religious Freedom Restoration Acts passed nationwide.
So often passed by state Legislatures as a way to calm the religious Right that gay rights have a counterbalance within their state, their invariable language requires that the state permit any religious practice unless banning it is essential to further a compelling state interest. I've not yet heard the compelling state interest which requires banning polygamy, as an essential aspect.
So I think we're just waiting for polygamous families to sue in any of the 19 states where such acts have been passed, requiring the state to demonstrate that banning a polygamous marriage license is essential to a compelling state interest.
Perhaps ironically, because these laws are passed in the less socially tolerant states, legal polygamy will likely first emerge in a state like Alabama, Mississippi, or Idaho.
So often passed by state Legislatures as a way to calm the religious Right that gay rights have a counterbalance within their state, their invariable language requires that the state permit any religious practice unless banning it is essential to further a compelling state interest. I've not yet heard the compelling state interest which requires banning polygamy, as an essential aspect.
So I think we're just waiting for polygamous families to sue in any of the 19 states where such acts have been passed, requiring the state to demonstrate that banning a polygamous marriage license is essential to a compelling state interest.
Perhaps ironically, because these laws are passed in the less socially tolerant states, legal polygamy will likely first emerge in a state like Alabama, Mississippi, or Idaho.
9
My first reaction is where is the mention of polyandry? Are only men able to have multiple spouses? Will the great "meh" reaction be so blasé if women too want several husbands? WIll there be a show about Brotherhusbands? A rose by any other name is still male centric.
I also recall a discussion about the treatment of multiple wives I had with a friend who converted to Islam. While disapproving herself of the act, she emphasized that such an arrangement required that all wives be treated absolutely equally. Great, if you are the second wife. If you are #1, by definition your living standard becomes cut in half when #2 arrives on the scene. Husbands' earnings do not miraculously double when they take a second wife. If #2 is also a breadwinner, as other commentators seem to take for granted, that still doesn't guarantee that there's extra help taking out the garbage.
I also recall a discussion about the treatment of multiple wives I had with a friend who converted to Islam. While disapproving herself of the act, she emphasized that such an arrangement required that all wives be treated absolutely equally. Great, if you are the second wife. If you are #1, by definition your living standard becomes cut in half when #2 arrives on the scene. Husbands' earnings do not miraculously double when they take a second wife. If #2 is also a breadwinner, as other commentators seem to take for granted, that still doesn't guarantee that there's extra help taking out the garbage.
4
I can think of a million questions I'd like to ask the Supreme Court on this but here are two of the better ones.
If the SCOTUS legally changes the definition of marriage to include polygamy, and a company offers investment and insurance benefits to their employees, will companies be forced to provide them to multiple spouses?? If businesses are forced to provide equal benefits to multiple spouses how will you attain equal contract value between an employee receiving benefits for five spouses as opposed to a non-married employee?? You should be able to make an argument for paying the single employee a higher salary.....right??
If the SCOTUS legally changes the definition of marriage to include polygamy, and a company offers investment and insurance benefits to their employees, will companies be forced to provide them to multiple spouses?? If businesses are forced to provide equal benefits to multiple spouses how will you attain equal contract value between an employee receiving benefits for five spouses as opposed to a non-married employee?? You should be able to make an argument for paying the single employee a higher salary.....right??
1
And what, exactly, is the problem?
If my neighbor has three wives (or three husbands) how, exactly, will this threaten me, my marriage, or my neighborhood?
Seems to me this is yet another spin on the abortion debate, which is best settled by saying, "If you're opposed to abortion, don't have one." Here, it's "If you're opposed to polygamy or polyamory, don't do it."
Show me the societal problem, and I'm willing to listen...
If my neighbor has three wives (or three husbands) how, exactly, will this threaten me, my marriage, or my neighborhood?
Seems to me this is yet another spin on the abortion debate, which is best settled by saying, "If you're opposed to abortion, don't have one." Here, it's "If you're opposed to polygamy or polyamory, don't do it."
Show me the societal problem, and I'm willing to listen...
5
False alarm form Douthat. I think most gay people want to marry THE ONE they love and not a whole group of other male or female companions. Compare gay marriage to polygamy is illogical and uncalled for. But at least Douthat did not (or dare not, considering his is NYT readership) go as far as some of his conservatives comparing gay marriage to marriage with animals.
3
Although he doesn't say it exactly, Mr. Douthat clearly finds the notion of polygamy scary. I say if society's norms tend to bend a certain way, who are conservatives or traditionalists to say no? Gay marriage didn't happen in a vacuum and it wasn't the result of one or two judges making a decision. Society's will is much more complicated than that. We can look back at a long line of "traditional" views about things, such as child labor, universal suffrage, etc., and see that, even though such freedoms were hard fought at the time, by our vantage point today, the traditional view was silly. What are conservatives going to say when it is pointed out that having one dad and three moms means fewer latchkey children, and much more nurturing? When it becomes scientifically proven and obvious that children growing up in such an environment become better citizens, with more empathy and personal responsibility, will conservatives view polygamy as today they view male-only suffrage? Sure, usually there are no upsides without downsides, but that's the way of life generally, no? Relax, Ross, polygamy won't make the sky fall.
1
Weddings, or unions, should be subject to local or state laws - not federal. Marriages are religious in nature, and no civic authority should have influence over its definition. It's a short path from where we are now until the federal courts sue to require church-based weddings be available to all gender combinations.
"In just 15 years, we have gone from being a society divided roughly evenly between progressive and traditionalist visions to a country where social conservatism is countercultural and clearly in retreat."
The only dangers to traditional visions are phony Judeo-Christians and phony secular social conservatives posing as real ones.
Phony "social conservatives" are hardly in retreat. They are, on the other hand, aggressively repelling those who would embrace humanism particularly in its most enlightened form, that which appreciates and humbly accepts humanity's dependence on the fragile yet essential balance of all life.
Meanwhile, the science deniers schizophrenically proclaim that God him/her/itself somehow did not bring forth a Universe that, in evidence all blessed with an apparently ubiquitously-granted sense and sentience can witness (as is appropriate coming from an omniscient and omnipresent power) in the present day, everywhere and all the time, rather than in millennia-old texts penned by the anonymous and dubiously informed - the original "Curveballs?" - seems to run on science - we even have evidence of societies that ignored both physical and social sciences and perished thereby, which we blithely ignore.
What is becoming more common, and disturbing to the likes of Douthat, is not so much advocacy for any particular social structure, as a demand for evidence that those structures pose a threat. Douthat's evidentiary cupboard is bare.
The only dangers to traditional visions are phony Judeo-Christians and phony secular social conservatives posing as real ones.
Phony "social conservatives" are hardly in retreat. They are, on the other hand, aggressively repelling those who would embrace humanism particularly in its most enlightened form, that which appreciates and humbly accepts humanity's dependence on the fragile yet essential balance of all life.
Meanwhile, the science deniers schizophrenically proclaim that God him/her/itself somehow did not bring forth a Universe that, in evidence all blessed with an apparently ubiquitously-granted sense and sentience can witness (as is appropriate coming from an omniscient and omnipresent power) in the present day, everywhere and all the time, rather than in millennia-old texts penned by the anonymous and dubiously informed - the original "Curveballs?" - seems to run on science - we even have evidence of societies that ignored both physical and social sciences and perished thereby, which we blithely ignore.
What is becoming more common, and disturbing to the likes of Douthat, is not so much advocacy for any particular social structure, as a demand for evidence that those structures pose a threat. Douthat's evidentiary cupboard is bare.
1
This article appears to be nothing more than a round about attempt to influence the gay marriage question now before the Supreme Court. Or, perhaps more accurately it's an attempt by Mr. Douthat to brandish his conservative credentials, and pick up a few high fives from the faithful along the way, given that the article has very little, if any, chance of influencing public opinion on the gay marriage issue and even less chance of influencing the Court. It can have no other purpose given that as Mr, Douthat states only 16% of Americans support polygamy. Relying on a old conservative favorite, the slippery slope argument, Mr. Douthat suggest that Americans support for gay marriage will some how lead to polygamy . . . in 25 years. The gay marriage debate is about fairness, more specifically equal treatment under the law. Americans increasingly no longer believe that it's fair to grant the right of marriage under the law, and all of the benefits and burdens that flow from it, to one loving couple, but not another, based on the gender of the couple. Last time I checked, in America no group was being granted the right by law to enter into a group marriage. Given the broad support for gay marriage and the limited support for polygamy, Americans clearly understand the differences between the two issues. My guess is that so does Mr. Douthat.
Why did Ross Douthat spend time writing about this still very far away hypothetical about polygamy? It just isn't a timely topic. We have so many serious REAL problems confronting us right now. Healthcare, environment, corporations as people, unlimited spending by billionaires to buy government, criminal mafias are now called "financial services" and on and on. But then again. conservatives don't like to discuss those issues. so Ross' distraction make sense.
4
What Ross is actually saying: " with social liberalism ascendant in America, it will not be long before liberals and their ilk accept polygamy and bestiality along with their support for same-sex marriage".
Oops! Must be feel good to be the "man behind the curtain" trying to scare his munchkins. However, the reader comments show most of us are not fooled by this far-right zealot's writing!
Oops! Must be feel good to be the "man behind the curtain" trying to scare his munchkins. However, the reader comments show most of us are not fooled by this far-right zealot's writing!
3
Mr. Douthat hauls these old red herrings out so often that I’d be surprised if half the scales have not fallen off from excessive use.. Why can’t he and his religionists stay out of people’s bedrooms? What is the constant fascination to intrude and disrupt.
And for the case of polygamy, as H. L. Mecken pointed out:
“Christian endeavor is notoriously hard on female pulchritude.”
And for the case of polygamy, as H. L. Mecken pointed out:
“Christian endeavor is notoriously hard on female pulchritude.”
4
Does anyone else find this article offensive? If Ross thinks gay marriage is the slippery slope to polygamy, I wonder what he thinks about purity balls? All we have to do is look at the Duggars to find where Ross's puritanical social moralizing leads.
7
Perhaps when polygamy is accepted as a gender neutral practice it will be more acceptable. The practice to date has always been a patriarchal one, with a man having multiple wives, keeping women in servile positions, whose primary job is to produce children and keep house. If we start having matriarchal polygamy, with a woman keeping a couple of husbands, it may be much more acceptable to the female population that constitutes near 50% of populations.
I always liked the definition of marriage as a 50-50 partnership in which the husband usually owned a slightly higher amount of stock. The reverse should also be acceptable.
I always liked the definition of marriage as a 50-50 partnership in which the husband usually owned a slightly higher amount of stock. The reverse should also be acceptable.
Note to Mr. Douthat.
You want to find common ground between "social" liberals and conservatives on the issue of marriage, then write an essay on how prenuptial agreements undermine the essential sacredness of marriage.
If we stipulate that marriage is a vow you take for a lifetime commitment to another person, why then, do we allow for prenuptial agreements? These are nothing more than DIVORCE PLANS than undermine the very essence of marriage.
But will Mr. Douthat, or any of his morally righteous religious associates, write about the hugely harmful impact that prenups have on the institution of marriage? I doubt it. Why? Prenups protect something that seems more sacred to social conservatives than love... MONEY. The truth is that social conservatives are willing to turn marriage away from a sacred human act into a business contract.
The reason that the arguments made by social conservatives against gay marriage have failed is because they can show no harm to society or the concept of marriage. On the other hand, prenuptial agreements undermine the very core of what both conservatives and liberals both say they believe about marriage as a transformational human act.
I believe that Mr. Douthat and others are not set on "protecting" monogamous marriage in the least bit. If they were, they would hold the institution up to a brighter light and really examine what now threatens it... PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS.
You want to find common ground between "social" liberals and conservatives on the issue of marriage, then write an essay on how prenuptial agreements undermine the essential sacredness of marriage.
If we stipulate that marriage is a vow you take for a lifetime commitment to another person, why then, do we allow for prenuptial agreements? These are nothing more than DIVORCE PLANS than undermine the very essence of marriage.
But will Mr. Douthat, or any of his morally righteous religious associates, write about the hugely harmful impact that prenups have on the institution of marriage? I doubt it. Why? Prenups protect something that seems more sacred to social conservatives than love... MONEY. The truth is that social conservatives are willing to turn marriage away from a sacred human act into a business contract.
The reason that the arguments made by social conservatives against gay marriage have failed is because they can show no harm to society or the concept of marriage. On the other hand, prenuptial agreements undermine the very core of what both conservatives and liberals both say they believe about marriage as a transformational human act.
I believe that Mr. Douthat and others are not set on "protecting" monogamous marriage in the least bit. If they were, they would hold the institution up to a brighter light and really examine what now threatens it... PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS.
2
How can Douthat bare his fear of polygamy in the US without discussing Republican's support for "religious freedom" laws? Assuming that these laws would actually provide legal protection for all religious beliefs - without discriminating against practitioners of currently 'marginal' beliefs - polygamous/polyamorous unions would be permitted.
But this recognition would fnot fit well with Douthart's real purpose of this deceptive ideological screed. It is just another right-wing salvo in the 'culture war' or, as Douthat writes, "in social liberalism's wake."
Again Douthat shows his complete dishonesty and inability to discuss an issue without subordinating it to his reactionary "traditionalism".
But this recognition would fnot fit well with Douthart's real purpose of this deceptive ideological screed. It is just another right-wing salvo in the 'culture war' or, as Douthat writes, "in social liberalism's wake."
Again Douthat shows his complete dishonesty and inability to discuss an issue without subordinating it to his reactionary "traditionalism".
In The Red Queen, Matt Ridley points out that in most hunter-gatherer societies monogamy is the rule. Polygamy did not become rife until people settled down and began to accumulate stuff. So we can equate polygamy with greed, the feeling that one is entitled to more than other people because somehow or other one is deemed more deserving of more than other people. It is interesting that polygamy is always viewed through a male sexist lens- one man , several wives. One wonders if polygamy becomes accepted if that would also extend to the concept of one woman, several husbands. I tend to doubt it.
I wondered how long it would take the right-wingers to start screaming Polygamy! from the roof tops of their 20,000 square foot homes when faced with the inevitability of acceptance of same sex marriage in this country. Mr. Douthat didn't disappoint.
Prepare yourself for the waves to come. Polygamy will lead to harems! Harems to Sharia law! And Sharia Law to the "Enemy", the Muslim's!
Solution: Invade them or every women in America will be wearing the burka by 2040!
I have some recommendations for Mr. Douthat's followers. Pay your taxes, fund public education, repair and restore our infrastructure. Invest in peace instead of war. And stop acting like peeping toms and stay out of peoples' bed rooms.
Prepare yourself for the waves to come. Polygamy will lead to harems! Harems to Sharia law! And Sharia Law to the "Enemy", the Muslim's!
Solution: Invade them or every women in America will be wearing the burka by 2040!
I have some recommendations for Mr. Douthat's followers. Pay your taxes, fund public education, repair and restore our infrastructure. Invest in peace instead of war. And stop acting like peeping toms and stay out of peoples' bed rooms.
5
Many parts of our society have broken down. In inner cities, teenage boys without fathers sell drugs and murder each other. Their mothers have never married, and have had multiple children by multiple men.
Liberals will say "That's not what we mean by social liberalism! Just because it's OK to have sex outside marriage, and have children without marriage, doesn't mean you should live like that!" So what exactly do they mean?
The truth is, in practice, the upper 10% don't have children outside of marriage if they can help it. While some do divorce, the better-off people tend to get married, have children, and try to stay married. At the same time, they have the most liberal social attitudes.
Liberals will say "That's not what we mean by social liberalism! Just because it's OK to have sex outside marriage, and have children without marriage, doesn't mean you should live like that!" So what exactly do they mean?
The truth is, in practice, the upper 10% don't have children outside of marriage if they can help it. While some do divorce, the better-off people tend to get married, have children, and try to stay married. At the same time, they have the most liberal social attitudes.
2
Ross seems to take the Gallup poll (as most people would) as an indication that the population is demonstrating more voluntary accommodation of "alternative" social and sexual behaviors. I would venture, however, that this accommodation is not quite voluntary. People may not support these alternatives at all through much of their lives until they are forced to confront them. Illegitimate children? Homosexuality? Not in my house! Not until a loved one is in one of these categories or situations do a lot of people (Dick Cheney?) change their conservative or traditional tune. Love triumphs even when it precedes understanding and analysis; compassion finds chinks in the fine moral armor. Our society is just finding ways to diminish restrictions to love, thankfully driven by caring and reality.
1
I have little regard or respect for questionnaires that asks for an either yes or no answer. In most cases the only appropriate answer would be "It depends." Take, for instance, the question of approval of unwed parenthood (now at 61 percent). There is a clear difference between a single 30 or 40 year-old single woman who would like a child and can afford to support and educate this child vs. a teenager who was born to a poor and uneducated teenager herself, and has been encouraged to get pregnant in order to add an additional welfare check to the household. I am leery of accepting the results of any of these questions that need to be answered either yes or no.
3
For several years I’ve been saying that I support same-sex marriage, but not as a Constitutional right, the reason being that if SSM is a "right", then on what basis do courts deny that same right to three people or two siblings or a divorced father and his daughter, etc.
The popular tide is strongly flowing SSM’s way. In the long run I believe voters will decide the issue in its favor, with no help from our Constitution.
This would make it a "voter settled" issue -- and not a permanent social-fabric ripper -- which I predict will be the case should SCOTUS proclaim marriage a Constitutional right.
The popular tide is strongly flowing SSM’s way. In the long run I believe voters will decide the issue in its favor, with no help from our Constitution.
This would make it a "voter settled" issue -- and not a permanent social-fabric ripper -- which I predict will be the case should SCOTUS proclaim marriage a Constitutional right.
Well, I appreciate the fact Douthat mentioned polygamy is associated with abuse, patriarchy and sexism (see Mormonism). And that is the great difference between it and the other emerging forms of social liberalism...the latter all make life better for individuals or at least enlarges their choice of options.
I'll tell you where else it flourishes: In women's fiction. Erotica or romance, take your pick, it's accepted practice. Just another way of expressing love between or among consenting adults. I disagree with Douthat that this will not be legal until 2025, because when you've got the tacit approval of the housewives of America, it's a done deal.
Calling a question "interesting" is the cheesy passive-aggressive warning of a defeated debater who knows in his heart that he's right, the rest of the world is wrong, and that someday the rest of the world will understand. In this column, Ross does it twice. I am not interested.
Hmmmmm. In this discussion I have seen no mention of polyandry, which is the arrangement in which one woman has multiple husbands. Why is that, I wonder?
1
Polygamy is any marriage with more than two partners, without regards to the gender of the partners. The term for one husband with multiple wives is polygyny, the opposite equivalent of polyandry.
1
At least religious conservatives will be able to recognize polygamy as returning to the original biblical precepts of marriage.
2
I was raised in a very conservative environment--America, during the 1950's. I found the gay movement a surprise, accepting the practice more slowly than many, certainly more slowly than younger Americans. Now I am told wide spread polygamy is just around the corner.
So, I guess there will be a lot to debate and comment upon for the rest of my life.
Let's start with my observation that Mr Douthat and the Right make the assumption that their social view is not merely "correct", but anointed by some absolute power. God? Ronald Reagan? Tradition? The American "ascendant" civilization? I don't know which. That part is never explained. The assumption that life was better in 1950 and we're all going to hell in a hand basket with tattoos and piercings is just assumed. I mean, really, this column is nothing more than a chicken little moment.
That said, I claim neither piercings or tattoos or a knowledge of how America should handle change. But, I recognize change is upon us. Acceptance of that fact is not acquiescence to the collapse of civilization. My advice--Don't lose your sense of humor. If some guy wishes to marry two women, wish him good luck.
So, I guess there will be a lot to debate and comment upon for the rest of my life.
Let's start with my observation that Mr Douthat and the Right make the assumption that their social view is not merely "correct", but anointed by some absolute power. God? Ronald Reagan? Tradition? The American "ascendant" civilization? I don't know which. That part is never explained. The assumption that life was better in 1950 and we're all going to hell in a hand basket with tattoos and piercings is just assumed. I mean, really, this column is nothing more than a chicken little moment.
That said, I claim neither piercings or tattoos or a knowledge of how America should handle change. But, I recognize change is upon us. Acceptance of that fact is not acquiescence to the collapse of civilization. My advice--Don't lose your sense of humor. If some guy wishes to marry two women, wish him good luck.
2
"If some guy wishes to marry two women, wish him good luck. "
And remind him that he will have two mothers-in-law, to boot.
And remind him that he will have two mothers-in-law, to boot.
1
I'd much rather Ross Douthat got behind scaring his conservative base about global warming than about the threat of polygamy. If his conservative base needs to be made to freak out about something then at least make it something that is a real threat to humanity.
To me this is one of the silliest opinion pieces Douthat has ever written.
To me this is one of the silliest opinion pieces Douthat has ever written.
6
Everyone in Utah knows what fundamentalist Mormons do...the men marry in the church, then find young uneducated women, 'marry' them outside of the church, install them in separate apartments in their basements, and apply for public benefits to pay for the children of these 'single' mothers. Same with fundamentalist Muslims, as all fundamentalist religions treat women as chattel.
This is a huge scam by religious fundamentalists to get taxpayers to pay for their misogynist and repugnant way of life.
This is a huge scam by religious fundamentalists to get taxpayers to pay for their misogynist and repugnant way of life.
7
Polygamy? You mean, biblically-approved, old-testament-norm marriage? Given the angst and ink that religous conservatives have spilled over biblical disapproval of homosexuality, it would seem they, not social liberals, should be leading the charge.
Or, does Mr. Douthat's philosophy have a little more of an arbitray, cafeteria aspect than he'd like to admit?
Or, does Mr. Douthat's philosophy have a little more of an arbitray, cafeteria aspect than he'd like to admit?
2
Mr. Douthat sounds a little bit like a sore loser here, or a candidate for office in Utah. Not so sure why he chose polygamy over marrying your dog for his phony argument other than that he could use Gallup "data." Too bad the Gallups are not asking the "marrying your dog" question these days. It might beat out polygamy on statistical error alone.
And too bad that Mr. Douthat does not take a longer look at the trajectory of what he terms "social liberalism." The more likely outcome may be that social liberalism results in liberty. Government could eventually become smaller and retreat from the domain of personal life. This conclusion makes more sense than Douthat's ridiculous assertion about polygamy.
As others have noted, the reason that the arguments against gay marriage have failed is that there is no evidence of any tangible harm caused by human beings living in committed and loving relationships. To the contrary, the evidence is strong that societal good comes from this. BUT should government be involved at all in marriage? Maybe if you view the relationship as an economic contract, or as in the past, humans (women) as private property?
And too bad that Mr. Douthat does not take a longer look at the trajectory of what he terms "social liberalism." The more likely outcome may be that social liberalism results in liberty. Government could eventually become smaller and retreat from the domain of personal life. This conclusion makes more sense than Douthat's ridiculous assertion about polygamy.
As others have noted, the reason that the arguments against gay marriage have failed is that there is no evidence of any tangible harm caused by human beings living in committed and loving relationships. To the contrary, the evidence is strong that societal good comes from this. BUT should government be involved at all in marriage? Maybe if you view the relationship as an economic contract, or as in the past, humans (women) as private property?
3
Vasopressin, a hormone in our body plays significant role in determining our sexual activities (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/opinion/sunday/infidelity-lurks-in-you... (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v365/n6446/abs/365545a0.html). Animal studies have shown that genetic mutations in vasopressin receptors can make women sexually promiscuous. I argue that we should throw religion out of the window and embrace science in this debate. I also argue that both polygamy and polyandry should be legalized, if the results of previous research are true in humans. However, more research needs to be done in humans to make a conclusion with confidence.
Socially, I think its none of our business to pass judgement that the women involved in polygamy are sexually abused. How do you know? This arrangement might suit their biological predisposition and we should respect it.
www.mausamkalita.blogspot.com
Socially, I think its none of our business to pass judgement that the women involved in polygamy are sexually abused. How do you know? This arrangement might suit their biological predisposition and we should respect it.
www.mausamkalita.blogspot.com
1
Why didn't you even mention women with multiple husbands?
