During the "Debate over Marriage" held at Princeton University last December, an event sponsored by the Anscombe Society, the most important point to which opponents of the traditional definition of marriage could not respond was the following: redefining marriage as a purely emotional union necessitates the acceptance of any number of varying types of relationships as "marriages," including, most notably, polyamorous ones.
The response offered was neither moral nor philosophical in nature, but rather purely practical: polyamory is not a significant enough force in the United States to merit political recognition as marriage. This argument, already intellectually insignificant, has now been proven factually inaccurate by a recent feature in Newsweek. Indeed the author practically taunts traditionally-minded Americans with the complex structure of the particular polyamorous quartet profiled in the piece:
It’s enough to make any monogamist’s head spin. But the traditionalists had better get used to it.
The article goes on:
Researchers are just beginning to study the phenomenon, but the few who do estimate that openly polyamorous families in the United States number more than half a million, with thriving contingents in nearly every major city. Over the past year, books like Open, by journalist Jenny Block; Opening Up, by sex columnist Tristan Taormino [who will be speaking at Princeton this upcoming semester]; and an updated version of The Ethical Slut–widely considered the modern "poly" Bible–have helped publicize the concept. Today there are poly blogs and podcasts, local get-togethers, and an online polyamory magazine called Loving More with 15,000 regular readers.
Polyamory, then, is not a blip on the American cultural radar, but a social and sexual phenomenon. It is the fullest expression of the ideology of sexual libertinism that has taken root in this country, marked by radical autonomy in moral deliberation