6
another ridiculous waste of time from Mr. Douthat. One can cut through all of the marriage-equality false equivalence by stating that polygamy will be acceptable only if it involves women having multiple husbands. In this light, polygamy becomes the non-issue it should be, save for pundits like Mr. Douthat who lack the imagination to write anything of substance.
In order to provide a comparison to the assertion that polygamy is based on male-dominated culture, why not ask the flip side -- what about approval for polyandry? Although polygamy is the default for multi-partner liaisons, most assume that it refers to one male and two or more females.
2
Unfortunately, polygamy may be much closer to being deemed legal than we suppose. Same-sex marriage is here, and loud demands from the bisexual community will not be far behind. Forget was is best for the next generation of children, they will be raised according to the changing sexual whims of society. How very sad.
In a polygamous marriage the women in the relationship are not married to each other, so this makes the arrangement fundamentally different from a couple who are married to each other. The asymmetrical nature of a polygamous marriage prevents it from relying on any kind of precedent set by same sex marriage.
Ross's use of language here is misleading as well. Polygamous marriage is very much traditionalist in some settings as is marriage in general.
Ross's use of language here is misleading as well. Polygamous marriage is very much traditionalist in some settings as is marriage in general.
1
I've married - twice.
Each time my husband and then my ex-husband (yes, I married the same man twice) understood that it was a LEGALITY, not an emotional choice. Just as there are folk who have never believed in gods, I have never believed in marriage. I just don't get it. It's not on my radar. I do believe in the protection of children, perhaps as passionately as others believe in marriage and that is why I wed, for the legal protection of my child. In the interim divorce, custody was a hard fought-for 50-50, the courts HATED it back then, and eventually, to protect, it was back to traditional marriage, but it was with a shrug that merely acknowledged reality. During that two and a half decades the household remained intact, because, simply, we got along. It was good.
Simply stated, I CHOSE. I would make the same choices again, pragmatically, because there was a balance that I needed to juggle to satisfy society and my duty to my self. Now I no longer need to. I am single and will remain so - unless it becomes necessary to marry again to LEGALLY protect either myself or another.
But, understand, Ross, this 'support' is tepid, blase, a shrug. It is an acknowledgement of the inadequacy of 'traditional marriage' which has never put the protection of children first.
Do I support same-sex marriage? Of course. There are huge legalities in a partnership that must be tended to. But do I see the vast drama and chaos that you propose?
I do not. I see a growing indifference.
Each time my husband and then my ex-husband (yes, I married the same man twice) understood that it was a LEGALITY, not an emotional choice. Just as there are folk who have never believed in gods, I have never believed in marriage. I just don't get it. It's not on my radar. I do believe in the protection of children, perhaps as passionately as others believe in marriage and that is why I wed, for the legal protection of my child. In the interim divorce, custody was a hard fought-for 50-50, the courts HATED it back then, and eventually, to protect, it was back to traditional marriage, but it was with a shrug that merely acknowledged reality. During that two and a half decades the household remained intact, because, simply, we got along. It was good.
Simply stated, I CHOSE. I would make the same choices again, pragmatically, because there was a balance that I needed to juggle to satisfy society and my duty to my self. Now I no longer need to. I am single and will remain so - unless it becomes necessary to marry again to LEGALLY protect either myself or another.
But, understand, Ross, this 'support' is tepid, blase, a shrug. It is an acknowledgement of the inadequacy of 'traditional marriage' which has never put the protection of children first.
Do I support same-sex marriage? Of course. There are huge legalities in a partnership that must be tended to. But do I see the vast drama and chaos that you propose?
I do not. I see a growing indifference.
1
Currently some women stay in bad relationships because they feel a bad relationship is better than being alone. Consequently some men feel they can treat their partner badly because they won't leave due the same reasoning. If a man who enjoyed treating his partner well could have more than one partner, who loses? Is a woman better of with a partner who treats her badly all to herself, or one who treats her well but is also treating other partners well? There is a book titled "women can win the marriage lottery" that discusses this.
Just to let you know...The statistics on abortion have changed. More than 70 per cent want to see Roe v. Wade stand and believe than abortion should be available to women without inducing shame. The gynonitians are out of step with the public.
3
As a psychothherapist for the past 30 years, it's become apparent that true intimacy can only be found in committed relationshps between two people. Such relationships are a "cauldron," whose stresses and difficulties refine the character of both participants--as illustrated metaphorically by the beloved childrens' classic, The Velveteen Rabbit.
It is not an easy path, but it is a victorious one, for those hardy souls who can hang in there. As Chesterton, I believe, said of Christianity, "It was not tried and found wanting; it was tried and found difficult." The temptattions to dilute the process are many, and adding more participants is the common route. And the rationales are just as numerous--but in my experience, if one is truly seeking intimacy in this life, bogus.
It is not an easy path, but it is a victorious one, for those hardy souls who can hang in there. As Chesterton, I believe, said of Christianity, "It was not tried and found wanting; it was tried and found difficult." The temptattions to dilute the process are many, and adding more participants is the common route. And the rationales are just as numerous--but in my experience, if one is truly seeking intimacy in this life, bogus.
2
Mr. Douthat calls polygamy "biblical-sounding." He's wrong; the practice of polygamy is actually biblical.
The Hebrew Bible contains many instances of polygamy among common folk and leaders. The Christian New Testament gospels are silent on polygamy, but since Jesus was a Jew, I think it's fair to assume he accepted it.
Mr. Douthat also laments a social conservatism in retreat, presumably referring to public opinion's recent rejection of those who lean on biblical scriptures and assert "marriage has always been between one man and one woman."
Social conservatives, as I understand them, should be discussing polygamy within the context of our Judeo-Christian heritage. But where does that lead them? Logically they should have no problem with polygamy, but they do. Shouldn't Mr. Douthat's focus be on this internal contradiction?
Why is there no public discussion of the fact that the Hebrew Bible embraces polygamy and the New Testament gospels are silent on that subject? Who are the true social conservatives here?
The Hebrew Bible contains many instances of polygamy among common folk and leaders. The Christian New Testament gospels are silent on polygamy, but since Jesus was a Jew, I think it's fair to assume he accepted it.
Mr. Douthat also laments a social conservatism in retreat, presumably referring to public opinion's recent rejection of those who lean on biblical scriptures and assert "marriage has always been between one man and one woman."
Social conservatives, as I understand them, should be discussing polygamy within the context of our Judeo-Christian heritage. But where does that lead them? Logically they should have no problem with polygamy, but they do. Shouldn't Mr. Douthat's focus be on this internal contradiction?
Why is there no public discussion of the fact that the Hebrew Bible embraces polygamy and the New Testament gospels are silent on that subject? Who are the true social conservatives here?
Polygamy at least has roots in civilization, and is more logical than gay marriage, which never existed until "I wanna big party too" came along. It has always existed somewhere.
It is rare in the West today because a Pope outlawed it. Ironically it is only certain religious cults that openly practice it now, but its prohibition is a Catholic decree of over 1,000 years ago, with the rationale to reduce conflict for title inheritance. It was not outlawed in China until the Communists did so after the War. It is still legal in part in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and many African and Middle Eastern countries.
People have adapted. 95% of Americans have had more than one partner. 70% of couples have had a member to have "cheated", with there being quite a number of sugar baby/daddy relationships (mistresses). As many as 10% of people have experienced manage a trois (closer to 20% of college women seniors), and about 5% have tried swinging.
How is it better to be married to one person while having a second on the side? It seems as though a recognition of the 2nd relationship would be better for the other person involved.
How many divorces could be avoided if the option to marry a second existed? We all know that divorce leads to reduced household income and that is bad. Polygamy could lead to increased income outside of cults.
The distaste for polygamy is due to religious cults that ignore Catholic dogma, but it is Catholic dogma codified into law that prohibits it.
It is rare in the West today because a Pope outlawed it. Ironically it is only certain religious cults that openly practice it now, but its prohibition is a Catholic decree of over 1,000 years ago, with the rationale to reduce conflict for title inheritance. It was not outlawed in China until the Communists did so after the War. It is still legal in part in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and many African and Middle Eastern countries.
People have adapted. 95% of Americans have had more than one partner. 70% of couples have had a member to have "cheated", with there being quite a number of sugar baby/daddy relationships (mistresses). As many as 10% of people have experienced manage a trois (closer to 20% of college women seniors), and about 5% have tried swinging.
How is it better to be married to one person while having a second on the side? It seems as though a recognition of the 2nd relationship would be better for the other person involved.
How many divorces could be avoided if the option to marry a second existed? We all know that divorce leads to reduced household income and that is bad. Polygamy could lead to increased income outside of cults.
The distaste for polygamy is due to religious cults that ignore Catholic dogma, but it is Catholic dogma codified into law that prohibits it.
1
It is amazing how these religious creeps get their jollies by invading the American bedroom and suggesting what should or should not be practiced there.
It is no secret that the Bible Belt leads the nation in the viewing of pornography and at the same time protests the very internet fare that is so avidly attended to by its constituents.
Truth of the matter is, that personal relationships are just that, personal.
Despite the fact that none of this nonsense has any place in governmental matters and, has been proscribed by the first amendment which bars any religious dogma from the affairs of government, every GOP candidate in sight is groveling before the religious right for its vote.
While the religious wars are decimating the Middle East and portions of Africa with the genocidal murder of all who disagree with the medieval blather and claptrap of ancient religious philosophy , our politicians are far too busy assaulting the Constitutionally protected right of women to reproductive health care when they should be dealing with the threats posed by ISIS and the immigration problems which a republican Congress has failed to address since 2010.
The GOP , rather than pass comprehensive immigration legislation , is content to waste tax dollars by fighting Executive actions which were taken to combat the failure of Congress to address the issue.
It is long past time to take this country back from the Pilgrims and religious beliefs that have no place in the 21st century.
It is no secret that the Bible Belt leads the nation in the viewing of pornography and at the same time protests the very internet fare that is so avidly attended to by its constituents.
Truth of the matter is, that personal relationships are just that, personal.
Despite the fact that none of this nonsense has any place in governmental matters and, has been proscribed by the first amendment which bars any religious dogma from the affairs of government, every GOP candidate in sight is groveling before the religious right for its vote.
While the religious wars are decimating the Middle East and portions of Africa with the genocidal murder of all who disagree with the medieval blather and claptrap of ancient religious philosophy , our politicians are far too busy assaulting the Constitutionally protected right of women to reproductive health care when they should be dealing with the threats posed by ISIS and the immigration problems which a republican Congress has failed to address since 2010.
The GOP , rather than pass comprehensive immigration legislation , is content to waste tax dollars by fighting Executive actions which were taken to combat the failure of Congress to address the issue.
It is long past time to take this country back from the Pilgrims and religious beliefs that have no place in the 21st century.
3
It would be more interesting if it were known who the people accepting of bigamy are. Are these "progressives" as Mr. Douthat implies?
As someone who would likely be classified as a progressive by the author, I'm skeptical of it. Independent consenting adults can do whatever they want, in my opinion, but it seems that some of the more traditional polygamists have a taste for rather young girls and women.
As someone who would likely be classified as a progressive by the author, I'm skeptical of it. Independent consenting adults can do whatever they want, in my opinion, but it seems that some of the more traditional polygamists have a taste for rather young girls and women.
Marriage between one man and one woman is also "associated with patriarchy and sexual abuse, rather than liberation and equality." It is also associated with the psychological and physical abuse and even murder of women and children. Traditional marriage is no picnic and never has been.
I'm waiting for the day when we realize that we don't need marriage anymore at all. Why gays are wanting to join an institution that became unnecessary about 50 years ago is beyond me. There is no benefit that marriage provides that cannot be obtained in some other way. No one needs to be married for any reason. If three people (or more) want to live together, they can do that now, and sometimes do. So what? As far as I can tell, the world hasn't stopped turning because people are finally realizing that their lives are their own, to live as they please.
I'm waiting for the day when we realize that we don't need marriage anymore at all. Why gays are wanting to join an institution that became unnecessary about 50 years ago is beyond me. There is no benefit that marriage provides that cannot be obtained in some other way. No one needs to be married for any reason. If three people (or more) want to live together, they can do that now, and sometimes do. So what? As far as I can tell, the world hasn't stopped turning because people are finally realizing that their lives are their own, to live as they please.
33
Why are same-sex marriage opponents so opposed to polygamy? It is true that the Bible contains several references condemning homosexuality. It is equally true that the same Bible clearly does NOT condemn polygamy. Start with the most obvious (and egregious) example of Solomon and go on from there. The only prohibition is against coveting your neighbor's wife - it says nothing about adding a second (or third, or tenth, or two hundredth) of your own.
Setting that aside, though, and looking at the question from the viewpoint of civil law, I can't see where any slope exists at all, slippery or otherwise. The point that everyone seems to forget is that laws exist for a reason - they have a purpose. The civil purpose of marriage is to establish a legal partnership between two people that automatically, by default, sends a signal to society. In matters of property ownership, inheritance, child custody, healthcare decisions, end-of-life decisions, and just about any other matter that might arise, if one person is incapacitated and unable to state his or her own wishes, society can turn to the other partner for a decision. When you strip away all the moralizing and religious doctrine, it becomes obvious that the gender of that other person is irrelevant. However, if there are two or more persons both claiming the authority to speak for the incapacitated one, society is left without that default. Thus, civil polygamy would serve no purpose.
Setting that aside, though, and looking at the question from the viewpoint of civil law, I can't see where any slope exists at all, slippery or otherwise. The point that everyone seems to forget is that laws exist for a reason - they have a purpose. The civil purpose of marriage is to establish a legal partnership between two people that automatically, by default, sends a signal to society. In matters of property ownership, inheritance, child custody, healthcare decisions, end-of-life decisions, and just about any other matter that might arise, if one person is incapacitated and unable to state his or her own wishes, society can turn to the other partner for a decision. When you strip away all the moralizing and religious doctrine, it becomes obvious that the gender of that other person is irrelevant. However, if there are two or more persons both claiming the authority to speak for the incapacitated one, society is left without that default. Thus, civil polygamy would serve no purpose.
1
The problems with plural marriage, at least in this country, have more to do with property rights and logistics, not some great extended morale breakdown. After all, most folks in biblical times were just fine with polyamory... and as Douthat mentioned, there are still religions that actively allow it.... and few Americans have confined themselves to a single partner for life.
That being said, I don't really know how you overcome the logistical problems as seemlessly as you would for gay marriage. For instance, what happens if the man dies? Do the remaining wives have to file for divorce from one another, or must they continue the marriage? Is each wife entitled to social security benefits or must the survivors benefit be divided evenly? Can a citizen create multiple new citizens at the same time through plural marriage to foreign women? What happens if a man divorces one of his three wives, how is the property treated? Must the divorced wife move out with her children? The list goes on. For gay marriage, it was logistically far simpler to allow gay marriage than to prevent it. Not so with plural marriage.
All of these are reasonably minor problems for the rich (who can obviously support multiple families simultaneously) but when the practices extends to the poor outside of a religious commune... it gets more complicated.
That being said, I don't really know how you overcome the logistical problems as seemlessly as you would for gay marriage. For instance, what happens if the man dies? Do the remaining wives have to file for divorce from one another, or must they continue the marriage? Is each wife entitled to social security benefits or must the survivors benefit be divided evenly? Can a citizen create multiple new citizens at the same time through plural marriage to foreign women? What happens if a man divorces one of his three wives, how is the property treated? Must the divorced wife move out with her children? The list goes on. For gay marriage, it was logistically far simpler to allow gay marriage than to prevent it. Not so with plural marriage.
All of these are reasonably minor problems for the rich (who can obviously support multiple families simultaneously) but when the practices extends to the poor outside of a religious commune... it gets more complicated.
1
I try very hard to seek information from all sides when large change in our country's social dynamic appears. I want to hear all sides. Hence I turn to your essays, Mr. Douthat.
Most importantly I read the comments section because after I read and reflect on what you have written, the comments become a great resource to understand how provincial your arguments are.
What does polygamy really mean to our children? When it gets boiled down to that, your essays always miss the point. In fact it becomes just another exercise in doubling down on some conservative dogma.
What is bothersome is that the essay sounds dismissive of the rich information it engenders in the comments section. How magical is that?
This comment is the exception of course. just saying.
Most importantly I read the comments section because after I read and reflect on what you have written, the comments become a great resource to understand how provincial your arguments are.
What does polygamy really mean to our children? When it gets boiled down to that, your essays always miss the point. In fact it becomes just another exercise in doubling down on some conservative dogma.
What is bothersome is that the essay sounds dismissive of the rich information it engenders in the comments section. How magical is that?
This comment is the exception of course. just saying.
2
Aside from the same-sex statistic, I wonder how much these statistics are influenced not by a desire for these changes, but by reluctant acceptance. Are we to disown our children when we discover that they are living with another? When they walk down the aisle pregnant? Or, do we love them unconditionally, and accept that this “new way”, which was not our way, is just how it is? Are we too revisionist in our personal history to forget that while we may not have shared an address before marriage, we often shared a bed? And back to the same-sex issue, is it possible that many of us are simply tired of the abuse that gays suffer, and are actually striking a blow against hatred rather than registering an endorsement of gay behavior? Any finally to the topic of polygamy. I doubt it gains popular support, and I doubt that the doubling of supposed sentiment for it is actually anything more than a desire to get government out of the bedroom. But whatever the outcome, please do not try to persuade me that it will somehow affect the sanctity of MY marriage.
1
I'm surprised Ross Douthat didn't raise what is perhaps the biggest objection of all to plural marriages - that it would lead to the sort of frustrated male underclass that is so violent and prevalent in countries where polygamy is already allowed, mostly Muslim countries. That, and not just the potential for patriarchal abuse, which can be addressed with modern laws, and female bonding in the polygamous family, is the real incendiary issue. Basically, we have a math problem in which a mostly equal number of males and females is tilted so that one male gets multiple females as partners.
And no, even allowing for polyandry, as some very poor hardscrabble rural communities do (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/when-taking-multiple-h..., will do much to balance the results. For cultural as well as biological reasons, one women and many men will never be as prevalent as one man and many women, even if both are technically allowed.
If society won't stop expanding rights as part of the cultural shift, will it stop due to math?
And no, even allowing for polyandry, as some very poor hardscrabble rural communities do (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/when-taking-multiple-h..., will do much to balance the results. For cultural as well as biological reasons, one women and many men will never be as prevalent as one man and many women, even if both are technically allowed.
If society won't stop expanding rights as part of the cultural shift, will it stop due to math?
4
Talk about some strange families, and they're right under your nose, Ross. There's the Trinity. Think it through, Ross. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. No female principle in the Christian theology. The Blessed Virgin Mary? A consolation prize for the early Christians who missed the goddesses of the Roman and Greek pantheon. Then there were the patriarchs of the Old Testament. Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar. A threesome! Moving along, we come to Jesus born of a Virgin fathered by the Holy Ghost, with Joseph just there as a beard. And then you have your Holy Mother Church, only--no women allowed in the clergy! How weird is that. The people who run the show are all men who are supposedly celibate. No women priests. And no married priests either. Nuns? They are the brides of Christ! Meanwhile actual marriages were for millennia actually arranged, and young girls had little choice in the matter. And it was the Church which sanctified these arrangements. Only in the last couple hundred years has marriage become, in the West at least, a matter of individual choice and commitment. All of this is very frightening to someone who distrusts human freedom.
3
The trinity are three personifications of the same force. St. Patrick famously explained it as a shamrock, three leaves of equal size, one plant. The pagans were not this sophisticated. It is closer to Jewish mysticism in theory.
It is also moving away from the Old Testament concept of marriage that allows for divorce and polygamy. Jesus refers to this in Mark 10:5 and Matthew 19:8 by making reference to "the old days when your hearts were hard."
The Father begets the Son and from this Union the Holy Spirit proceeds. Mary was chosen to bear the incarnate Son of God, but she was human. Jesus was immortal before and after his mortal life. God the father could only be immortal. It is because He gave his One and Only Son that the Holy Spirit could proceed.
It is also moving away from the Old Testament concept of marriage that allows for divorce and polygamy. Jesus refers to this in Mark 10:5 and Matthew 19:8 by making reference to "the old days when your hearts were hard."
The Father begets the Son and from this Union the Holy Spirit proceeds. Mary was chosen to bear the incarnate Son of God, but she was human. Jesus was immortal before and after his mortal life. God the father could only be immortal. It is because He gave his One and Only Son that the Holy Spirit could proceed.
"This reality is laid bare in the latest Gallup social issues survey, which shows that it’s not only support for same-sex marriage that’s climbing swiftly: so is approval of unwed parenthood (45 percent in 2001, 61 percent now), divorce (59 percent then, 71 percent today), and premarital sex (53 percent then, 68 percent now)."
Thank goodness someone at this place understands that chronological changes are understood in chronological order!
Thank goodness someone at this place understands that chronological changes are understood in chronological order!
2
Hmmmm. Would society as willingly accept one woman and two or three or four or more husbands?
1
Mr. Douthat is spot on. The legal framework for recognizing polyamory has been set. Many of the commentators resort to scare tactics arising from Mormonism and the Old Testament. The answer, obviously, is that where there is abuse, one fights the abuse; one doesn't throw out the institution entirely. There are very many abusive heterosexual marriages; there will be abusive homosexual marriages; yet no one here would advocate eliminating marriage for either group.
I say this as one who thinks polyamory will grievously undermine our culture, but it has already suffered so many wounds. Polyamory is inevitable. Remember: 25 years ago, gay marriage was the sole province of standup comedians. Things change, and it is the height of arrogance to say "only this far, but no further".
I say this as one who thinks polyamory will grievously undermine our culture, but it has already suffered so many wounds. Polyamory is inevitable. Remember: 25 years ago, gay marriage was the sole province of standup comedians. Things change, and it is the height of arrogance to say "only this far, but no further".
1
A case could be made that in the previous 40 years, the economic reasons for remaining a family, remaining married have all but disappeared. That the desire to maintain a good lifestyle has necessitated dual income families, who become more and not less vulnerable to economic instability. That the sandwich generation is growing; boomers looking after parents and children at home.
For purely economic reasons, polygamy and polyandry might become attractive. Three people or more, with McJobs living together in a non-traditional yet legally recognized unit may well have the flexibility and incomes needed to survive in a world where few people want to compromise and live strategically, and want everything, now. I don't know this, but I remain unconvinced that 'one size fits all' two-people marriages are something we are genetically programmed to do, even if we have largely so done for thousands of years.
Maybe polyandry and polygamy have not worked for the mainstream (they have for Islam, for ancient Hinduism, for Mormons) but necessity might produce attitudinal and behavioral mutations, and eventually social and legal changes. I wouldn't do it, but I don't hunt and fish either.
Kalidan
For purely economic reasons, polygamy and polyandry might become attractive. Three people or more, with McJobs living together in a non-traditional yet legally recognized unit may well have the flexibility and incomes needed to survive in a world where few people want to compromise and live strategically, and want everything, now. I don't know this, but I remain unconvinced that 'one size fits all' two-people marriages are something we are genetically programmed to do, even if we have largely so done for thousands of years.
Maybe polyandry and polygamy have not worked for the mainstream (they have for Islam, for ancient Hinduism, for Mormons) but necessity might produce attitudinal and behavioral mutations, and eventually social and legal changes. I wouldn't do it, but I don't hunt and fish either.
Kalidan
2
Polygamy is a logical arrangement in wildly unequal societies. When only a few could provide stability and resources, it makes sense that women gravitated to situations where their children would be provided for. It also serves the rich and powerful by allowing them to hoard women, which in ancient times, was like any other form of treasure.
Given the trajectory we are on in terms of inequality, and the diminishing prospects of mates to economically provide for their children, it certainly makes sense that polygamous/polyandrous relationships will gain traction from simple economic pressure.
It would seem that if there is some moral objection to 'poly' relationships, the obvious solution would be to ensure broad economic health and the ability of mates to successfully and meaningfully provide for their children.
Given the trajectory we are on in terms of inequality, and the diminishing prospects of mates to economically provide for their children, it certainly makes sense that polygamous/polyandrous relationships will gain traction from simple economic pressure.
It would seem that if there is some moral objection to 'poly' relationships, the obvious solution would be to ensure broad economic health and the ability of mates to successfully and meaningfully provide for their children.
2
What conservatives want is the right to shame people and outlaw things they don't like. If you tell them, "mind your own business.", they see that as an attack on their religious freedom.
They don't see the proliferation of minimum wage jobs, the loss of manufacturing jobs, and the greedy hoarding of $Trillions in off shore tax havens as having anything to do with poverty. It's because of bad moral choices.
I'm pretty sure America was founded on the principles of Mind-Your-Own-Business (as long as it does not hurt someone else), and the inheritance tax because we don't want aristocrats and oligarchs running things. People like Douthat are ruining that vision.
They don't see the proliferation of minimum wage jobs, the loss of manufacturing jobs, and the greedy hoarding of $Trillions in off shore tax havens as having anything to do with poverty. It's because of bad moral choices.
I'm pretty sure America was founded on the principles of Mind-Your-Own-Business (as long as it does not hurt someone else), and the inheritance tax because we don't want aristocrats and oligarchs running things. People like Douthat are ruining that vision.
4
Thank you for getting to the heart of the matter, Mr Jones.
Usually I find Ross Douthat to be narrow-minded and truly out of touch with the mainstream. But today not so much! Especially when one considers that marriage is a civil right (has nothing to do with religion even though a lot of religious folks think otherwise!) and that today, as Mr. Douthat states, lesbians are using gay men as sperm donors. And some of those gay men want to lay claim to some parental rights. So polyandry (I'll define it as three or more people who love their children) seems sensible. And more importantly the right thing to do. So, Vermonters, go to it! You've got the best shot at it other than, of course, Utah!
Well camouflaged fear mongering reminiscent of the 1960's when they said the pill and women's liberation movement would destroy the world . Despite what people like you think Mr. Douthat , same sex marriage with the recognition that everyone has the right to legalize their bond with another person will not destroy society as we know it or lead to a breakdown of the family, morality and an onslaught of molestation of minors. Rather it is narrow minded bigots still living in the closeted 1950's America where all this existed but was not talked about and when discovered brutalized those who participated in it that will. After all, we survived desegregation of the schools, the buses and lunch counters didn't we Russ!
3
The pill certainly destroyed the family.
Trying to conflate polygamy with same-sex marriage is a straw dog argument. They aren't remotely similar. On one hand you have two adults entering into a ,presumably, equal relationship. One the other, you have multiple adults, usually one man and multiple women, entering into a relationship that is, on its face, unequal. In addition, the issues involving divorce, custody, inheritance, etc. are relatively simple when only two people are involved. Those same issues become a legal gordian's knot in applied to polygamy.
3
And you are trying to conflate equal protection under the law with equality in interpersonal relationships. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits the state from denying individuals equal protection under the law. It does not require that individual "relationships" be equal nor does it presume they will (or should) be. If equal protection demands that two people of the same sex be granted the right to state-sanctioned marriage, then why shouldn't it also demand that three or more people be granted the same right? And please note that the legal complexities of such arrangements have no bearing on whether or not they are constitutionally protected.
1
I had to open my mind to polygamy as I developed a strong (platonic) friendship with a guy from Liberia. His father has two wives. To him, being in a relationship with more than one woman is normal. He refers to one brother, who was born within the same month as him from a different mother, as his twin. It's not something I'd embrace for myself, but that's got more to do with my personal feelings than the broader reality of the world we live in.
1
Mr. Douthat, irrespective of the specific issue of polygamy, on which I will raise no point, it never fails to amaze me that conservatives like you who want generally to reduce the size and scope of government, nevertheless are happy to invite the government into our bedrooms. Perhaps that is what happens when one's world view is simply an aggregation of conservative talking points.
4
There is no legal requirement to be gay; anyone can marry anyone. People marry for many other reasons besides sex; companionship, financial reasons, legalizing alliances in certain ways. I cannot yet marry my cat (sorry, Leo), but I can, however, marry one of my as yet unmarried pals. But marrying a group of them could be interesting, too.
I belong to a video collective of ten people. Right now we only have a partnership agreement, but marriage could solidify things further. Think of it as an expression of mutual care.
I belong to a video collective of ten people. Right now we only have a partnership agreement, but marriage could solidify things further. Think of it as an expression of mutual care.
1
This is the natural result of the move of Western countries toward a more individualistic society; we're all about the freedom of the individual, and as long as you aren't doing harm to others, than what's the problem? Oddly enough, it is conservatives who are the loudest champions of individual rights. They don't seem to connect their passion for the rights of the individual with the weakening of social mores.
The reason liberals are in favor of gay rights is that they tend to be more sensitive to the victims of oppression than conservatives. And as Ross points out, the cause of polygamy doesn't engender the same kind of empathy as does gay marriage. Polygamists are usually powerful men. Don't expect liberals to take up their cause. That will be left to the libertarians.
The reason liberals are in favor of gay rights is that they tend to be more sensitive to the victims of oppression than conservatives. And as Ross points out, the cause of polygamy doesn't engender the same kind of empathy as does gay marriage. Polygamists are usually powerful men. Don't expect liberals to take up their cause. That will be left to the libertarians.
2
If the point of this col. is that social norms change, fine. If the point is that they shouldn't, or at least some of them shouldn't, well say so and state why they shouldn't. Or, for ex., is the point to play into the fantasies of the conservatives on the federal bench, who might play the legal card to halt change they don't like? If we approve same sex marriage, polygamy will be next! I can't see the value of this col. other than as a disguised attempt to invoke the bias of conservatives, wherever they are, on and off the bench.
3
Clearly, the answer to whether the arc of history bends towards polygamy is No. Many cultures were polygamist in pre-modern times, and a few cultures that yearn for pre-modern conditions still allow for polygamy, but even those that allow it find that there are few takers these days. Ask a Muslim living in America, and they will tell you that, Yes, it is allowed by their religion, but it actually happens very seldom. China and Japan both allowed polygamy (concubinage) into the 19th century, but no one does that nowadays. Polygamy presupposes women with very limited opportunities, and men whose expectations of a wife are essentially as baby-breeders. Again, not the direction society is moving in. The slope may look slippery to you, but very few people are anywhere near the edge of the slope, in their own actual lives.
7
My major objection to this column is that Mr. Douthat conflates polygamy with polyamory, implying that polyamory is just a synonym for the former. It is not. Polygamy requires sexual exclusivity from the wives to the man. Polyamory does not. Polygamy is selfish, with one partner demanding multiple partners to himself. Polyamory is very different.
11
First of all, let’s note that Polygamy is not a human universal, it’s a blanket term for Polygyny (one husband, several wives) & Polyandry (one wife, several husbands); & I know of no cultures which sanction both. Whether it is enabling or abusive depends on cultural context: West African polygyny, for example, was managed by wives for wives’ benefit. For an Indian warrior sect, brothers would marry a single wife & cohabit in rotation when on leave; a similar arrangement in traditional Tibet seems to have been a hard economic choice to control population, with the added harshness of female infant abandonment. & in Western society, which polygamy is uncommon, Serial Monogamy: more than one spouse, but only one at a time, has always been a norm. & by the way, ‘Polyamory’ is an ugly, macaronic neologism: the correct term would be Polyphily.
5
It is not at all hard to imagine the scenario. Given the large number of women who chose to simply have a child without a spouse, many of these relativly independent women would see positive value in being attached to a married man of some level of means, but tied less closely, (perhaps less emotionally?) than the primary spouse. This could afford all sorts of benefits to a career mom such as the sharing of child rearing responsibility or a financial edge. From a contractural standpoint, it is entirely plausible.
3
If 'same sex' marriage is deemed to be 'legal'... what basis is there to pass laws or retain any laws with respect to 'marriage'? If the Supreme Court allows challenges to traditional marriage to to stand, then polygamy is just a matter of time. Indeed, marriage to any biological entity (see recent lawsuit for Monkeys to be declared 'human') becomes quite inevitable.
This is how a society collapses.
This is how a society collapses.
"marriage to any biological entity"
No, only adult humans with full mental capacity are capable of giving consent.
No, only adult humans with full mental capacity are capable of giving consent.
Mr Sanford. that is ridiculous. It could just as easily be said that allowing two people of different races to marry will bring about societies ruin. If gay marriage is so bad how about banning marriage between two hetero's who do not plan to breed? I see no difference. Having laws back up your prejudices may be comforting but has no logical basis.
Of course polygamy will be legalized. How could it not be?
"Equal protection." No "separate but equal."
When marriage becomes a "right," it becomes more than a legal contract by 2 adults, it becomes a club with which the federal government can bludgeon you.
Can't wait for all the Muslim businesses being forced to participate in all these new unions. Should be fun.
"Equal protection." No "separate but equal."
When marriage becomes a "right," it becomes more than a legal contract by 2 adults, it becomes a club with which the federal government can bludgeon you.
Can't wait for all the Muslim businesses being forced to participate in all these new unions. Should be fun.
1
As a proponent of marriage equality I believe it would be inconsistent not to support other alternatives to marriage as being between "a man and a woman". I do not really understand why a woman would want to be part of a polygamous union but frankly that is not my decision.
4
We'll have to be careful about polygamy. We should heed the warning of Brigham Young, as related by one Mr. Johnson to Mark Twain in "Roughing It" (Chapter XV):
"I groaned under the pressure of keeping thousands of dollars tied up in seventy-two bedsteads when the money ought to have been out at interest; and I just sold out the whole stock, sir, at a sacrifice, and built a bedstead seven feet long and ninety-six feet wide. But it was a failure, sir. I could not sleep. It appeared to me that the whole seventy-two women snored at once. The roar was deafening. And then the danger of it! That was what I was looking at. They would all draw in their breath at once, and you could actually see the walls of the house suck in—and then they would all exhale their breath at once, and you could see the walls swell out, and strain, and hear the rafters crack, and the shingles grind together. My friend, take an old man's advice, and don't encumber yourself with a large family—mind, I tell you, don't do it. In a small family, and in a small family only, you will find that comfort and that peace of mind which are the best at last of the blessings this world is able to afford us, and for the lack of which no accumulation of wealth, and no acquisition of fame, power, and greatness can ever compensate us. Take my word for it, ten or eleven wives is all you need—never go over it."
"I groaned under the pressure of keeping thousands of dollars tied up in seventy-two bedsteads when the money ought to have been out at interest; and I just sold out the whole stock, sir, at a sacrifice, and built a bedstead seven feet long and ninety-six feet wide. But it was a failure, sir. I could not sleep. It appeared to me that the whole seventy-two women snored at once. The roar was deafening. And then the danger of it! That was what I was looking at. They would all draw in their breath at once, and you could actually see the walls of the house suck in—and then they would all exhale their breath at once, and you could see the walls swell out, and strain, and hear the rafters crack, and the shingles grind together. My friend, take an old man's advice, and don't encumber yourself with a large family—mind, I tell you, don't do it. In a small family, and in a small family only, you will find that comfort and that peace of mind which are the best at last of the blessings this world is able to afford us, and for the lack of which no accumulation of wealth, and no acquisition of fame, power, and greatness can ever compensate us. Take my word for it, ten or eleven wives is all you need—never go over it."
7
Why discuss just polygamy, why not polyandry? I think it is sexist not to mention women with multiple husbands. That arrangement may work better and has been popular among some cultures in the past. However, we must remember that sexism is what conservative males are all about. Scott Walker's proud endorsement of forced ultrasound with Doctor provided commentary for women seeking abortion is a great example. Even the Libertarian, Rand Paul, makes an exception to his "small government" position to step between a woman and her doctor. After all, women are really just children, aren't they?
9
1. What about polyandry?
2. You use the word "approval" in reference to things like single parenthood and divorce. There's a big difference between "approval" and "lack of disapproval." Semantics are everything.
3. The new permissive consensus? Oh my gosh, run for your lives, folks, Henny Penny says the sky is falling.
2. You use the word "approval" in reference to things like single parenthood and divorce. There's a big difference between "approval" and "lack of disapproval." Semantics are everything.
3. The new permissive consensus? Oh my gosh, run for your lives, folks, Henny Penny says the sky is falling.
12
Odd timing, no? Just a couple of weeks before the Supremes decide on gay marriage. Just a reminder to them of what some of their worst fears are?
just sayin'.
just sayin'.
9
I am struck by the way this column groups and categorizes social phenomena. In this case Labeling some as instances of " expressive individualism." I assume, then, that the individualism that seeks to " get government out of our lives" then is different, and I suppose, not expressive? Honestly, I don't understand how and why one would group gay marriage, premarital sex, unmarried sex and polygamy in a unique category other than, in part, sexual acts may be involved. Those who would favor governmental regulation of those acts are in favor of having government involved in our lives in the most intimate ways even though those same people may favor individualism writ large when it comes to taxation, healthcare or education? Categorization drives thinking and miscategirizations can create serious errors.
3
Ross Douthat’s musings regarding the future of traditional marriage opens up extraordinary possibilities.
In a polygamous future, issues of gender identity could be addressed simply by enabling each spouse to marry a person of the same gender and to one of the opposite gender and, presumably, live happily ever after.
In a polygamous future, issues of gender identity could be addressed simply by enabling each spouse to marry a person of the same gender and to one of the opposite gender and, presumably, live happily ever after.
1
To a government, offering marriage prevents it from having to deal with numerous court cases. Rules become codified like who makes medical decisions and who gets the inheritance upon death.
In a polygamous marriage, this will be more difficult. Who will make the medical decisions if one of the group is sick?
If all those issues can be worked out simply, then why not? (Detractors certainly can't say the Bible is against it). If those issues cannot be resolved very clearly, the government has no reason to allow polygamy.
In a polygamous marriage, this will be more difficult. Who will make the medical decisions if one of the group is sick?
If all those issues can be worked out simply, then why not? (Detractors certainly can't say the Bible is against it). If those issues cannot be resolved very clearly, the government has no reason to allow polygamy.
1
We have this problem now when there are multiple "closest relatives" such as both parents for a child, or multiple children for a parent who is widowed or widower. It works. It would work in polygamy too, the same ways.
Furthermore, if we continue in the direction of complete "gender-blindness," what's to stop corporations--which as we know are people, but which have not historically been considered to be "male" or "female"--from getting married? Imagine a world where, for example, Comcast and TWC, or Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, or Google and Apple, are literally in bed together--with full legal sanctioning! How will you liberals feel about your social "reforms" then?
5
Corporations as people is not a liberal idea.
How do you conservatives feel now about corporations with the rights of "people."
How do you conservatives feel now about corporations with the rights of "people."
Not for me, thank you.
One marriage is enough. One husband is enough. One God is enough.
Thank you very much.
One marriage is enough. One husband is enough. One God is enough.
Thank you very much.
2
I applaud Mr. Douthat for tackling the tiresome question of whether or not acceptance of same-sex marriage will ultimately lead to polygamy, and I have no idea if we'll greet it with a shrug by 2040; but if we do, I suspect it will be because its proponents made a "religious freedom" argument.
After all, if Fred the baker can refuse to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding, why shouldn't Ted the polygamist be allowed five wives?
I wish this columnist had approached the question from that angle!
After all, if Fred the baker can refuse to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding, why shouldn't Ted the polygamist be allowed five wives?
I wish this columnist had approached the question from that angle!
8
Ah the angst of a religious conservative, Ross it is far more likely that advancing polygamy will be a conservative cause rather than a progressive one. What better way to further advance the conservative agenda of subjugating women.
16
The following bit of doggerel, has been attributed to Ogden Nash, Dorothy Parker and others:
Hogamus Higamous
Men are Polygamous
Higamous Hogamous
Women Monogamous
Over time it has tended to be the most conservative who would take this bit of jest to be "God's Truth", not liberals.
Hogamus Higamous
Men are Polygamous
Higamous Hogamous
Women Monogamous
Over time it has tended to be the most conservative who would take this bit of jest to be "God's Truth", not liberals.
1
Polygamy is the next logical step. Men are already polygamous. The argument will be that polygamy will end infidelity. Gay men tend to have multiple partners; so, again it is a logical step in the sequence. You will also have group marriage. The bottom line is previous sexual taboos will become codified lifestyles.
2
"Gay men tend to have multiple partners"
Not all. In particular, not the ones who want to marry each other.
But if two men can marry, why not three? Why not a group marriage of men? How is that different?
Not all. In particular, not the ones who want to marry each other.
But if two men can marry, why not three? Why not a group marriage of men? How is that different?
Polygamy might be a solution in China where the sex ratio is far from 50-50. Otherwise the numbers are against it. Not to mention history. The Mormons abandoned it (officially) long ago. Sounds like a slow news day today.
1
The numbers work where the two genders have different marriage patterns. If women marry young and men marry much older, there could be many more married women than married men at any given time.
The numbers also work where events have overtaken birth ratios. For example, in France after WW1, marriageable men were in very short supply in the 1920's. They didn't do multiple marriages, but then they had a very different attitude toward keeping a mistress. Even the President of France had a second family, and the present President of France seems not far behind.
Where the sex ratio is far from 50:50, it can be women in short supply too, as with gender selection in China and elsewhere. That invites multiple husbands for each woman. Why not? Not for me, but if they want to, why not?
The numbers also work where events have overtaken birth ratios. For example, in France after WW1, marriageable men were in very short supply in the 1920's. They didn't do multiple marriages, but then they had a very different attitude toward keeping a mistress. Even the President of France had a second family, and the present President of France seems not far behind.
Where the sex ratio is far from 50:50, it can be women in short supply too, as with gender selection in China and elsewhere. That invites multiple husbands for each woman. Why not? Not for me, but if they want to, why not?
Since when is support for polygamy a liberal issue?
The last large group in America that pushed for it is the Mormons.
Mormons certainly aren't a paragon of liberalism.
The last large group in America that pushed for it is the Mormons.
Mormons certainly aren't a paragon of liberalism.
9
Nice job, Ross. You're just peddling a variation of Rick Santorum's "if we let gays marry, next thing you know we'll have to recognize bestiality as well" argument, with polygamy as the bogeyman. But even you have to admit that mainstream recognition of polygamy has very little chance of ever happening. And so it's clear that, as with Santorum, your problem isn't with polygamy or bestiality or whatever end-of-the-world scenario you can dream up: it's with gay men and women being able to marry.
139
Yes, that is what he meant to do. That is why I was reluctant to give him the satisfaction of the counter argument he obviously wanted of "why not?"
But, why not? I won't pander to bigotry to avoid an argument.
But, why not? I won't pander to bigotry to avoid an argument.
Yup, it is the standard false invocation of a slippery slope. "If you make one change I don't like where will it end? The whole world will go to hell."
It also has elements of the notion that any moral code not based on the Bible (which for what it is worth I think is a very good place to found one's moral code) is inherently unstable and cannot make hard, clear stands.
It also has elements of the notion that any moral code not based on the Bible (which for what it is worth I think is a very good place to found one's moral code) is inherently unstable and cannot make hard, clear stands.
Actually, polygamy makes a lot of sense for women as well. In particular, it can easily accommodate women who want to have children but also a career in a competitive field demanding long hours and women who wish to stay at home raising children. The former is given a loving and constant caretaker for her children while the latter has a second (or third) partner bringing home a big paycheck so that her staying home does not present a financial problem. I've often heard female colleagues say what they need is a wife. This would accommodate that request.
4
I believe you are describing having a nanny.
By recent court actions, I fail to see any legal impediment to prevent polygamy. There will always be elements of society willing to practice polygamy, and with legal status, it will be more prevalent.
You mean to tell me that the fetishization of individuality and personal freedom by conservatives may have unintended consequences that they didn't account for? Shocking!
3
Are we speaking of one husband - many wives? Or is it one wife - many husbands? Or both?
Because if it is about the traditional Muslim-Mormon type of male-dominated polygamy I doubt it would get past the attitudes society has today about women and their roles as equals.
You see, Mr Douthat, the evolution of societal thought has brought about many more changes than the Conservative wants to acknowledge. And women's rights and roles are somewhat low on the awareness scale of Conservatives, but high on the list of postives changes that have evolved in the "great liberalization" that you discuss (and, I suspect, that you fear.)
So lets focus on what's real, shall we.
Because if it is about the traditional Muslim-Mormon type of male-dominated polygamy I doubt it would get past the attitudes society has today about women and their roles as equals.
You see, Mr Douthat, the evolution of societal thought has brought about many more changes than the Conservative wants to acknowledge. And women's rights and roles are somewhat low on the awareness scale of Conservatives, but high on the list of postives changes that have evolved in the "great liberalization" that you discuss (and, I suspect, that you fear.)
So lets focus on what's real, shall we.
7
You are finally catching up to the French -except for same sex marriage that they find distasteful. Instead they re invented marriage, calling it a PACT, a civil union that has been adopted by a majority straight couple. The French are still leading the way.
2
I tend to agree with social conservatives in their predictions of some of the ways a permissive attitude to personal choices might evolve. However, unlike the social conservatives, I welcome and rejoice in such evolution. It is not a 'slippery slope' to be feared, but an expansion of thoughtful compassion, trust in human reason, recognition that particular moral principles are changeable and ought to be that way, and a celebration of a society's capacity for all of the above. It is the panicked and constricted attitude of moral scolds that is sad to see. Get over it. Think...carefully.
2
2040!!!!,Polygamy is already an hot theme on the minds of most long suffering monogamist.
The wait is not going to be this long,it really will take off like same sex marriage which has now become the "in thing".
In the future,straight marriages will be passé & considered out of step with the mainstream sexual preferences.
The only thing that can save the blushes for straight marriages will be Polygamy.
It's going to be in the near future the new " in//hep thing"
Remember we are living in an world of torn jeans which is now considered hep,trendy & desirable.
In the old days only a beggar would wear torn jeans,
not any more.
I predict a boom time to multiple partner marriages as polygamy may be conveniently renamed.
Never underestimate the power of the Testosterone & the Free Press in tailor making the conscience & sexuality of the common man.
The wait is not going to be this long,it really will take off like same sex marriage which has now become the "in thing".
In the future,straight marriages will be passé & considered out of step with the mainstream sexual preferences.
The only thing that can save the blushes for straight marriages will be Polygamy.
It's going to be in the near future the new " in//hep thing"
Remember we are living in an world of torn jeans which is now considered hep,trendy & desirable.
In the old days only a beggar would wear torn jeans,
not any more.
I predict a boom time to multiple partner marriages as polygamy may be conveniently renamed.
Never underestimate the power of the Testosterone & the Free Press in tailor making the conscience & sexuality of the common man.
CAN'T WE ALL BE FRIENDS? Since divorce spiked in the 20% range in the early 80s, it could be argued that if couples had remained together, one consequence could have been polygamy. What about France, where extramarital affairs are sometimes viewed as the national sport? Do they constitute polygamy? Ask the mistress of Mitterand, who attended his attended his funeral with his love child! Perhaps the most cynical example of something resembling polygamy is practiced by wealthy men from oil-rich states who purchase child brides as young as 6, 7 or 8 years of age, rape them legally (they're the husbands, after all) and then leave them after their bout of extremely exploitive and nasty sex tourism. By reciting the religious decree, I divorce thee, three times and clapping their hands. Done! Finished! Kaput! All legal! From what I've read about Mormon polygamy by authors who grew up under its shadow, the competition among sister wives to empower their own children at the expense of others, is brutal. My greatest fear about the advance of LGBT rights is that they could be extended to polygamy. Once again, certain heterosexuals, who claim to know the truth and the light, would lead us into darkness. But no matter. Not even Mitt ran on a pro-polygamy platform. And his forebears were among the founds of Mormon. Me, I'd rather see some effective gun control laws. That would produce a safer country!
What a brilliant, keenly insightful and thoughtful essay Mr. Ross Douthat has penned! An absolutely splendid piece of erudition, grace and brilliance as usual by Ross.
The United States of America is sinking into a dark moral abyss. Much of this depravity, confusion and darkness is a result of the Enlightenment.
We are living in the Shadow of the Enlightenment and still trying to process and come to terms with the almost overwhelming chaos that the Enlightenment has brought about.
With good solid "Rock of Gibraltar" Christian moral men like Pope Benedict XVI, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, Peter Kreeft, Dr. Stephen Barr Ph.D (Physicist University of Delaware), Dr. Ben Carson M.D. and Mr. Ross Douthat--it is a certainty that in time right reason and good sense will return and become "in vogue" once again for the masses.
Humanity had matured morally for many centuries--but sadly--the cycle of Rebellion and Dissolution, licentiousness and vileness has seen a resurgence in recent years.
God will--in His All Loving Way bring humanity to Himself with His Discipline Based Love that corrects wayward children.
The United States of America is sinking into a dark moral abyss. Much of this depravity, confusion and darkness is a result of the Enlightenment.
We are living in the Shadow of the Enlightenment and still trying to process and come to terms with the almost overwhelming chaos that the Enlightenment has brought about.
With good solid "Rock of Gibraltar" Christian moral men like Pope Benedict XVI, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, Peter Kreeft, Dr. Stephen Barr Ph.D (Physicist University of Delaware), Dr. Ben Carson M.D. and Mr. Ross Douthat--it is a certainty that in time right reason and good sense will return and become "in vogue" once again for the masses.
Humanity had matured morally for many centuries--but sadly--the cycle of Rebellion and Dissolution, licentiousness and vileness has seen a resurgence in recent years.
God will--in His All Loving Way bring humanity to Himself with His Discipline Based Love that corrects wayward children.
3
I am not a polygamist, nor have any inclination to become one. I do, however, recognize it as a valid arrangement in certain circumstances.
When I lived in the Middle East, I had a friend from Somaliland who once mentioned that he had 28 brothers and sisters. He explained that his father had (reluctantly) married has brother's widow, and, later, married the widow of a second brother, thus accumulating the large number of children.
This may not have been the best possible situation for my friend's father, but it did provide the social safety net that is otherwise not present in Somaliland. I also believe that this was the original intent of polygamy in Islam, when Mohammed recommended that his male followers take on the wives and children of men killed in battle.
When I lived in the Middle East, I had a friend from Somaliland who once mentioned that he had 28 brothers and sisters. He explained that his father had (reluctantly) married has brother's widow, and, later, married the widow of a second brother, thus accumulating the large number of children.
This may not have been the best possible situation for my friend's father, but it did provide the social safety net that is otherwise not present in Somaliland. I also believe that this was the original intent of polygamy in Islam, when Mohammed recommended that his male followers take on the wives and children of men killed in battle.
1
Polygamy is an economic arrangement that stems from societal norms, such as women not having access to education and men being the sole sources of support. That does not bear any relationship to our nation today, where women are more likely to have college degrees than men. The rate of divorce and unwed childbearing continue to increase because men as a whole in this country are not very important anymore from an economic viewpoint. Continued increase in the percentage of adults who will never marry is far more likely than polygamy becoming acceptable. Heterosexual marriage is already gradually becoming an institution common only among highly educated persons in the upper middle class, or above.
4
I want to reiterate the comment by Carlyle 145 who underscores an argument over-looked by many, and definitely by most conservatives, that economics have played a huge role in the growth of alternative family structures. People of all ages are living together in various permutations out of necessity borne of such things as the destruction of union wage jobs, high housing costs, the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs, and the growth of low wage service jobs.
People are simply trying, as best they can, to hold on to a quality of life that many did experience when younger. Not to mention that high percentage of people who have experienced divorce(s) of parents and siblings for myriad reasons.
Finally, "congregate living" can be a lot more interesting across many aspects of life than monogamy. People bring different resources and talents to any sharing of life.
People are simply trying, as best they can, to hold on to a quality of life that many did experience when younger. Not to mention that high percentage of people who have experienced divorce(s) of parents and siblings for myriad reasons.
Finally, "congregate living" can be a lot more interesting across many aspects of life than monogamy. People bring different resources and talents to any sharing of life.
1
My view is that monogamy constitutes rationing, and that this is an important improvement over old-time religions' polygnyny. Monogamy is an egalitarian practice.
1
Good point. In the future maybe the Koch brothers will monopolize the country's women in the same proportion as they do other desirables.
Sure, it's much easier for gay men to have publicly recognized and sanctioned monogamous relationships now. But it's much more difficult for gay men in positions of power and influence to molest and rape young boys, and get away with it decade after decade. Even the promiscuous bathhouse culture of the past is much diminished. Sure, it's much easier to get a divorce now. But it's much harder for a man to beat his wife and children, again for decade after decade, secure in the knowledge that his cruelty will never see the light of day. Sure, voluntary premarital sex is now OK. But date-rape, probably every bit as common in the past as it is today, is most certainly not OK. I don't know that we've become more liberal, so much as we've become more rational about what we define as sin and what we shame.
9
I feel safe in predicting that inter-species marriage or cohabitation will not be legally recognized in 2040, but it might be recognized in 2400, with a shrug.
3
Ha! It's already recognized that modern humans are the result of interspecies hybridization with Neanderthals, isn't it?
Staunch Catholic Douthat probably has right there at his fingertips a thick file of Old Testament citations which clearly document the Judea-Christian tradition and authorization of polygamy, perhaps of polyandry as well.
With the possible Eastern caution that the Chinese characters of a roof over a woman are said to mean "home," while a roof over two women means "war."
With the possible Eastern caution that the Chinese characters of a roof over a woman are said to mean "home," while a roof over two women means "war."
2
On conservatives' success rate at "predicting how the logic of expressive individuality unfolds": Congressman Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, told a group of Tea Party supporters on a conference call that gay marriage would be a slippery slope to polygamy and bestiality. Yep, the clamor for bestiality has become deafening.
7
Maybe Douthat is on to something. The concept of a single paycheck supporting a family was a reality 50 years ago, when America's largest employer was General Motors, but the by the late 20th Century, middle class families needed two paychecks to survive. Today, after Ronald Reagan's trickle down scams and decades of GOP attacks on unions and cuts to "big government programs" (except of course for the Republican's favorite big government program-endless/reckless military adventures and spending) it is difficult for many families to survive on TWO paychecks. It may be time for the idea of the "nuclear family" to include multiple husbands and wives. America's largest employer is now Wal-Mart, and obviously two people working at Wal-Mart would still need food stamps to survive, but a 4 or 6 spouse family working at Wal-Mart might bring us a new era of stability.
4
Hey, Ross, how come you don't worry about the millions of monogamous heterosexual marriages that end in divorce, either because they were poorly conceived to begin with, or more sadly, they end because they're destroyed compliments of an economy warped by "conservatives?" Or even even worse, the tens of thousands of monogamous, heterosexual marriages which don't fall apart, but are stained by spousal or child abuse? None of these having anything at all in the slightest to do with homosexuality, same-sex marriage, poligamy, or the threats of atheism?
8
Recognize it now. I'm already shrugging.
1
Polygamy is Biblical, Ross. Try the Jeiwsh part, not the socially liberal Christian part.
Mr. Douthat, how can one be against sex outside marriage and against gay marriage simultaneously (unless one expects gays to never have sex)?
A social conservative should be celebrating gay marriage as buttressing the case for no-need-for-sex-outside-marriage.
A social conservative should be celebrating gay marriage as buttressing the case for no-need-for-sex-outside-marriage.
5
As I understand it, polygamous Mormon family groups receive income from welfare payments for their children. Mothers and children are eligible for this only when there is no legal father, whom the government would require to pay child support. If polygamy were legal, polygamous Mormon fathers--if they were married to all the mothers of all their children--would be legally required to support them, instead of receiving welfare payments and other available benefits for them. Two outcomes come to mind here: the economic structure of Mormon polygamy might be laid open to outside scrutiny; or Mormons might decline to have their marriages registered with the US government. As Mormon polygamy is now, though, US taxpayers are making it possible. I wonder why this is not part of the larger discussion about polgyamy.
8
Fine with me. Although extending the contract from 2 to multiple partners is indeed legally entirely different. With same sex marriage only the gender restrictions change. With multiple partner marriages a whole new construct is needed. Mr. Douthat's scare tactics don't scare me. If people want to marry in groups, so be it.
6
I don't have a problem with multiple adults consenting to being in a plural relationship driven purely by their own free wills. I do have a problem with keeping multiple women hostage because an ancient compilation of badly written fiction (that's The Bible and all other religious books for you) says they should marry a guy with whom they may not even want to be friends.
12
Almost any argument pro, con and "who cares?" on polygamy are well articulated in the reader comments. What fascinates me, though, is Ross'
sleight of hand, briefly acknowledging that polygamy is "associated with patriarchy and sexual abuse" yet it becomes part of the progressive malaise decried by social conservatives "bobbing forward in social liberalism’s wake." Any trend that social conservatives oppose, like gay marriage, is tied to another more fearsome social issue that will soon enough ensue because social conservatives have a "pretty good track record." On the other hand, it's fairly standard that people disavow ideas that provide guilty pleasures. Hogamus higamus, is Ross polygamous? Then, there's Rick Santorum's prediction, but I won't rhyme on that.
sleight of hand, briefly acknowledging that polygamy is "associated with patriarchy and sexual abuse" yet it becomes part of the progressive malaise decried by social conservatives "bobbing forward in social liberalism’s wake." Any trend that social conservatives oppose, like gay marriage, is tied to another more fearsome social issue that will soon enough ensue because social conservatives have a "pretty good track record." On the other hand, it's fairly standard that people disavow ideas that provide guilty pleasures. Hogamus higamus, is Ross polygamous? Then, there's Rick Santorum's prediction, but I won't rhyme on that.
4
In your mind, gay marriage leads to polygamy. But you and your conservative friends don't see the link between burning fossil fuels and climate change.
The lack of consistency and hypocrisy of the right makes my head spin.
The lack of consistency and hypocrisy of the right makes my head spin.
32
Why not? The definition of the word marriage is fluid now.
Although Mr. Douthat would like very much to lay the future acceptance of "plural marriage" at the feet of communal living hippies and Silicon Valley types, the actual practice of multiple wives is rooted in deeply conservative religious practices. Perhaps the increase in "acceptance" which he finds so alarming is just that: acceptance... A distinct departure from the traditional, voyouristic interest the prudish right has had in everyone else's sexuality.
10
The thing is that when you define marriage not to have complementary sexes as its basis, you have built a foundation on sand. The number 2 comes from somewhere, male and female. It wasn't an arbitrary number. (Polygamy was more multiple marriages than multiple wives.)
1
Yes: Growing economic inequality, growing sexual permissiveness, and the perennial bodily appetites of men and women--all are pointing to one medium-term direction: casual, dominant-male polygyny. http://whygethitched.com/2015/04/30/casual-dominant-male-polygyny-the-wa...
1
I'm with JLJ on this. Mr. D seems to have jumped to the conclusion that this is a liberal thing. Maybe not.
It seems to fit better with the notion that money is free speech. After all, if you can afford several wives and several families why shouldn't you have them? And since social Darwinism seems to have made mad a comeback, wouldn't that improve the gene pool? (sarcastic remark) And there are lots of examples of multiple wives in the Bible, especially the Old Testament. (more sarcasm)
I think the better fit is with right wing ideology but let's see.
It seems to fit better with the notion that money is free speech. After all, if you can afford several wives and several families why shouldn't you have them? And since social Darwinism seems to have made mad a comeback, wouldn't that improve the gene pool? (sarcastic remark) And there are lots of examples of multiple wives in the Bible, especially the Old Testament. (more sarcasm)
I think the better fit is with right wing ideology but let's see.
5
Those who study anthropology, and more broadly primatology, know that various forms of polygamy or polyandry, both overt and covert, have been practiced since the advent of these species as an adaptation of survival. But none focused solely on the afterlife have any stake in such survival.
2
"As I said, it’s an interesting question. I feel safe predicting that polygamy will not be legally recognized, with fanfare and trumpets, in 2025.
But it might be recognized in 2040, with a shrug."
Frankly the only way I see this happening is if women also have the right to have multiple husbands.
Keep in mind women not only out number men but they live longer.
I can see Republicans agreeing to this since they are pushing so hard for women to have more babies.
LOL
But it might be recognized in 2040, with a shrug."
Frankly the only way I see this happening is if women also have the right to have multiple husbands.
Keep in mind women not only out number men but they live longer.
I can see Republicans agreeing to this since they are pushing so hard for women to have more babies.
LOL
3
In polygamy, powerful and wealthy men get lots of wives, leaving other men without the ability to pass on their genes, which is what they evolved to do above all else, violently if need be. So a polygamous society has to be one in which these unlucky single men are controlled by fear. Sounds to me like a recipe for an unstable society.
6
Abrogating the First Amendment, conservatives attempt to impose their religious beliefs upon all Americans. The Amendment guarantees us freedom from religion. Conservative Douthat wants us to impose monogamy on Americans. We practice serial monogamy and polyamory without naming them according to the Gallup poll.
The pro-life, or accurately the pro-fetus movement, is melting away as the hypocrisy of cutting food stamps, to babies and their mothers contrasts with their zeal to preserve fetuses. Life is precious until it becomes alive? Is the soul not a religious belief imposed on everyone by "Christians"?
Approval of embryonic stem cells research is up to 64% now and abortion is up to 45%. As the population recognizes the intent of the cruelty in the name of god perpetrated by ISIS, Al Qaeda and reflects on the cruelty of religious tyranny. We cringe at the exploitation of emotion and religious self-righteous "morality" used by conservatives to conjure the denial of privacy, subjugation of women, the imposition of religious myths and denial of science, cruelty.
No polygamy is not a problem. What is? How about fetuses being more important than babies or than women? Is it moral for society to deny birth control and impose womb control and then refuse to feed, clothe, house, and care for the baby? Morality is not confined to sex except in conservative circles where cruelty is the norm.
The pro-life, or accurately the pro-fetus movement, is melting away as the hypocrisy of cutting food stamps, to babies and their mothers contrasts with their zeal to preserve fetuses. Life is precious until it becomes alive? Is the soul not a religious belief imposed on everyone by "Christians"?
Approval of embryonic stem cells research is up to 64% now and abortion is up to 45%. As the population recognizes the intent of the cruelty in the name of god perpetrated by ISIS, Al Qaeda and reflects on the cruelty of religious tyranny. We cringe at the exploitation of emotion and religious self-righteous "morality" used by conservatives to conjure the denial of privacy, subjugation of women, the imposition of religious myths and denial of science, cruelty.
No polygamy is not a problem. What is? How about fetuses being more important than babies or than women? Is it moral for society to deny birth control and impose womb control and then refuse to feed, clothe, house, and care for the baby? Morality is not confined to sex except in conservative circles where cruelty is the norm.
5
Morality is a subjective thing and varies in some degree from person to person and group to group. Each major group or bloc i.e. Liberals and Conservatives have holy cows they will defend to the death based on "morality". Examples; gun rights,religious freedom, pro-family by conservatives and gun control, marriage equality by liberals. Fortunately we live in a pluralistic society where our morality is in constant tension with our freedoms. Finding the right balance isn't easy and it shouldn't be. Each side thinks they are in the right.
1
A Roman Catholic sour response to the referendum in "Roman Catholic" Ireland?
5
I think some guy wrote a play about this a long while ago, hmmm what was it's title ?? Oh yeah
"Much Ado About Nothing"
"Much Ado About Nothing"
3
I think extrapolating belief in respect for individual rights and a respect for all living beings as a societal priority will keep polygamy in the frowned upon category. Not only will the Judeo Christian tradition still be dominant, the secular view's agreement with religion that love is to be honored and treasured within a monogamous relationship will keep polygamy illegal.
As one who has many polygamists in my ancestry, I am not at all worried about polygamy displacing monogamy. What we are witnessing is a growing acceptance that when it comes to sexual relations and family construction, adults should be allowed to connect up as they wish. The key word here is "adults." We have on the books laws that punish severely the sexual abuse of children. The laws are enforced.
Conservatives tend to be obsessed with sex, wanting laws that restrict who is allowed to have sex with whom with legal consequences for those who do adhere to the law. Liberals find such law obnoxious, so do true libertarians.
Even in a society that permit polygamy, gave it great religious significance and expected it of the religious leaders, the second generation of Mormons did not embrace the doctrine with much enthusiasm. Even without federal prohibition, I suspect the practice would have become rare. I support the right of a man and several women, or a woman and several men to define their family relations as they see fit, with rape and child abuse still illegal and aggressively prosecuted.
Conservatives tend to be obsessed with sex, wanting laws that restrict who is allowed to have sex with whom with legal consequences for those who do adhere to the law. Liberals find such law obnoxious, so do true libertarians.
Even in a society that permit polygamy, gave it great religious significance and expected it of the religious leaders, the second generation of Mormons did not embrace the doctrine with much enthusiasm. Even without federal prohibition, I suspect the practice would have become rare. I support the right of a man and several women, or a woman and several men to define their family relations as they see fit, with rape and child abuse still illegal and aggressively prosecuted.
2
It won't be limited to the rich. In welfare culture (southern Utah, urban slums) men with almost no income keep several concubines with most support provided by welfare (i.e., you, the taxpayer).
One consequence will be a large class of frustrated men unable to find a wife. Monogamy is natural because the numbers of men and women are almost equal. Most terrorists are frustrated men from traditional Moslem societies in which the less successful or attractive men are doomed to a life of celibacy. Polygamy only makes sense when the population of marriageable men is drastically depleted by warfare.
One consequence will be a large class of frustrated men unable to find a wife. Monogamy is natural because the numbers of men and women are almost equal. Most terrorists are frustrated men from traditional Moslem societies in which the less successful or attractive men are doomed to a life of celibacy. Polygamy only makes sense when the population of marriageable men is drastically depleted by warfare.
8
"men with almost no income keep several concubines with most support provided by welfare (i.e., you, the taxpayer)."
Wait, if the support is provided by welfare, how is he "keeping" them?
Wait, if the support is provided by welfare, how is he "keeping" them?
Of course in the Middle East their women are nearly shackled and enslaved with little or no rights for individual freedom for the simple fact pf being born a woman. Majority of marriages are arranged and to go on a date there, three of her brothers and uncles are in the background. In essence that why terrorism flourishes in that region...the lack of availability of free and willing women.
conservatives -- always looking under the bed for boogeymen.
11
Horrifying to see that these are the issues by which Douthat defines liberalism. For a liberal like me, the key issues are economics, health, and interpersonal relations. In other words: how we compensate labor; how we take care of children, the working poor, the elderly and the disabled; and how individual human beings treat each other. Polygamy, the sexual practices of teenagers, and the right of single adults to conceive and bear children are not hills I would die on. At best, I'm ambivalent about those three issues, which raise troublesome questions for the liberal values that are central to me.
6
well, you all want less federal interference but you want to be in our bedrooms. Social Conservatism believe it's the has the answer & can change the 'values' of the country. However, it's the Social Liberals who are making the difference at abating federal interference. as the old adage says, "Be careful what you wish for."
1
Polygamy strikes me as not a progressive idea but a regressive one and an ultra conservative notion at that representing the direction the theocrats are going, to limit the power of women anyway they can.
9
Polygamy is legal in what may be the most socially conservative country on earth, Saudi Arabia. How does "social liberalism" ascendent explain Saudi Arabia?
14
Of course one can make the argument for polygamy as LGBT folks makes a similar argument for marriage equality: "Its our right."
2
What is the difference between polygamy and a 30 year old "baby daddy" having seven children by five different t women?
6
Think of how the welfare system (HUD housing, Food stamps, social security income supplements, all admirable but misused mandates for which we pay taxes, contributes not just to absent fathers and unguided children, but also to the support of "nika" marriages that in effect support polygamy through state welfare programs.
What is "nika?" BBC covered this about a month ago in how it functions in the UK: it is a religious Muslim marriage, sanctioned by Shari'a and performed by an imam but not registered by the state. Young "single" mothers, with no legal protection save their local imam, and families. The Muslim Middle East polygamy in European action. Maybe in US too?
What is "nika?" BBC covered this about a month ago in how it functions in the UK: it is a religious Muslim marriage, sanctioned by Shari'a and performed by an imam but not registered by the state. Young "single" mothers, with no legal protection save their local imam, and families. The Muslim Middle East polygamy in European action. Maybe in US too?
Many comments focus on marriage in a traditional, "lifetime deal" model - married (relatively young, have career - collect assets - have children, etc.) In later life, when the chicks have fled and the estate is supporting the parent, plural marriage would seem imminently practical, given the devolution of the nuclear family. Multiple spouses (spice?) with similar life experience, interests, etc., could live harmoniously in a mutually supportive atmosphere. In this situation (at the least), the state's interest is simply the efficient and evenhanded application of contract, property, and inheritance laws.
3
We have seen the rise of the single person household in this country. With so many single adults living on their own, or with their children, does marriage even make sense? Why should my married friends receive a tax advantage over my single friends? If anything, it is harder financially to live alone than in pairs so why should pairs of any variety be subsidized by paying lower taxes than singles?
Really, Ross, I want to know.
Really, Ross, I want to know.
9
The shift on issues related to marriage doesn't really reflect social liberalism. I think it's more related to the fact that women are no longer economically so dependent on a husband for either the survival of themselves and their children.
Both polygamy and polyandry are rooted in the economic environment. The patriarchs of the Old Testament had lots of wives and concubines and it didn't seem odd or immoral to anyone at the time.
We appear to be in a period of transition and the "traditionalist visions" no longer are so compelling. It's facile to lump all the issues into a rubric of social liberalism, but I think they are rooted in different changes, social, economic and technological, that society has not yet incorporated into our mores.
It's happened before. I think that the invention of moveable type probably inspired some traditionalists to complain that Bibles will just not be the same. And they were absolutely correct.
Both polygamy and polyandry are rooted in the economic environment. The patriarchs of the Old Testament had lots of wives and concubines and it didn't seem odd or immoral to anyone at the time.
We appear to be in a period of transition and the "traditionalist visions" no longer are so compelling. It's facile to lump all the issues into a rubric of social liberalism, but I think they are rooted in different changes, social, economic and technological, that society has not yet incorporated into our mores.
It's happened before. I think that the invention of moveable type probably inspired some traditionalists to complain that Bibles will just not be the same. And they were absolutely correct.
31
None of the polygamous people I know are conservatives. They are all new-agey, Wiccans, geeks/nerds and so forth. They are all, without exception, supporters of gay marriage.
1
So called "polygamists" can't be prosecuted because it's not illegal for people to live together. What on earth is this even about? Oh, I see. It's a sneaky way to attack same sex couples marrying. What a twisted bunch of baloney.
5
What is amazing is the way conservatives the slippery slope fallacy when it comes to gay marriage.
Apparently worrying about something that is pretty much a non-issue in our society is the refuge of the intellectually desperate who can't argue a topic on its own merit.
What's telling is Douthat's last sentiment which is that he predicts that polygamy will become legal and that eventually everyone will shrug. Well, if that's true, then why doesn't the columnist spend time writing about something that matters?
Apparently worrying about something that is pretty much a non-issue in our society is the refuge of the intellectually desperate who can't argue a topic on its own merit.
What's telling is Douthat's last sentiment which is that he predicts that polygamy will become legal and that eventually everyone will shrug. Well, if that's true, then why doesn't the columnist spend time writing about something that matters?
6
Ross, since you freely acknowledge that you are a master of slippery slope logic let's apply your slippery slope logic to the prospects for polygamy. Polygamy will not take hold in America because if it were permitted the 1% of the wealthiest people in America would exercise dominion over the eligible multi-spouse market to the exclusion of the rest of us. Clearly as a proponent of freedom who adheres to an unregulated economic model you'll agree that the same free market principles must apply to the marriage marketplace. You're slope must slide you to the conclusion that the wealthy will simply buy up all the best prospects. Thankfully there are candidates like Bernie Sanders who will never permit the wealthiest Americans to confiscate the opportunity for the unwashed masses to find fulfillment through marriage.
5
"candidates like Bernie Sanders who will never permit"
Bernie Sanders is not in any position to permit or forbid anything. He might like to be, but it's never going to happen.
Bernie Sanders is not in any position to permit or forbid anything. He might like to be, but it's never going to happen.
Perhaps Ross Douthat wants Bible based marriage of One Man and Several Wives with as many concubines as that one man can afford. The Bible condones patriarchy and polygamy; nowhere does it specifically forbid plural marriage.
His "slippery-sloper" self need only see where this all begin: the Bible.
His "slippery-sloper" self need only see where this all begin: the Bible.
26
Ross Douthat does not understand the difference between Old Testament style polygamy and polyamory, and therefore his essay, as his often do, makes zero sense.
8
Ross, google your subject. Utah's, of all places, had its anti-Polygamy law defanged 16 months ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-law-prohibiting-polygamy-is-...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-law-prohibiting-polygamy-is-...
3
"On every issue save abortion, social liberalism is suddenly ascendant in America." Ross If it was NOT for abortion just how many elections do you think Republicans could win?
11
I disagree with the premise of this article. Polygamy is currently legal in over 50 countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy Gay marriage, by contrast, is currently legal in only about 18 countries. http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/10/world/gay-marriage-world/
Based on this I think it's reasonable to assume that there are as many polygamous marriages in the world today as same sex marriages. Perhaps more.
Based on this I think it's reasonable to assume that there are as many polygamous marriages in the world today as same sex marriages. Perhaps more.
5
Conservatives are so focused on abortions and guns that they've lost interest in their traditional moral stances. Other social issues are trivial to them, as long as no one raises their taxes.
9
Polygamy is closely associated with extreme inequality between the sexes -- inequality in money, power and social standing. It is not coming back unless the clock is turned back by religious right-wingers of one sort or another.
8
Polygamy is what a lot of women want, or else it wouldn't exist.
Ah, yes, the old slippery slope.
How about the feds first tackle the large numbers of Mormon polygamous off-shoots where one man has multiple wives -- only one of whom is legally his wife -- and the "sister wives" all file for welfare and SNAP benefits as a first step and then we'll worry about one of them filing some court case.
And, by the way, Mr Douthat, you know perfectly well that marriage licenses are issued by the state, not churches. Good luck getting elected to township dog-catcher on a polygamy platform.
How about the feds first tackle the large numbers of Mormon polygamous off-shoots where one man has multiple wives -- only one of whom is legally his wife -- and the "sister wives" all file for welfare and SNAP benefits as a first step and then we'll worry about one of them filing some court case.
And, by the way, Mr Douthat, you know perfectly well that marriage licenses are issued by the state, not churches. Good luck getting elected to township dog-catcher on a polygamy platform.
15
Polygamy is not only a social issue but an economic one. Considering there are literally hundreds of thousands of newly minted tech and real estate multi millionaires who can afford more than one wife—and not only afford more than one wife, but whose contributions are needed to fund our money-equals-freedom-of-speech political system—you can be sure that it won't be long until polygamy is right up there with publicly funded sex change operations as a hot button social issue.
2
So-called conservatives in the USA get around their moral aversion to polygamy by indulging in serial monogamy instead. In my book, anyone who abandons their spouse, their partner or their children, who betrays in any way those they claim to have once loved, is beyond the pale.
9
I think many of these comments miss the point. Many seem to feel that arguments for polygamy cannot be as sensibly laid out as the arguments for same-sex marriage. But stop and think: thirty or forty years ago, most people would have thought that same-sex marriage would be forever a legal impossiblity. Why? Heterosexual people--who would find homesexual sex personally abhorrent yet might be tolerant of the practice-- would not have the imagination to anticipate, let alone create, an argument for same sex marriage. Yet look where we are today. Proponents of SSM begin their rationale by simply NOT ACCEPTING those notions that they felt were antiquated, unfair, unloving, unjust, even immoral ... and they created their legal argument on terms that they defined. What prevents anyone else from doing the same thing? Do proponents of same sex marriage really have so little imagination as to think these moral redefinitions will stop with them? Or that their sacred cows have now become sacred to everyone? Your straw-man arguments will not impress those who will be as committed to their cause as you are to yours.
5
As a social liberal and pragmatist, the difference between polygamy/polyamory and gay marriage is quite easy for me to see.
The sociological research on marriage is pretty clear: 1) stable two person marriages have all kinds of social benefits when it comes to childrearing, criminal behavior, etc. 2) the genders of the two people in the stable marriage do not matter. I support gay marriage because I think more marriage in general is better for America.
On the other hand, polyamorous relationships are inherently unstable, and the sociological research is equally clear that an unstable home has negative social effects. Then there's all the historical evidence: pretty much all past polygamous societies have been strongly patriarchal, with men constantly victimizing women and children. We still see this in rural Utah today.
Simply put, the government has a compelling practical interest in supporting two person relationships. That interest cannot be said to extend to polygamy.
The sociological research on marriage is pretty clear: 1) stable two person marriages have all kinds of social benefits when it comes to childrearing, criminal behavior, etc. 2) the genders of the two people in the stable marriage do not matter. I support gay marriage because I think more marriage in general is better for America.
On the other hand, polyamorous relationships are inherently unstable, and the sociological research is equally clear that an unstable home has negative social effects. Then there's all the historical evidence: pretty much all past polygamous societies have been strongly patriarchal, with men constantly victimizing women and children. We still see this in rural Utah today.
Simply put, the government has a compelling practical interest in supporting two person relationships. That interest cannot be said to extend to polygamy.
118
Human beings themselves have reason to value stable and productive personal relationships. Notice how humans have tended to form such relationships, for millennia, without government interference? It's kind of why we're still here, isn't it. Government policies at least in some countries, the U.S. an example seem more often the cause of tearing all sorts of stable and productive human relationships, hetero-, homo-, and otherwise, apart, for arbitrary theological and ideological reasons. Marriage is an institution where government, essential in other realms, is simply not needed, but often quite destructive.
Your logic to limiting marriage to two people is nonexistent. Once the arguments for traditional marriage are breached there is no real boundary what so ever. Marriages between a hundred people are just as valid a between 2.
Gee, I thought that, as Americans, we were supposed to be free to live our personal lives as we see fit as long we do not harm others. Your argument asserts that we must be forced to live in a specific way for the purpose of reproduction and "stability" in relationships. You are making value judgements in favor of both. There are many other viable ways to live and nurture children. Do your research.
Before Douthat goes of the deep end he might want to consider that in some social constructs offenders are stoned for adultery. People are known for the company they keep.
7
Polygamy is for billionaires, middle class people cannot afford to raise multiple families. If it ever becomes legal it will not be by popular demand but by the plutocracy buying enough votes to bring back a patriarchal society. Polyandry on the other hand can be afforded by any class, so who knows, it may catch on.
15
Mr Douthat is right in that polygamy's appeal is limited by the fact that what is routinely referred to by the term is polygyny ("plural wives") not metely polygamy ("plural marriages"). Try advocating for a woman's right to have several husbands (polyandry) and listen for the howls! So-called polygamy is distasteful precisely because it is an artifact of patriarchy, the same patriarchy that has victimized women and gay men for millennia and against which the fight for equal rights for those two groups is now in full swing. On the other hand, as a gay man, I assert my equal right to marriage because I pay taxes to the federal government under the same scheme as every other adult citizen of the country, For that I should obtain the same rights, benefits and privileges, including the right to marry the partner of my choice. Otherwise, lower my taxes! As for polygamy (regardless of the combinations of gender), maybe the IRS should do an analysis of the tax implications...
156
And that's where social liberalism leaves you. Banning something merely on the basis of taste. "I don't like the patriarchy."
Look. Why not make both legal? Seriously. Then these "spouses" who "supposedly "support" multiple wives or husbands will be responsible for them legally. Marriage is not a right to sexual relations. It is about legal property and income rights. I really do not know many men or women who would want to have legal ties to more than one woman or man at a time, but if they do, who cares? Just make sure they cover the court costs! And employers and social security should have the right to limit benefits. Otherwise people would just marry more people and have more kids to get more benefits!
The sci-fi channel's show, "Caprica" included a plural marriage. It was interesting. "Polygamy" is conflated with "polygyny"--one man married to more than one woman. Polygyny is the type of polygamy that has a christian Biblical record.
As others have noted, if a plural marriage consists only of consensual adults, I'm mostly okay with it. (Although "consensual" MUST mean no coercion or any form of "brainwashing" of any participants.) In such a relationship, I would agree that some of the benefits now afforded to one-on-one heterosexual marriage should be granted--i.e., hospital visitation, inheritance rights.
However, some tax and financial issues would need to be addressed. Some current practitioners of polygyny use it to harm the U.S. and its taxpayers. It's sometimes called "bleeding the beast," and I read about it in Jon Krakauer's book, "Under the Banner of Heaven." Scenarios like that would need to be addressed, although, if their marriage is legal, then these people could no longer "bleed the beast" by claiming the woman is unmarried and qualifies for welfare child support. (In which case, I suppose they would simply turn around, get "married" according to their religion, but never make the "marriage" civilly legal. Which rather turns one of the religious right's arguments against same-sex marriage on its head.)
As others have noted, if a plural marriage consists only of consensual adults, I'm mostly okay with it. (Although "consensual" MUST mean no coercion or any form of "brainwashing" of any participants.) In such a relationship, I would agree that some of the benefits now afforded to one-on-one heterosexual marriage should be granted--i.e., hospital visitation, inheritance rights.
However, some tax and financial issues would need to be addressed. Some current practitioners of polygyny use it to harm the U.S. and its taxpayers. It's sometimes called "bleeding the beast," and I read about it in Jon Krakauer's book, "Under the Banner of Heaven." Scenarios like that would need to be addressed, although, if their marriage is legal, then these people could no longer "bleed the beast" by claiming the woman is unmarried and qualifies for welfare child support. (In which case, I suppose they would simply turn around, get "married" according to their religion, but never make the "marriage" civilly legal. Which rather turns one of the religious right's arguments against same-sex marriage on its head.)
4
Those astonished, or at least jubilantly surprised, by the pace of change in the acceptance of gay marriage are quick to credit the situation to "a triumph of love over hate" (just before crediting their own viewpoints for having "evolved" on the subject, placing them squarely "on the right side of history"). The truth, however, does not follow this narrative.
The gay rights movement owes more to the proliferation of pornography (that coincided exactly in time with the movement's recent success) than it does to any quantifiable change in our willingness to hate what we don't approve of. Widespread desensitization, psychic dissonance and groupthink are mistaken for evolution, understanding and enlightenment. Learning to be aroused by things that used to seem revolting may inspire a kind of understanding, but it falls short of the empathy the left in particular likes to credit itself with.
It is possible to be in favor of gay marriage and against polygamy. It is possible to be in favor of reproductive choices for women and against divorce and single motherhood. What society accepts, however, depends to a surprising degree on what we learn from what we watch, rather than the triumph of any inherent human virtue.
The gay rights movement owes more to the proliferation of pornography (that coincided exactly in time with the movement's recent success) than it does to any quantifiable change in our willingness to hate what we don't approve of. Widespread desensitization, psychic dissonance and groupthink are mistaken for evolution, understanding and enlightenment. Learning to be aroused by things that used to seem revolting may inspire a kind of understanding, but it falls short of the empathy the left in particular likes to credit itself with.
It is possible to be in favor of gay marriage and against polygamy. It is possible to be in favor of reproductive choices for women and against divorce and single motherhood. What society accepts, however, depends to a surprising degree on what we learn from what we watch, rather than the triumph of any inherent human virtue.
1
People who approve of marriage equality are not experiencing a state of arousal. They report knowing more gay people as neighbors, friends, relatives and co-workers as being a prime factor in acceptance. They also report seeing gay characters on TV and in movies--but not porn movies. Since you're in Europe (or claim to be), I assume that you believe the vast Irish pornography industry explains why the Irish voted for marriage equality? Or were they browbeaten by imported American porn in another act of imperialism.....?
It would be interesting to apply this 'logic' to our society's economic realm. Let's see ... the government should not interfere with the working of the "free market", even though it only works if there's a legal system, intellectual property rights and public infrastructure to support that free market. But it's important that the government continue to intervene in the personal freedoms and actions of citizens as and when those actions don't fit with a particular view of religion or dogma? Or, it's important that we constrain the ability of employees to organize in unions, while at the same time we encourage "organized owners" [shareholders in corporations] through Supreme Court decisions that extend the 'personhood' construct to allow corporations to hold and apply religious values to the real people who they employ?
Mr. Douthat seems afflicted by "the dogma that bites the hand that feeds it" problem.
Mr. Douthat seems afflicted by "the dogma that bites the hand that feeds it" problem.
5
Dennis, please drop the tiring liberal argument that by supporting free markets one must believe in no government.
And by the way the Supreme Court also held that unions had the right to free speech, and I'm glad. People who associate for any purpose should not lose their right to speak freely as a group. Freedom of association does not exclude freedom of speech.
And by the way the Supreme Court also held that unions had the right to free speech, and I'm glad. People who associate for any purpose should not lose their right to speak freely as a group. Freedom of association does not exclude freedom of speech.
The number of commenters who are saying " if it's my choice, why can't I have it?" doesn't show the effect of creeping liberalism as much as creeping consumerism. When everything is framed as a consumer choice ("if I freely choose to do it with others who are also freely choosing to do it, it's therefore a reasonable thing"), there are no longer any boundaries. The choice to do it is the justification for the thing.
Fortunately, there's a good reason why polygamy will never take off in a secular, liberal society - not just because the property and inheritance rules would be fraught.
It's because it brutally disadvantages both women in general and young men in particular. Power and wives accrue to the richest and most powerful men in polygamous societies - men who also happen to be older. They see younger men as a threat and either drive them out or deprive them of money and opportunity.
Anybody saying "yes but women could have multiple husbands" needs to point to a society in history where that actually happened.
Fortunately, there's a good reason why polygamy will never take off in a secular, liberal society - not just because the property and inheritance rules would be fraught.
It's because it brutally disadvantages both women in general and young men in particular. Power and wives accrue to the richest and most powerful men in polygamous societies - men who also happen to be older. They see younger men as a threat and either drive them out or deprive them of money and opportunity.
Anybody saying "yes but women could have multiple husbands" needs to point to a society in history where that actually happened.
7
Polyandry is practiced in the foothills of the Himalayas. Groups of brothers all marry the same woman. The oldest brother is officially recognized as the father of her children, though the children generally know which of the brothers is the biological father. By this method, families can hang on to their scarce land through generations.
1
Fenella,"Anybody saying "yes but women could have multiple husbands" needs to point to a society in history where that actually happened."
Can you point to a society in history where gay marriage happened?
Can you point to a society in history where gay marriage happened?
A woman with multiple husbands is called "polyandry" and it's practiced in Tibet.
I say this not as a woman but as an intelligent inhabitant of this earth:
Polyandry makes much more sense than polygamy!
A man with several wives is simply going to procreate mindlessly and overpopulate the earth. (And probably go into debt trying to cover family expenses.)
A woman with several husbands can only reproduce one at a time. (And she and the kids will have plenty of financial support.)
So, if change must come, let's hear it for polyandry.
Polyandry makes much more sense than polygamy!
A man with several wives is simply going to procreate mindlessly and overpopulate the earth. (And probably go into debt trying to cover family expenses.)
A woman with several husbands can only reproduce one at a time. (And she and the kids will have plenty of financial support.)
So, if change must come, let's hear it for polyandry.
31
"Polyandry makes much more sense than polygamy."
Correction: Polyandry is a form of polygamy. You mean to say, "polyandry makes much more sense than polygyny."
Correction: Polyandry is a form of polygamy. You mean to say, "polyandry makes much more sense than polygyny."
I'm with you, sister. My ex-husband's shortcomings might not have been as important if I'd had a couple of extra husbands to cover the gaps. As it was I had to give him the boot.
The eternal institution of marriage--that sacrament, that sacred bond handed down by God whole and intact to the original handful of dust--is in fact a fairly recent, constantly mutating contract originally designed to protect property rights (women and children having once been part of the property).
Human history is full of codicils and loopholes. In acknowledging the right of others to marry, we're simply incorporating one more variation into this arrangement--one that will have no impact whatever on the right of heterosexuals (including devoutly Christian ones) to commit acts of incest, to divorce, to beat their spouses, to injure their children, or to be unfaithful with partners of either gender, among the many natural rights granted by God to the straight.
John Roberts and his majority are almost certainly about to make gay marriage a non-issue in constitutional terms, mostly because Mr. Roberts works full time for the Republican Party, and the Republican Party wants this thing off the table.
At some point in the not too distant future, another Court--perhaps even, given that God has a cruel sense of humor, another Republican Court--will find itself obliged to do the same for women's health care rights, including contraception and abortion: although GOP operatives will delay that one for as long as Gallup allows.
Meanwhile, in small but meaningful ways, we're becoming a better nation. Too late, perhaps: but better late than never.
So sorry Mr. Douthat is upset.
Human history is full of codicils and loopholes. In acknowledging the right of others to marry, we're simply incorporating one more variation into this arrangement--one that will have no impact whatever on the right of heterosexuals (including devoutly Christian ones) to commit acts of incest, to divorce, to beat their spouses, to injure their children, or to be unfaithful with partners of either gender, among the many natural rights granted by God to the straight.
John Roberts and his majority are almost certainly about to make gay marriage a non-issue in constitutional terms, mostly because Mr. Roberts works full time for the Republican Party, and the Republican Party wants this thing off the table.
At some point in the not too distant future, another Court--perhaps even, given that God has a cruel sense of humor, another Republican Court--will find itself obliged to do the same for women's health care rights, including contraception and abortion: although GOP operatives will delay that one for as long as Gallup allows.
Meanwhile, in small but meaningful ways, we're becoming a better nation. Too late, perhaps: but better late than never.
So sorry Mr. Douthat is upset.
18
Great post. Thank you.
The only objection I have against polygamy is that it is generally sexist in its execution. In patriarchal societies women are property and the usual arrangement is that of a man with multiple wives. Why not a woman with multiple husbands ala polyandry in parts of Tibet?
There are a number of tribal societies in which polygamy, however sexist it may be, is an advantage. In lieu of a lack of birth control devices many women are grateful that they are not required to bear another child as long as the one they already have has yet to be weaned (and some children aren’t weaned until they are 4 years old or more.) The other wives share the family’s burdens as well as satisfying their husband’s natural sexual desires, thus, giving the individual wives a bit of a respite from continual childbearing and all of the problems therein involved.
Actually, if truth be told, a form of serial-polygamy has long been practiced in these United States and it isn’t sexist. Both men and women in this country may have as many spouses as they desire. The only condition is that they have them one-at-a-time via divorce, remarriage, divorce,, remarriage ad secula seculorum.
There are a number of tribal societies in which polygamy, however sexist it may be, is an advantage. In lieu of a lack of birth control devices many women are grateful that they are not required to bear another child as long as the one they already have has yet to be weaned (and some children aren’t weaned until they are 4 years old or more.) The other wives share the family’s burdens as well as satisfying their husband’s natural sexual desires, thus, giving the individual wives a bit of a respite from continual childbearing and all of the problems therein involved.
Actually, if truth be told, a form of serial-polygamy has long been practiced in these United States and it isn’t sexist. Both men and women in this country may have as many spouses as they desire. The only condition is that they have them one-at-a-time via divorce, remarriage, divorce,, remarriage ad secula seculorum.
4
I would have to see the data before accepting that a rise in support for polygamy is a progressive-liberal advocated trend as indicated. Polygamy, being a practice that survives from ancient times, is, arguably, the most traditional (and therefore socially conservative) form of marriage. Groups that still practice it (traditionalist Mormons and Muslims, etc.) hardly are "lefties."
74
Good point. Polygamy is part of the conservative set and not the liberal self actualized mind set. Douthat made a mistaken connection.
1
Even if one assumes that polygamy is a thing to be avoided, it is difficult to see how it can prevented. Given the general acceptance of people living together and having children, although they are not married, what would prevent a group larger than two from doing so?
It would seem that denying a government issued license affects neither form nor function.
I think that horse left the barn a long time ago.
It would seem that denying a government issued license affects neither form nor function.
I think that horse left the barn a long time ago.
9
After all the prevaricating, Douthat equates gay marriage with polygamy. For shame. He sees the remote possibility of "the left" being unable to draw some future imaginary line as not worth the very real triumph of decency and decline off bigotry. Shame on that, too.
3
Douthat still does not accept the reality that legal recognition of marriage is a governmental issue, not an ecclesiastical one. The fundamental right to marry is essential to our notion of democracy, which requires equality.
A two-person marriage is not more moral than a five-person one, even though the Bible may have appeared to endorse both models. It is simply more ethical because it creates the partners as equals, and assigns equal rights to assets and heirs. In polygamous marriages, the division of assets, marital relations between all spouses, and rights of heirs would be up to the whims of a Solomon -- which is only acceptable to someone with a taste for biblical judges and rule-by-ayatollah.
No one has yet proposed a model for polygamy that allocates assets and rights equally. The closest equivalent is a corporation.
Having failed at the effort to make marriage equality a religious issue, opponents who claim to see a menacing step towards legal polygamy have overlooked the fact that the rationale of legal equality leads any reasonable person to the opposite conclusion.
A two-person marriage is not more moral than a five-person one, even though the Bible may have appeared to endorse both models. It is simply more ethical because it creates the partners as equals, and assigns equal rights to assets and heirs. In polygamous marriages, the division of assets, marital relations between all spouses, and rights of heirs would be up to the whims of a Solomon -- which is only acceptable to someone with a taste for biblical judges and rule-by-ayatollah.
No one has yet proposed a model for polygamy that allocates assets and rights equally. The closest equivalent is a corporation.
Having failed at the effort to make marriage equality a religious issue, opponents who claim to see a menacing step towards legal polygamy have overlooked the fact that the rationale of legal equality leads any reasonable person to the opposite conclusion.
152
Why is dividing things by 2 somehow easier intrinsically than dividing things by 5? I don't understand your argument.
The biblical model of marriage was inspired for rule making purposes and health reason, by men, who wrote the texts. Clerics had always been male dominators who viewed women's role to propagate the race and their flock. It was always to maintain control and influence. Equality was viewed as a threat to the established order.
1
I agree, but it can be made into a legal model that could work for some people. And to be fair to Ross I think he is correct. Why would you deny it legally? On what grounds? I think you just need to work out the details of property rights, and other spousal issues. Honestly, I think it is a needed change which modern civil law will need to address. Sure Ross trots the subject out because it makes us all cringe a bit, but let's get over that. He is correct. If mature adults want to live in "equitable" polygamous marriages which can have a civil form of rights, this would be a good thing for the women in them especially. As adults we know all too well that "marriage" is really only about this definition of rights in the event of death, illness, dissolution.
1
Douthat ignores a major historical event -- the legalizing same-sex marriage in majority Catholic Ireland, the only country to take such a step through a popular referendum -- to write a column about polygamy, and a blog post about a possible schism in the church (without mentioning Ireland).
What gives? Douthat wants us to worry about "social liberalism" and "permissiveness" and where they may lead, in terms of unsettling future disruptions. Yet, by doing so, he conveniently ignores the most significant aspect of the marriage equality vote in Ireland: the people believe in love, and the right of all to seek happiness in their personal lives.
All I can say is Mr. Douthat's view of the world is pretty sad.
What gives? Douthat wants us to worry about "social liberalism" and "permissiveness" and where they may lead, in terms of unsettling future disruptions. Yet, by doing so, he conveniently ignores the most significant aspect of the marriage equality vote in Ireland: the people believe in love, and the right of all to seek happiness in their personal lives.
All I can say is Mr. Douthat's view of the world is pretty sad.
26
The referendum in Ireland settled the question whether "[m]arriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”.
It was not a referendum on love, and/or whether people believe in love. That's the construction many would put upon it in order to cast opponents as 'believing in hate'.
What if a majority have merely come to think of gay marriage as silly, and thus no longer worth the effort of prohibition?
It was not a referendum on love, and/or whether people believe in love. That's the construction many would put upon it in order to cast opponents as 'believing in hate'.
What if a majority have merely come to think of gay marriage as silly, and thus no longer worth the effort of prohibition?
The movement against gay marriage is failing because opponents can't articulate what harm is caused by allowing it beyond the fact that it makes them uncomfortable. It is quite easy, however, to list a number of problems created by polygamy including the societal disruption that happens when there is an imbalance between the number of marriageable men and women (think of the "lost boys" of some break-away Mormon groups), increased poverty as more children compete for limited resources and increased oppression of women within a hierarchical family structure of junior and senior wives. Given these very real harms, a government prohibition of polygamy is amply justified.
327
The movement against gay marriage failed because the definition of being gay and the issue of individual rights has trumped the idea of religious conviction regarding moral code or what can otherwise be termed as "habitual" family definitions. It also lost because there were many, many people who simply lived in a different way. This will be the same with polygamy. Individual rights will be valued. What can a society say to three or four people who want to live together by mutual agreement? How wrong can that be?
The argument will be made that polygamy can be abusive. Indeed it can. But so can normal, heterosexual relationships (parallel to lgbt community arguments). Polygamy calls for laws that provide a decent framework, definition, that make it applicable by those who want to live this way.
Governments will have to legislate in this area, as in others, where social norms will change long before the laws change. As suggested in the article, it may be that "marriage" will not be necessarily legal, because that might mean attributing different legal statuses to men and women. But polygamy will be accepted as morally ok. This is where we are going (other issues are also on the way).
The argument will be made that polygamy can be abusive. Indeed it can. But so can normal, heterosexual relationships (parallel to lgbt community arguments). Polygamy calls for laws that provide a decent framework, definition, that make it applicable by those who want to live this way.
Governments will have to legislate in this area, as in others, where social norms will change long before the laws change. As suggested in the article, it may be that "marriage" will not be necessarily legal, because that might mean attributing different legal statuses to men and women. But polygamy will be accepted as morally ok. This is where we are going (other issues are also on the way).
2
A feeling of discomfort is in fact a common and accepted reason for enacting legislation prohibiting one or another type of conduct. The otherwise senseless prohibition on the eating of dogs is one such example.
It is far more likely that society has become less uncomfortable with gay relationships, with the result that they are now 'celebrated'. All the specious arguments you present against polygamy are nothing more than a fig leaf. Own your discomfort! Stable societies can only thrive when they ban what the majority finds repulsive.
It is far more likely that society has become less uncomfortable with gay relationships, with the result that they are now 'celebrated'. All the specious arguments you present against polygamy are nothing more than a fig leaf. Own your discomfort! Stable societies can only thrive when they ban what the majority finds repulsive.
1
You make some good practical points. Unlike Sharia law, our state and federal legal systems do not provide the necessary framework for polygamous marriages. For example, who are the legal parents of a child in such a marriage? What are the rights and responsibilities of parents in such a marriage? How does one of the many parties get a divorce? Who is the legal next of kin? And on and on.
The practical legal problems facing polygamous marriages present far greater barriers than did gay marriage which could easily be grafted onto our existing legal system.
The practical legal problems facing polygamous marriages present far greater barriers than did gay marriage which could easily be grafted onto our existing legal system.
1
Why not polygamy (or polyandry)? If consenting adults want such an arrangement then that is their freedom. Why do you want to restrict freedom? But the next social freedom that should be addressed is prostitution, which obviously should be legal in a culture that professes to be predicated on freedom. If two adults want to exchange cash for sex then that is their business, not the government's or anyone else's. Regulate it, tax it and zone it, and make prostitution legal.
25
I prefer the term " decriminalize" but it m right there with you!
Agree, except say decriminalize individuals instead of legalize. Legalization creates its own set of problems.
Unfortunately, legalizing prostitution is simply legalizing the sexual exploitation of women and men. These women and men who would be prostituted or are in this business need to have opportunity sot be valued for their ability to contribute to society in a way that protects their humanity and their dignity as people. Those who need to pay for sex need to reexamine their relationships to others and why their cannot connect in an intimate way. I will never support the legalization of dehumanization.
"Recognition" of polygamous relationships can mean any of a large range of different things from tolerance (for instance, decriminalization), though giving financial benefits to cohabiting parties and to children born out of wedlock, to the sanction of an official status.
If polygamy (literally defined) is to be given status, so must polyandry on grounds of equality. Pretty complicated families, no?
If polygamy (literally defined) is to be given status, so must polyandry on grounds of equality. Pretty complicated families, no?
The complement of polyandry is polygyny, not polygamy.
If you don't like polygamy, Ross, don't marry more than one person (at a time).
23
When all else fails, there is always the 'slippery slope' argument to fall back on. Today, gay marriage, tomorrow . . . This is not just a stretch, it's a quantum leap. I suppose Ross will next be deploring the possibility of human-animal marriage. Human-robot? Dog-cat?
42
The slippery slope argument plays to fears, which is why it's a favored technique of demagogues. That it is poor reasoning is so much the better, I guess.
David, polygamy a "quantum leap?". Really? Back in 1980 the idea of two men marrying was a quantum leap.
The fact we are even arguing about polygamy in this venue makes Douthat's point.
The fact we are even arguing about polygamy in this venue makes Douthat's point.
@David
Maybe you are just naive. Human-robot? What legal rights will you secure for the robot. Inheritance?
But human-animal. That is another kettle of fish. With the emergence of emotional-support dogs, dogs that help the human cope with life and allowed to breach restaurant laws prohibiting animals, we are stepping toward normalization of such relationships. And with the amount of money Americans spend on pet health care, including extension of insurance coverage, you can see the arrival of an elevation of animals in non-human legal structures....even as beneficiaries of trust funds for their care following the death of an owner.
And who are you to criticize what a person does in the privacy of their home, with an animal, if no one is harmed? Do you plan to depose the pet? Can you not find precedent in history, particularly the epoch when scriptures, which you abhor, were written.
Maybe you are just naive. Human-robot? What legal rights will you secure for the robot. Inheritance?
But human-animal. That is another kettle of fish. With the emergence of emotional-support dogs, dogs that help the human cope with life and allowed to breach restaurant laws prohibiting animals, we are stepping toward normalization of such relationships. And with the amount of money Americans spend on pet health care, including extension of insurance coverage, you can see the arrival of an elevation of animals in non-human legal structures....even as beneficiaries of trust funds for their care following the death of an owner.
And who are you to criticize what a person does in the privacy of their home, with an animal, if no one is harmed? Do you plan to depose the pet? Can you not find precedent in history, particularly the epoch when scriptures, which you abhor, were written.
The article assumes that polygamy always involves a patriarchal male with multiple subservient wives, but why not a female with multiple partners? I have known such arrangements and was sort of part of one myself, lover of a woman who referred to me as her second husband, with full knowledge of the first.
17
That's what I was thinking. Why limit polygamy to a husband with more than one wife. What about a wife with more than one husband? The family would feel more whole with the children belonging to all the fathers rather than just one mother.
In a relationship, such as the one you describe. you have no legal rights. Now suppose, it was legal and there were children involved. Suppose there were more than three "spouses". What happens in the event of divorce? Can you and she divorce and you not divorce the others and she not divorce the others. Suppose she has children from some of the spouses and not the others. What are the custody arrangements? What about inheritance should she die? How is the money divided?
There is a stronger case to be be made on behalf of polygamous relationships than for same-sex relationships. Polygamy has a history of success in cultures around the world dating back to ancient times. It is the norm for families in many cultures today. It serves the purpose of nature to procreate. It can stabilize communities impacted by war, famine, and disease. It can even be an option to address the problem of family imbalance in the African American community.
Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is an outgrowth of the bias of Anglo-Saxon culture and the clout of advocates. Our courts give priority to individual rights and views the family as a monogamous institution. The courts are expanding the parameters of the cultural definition of legal family but within the boundaries of the monogamy bias. Whether a family is straight or gay is no problem as long as it adheres to the monogamy imperative.
This view of human family is experimental and out of step with history, of course. However it may lead us back to an acceptance of the "traditional" polygamous family.
Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is an outgrowth of the bias of Anglo-Saxon culture and the clout of advocates. Our courts give priority to individual rights and views the family as a monogamous institution. The courts are expanding the parameters of the cultural definition of legal family but within the boundaries of the monogamy bias. Whether a family is straight or gay is no problem as long as it adheres to the monogamy imperative.
This view of human family is experimental and out of step with history, of course. However it may lead us back to an acceptance of the "traditional" polygamous family.
5
I just worry about the population explosion. There are too many humans already.
Polygamy is the conservative, biblical, beta male dream.
Why should women be forced to have babies from beta males when alphas can father thousands?
Government should provide for the children. For the good of society, this will give women freedom to have babies from the best qualified males.
Why should women be forced to have babies from beta males when alphas can father thousands?
Government should provide for the children. For the good of society, this will give women freedom to have babies from the best qualified males.
8
Why do we assume babies are involved? How about a polygamous marriage without children and more than one husband?
1
So true. People can't seem to conceive of marriage without children, as if it's 1915 and children are inevitable. The most successful marriages I know of do not include children.
We are having a different discussion here in Quebec. We are a secular society and we respect and honour the individual. We are talking about whether marriage will have any meaning in the civil sphere. Our far right wing party which was our previous government saw marriage as strictly a religious arrangement in our fundamentally secular society.
Twentieth century architecture talked about form following function. The question should be asked is whether marriage has any meaningful function in twenty first century American society. The Reagan revolution certainly put the question squarely on the table but both liberals and conservatives certainly owe us an explanation as to how traditional marriage makes ourselves and our country better.
From my perspective the America advocated for by the conservative movement would mean a large segment of the population forced into communal relationships where marriage might be seen as a huge impediment to educational, psychological or financial success. It would seem to me that only liberals can provide any reasons all be it abstractions for traditional marriage. For conservatives marriage seems to have lost any civil function and church marriage is all that matters especially with a government so small it drowned in the tub..
Twentieth century architecture talked about form following function. The question should be asked is whether marriage has any meaningful function in twenty first century American society. The Reagan revolution certainly put the question squarely on the table but both liberals and conservatives certainly owe us an explanation as to how traditional marriage makes ourselves and our country better.
From my perspective the America advocated for by the conservative movement would mean a large segment of the population forced into communal relationships where marriage might be seen as a huge impediment to educational, psychological or financial success. It would seem to me that only liberals can provide any reasons all be it abstractions for traditional marriage. For conservatives marriage seems to have lost any civil function and church marriage is all that matters especially with a government so small it drowned in the tub..
12
I have a difficult enough time being married to one person, and I love her tremendously.
Who would even WANT more than one wife it husband?!?
Who would even WANT more than one wife it husband?!?
13
For whatever reason one may not like or agree with another's actions, so long as their actions don't impinge on one's personal freedom what others want to do with their relationships should be their business. We are free or we are not.
2
We will end up polygamy.
Every other social issue mentioned has been a 'no brainer' since I was a child (46 years old), but I never remembered polygamy being brought up as an issue, unless used against gay marriage.
This is what a NYT Op Ed deems worthy of discussion?
Every other social issue mentioned has been a 'no brainer' since I was a child (46 years old), but I never remembered polygamy being brought up as an issue, unless used against gay marriage.
This is what a NYT Op Ed deems worthy of discussion?
4
Ross, sexual liberalism is driven by women's desire to be fully human in our sexual and reproductive relationships, not human animals for male usage--sexual, reproductive, economic.
All traditional sexual mores are based on and about making women into those human animals. This includes polygamy, which hugely disadvantages males of normal socio-economic status, and traditional marriage.
We're not scrapping our tentative gains for sexual and reproductive humanity for polygamy. Most of us understand what's at stake. I warrant, including those who are responsible for the increase in support for polygamy. They don't like women's civic and human equality any more than you appear to.
All traditional sexual mores are based on and about making women into those human animals. This includes polygamy, which hugely disadvantages males of normal socio-economic status, and traditional marriage.
We're not scrapping our tentative gains for sexual and reproductive humanity for polygamy. Most of us understand what's at stake. I warrant, including those who are responsible for the increase in support for polygamy. They don't like women's civic and human equality any more than you appear to.
17
I came out and came of age in the 1970s.
The "free love" mantra of Woodstock and "sex, love, and rock 'n' roll" introduced my generation to the idea of multiple sexual and romantic partners, serial or simultaneous. "Hippie communes" with kids opened our eyes to the idea that a family more diverse than the 1950s' nuclear model could function -- at least sometimes, for a while.
As the gay liberation movement took flight, one of the conflicts within it was between those who liked the paradigm of a committed, "1+1=us" lifestyle and, conversely, those who believed in open relationships. Both had their advocates, their successes, and their failures. Whose business was it but our own?
When I retreated from the city to the country 25 years later, I discovered that even in the burbs and boonies poly-love was not unknown. I became close friends with a self-described "triple": two men and one woman living together, the woman sharing her love between them, the men like brother-husbands. She had a daughter by each of them, who called them Dad and Poppa or "Daddy Joe" and "Daddy Mike." They're still together -- now grandparents -- after 35 years.
Another family, now in their 80s, comprised two men (A & C) who were lovers (both ministers), and their wives (B & D), who were cousins and close friends (but not lovers). When B & C died, A & D's menage ended.
Their choices were valid for them, as is Donald Trump's serial polygamy for him. Someday they'll be legal; the question is when.
The "free love" mantra of Woodstock and "sex, love, and rock 'n' roll" introduced my generation to the idea of multiple sexual and romantic partners, serial or simultaneous. "Hippie communes" with kids opened our eyes to the idea that a family more diverse than the 1950s' nuclear model could function -- at least sometimes, for a while.
As the gay liberation movement took flight, one of the conflicts within it was between those who liked the paradigm of a committed, "1+1=us" lifestyle and, conversely, those who believed in open relationships. Both had their advocates, their successes, and their failures. Whose business was it but our own?
When I retreated from the city to the country 25 years later, I discovered that even in the burbs and boonies poly-love was not unknown. I became close friends with a self-described "triple": two men and one woman living together, the woman sharing her love between them, the men like brother-husbands. She had a daughter by each of them, who called them Dad and Poppa or "Daddy Joe" and "Daddy Mike." They're still together -- now grandparents -- after 35 years.
Another family, now in their 80s, comprised two men (A & C) who were lovers (both ministers), and their wives (B & D), who were cousins and close friends (but not lovers). When B & C died, A & D's menage ended.
Their choices were valid for them, as is Donald Trump's serial polygamy for him. Someday they'll be legal; the question is when.
53
FWIW, polyamorous arrangements are already legal. They just aren't recognized legally as plural marriage.
1
Social acceptance may not be the major road block to legalizing these new marriage relationships.
Just today, my son and his fiancee, (female) mentioned tying the knot early, for financial concerns and her legal resident, (J1 visa) status. I could see insurance companies and even members of the state department vehemently objecting to the proliferation of these non-traditional marriages!
Just today, my son and his fiancee, (female) mentioned tying the knot early, for financial concerns and her legal resident, (J1 visa) status. I could see insurance companies and even members of the state department vehemently objecting to the proliferation of these non-traditional marriages!
7
Obviously, you can't stop a woman (or a man) from living with a married couple whatever that involves. For those who read Jill Lepore's interesting book, "The Secret History of Wonder Woman" it was occurring 50 years ago (and the two women lived happily ever after when Dr. William Marston (Wonder Woman's creator) died.
5
"Whether it ( polygamy) will eventually get there is an interesting question." Only to guys like you.
14
@Survivor
Ross raises a valid argument to gay-marriage proponents who have just now scrambled to the "moral high ground". They are offended and say "only to guys like you" (who opposed us is this interesting).
Ross unnerves those who will not discuss where their "rights" and "freedoms" will take us. And today was the bulls-eye.
Always remember that it is the conceit of the wealthy that increases the ultimate societal liabilities when we watch its destruction of the lower classes, plank by plank as we remove any semblance of structure around them.
In NYC, this is really all about the money. And when the system comes off the rails, Liberals think it is time to simply raise taxes on the (probably Conservative) rich guys to pay for the social programs to fix the problems the Liberals created.
I say: "bring it on".
Ross raises a valid argument to gay-marriage proponents who have just now scrambled to the "moral high ground". They are offended and say "only to guys like you" (who opposed us is this interesting).
Ross unnerves those who will not discuss where their "rights" and "freedoms" will take us. And today was the bulls-eye.
Always remember that it is the conceit of the wealthy that increases the ultimate societal liabilities when we watch its destruction of the lower classes, plank by plank as we remove any semblance of structure around them.
In NYC, this is really all about the money. And when the system comes off the rails, Liberals think it is time to simply raise taxes on the (probably Conservative) rich guys to pay for the social programs to fix the problems the Liberals created.
I say: "bring it on".
1
Religious conservatives and other opponents of marriage equality constantly warn that it will result in the legalisation of polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia. However, those perversions are all overwhelmingly committed by heterosexuals. Since heterosexual folks comprise the vast majority of the population, the logical question is this, namely what gives anyone the idea that equal marriage rights for same sex couples will lead to legal polygamy, or bestiality, or pedophilia, if the straight majority hasn't legalised those practices by now?
243
@Nico
Because the gay-rights movement showed everyone the way. And predicated much of this on legal grounds. America, and its hyper-active court system, cannot resist a legal argument; and lawyers will find a way to take the "now normal" arguments apart, just as they have done in the past ten years.
This is not a hetero/homo issue. It is about "rights" and the freedom to live as we want. The Liberal and Libertarian are strange bedfellows, but they find themselves in common cause when the cause aligns.
Unshackle this timid and Conservative country, I say.
Because the gay-rights movement showed everyone the way. And predicated much of this on legal grounds. America, and its hyper-active court system, cannot resist a legal argument; and lawyers will find a way to take the "now normal" arguments apart, just as they have done in the past ten years.
This is not a hetero/homo issue. It is about "rights" and the freedom to live as we want. The Liberal and Libertarian are strange bedfellows, but they find themselves in common cause when the cause aligns.
Unshackle this timid and Conservative country, I say.
1
Polygamist mormons are an advertisement for everything that is deeply wrong about patriarchy: keeping women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, child-brides, the sexual abuse of children, and the hordes of "lost boys" who are unceremoniously dumped outside of polygamist communities to fend by themselves, the mathematical result of too many single males and a shortage of single women in polygamous societies. When Joseph Smith, the founder of LDS, shared his revelation of "spiritual" multi-marriages with his wife Emily she suggested that she be able to have "spiritual" husbands too. A new revelation, specifically prohibiting Emily from having more than one husband soon appeared. Needless to say, Emily was not impressed.
41
@Charles
Come on. That is the same stale beer against polygamy that was once used against gay men, namely that they cannot sustain monogamous relationships.
Are we going to start entering peoples' homes to see if abuse is present? And who will administer that system? I would tell you that there is a statistically significant level of woman on man domestic abuse (verbal, not physical), particularly in the more affluent precincts. It all goes both ways. Do the research and remember that it only takes one domino to fall.
And the first one just fell.
Come on. That is the same stale beer against polygamy that was once used against gay men, namely that they cannot sustain monogamous relationships.
Are we going to start entering peoples' homes to see if abuse is present? And who will administer that system? I would tell you that there is a statistically significant level of woman on man domestic abuse (verbal, not physical), particularly in the more affluent precincts. It all goes both ways. Do the research and remember that it only takes one domino to fall.
And the first one just fell.
2
As a queer man with zero interest in getting married (and no qualms about vocally expressing disinterested support when asked by peers about the recent debates about gay marriage), I realized there's no shame in be vocally supportive of polygamy. What's the difference?
Yes, it's chief advocates are a minority of religious fundamentalists (calling them 'conservative' seems a little inaccurate in relation to this wildly unpopular stance) who view marriage as a form of ownership over women; but then, marriages of just a man and a woman don't have a sterling reputation of gender equality to support the argument of their being preferable.
And of course, I can imagine a Lubitsch-esque scenario ala "Design for Leaving" which many queer individuals I know might be cut out for (it even sounds mildly appealing to me personally, on condition that it is accompanied by an equally Lunitsch-esque number of martinis).
But really, when it comes to marriage, the bar is so low, I say either allow all forms of marriage, or none at all—it hasn't really had much going for it these last 10,000 years or so.
Yes, it's chief advocates are a minority of religious fundamentalists (calling them 'conservative' seems a little inaccurate in relation to this wildly unpopular stance) who view marriage as a form of ownership over women; but then, marriages of just a man and a woman don't have a sterling reputation of gender equality to support the argument of their being preferable.
And of course, I can imagine a Lubitsch-esque scenario ala "Design for Leaving" which many queer individuals I know might be cut out for (it even sounds mildly appealing to me personally, on condition that it is accompanied by an equally Lunitsch-esque number of martinis).
But really, when it comes to marriage, the bar is so low, I say either allow all forms of marriage, or none at all—it hasn't really had much going for it these last 10,000 years or so.
1
Seems you missed polyandry in your list, although the definition of polygamy in the survey itself seem to include it.
1
How many of you are astonished he wrote this?
I see no hands. So, if my math is correct, that'd be zero.
Polygamy might be recognized with a shrug in twenty-five years?
Ross, truthfully, gainsaying this is more than it deserves.
I see no hands. So, if my math is correct, that'd be zero.
Polygamy might be recognized with a shrug in twenty-five years?
Ross, truthfully, gainsaying this is more than it deserves.
9
I'd guess this'll take some pretty comprehensive tax reform ... everybody wants that, so maybe polygamy is just the price to pay for that big prize. Imagine strange bedfellows making hay and common cause: activist Muslims, Stand with Rand libertarians and everyday business folks and private equity smelling big bucks from all those ERP system changes.
4
Ross, not to stir the hornets' nest, but no mention of the prospects for polyandry?
2
So, let's go back to the traditional marriages of the founding of the Judeo-Christian tradition which were not between one man and one woman. Abraham, Sarah and Hagar? Isaac, Leah and Rachel? Just for starters. It's hard to understand the line of argument which states from the beginning, it's always been one man and one woman, flying right past the plain facts in Hebrew scripture. And that's without Solomon and David. These were not aberrations, this was the order of the era. You can hit me over the head with your historic truth, and I can hit you right back. Polygamy is not going to come back.
217
Ah, but religious conservatives have a special insight into the Bible that allows them to ignore Biblical injunctions such as stoning adulterers to death while adopting the ones they don't happen to like, such as the condemnation of homosexuality. And of course their tasting menu approach to the Bible is sanctioned by the Almighty, right?
2
Polygamy wouldn't be such a bad idea if, as in olden times, parental investment in the children of such unions were made by the parents. In our nanny state, however, parents are relieved of the responsibility to invest in their own children. Well, on second thought, I suppose "progressives" don't regard that as a problem -- the more kids who are "parented" by the government the better.
1
I just read this to my wife, who pointed out that Abraham was married to one woman and took Hagar as a "last chance to help God out" when he (God) apparently was not keeping his promise to give Abraham a son. And then there was the deception of clueless Isaac, who got Leah instead of Rachel. She points out that your examples were explainable deviations from the norm.
No, I'm not planning on taking a second, less critical partner. One wife at a time is all I can handle!
No, I'm not planning on taking a second, less critical partner. One wife at a time is all I can handle!
3
I am trying to work out the calculus that proves or demonstrates that there is an equality between"social liberalism" and polygamy, and my brain is starting to hurt, unable to get past the logic. A or B is missing, even though Mr. Douthat is certain C is around the corner.
I understand Douthat's premise to be, as the number of people who approve of or become neutral in their opinion about whether same sex marriage is acceptable as a normative standard for marriage, the institution becomes gender-neutral, so that an increase in the number of people who approve of or hold a neutral attitude about polygamy concurrently increases, or inevitably will increase. Either A or B must be missing to conclude what Douthat says we all ought to fear. And, I think this really is what Mr. Douthat means, because it is the last vestige of modern conservative argument when they have lost the debate: fear should govern our thoughts about what marriage is about to become (especially after those pesky Irish had their say), and we should all live in fear of the day soon to be upon us when children may say not only "Jenny has 2 mommies", but "Jenny has 6 mommies and four daddies."
As I said, my brain hurts trying to resolve the logic of the problem Douthat conjectures, but even good old reliable Nathan Detroit, who gives odds on everything, wouldn't make odds on Douthat's outcome, at least not based on his logic.
I understand Douthat's premise to be, as the number of people who approve of or become neutral in their opinion about whether same sex marriage is acceptable as a normative standard for marriage, the institution becomes gender-neutral, so that an increase in the number of people who approve of or hold a neutral attitude about polygamy concurrently increases, or inevitably will increase. Either A or B must be missing to conclude what Douthat says we all ought to fear. And, I think this really is what Mr. Douthat means, because it is the last vestige of modern conservative argument when they have lost the debate: fear should govern our thoughts about what marriage is about to become (especially after those pesky Irish had their say), and we should all live in fear of the day soon to be upon us when children may say not only "Jenny has 2 mommies", but "Jenny has 6 mommies and four daddies."
As I said, my brain hurts trying to resolve the logic of the problem Douthat conjectures, but even good old reliable Nathan Detroit, who gives odds on everything, wouldn't make odds on Douthat's outcome, at least not based on his logic.
11
When I was young, a worker with a steady job could support a family, own a house and send a child to college. A few decades late a man named Ronnie became president and about that time the women of America went to work in the factories and offices and all the Singer Sewing stores closed.
Now, two people in one family can't buy the house and educate the child. We have destroyed the family as well as Democracy. There has to be some reaction and one of the possibilities is a change of the family. To survive as middle class it may be necessary to have three workers and a house keeper to be a successful economic unit. Some may respond to the low wages and oppression of the poor by creating economic groups of several couples in a jointly owned or rented home.
There has to be change, people will not go quietly to peonage.
Now, two people in one family can't buy the house and educate the child. We have destroyed the family as well as Democracy. There has to be some reaction and one of the possibilities is a change of the family. To survive as middle class it may be necessary to have three workers and a house keeper to be a successful economic unit. Some may respond to the low wages and oppression of the poor by creating economic groups of several couples in a jointly owned or rented home.
There has to be change, people will not go quietly to peonage.
271
Then they'd just change it so that three people can't make enough to support four!
History suggests that peonage is the social norm, rather than the exception. We can look back on those bright days of the post-war liberal consensus but I don't know how to get back there, given that the public is too damn stupid to vote for the right people and that often these days the public only has a choice between Republicans and Republicans Lite.
History suggests that peonage is the social norm, rather than the exception. We can look back on those bright days of the post-war liberal consensus but I don't know how to get back there, given that the public is too damn stupid to vote for the right people and that often these days the public only has a choice between Republicans and Republicans Lite.
1
The arrangement you describe used to be quite common, but rather than multiple spouses, it was extended family and multiple generations pulling together to support the family. The change to stand-alone, singular nuclear families going it alone happened before Reagan... but you can go ahead and blame it on him too, if you want.
1
A couple of questions if I may? As long as all parties are above the age of consent, no one is forced, any children are well cared for and anyone who wants to leave may do so, why should the government have any say in if, who, or how many I marry?
Isn't the whole purpose of the constitution to protect personal liberty?
It may not be a choice that I would make, but does that give me the right, or anyone the right, to take it away?
Freedom is not just for people who do things you agree with, it is allowing people to make choices you would never make. If I can't do that, I am not free.
Isn't the whole purpose of the constitution to protect personal liberty?
It may not be a choice that I would make, but does that give me the right, or anyone the right, to take it away?
Freedom is not just for people who do things you agree with, it is allowing people to make choices you would never make. If I can't do that, I am not free.
12
You're free right now to shack up with as many people you like, and have children with them. It's just that noone in the group can expect any legal rights or protections.
So your question is actually: does anybody have the right to demand legal protection and recognition for their individual choices?
So your question is actually: does anybody have the right to demand legal protection and recognition for their individual choices?
Three cheers - or should that be four or five or even a hundred - for polygamy.
3
Dear Ross,
Conservative icons Charles Lindbergh and Strom Thurmond had plural wives. It must reflect traditional values.
Conservative icons Charles Lindbergh and Strom Thurmond had plural wives. It must reflect traditional values.
28
A lot of it comes down to money. We don't need government to "bless" our living arrangements, but polygamy (and polyandry) are not likely to gain a legal foothold until social security, income taxes, family leave arrangements, inheritances, etc., are all structured around individuals, with no special arrangements for couples. If working singles become the norm, that could happen, but it might take a while.
3
Statistics seem to point to polygyny:
US Population: 161 million females, 156 million males
The 85+ age group: 4 million women, 2 million men
US Billionaires: 515 men, 7 women
Gays: Twice as many gay men as lesbians
Incarcerated: One million black men, 26,000 black women
Religion: The fastest growing religions in the US are Islam and Mormonism
Responsibility (subjective): Women are more responsible and family orientated than men
US Population: 161 million females, 156 million males
The 85+ age group: 4 million women, 2 million men
US Billionaires: 515 men, 7 women
Gays: Twice as many gay men as lesbians
Incarcerated: One million black men, 26,000 black women
Religion: The fastest growing religions in the US are Islam and Mormonism
Responsibility (subjective): Women are more responsible and family orientated than men
1
@David Morgan
Back up, sir.
Are we saying that Darwin's evolution results in twice as many men who practice a form of sexual behavior that will not reproduce itself in the genetic code?
How did we miss that?
Show of hands for predeterminism of sexual orientation.
In most cases, but not all?
Yes, polygamy will be here soon. It is a legal argument resting on rights and freedoms. Those who argue that the "it's who I am (a gay)" have sufficiently debunked the need for that justification to show the way for other legal avenues to more "freedom".
The gay movement ultimately won over the country when people began feeling uncomfortable turning out their children or seeing stories of gays turned away from hospitals and funeral homes.
We should be kinder to polygamous tendencies. It is only our outdated legal structure that is a barrier to it, and there are plenty of examples throughout history, before the evil Christians got ahold of us, where it was present.
Back up, sir.
Are we saying that Darwin's evolution results in twice as many men who practice a form of sexual behavior that will not reproduce itself in the genetic code?
How did we miss that?
Show of hands for predeterminism of sexual orientation.
In most cases, but not all?
Yes, polygamy will be here soon. It is a legal argument resting on rights and freedoms. Those who argue that the "it's who I am (a gay)" have sufficiently debunked the need for that justification to show the way for other legal avenues to more "freedom".
The gay movement ultimately won over the country when people began feeling uncomfortable turning out their children or seeing stories of gays turned away from hospitals and funeral homes.
We should be kinder to polygamous tendencies. It is only our outdated legal structure that is a barrier to it, and there are plenty of examples throughout history, before the evil Christians got ahold of us, where it was present.
Brilliant.
The Left is intellectually bankrupt when tilting against the logic of their liberal ways.
Bravo, Ross. Bravo.
The Left is intellectually bankrupt when tilting against the logic of their liberal ways.
Bravo, Ross. Bravo.
2
Anyone interested in the subject of polygamy must read Noel Coward's DESIGN FOR LIVING. In it, a woman and two men come to the realization that they are meant to be together, and are all mutually in love. It is the best argument for polygamy ever made.
Polygamy is assumed to involve one man and multiple women. But why not the reverse? Why not three women? Three men?
Threesomes and foursomes have always been very popular sexual arrangements. Any substantive objection to them has to do with paternity, and genetic testing has long rendered that objection obsolete. Human beings are naturally polygamous; our insistence on sole posession is an imposition upon liberty.
The paternalistic structure of Mormon and Muslim societies has nothing to do with polygamy per se; if their women were permitted multiple husbands, the polygamy would be devoid of male-domination. Those cultures are male-dominated because the men are afraid of the women.
The objection to polygamy is in all relevant respects the same as that to gay marriage. One suspects that is what Mr. Douthat is really talking about.
Polygamy is assumed to involve one man and multiple women. But why not the reverse? Why not three women? Three men?
Threesomes and foursomes have always been very popular sexual arrangements. Any substantive objection to them has to do with paternity, and genetic testing has long rendered that objection obsolete. Human beings are naturally polygamous; our insistence on sole posession is an imposition upon liberty.
The paternalistic structure of Mormon and Muslim societies has nothing to do with polygamy per se; if their women were permitted multiple husbands, the polygamy would be devoid of male-domination. Those cultures are male-dominated because the men are afraid of the women.
The objection to polygamy is in all relevant respects the same as that to gay marriage. One suspects that is what Mr. Douthat is really talking about.
15
Well, if the Bible approves of polygamy (see the Old Testament), what does Ross have against it?
21
Exactly. Polygamous marriage is the only and true Biblical form of marriage, yet it is only some religious conservatives (Mormons, Muslims), who defend it. I wonder why? Is God's word not good enough for them in this case? Pick and choose?
Like a good Catholic, Ross can flit between the OT and the NT as it suits him.
The legal precedent for polygamy is well set and needs only be litigated. Broad societal consensus is not needed as proved by Roe v. Wade which invalidated 40+ states' abortion restrictions in 1973. (Recall that prior to Roe the New York state legislature voted the repeal of its permissive abortion statute which was then vetoed by Gov. Rockefeller.)
2
I'm a "liberal." Anything other than monogamy would definitely, definitely not be worth the trouble it would entail. Lots of famous "conservatives" have become even more famous by disagreeing with me.
Conservatives writing about sex: the sky is falling.
Conservatives writing about sex: the sky is falling.
13
"the now-ascendant model of marriage as a gender-neutral and easily-dissolved romantic contract"
I get "gender-neutral", but please explain the "easily-dissolved" part, since marriage is usually a legal contract as well as a romantic one.
I get "gender-neutral", but please explain the "easily-dissolved" part, since marriage is usually a legal contract as well as a romantic one.
5
When was the last time a court in America denied a petition for divorce? When was the last time someone was hauled before a judge for adultery?
Questiom answered.
Questiom answered.
"easily-dissolved"
No assets and no kids in a short marriage? Easily dissolved. Add assets, add kids, add long term changes in reliance on marriage, and it isn't "easy." I've done that work, and it is far from easy on the people involved.
No assets and no kids in a short marriage? Easily dissolved. Add assets, add kids, add long term changes in reliance on marriage, and it isn't "easy." I've done that work, and it is far from easy on the people involved.
Ah, Ross, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for straw men now. The devil of "liberalism" just can't be bad enough for you. Your attempt to pry polygamy from the grasp of super-"conservative" patriarchs and into the column in your head marked "awful things Godless democrats hanker after" is absurd enough. But given the right-wing poly-child Duggarism and its outcomes of late, not to mention the ongoing Hastert debacle (oops, mentioned it), I'd say you might want to take a gander at the hanky-panky on your own side of the aisle. Just for a change.
106
Exactly. Are super-conservative patriarchs who collect and treat women as property the new heroes of liberals?
2
Why not?
Polygamy is not the same thing as child brides or wife beating. Child brides and wife beating happen quite often without polygamy. They are separate problems.
The current President of South Africa has multiple wives, four of them, all mature women and no hint that he beats any of them. He's not Muslim either, so we can set aside anti-Muslim rants.
The 1.5 billion Muslims allow polygamy. So do the billion Hindus. So does much of Africa. So did China, where it was traditional until the evil Commies took over and stopped it. Douthat backing the Chicoms? I love that.
Many nations allow polygamy that are not Muslim. Many more have, including major figures in the Bible.
Are we to believe those Biblical figures were child abusers and wife beaters? Are we to say the Bible is untrue, but only as to things we don't like?
Douthat says: "their basic sexual orientation is accommodated under existing marriage law even if the breadth of their affections isn’t."
So as long as they could marry SOME woman, they've no right to marry the women they want to marry, who want to marry them? Why?
My wife has said she won't go for it, and I couldn't handle it anyway. If some other men and women want to do this, why should I stop them? What's it to me?
"Who am I to judge?" to quote a rather good Pope whom Douthat doesn't like either.
Polygamy is not the same thing as child brides or wife beating. Child brides and wife beating happen quite often without polygamy. They are separate problems.
The current President of South Africa has multiple wives, four of them, all mature women and no hint that he beats any of them. He's not Muslim either, so we can set aside anti-Muslim rants.
The 1.5 billion Muslims allow polygamy. So do the billion Hindus. So does much of Africa. So did China, where it was traditional until the evil Commies took over and stopped it. Douthat backing the Chicoms? I love that.
Many nations allow polygamy that are not Muslim. Many more have, including major figures in the Bible.
Are we to believe those Biblical figures were child abusers and wife beaters? Are we to say the Bible is untrue, but only as to things we don't like?
Douthat says: "their basic sexual orientation is accommodated under existing marriage law even if the breadth of their affections isn’t."
So as long as they could marry SOME woman, they've no right to marry the women they want to marry, who want to marry them? Why?
My wife has said she won't go for it, and I couldn't handle it anyway. If some other men and women want to do this, why should I stop them? What's it to me?
"Who am I to judge?" to quote a rather good Pope whom Douthat doesn't like either.
16
I should clarify that since 1955, the marriage law of India has banned polygamy. However, the religion of Hinduism is not coextensive with India, and has a long and complex acceptance of polygamy, much like our old testament, but continuing until much more recently.
You cite African countries and Muslim populations that practice polygamy as if all of those women are willing participants, but let's be real – in the context of extreme poverty, when the husband announces to his first wife that he's going to marry again, what are her options ? She either accepts it or finds herself in the street with her children with no means of support (unless her ex-husband demands to keep them, in which case she's cut off from them).
You say your wife won't go for it – and luckily many (though not all) women in the US enjoy enough financial stability to be able to choose. But just as some men seem determined to believe that all prostitutes are willing participants, we need to acknowledge the fact that in situations of extreme poverty the whole notion of "consent" just flies out the window.
You say your wife won't go for it – and luckily many (though not all) women in the US enjoy enough financial stability to be able to choose. But just as some men seem determined to believe that all prostitutes are willing participants, we need to acknowledge the fact that in situations of extreme poverty the whole notion of "consent" just flies out the window.
There are two problems with this column:
1. It is fallacious to link approval of gay marriage (inherently stabilizing) to support for polygamy (a splinter view.)
2. It is fallacious to equate social and political views. Many moderates and liberals have stable, lengthy marriages (Vice President Biden comes to mind), while many movement conservatives do not (former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is an example.)
1. It is fallacious to link approval of gay marriage (inherently stabilizing) to support for polygamy (a splinter view.)
2. It is fallacious to equate social and political views. Many moderates and liberals have stable, lengthy marriages (Vice President Biden comes to mind), while many movement conservatives do not (former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is an example.)
121
Indeed, I would take that further. A quick look at divorce rates by state shows that liberal states have the lowest divorce rates while the conservative Bible-belt states have the highest. Oh the irony . . .
1
We already have polygamy in practice if not in name. It's particularly prevalent in Europe where it's not uncommon to have a wife as well as a mistress (or mistresses.)
Polygamy might be advantageous to those mistresses, since it would confer on them some legal rights they don't currently have.
In this country, certain immigrant groups may retain practices that most Americans disapprove of, such as polygamy and abortion for sex selection. I can see those opposing polygamy in the future being labeled as Islamophobic.
Polygamy might be advantageous to those mistresses, since it would confer on them some legal rights they don't currently have.
In this country, certain immigrant groups may retain practices that most Americans disapprove of, such as polygamy and abortion for sex selection. I can see those opposing polygamy in the future being labeled as Islamophobic.
2
Government has no business in defining marriage, sanctioning it, licensing it, taxing it, regulating it, banning it, requiring it ... Individuals can decide all that by themselves. Somehow humans managed without government involvement in their intimate relationship(s) for most of the species existence.
3
Sounds like a hippie dream, en endless and free love fest. But what about the mundane things like property ownership, inheritance, child care? Maybe this baad "government" (meaning the people, democratic system) need to have a definition and a legally binding contract in use after all.
I know that democracy is supposed to bad and corporate rule good, but don't overdo it.
I know that democracy is supposed to bad and corporate rule good, but don't overdo it.
It all sounds like a great argument to phase out legal marriage. Why does the government get to regulate the interpersonal interactions of consenting adults, regardless of gender, orientation, or number?
4
I does not. I'm sure it is legal for a man and a woman to live together without being married in the US?
If you have property and children, a legal contract (called marriage) might be useful, unless you want spend all your time and money in courts after splitting up.
The American hate of "government" is comical, by the way.
If you have property and children, a legal contract (called marriage) might be useful, unless you want spend all your time and money in courts after splitting up.
The American hate of "government" is comical, by the way.
Uh, is Douthat talking about polyamory? Because, sure, there is a crunchy openness to that old 70s tincture, but polygamy - multiple wives for one man - is as backward as any other religious relic and has nothing to do with social progressivism, population-wise.
14
Personally, the HBO polygamy didn't seem that appealing.
3
... and your point is... ?
The whole 'marriage' thing is tied up with inheritance; perhaps if we reformed that archaic notion - that increasing one's wealth merely from being progeny of a wealthy individual - we could open ourselves to many stable and loving forms of "family."
The whole 'marriage' thing is tied up with inheritance; perhaps if we reformed that archaic notion - that increasing one's wealth merely from being progeny of a wealthy individual - we could open ourselves to many stable and loving forms of "family."
5
Geez, you know, if Millennials could be fairly certain of having a good job that paid a family wage, and that they could have that job for as long as they wanted it, that it included union protection and good health care, then maybe, if they felt secure about that, then two people, just a couple, would have enough financial resources to set up housekeeping and start a family. As the current job market is, and Republican resistance to divert any of the flow to the 1% back to the 99%, then you'll need at least three people, maybe four or five, to be able to afford to live like grownups.
Too many Republican politicians have immediately looked beyond same sex marriage, and predicted bestiality, marriage to one's car, and, and Ross does here, the threat of polygamy, in an attempt to thwart same sex marriage. It doesn't work anymore. That boat has sailed. And your warnings have sunk.
Too many Republican politicians have immediately looked beyond same sex marriage, and predicted bestiality, marriage to one's car, and, and Ross does here, the threat of polygamy, in an attempt to thwart same sex marriage. It doesn't work anymore. That boat has sailed. And your warnings have sunk.
27
Marriage to one's car? Oh geez. Hadn't thought of that. Please nobody tell my husband.
1
This is why government really shouldn't be involved in marriage. We shouldn't use it as a 'short-cut' to attach all kinds of mostly non-related privileges to married people (and some penalties as well).
I know it is somewhat controversial; but I do not see why polygamy (or plural marriage or whatever) differs from any other form of marriage if the participants are willing and not coerced. It's a cultural and sometimes religious institution and not a governmental one.
I know it is somewhat controversial; but I do not see why polygamy (or plural marriage or whatever) differs from any other form of marriage if the participants are willing and not coerced. It's a cultural and sometimes religious institution and not a governmental one.
3
Whatever one's moral or ethical values regarding marriage, it is incumbent on the state to legislate what shall be the legal definition of a civil contract called Marriage.
Marriage is encumbered with religious and societal expectations that have evolved over time. As diverse cultures have intermingled, individuals have become more tolerant of others' lifestyles, & reexamined their own values. Life partners increasingly don't match "traditional" American definitions of "spouse".
The conversation is what should be a reasonable legal definition of marriage, which will require consensus on the purpose of legally sanctioned unions. At a minimum, legal unions confer financial rights and privileges to protect the citizens involved. Business, families, & courts recognize spouses for purposes of inheritance, health-care decisions, parental rights, etc.
If marriage becomes overly complex and broad, it will lose any purpose to exist as a legal institution at all.
The state should recognize only "civil unions" between two humans. Other cultural groups, then, may be free to define "marriage", as they desire, as long as all participants are willing. But they cannot expect businesses, the courts, or anyone else to confer special privilege on their lifestyle, except insofar as to tolerate their lifestyles without prejudice. The law should recognize contracts resembling civil unions only to the extant any other written contract is protected.
Marriage is encumbered with religious and societal expectations that have evolved over time. As diverse cultures have intermingled, individuals have become more tolerant of others' lifestyles, & reexamined their own values. Life partners increasingly don't match "traditional" American definitions of "spouse".
The conversation is what should be a reasonable legal definition of marriage, which will require consensus on the purpose of legally sanctioned unions. At a minimum, legal unions confer financial rights and privileges to protect the citizens involved. Business, families, & courts recognize spouses for purposes of inheritance, health-care decisions, parental rights, etc.
If marriage becomes overly complex and broad, it will lose any purpose to exist as a legal institution at all.
The state should recognize only "civil unions" between two humans. Other cultural groups, then, may be free to define "marriage", as they desire, as long as all participants are willing. But they cannot expect businesses, the courts, or anyone else to confer special privilege on their lifestyle, except insofar as to tolerate their lifestyles without prejudice. The law should recognize contracts resembling civil unions only to the extant any other written contract is protected.
1
Why do I get the uneasy sense that something washed at midnight from a flooded graveyard is being passed beneath my nose?
Oh, I know. Given the likely ruling in the imminent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage, Ross thinks it appropriate to re-introduce the concept of the slippery slope, and the inevitable evolution of simple humanity with regard to gays and lesbians to a tolerance of ANY kind of relationship that could involve sex, soon to include (yet again) the burning question of what we do with those who hanker for the affections of pet iguanas and orangutans.
This is so yesterday.
Rick Santorum’s innocence notwithstanding, sex is obtainable by anyone, at any time. Formal relationships, such as marriage, tend to have an economic basis, such as effective rearing of children or even more economically viable means of conducting lives. If this is so and I’m not just hallucinating, then I have less problems with polygamy than some, so long as we leave Fido out of it.
For me, a traditional and mainstream Republican, how people choose to manage their lives is about 90% their business and only 10% the state’s. And practically NONE of my personal business. This is why Republicans like me are prized as neighbors.
Couple of questions, Ross: what makes you think that polygamous relationships haven’t existed for all time in America in fact if not in name? What makes you think that the relationships won’t remain and that formal marriage won’t die out?
Oh, I know. Given the likely ruling in the imminent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage, Ross thinks it appropriate to re-introduce the concept of the slippery slope, and the inevitable evolution of simple humanity with regard to gays and lesbians to a tolerance of ANY kind of relationship that could involve sex, soon to include (yet again) the burning question of what we do with those who hanker for the affections of pet iguanas and orangutans.
This is so yesterday.
Rick Santorum’s innocence notwithstanding, sex is obtainable by anyone, at any time. Formal relationships, such as marriage, tend to have an economic basis, such as effective rearing of children or even more economically viable means of conducting lives. If this is so and I’m not just hallucinating, then I have less problems with polygamy than some, so long as we leave Fido out of it.
For me, a traditional and mainstream Republican, how people choose to manage their lives is about 90% their business and only 10% the state’s. And practically NONE of my personal business. This is why Republicans like me are prized as neighbors.
Couple of questions, Ross: what makes you think that polygamous relationships haven’t existed for all time in America in fact if not in name? What makes you think that the relationships won’t remain and that formal marriage won’t die out?
25
We agree. That is prized in a neighbor regardless of party affiliation. I'd even forgive a Republican if he'd mind his own business.
5
This piece leads me to invent a new term: Grass man. Too flimsy to be a regular straw man.
I don't expect it to happen, but should polygamy be legal in 2040, it will be to answer a need for the elderly. Primarily childless people who seek companionship and legal/financial backup beyond that which a single partner might provide.
I don't expect it to happen, but should polygamy be legal in 2040, it will be to answer a need for the elderly. Primarily childless people who seek companionship and legal/financial backup beyond that which a single partner might provide.
27
Wait a minute. "It flourishes in self-regulated communities, Mormon-fundamentalist and Muslim-immigrant" but somehow liberalism is to blame? Seems to me that a doubling of the pro-polygamy forces could be linked to an increase in religious fundamentalism in America just as easily. And trying to link it to the acceptance of gay marriage is tortured logic. Having multiple partners, for both gay and straight people, can be achieved by remaining single. This isn't a slippery slope, it's just how you're inclined to see it.
190
@Rick
Marriage is a legal contract in America. How does the presence of multiple partners, in singlehood, extend tax and inheritance privileges and claims?
And how does the presence of multiple partners, resulting in children to unwed mothers, promote the well-being of children (except in the case of a wealthy woman who has the means to work and pay for childcare)?
The extension of legal recognition is a big deal. And the private behavior of more and more Americans, including polyamory, is the precursor to wider acceptance.
We are all ultimately in the buisness of forgiving our deviances by finding a statistically large enough number of other people who do something similar or more objectionable.
Marriage is a legal contract in America. How does the presence of multiple partners, in singlehood, extend tax and inheritance privileges and claims?
And how does the presence of multiple partners, resulting in children to unwed mothers, promote the well-being of children (except in the case of a wealthy woman who has the means to work and pay for childcare)?
The extension of legal recognition is a big deal. And the private behavior of more and more Americans, including polyamory, is the precursor to wider acceptance.
We are all ultimately in the buisness of forgiving our deviances by finding a statistically large enough number of other people who do something similar or more objectionable.
2
As our economic culture has changed over the decades so that it takes (at least) two good incomes to secure anything approaching a middle-class existence, it is only natural that groups of people larger than pairs would see the benefits of teaming up in order to be able to earn money, pursue education and training and rear children.
The more the business community squeezes salaries, the sooner polygamy will be legal.
As an aside, a threesome of geese in my local park are rearing a group of five goslings. Apparently mother nature is good with polygamous relationships too.
The more the business community squeezes salaries, the sooner polygamy will be legal.
As an aside, a threesome of geese in my local park are rearing a group of five goslings. Apparently mother nature is good with polygamous relationships too.
13
@B. Carfree
Finally, someone to point out that it is business's fault. I knew that bogey man was under the bed somewhere.
And it is good to know we are approaching parity with geese. Burn the books, I say.
Finally, someone to point out that it is business's fault. I knew that bogey man was under the bed somewhere.
And it is good to know we are approaching parity with geese. Burn the books, I say.
1
As long as they are all consenting adults, it's NONE of anyone's business how they choose to structure their lives and relationships.
I may not agree with it, nor never choose to live that way myself, but it's not my right to deny them their free choice of lifestyle.
I may not agree with it, nor never choose to live that way myself, but it's not my right to deny them their free choice of lifestyle.
62
While Willard Romney said that he believed "marriage was between one man and one woman", during his failed fourth campaign for public office, the fact of the matter is old Willard is the only Presidential nominee of either party who had six grandmothers.
Five grandmothers on the Romney side, one grandmother on his mother's side.
It was his great grandfather and his five great grandmothers who fled the country ahead of federal marshals to avoid prosecution for polygamy.
Five grandmothers on the Romney side, one grandmother on his mother's side.
It was his great grandfather and his five great grandmothers who fled the country ahead of federal marshals to avoid prosecution for polygamy.
78
So data on global warming is not persuasive, but surveys on attitudes about polygamy is cause for concern?
Wow.
Wow.
365
yeah, a whole 16% approve.
... aren't most primary winners determined by about 16-18% of the eligible voters, with a 30-35% turnout?
my oh my
... aren't most primary winners determined by about 16-18% of the eligible voters, with a 30-35% turnout?
my oh my
3
Interesting. Although progressives will be against polygamy for their own ideological reasons, they really have no leg to stand on. Once you declare marriage to be nothing more than a legal contract, you have opened the floodgates. Even I hate to say this, but Rick Santorum will be found to have been prescient on this issue.
5
Marriage is, in fact, a legal contract regarding the union between two individuals
4
An interesting argument. Even though progressives will be against it, progressives will be to blame.
1
If you'd like polygamy to go down in flames suggest one woman marry two men. That will take care of it, post haste.
We can't let women run free with their sexuality. We know the trouble they can cause.
We can't let women run free with their sexuality. We know the trouble they can cause.
28
@mj
When "running free" means having intimate contact with another human being at a level that causes attachment, longing, and fertilzation (in addition to orgasm and pleasure), I think that women are now recognizing that you take a bunch of negatives with every positive.
What you call prudish was, in many homes, a desire to uphold women's dignity rather than to turn them into "sexual beings". But I suppose those Victoria's Secret and Cosmopolitan magazines are a form of female power and liberation to "run free".
Good luch with that.
When "running free" means having intimate contact with another human being at a level that causes attachment, longing, and fertilzation (in addition to orgasm and pleasure), I think that women are now recognizing that you take a bunch of negatives with every positive.
What you call prudish was, in many homes, a desire to uphold women's dignity rather than to turn them into "sexual beings". But I suppose those Victoria's Secret and Cosmopolitan magazines are a form of female power and liberation to "run free".
Good luch with that.
1
"So it’s hard to imagine polygamy being embraced as a major progressive cause or hailed as the next great civil rights movement."
But you thought you'd fear-monger a little about it just in case? Or you're hoping in 2040 you'll be remembered as prescient?
"it might be recognized in 2040, with a shrug.
Historically, it's always been a shrug anyway, your wide-eyed titillation over the idea notwithstanding.
But you thought you'd fear-monger a little about it just in case? Or you're hoping in 2040 you'll be remembered as prescient?
"it might be recognized in 2040, with a shrug.
Historically, it's always been a shrug anyway, your wide-eyed titillation over the idea notwithstanding.
88
Remember when being conservative meant valuing individual rights, minding your own business, and keeping government out of citzens' lives? Polygamy typically does not protect the rights of "sister wives," especially minor females that are forced into becoming one. When a class of people are NOT allowed freedom to choose, society must intervene to prevent abuse. In other words, discrimination born out of ignorant bias is just wrong.
More slippery slope nonsense. I'm surprised the author didn't bring up beastiality. He might also use accurate statistics. Poor job.
More slippery slope nonsense. I'm surprised the author didn't bring up beastiality. He might also use accurate statistics. Poor job.
60
@Doug
Animals do not enjoy similar legal rights.
Yet.
But they are now covered by health insurance, so we may be witnessing a twinkle of a legal strategy in this or the next generation of pet owners.
And watch out for those who bond intimately with their cats and dogs. I don't go into homes to see how many times a year that people have sex in their marriages, so let's not assume that someone who is overly protective or fond of an animal has stepped across the human-animal divide. Emotional attachment could be as important to many, and it is already here.
Animals do not enjoy similar legal rights.
Yet.
But they are now covered by health insurance, so we may be witnessing a twinkle of a legal strategy in this or the next generation of pet owners.
And watch out for those who bond intimately with their cats and dogs. I don't go into homes to see how many times a year that people have sex in their marriages, so let's not assume that someone who is overly protective or fond of an animal has stepped across the human-animal divide. Emotional attachment could be as important to many, and it is already here.
Ah yes, lets examine polygamy in order to obliquely dismiss marriage equality for same sex couples. Been there, done that, and the argument didn't pass the stink test then and it doesn't now. They are separate issues!
138
@Gordon
There was a time when gay behavior did not pass the "stink test" (your offensive term).
Once the polygamists are not characterized as weird people living in the mountains under subjugation, that image will evolve.
Our own behavior creates the evolving opportunities for changes in social mores.
There was a time when gay behavior did not pass the "stink test" (your offensive term).
Once the polygamists are not characterized as weird people living in the mountains under subjugation, that image will evolve.
Our own behavior creates the evolving opportunities for changes in social mores.
6
The current "Modern Love" column describes how the author decided to shed her virginity. The column cleverly titled "Losing My Religion" recalls a time when she was in a youth group where the leader gave out purity rings and lectured on abstinence. The prurient interest in the sex lives of young people on the part of rabbis, priests and pastors deserves to be rejected. When my children were teenagers I feared promiscuity as if it were the worst sin possible. As a child of the sixties I was being a hypocrite of the highest order. I continue to grapple with Christianity and value the fact that my children ended up establishing homes and families of their own. However, I now believe I was wrong to demonize premarital sex. Surely it is the process whereby we work out how to be in a relationship.
23
Modern marriage is based on equality - equality between two partners regardless of sexual orientation. Therefore, it is progressive and just. On the other hand, polygamy is the opposite of socially liberal - it is regressive and repressive. There may be more support for it based on ridiculous reality T.V. shows and growing numbers of backward, fundamentalist, and uneducated Americans but it, in no way, the result of social liberalism which, by its very name, signifies freedom. Clearly, Mr. Douthat, modern gay/heterosexual marriage and polygamy are not comparable. You are wrong to consider them both on a socially-liberal spectrum when one so clearly speaks to oppression which, in most cases, targets girls and women.
30
Why should any government be interested in who has sex with whom, as long as any offspring are not public charges? Religions may propagandize their own criteria, but should not be enabled to coerce those of other or no faiths.
12
Well, Ross, since polygamy (if not polyandry) is supremely biblical, I should think it would receive your immediate imprimatur.
95
Polygamy is already at least tolerated if not legal in parts of Utah. I have to say though that equating a partnership between two same sex individuals to the goings on in Colorado City and Hildale is just a bit of a reach. Have to thank Ross for trotting out this Right Wing Boogyman though.
33
Live and let live. Seriously. So long as it can be established that a polygamous relationship is consensual on all sides and does not involve participants who are under-age or closely related why waste time and taxpayers' money prosecuting these people? (Actually I've always been skeptical as to why the LDS church gave up the practice. It was supposedly a key tenet of their faith, derived from ancient biblical customs purportedly approved by the Almighty. Was the idea of Utah's gaining permission to join the Union really worth the loss of one's religious identity? It might be high time for a do-over, eh Mitt?)
44
1
Keep in mind that the LDS Chruch founder was a 14 year-old farm boy. What 14-year old boy of any generation doesn't fantasize (a lot of the time) about sex with multitudes of women? It's called testosterone.
3
@Paula: Yep; that was my point. Was joining the Union really worth it?
America in 2040 . . .
Zenanas for the One Percent. What fun!
Zenanas for the One Percent. What fun!
1
Polygamous living together
Might make for very tempting weather,
Polyandry for sure
Has more Woman allure,
With all the Men one Gal could tether.
Might make for very tempting weather,
Polyandry for sure
Has more Woman allure,
With all the Men one Gal could tether.
17
"And conservatives do have a pretty good track record (the consolation prize of cultural defeat) when it comes to predicting how the logic of expressive individualism..."
As wrong in its false premises (Douthat has manufactured this expressive individualism gibberish to make his false dichotomy, if he cannot impose on you his choices, he is defeated) as it is self congraulatory.
But, who cares about polygamy?
And, the "cultural war" big sex battle occurred long before Douthat was a gleam in anyone's eye, when adults were allowed to have sex AND use contraceptives despite Catholics screeching nonnonono, and, then when women started openly living in sin outside of holy, or stately, wedlock despite frigid parental glares by parents who didn't shun.
But if Douthat is concerned about single moms, polygamy gives him a great solution. Real americans, those mormons out of New England coming up on two hundred years ago, who came up with a new uniquely american religion--what could be more american and transcendental-- apparently were cutting edge cultural warriors. Who knew?
As wrong in its false premises (Douthat has manufactured this expressive individualism gibberish to make his false dichotomy, if he cannot impose on you his choices, he is defeated) as it is self congraulatory.
But, who cares about polygamy?
And, the "cultural war" big sex battle occurred long before Douthat was a gleam in anyone's eye, when adults were allowed to have sex AND use contraceptives despite Catholics screeching nonnonono, and, then when women started openly living in sin outside of holy, or stately, wedlock despite frigid parental glares by parents who didn't shun.
But if Douthat is concerned about single moms, polygamy gives him a great solution. Real americans, those mormons out of New England coming up on two hundred years ago, who came up with a new uniquely american religion--what could be more american and transcendental-- apparently were cutting edge cultural warriors. Who knew?
34
I don't see a substantial number of women, even conservative ones, flocking to share a husband, especially not one in the old patriarchal role. But could there be a polygamy that is not patriarchal? Would polyandry -- a woman with more than one husband -- rise in popularity as well? The complications to inheritance rights would be mind-boggling, but probably not intractable.
Humans have come up with multiple modes of family life across the centuries and around the globe. There is no reason that the husband-wife-children model should be the last word, even if it is what much of the world is comfortable with at present. There are other ways to determine paternity, so the old rationale for male control of female fertility is losing force.
I cannot imagine a group marriage being stable over the long haul in a society where social pressure and support for group marriage is not the norm, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some push in that direction from a small segment of the population. However, without major changes to women's rights and freedoms within a polygamous marriage, I doubt it will catch on, as it has generally relied on the force of tradition or religious command to maintain its continuation. Of course, there's always the possibility of yet another new religion . . .
Humans have come up with multiple modes of family life across the centuries and around the globe. There is no reason that the husband-wife-children model should be the last word, even if it is what much of the world is comfortable with at present. There are other ways to determine paternity, so the old rationale for male control of female fertility is losing force.
I cannot imagine a group marriage being stable over the long haul in a society where social pressure and support for group marriage is not the norm, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some push in that direction from a small segment of the population. However, without major changes to women's rights and freedoms within a polygamous marriage, I doubt it will catch on, as it has generally relied on the force of tradition or religious command to maintain its continuation. Of course, there's always the possibility of yet another new religion . . .
59
"I don't see a substantial number of women, even conservative ones, flocking to share a husband, especially not one in the old patriarchal role."
Well, I can easily imagine a number of women all wanting to marry the same Beatle. Why should one woman have a monopoly on a John Lennon or Paul McCartney when several can share him? Nothing to do with patriarchy here, just a love of music, and of good looks.
Similarly, if they would go along, I can imagine a number of men willing to share an Angelina Jolie or a Catherine Zeta-Jones.
Douthat is raising some interesting questions but readers here don't want to think or even to read what he said.
"We hate conservatives" is the only song they know. Why bother to think?
Well, I can easily imagine a number of women all wanting to marry the same Beatle. Why should one woman have a monopoly on a John Lennon or Paul McCartney when several can share him? Nothing to do with patriarchy here, just a love of music, and of good looks.
Similarly, if they would go along, I can imagine a number of men willing to share an Angelina Jolie or a Catherine Zeta-Jones.
Douthat is raising some interesting questions but readers here don't want to think or even to read what he said.
"We hate conservatives" is the only song they know. Why bother to think?
6
Even outside polygamy, study of patterns of adultery suggest that a lot females are seeking to be fertilized by a small percentage of the males. Polygamy is just a formalization of breeding patterns long established and chosen by women when they are free to do so.
Polyandry? Oh, spare me! One husband is QUITE enough, thank you.
6
What a sad, smarmy, ugly little lie.
I told you that gay marriage would lead to polygamy, you say without being quite honest enough to say it outright. (You left out bestiality, this being the Times and all.)
Well, I have news for you: it didn't. We didn't legalize polygamy. We aren't about to legalize polygamy. You see, gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, whereas polygamy, to judge by those sad families in Utah, does.
Try this on for size: The loosening of sexual mores is not a consequence of gay marriage, and it is not a consequence of recognizing that some people are transsexual, and that science has so far been 100% unable to eliminate their gender dysphoria. it began long before gay marriage had even been thought of, long before the pill and the 60's. Our sexual mores have been loosening since the end of the Victorian era, and they have been doing so because society and the technology that serve it have changed.
We can fairly argue what we should loosen and how much, but you had better have a reason for your argument, something better than homophobia and knee-jerk conservatism -- justified of course by the putative blessings of an imaginary being in the sky, a being whose Biblical admonition to love your neighbor and whose condemnation of the rich seem to be lost to the collective memory of the very conservatives who invoke his authority most vociferously.
I told you that gay marriage would lead to polygamy, you say without being quite honest enough to say it outright. (You left out bestiality, this being the Times and all.)
Well, I have news for you: it didn't. We didn't legalize polygamy. We aren't about to legalize polygamy. You see, gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, whereas polygamy, to judge by those sad families in Utah, does.
Try this on for size: The loosening of sexual mores is not a consequence of gay marriage, and it is not a consequence of recognizing that some people are transsexual, and that science has so far been 100% unable to eliminate their gender dysphoria. it began long before gay marriage had even been thought of, long before the pill and the 60's. Our sexual mores have been loosening since the end of the Victorian era, and they have been doing so because society and the technology that serve it have changed.
We can fairly argue what we should loosen and how much, but you had better have a reason for your argument, something better than homophobia and knee-jerk conservatism -- justified of course by the putative blessings of an imaginary being in the sky, a being whose Biblical admonition to love your neighbor and whose condemnation of the rich seem to be lost to the collective memory of the very conservatives who invoke his authority most vociferously.
382
Introducing arguments not raised. Refuting none that were.
5
Beautifully put, Josh.
Ross' dishonesty is slyly expressed when he puts forward the premise that "some polygamist may believe they were 'born this way,'" when there is not a scintilla of evidence that ANYONE believes that, but it does attempt to advance his dishonest argument by creating a false equivalence with a group that legitimately DOES feel that way, gays. And the rapidly advancing acceptance of gay marriage should push Douthat's argument? Let's go with a no here. Society, in the form of government, provides economic incentives for the familial stability provided by marriage. But there isn't a great deal of evidence to support the idea that polygamous marriages are as stable as two person relationships.
And Douthat delves deeper into dishonesty with this:
" Many social conservatives argue that it will — that the now-ascendant model of marriage as a gender-neutral and easily-dissolved romantic contract offers no compelling grounds for limiting the number of people who might wish to marry."
"Easily dissolved?" Maybe so. Why don't you ask Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich, both of whom had marriages annulled by the Catholic Church for utterly spurious reasons. Giuliani annulled a 14 year marriage to his second cousin by claiming he didn't know they were related. In Douthat's future shock scenario, would such a relationship no longer be rationale for paying the Catholic Church to dissolve their marriage?
Ross' dishonesty is slyly expressed when he puts forward the premise that "some polygamist may believe they were 'born this way,'" when there is not a scintilla of evidence that ANYONE believes that, but it does attempt to advance his dishonest argument by creating a false equivalence with a group that legitimately DOES feel that way, gays. And the rapidly advancing acceptance of gay marriage should push Douthat's argument? Let's go with a no here. Society, in the form of government, provides economic incentives for the familial stability provided by marriage. But there isn't a great deal of evidence to support the idea that polygamous marriages are as stable as two person relationships.
And Douthat delves deeper into dishonesty with this:
" Many social conservatives argue that it will — that the now-ascendant model of marriage as a gender-neutral and easily-dissolved romantic contract offers no compelling grounds for limiting the number of people who might wish to marry."
"Easily dissolved?" Maybe so. Why don't you ask Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich, both of whom had marriages annulled by the Catholic Church for utterly spurious reasons. Giuliani annulled a 14 year marriage to his second cousin by claiming he didn't know they were related. In Douthat's future shock scenario, would such a relationship no longer be rationale for paying the Catholic Church to dissolve their marriage?
22
Conservatives love to believe that everyone was so 'moral' back in the day. Well, Mr. Douthat, my Colombian great grandmother bore three children from two different men, never married either of them, and made her own family, on her own terms without the need of marriage (and by the way, these men recognized their children). And apparently, she wasn't the only one who did this, nor was what she did even considered scandalous. I guess Colombia in the early 1900's was a lot more open minded than the US in 2015. Go figure.
7
Wouldn't an increase in the practice of polygamy qualify as a going-back-to-the-ancient-and-venerable past? And isn't that what conservatives want to do, to go back to the ancient and venerable past?
323
NO, conservatives want to perserve traditions. this is what progresives want to do. open marriage or joint marriage. its far left progressives who like this primative jungle tribe sought of thing. you know, like the hippies did?
1
No, they only want to go back to the 1950s, when everything was perfect.
5
Homosexuality was prominent in ancient Greece. Perhaps liberals are the true reactionaries.
2
Anyone else notice how odd it is that things which normally would be hailed in conservative quarters as being the Holy Grail of ' disruptive ' or ' libertarian ' get slimed as ' liberalism ' when occuring in the social arena ?
Wonder why that would be ?
Wonder why that would be ?
149
Oh, and this isn't a defense of polygamy.
14
While it's probably pointless to tell Ross Douthat not to worry, I don't think polygamy is anything more than a temporary fad promoted by a cable TV industry so desperate and shallow that Honey Boo Boo passed for Masterpiece Theater. The carnival side-show has gone digital. Name recognition alone probably accounts for polygamy's marginally larger numbers in this survey.
The reason polygamy is not in danger of leaving its home in the foothills of the normal curve is apparent from the list of social issues that are truly on the rise. Same-sex marriage, unwed parents, divorce and premarital sex are famously religious prohibitions. As our increasingly secular society disenthralls itself from religious taboos, sexual freedom and equality are being expressed without heeding up-tight scolds thumping medieval holy books.
Polygamy is very different. It's all about inequality and the imbalance of power. It recognizes the male as the one who's in charge, with simpering females clustered around him in subservient roles, eager to grab a scrap of his affection. In a strong field, it's emblematic of one of the loonier aspects of Mormonism, with distasteful overtones of very young "brides" being married off to vile old men. (Is there any appetite so base that some religion will not try to pass it off as a sacrament?)
So while Mr. Douthat would like to paint premarital sex with the same shameful brush as religiously-sanctioned prostitution, it's just not going to fly.
The reason polygamy is not in danger of leaving its home in the foothills of the normal curve is apparent from the list of social issues that are truly on the rise. Same-sex marriage, unwed parents, divorce and premarital sex are famously religious prohibitions. As our increasingly secular society disenthralls itself from religious taboos, sexual freedom and equality are being expressed without heeding up-tight scolds thumping medieval holy books.
Polygamy is very different. It's all about inequality and the imbalance of power. It recognizes the male as the one who's in charge, with simpering females clustered around him in subservient roles, eager to grab a scrap of his affection. In a strong field, it's emblematic of one of the loonier aspects of Mormonism, with distasteful overtones of very young "brides" being married off to vile old men. (Is there any appetite so base that some religion will not try to pass it off as a sacrament?)
So while Mr. Douthat would like to paint premarital sex with the same shameful brush as religiously-sanctioned prostitution, it's just not going to fly.
419
Gemli, I think you are missing it. A practice should not and cannot remain illegal just because you don't like it. Now that we have unmoored marriage from its traditional, and yes religious and biological, foundations, we have set the legal system free to follow its own rights-based course to the logical legal conclusion. I foresee court challenges to marriage being exclusively a contract between just two people, and by what legal theory can you say that people can't have the right to make contracts with more one other person?
6
It's ironic just how... patriarchal liberals can be about marriage. After all, same sex and opposite sex marriage are completely natural, but as gemli tells us, "polygamy is very different." That's where we ought to draw the line. And it has nothing to do with acknowledging the autonomy of adults to enter into an arrangement of their choosing. Of course not! It's the duty of all good liberals to protect females from "subservient roles" and "vile old men."
I think this post just set the feminist movement back a couple of decades...
I think this post just set the feminist movement back a couple of decades...
7
Actually, I couldn't disagree more with gemli on this one (not that I agree noticeably with him on others). Polygamy actually might emerge as a viable framework for economic relationships that have nothing to do with male-female power games.
Ross's intent here really is to demonize the likely and feared U.S. Supreme Court decision coming within a few weeks on same-sex marriage, by suggesting a slippery slope that begins with the non-married girl and boy touching hands and ends in cavorting with goats. Same-sex marriage and polygamy are merely intermediate states between the end-points on that slippery slope.
But, as the question of the real definition of "marriage" begins to open up, I can see alternate frameworks gathering currency that don't involve two people -- and whose primary purpose has little to with sex but with economic sufficiency. You can call it "polygamy" or you can call it communal living, but "marriage" keeps causing us problems and most people just want to get on with their lives, living them as well as they can manage.
Ross's intent here really is to demonize the likely and feared U.S. Supreme Court decision coming within a few weeks on same-sex marriage, by suggesting a slippery slope that begins with the non-married girl and boy touching hands and ends in cavorting with goats. Same-sex marriage and polygamy are merely intermediate states between the end-points on that slippery slope.
But, as the question of the real definition of "marriage" begins to open up, I can see alternate frameworks gathering currency that don't involve two people -- and whose primary purpose has little to with sex but with economic sufficiency. You can call it "polygamy" or you can call it communal living, but "marriage" keeps causing us problems and most people just want to get on with their lives, living them as well as they can manage.
21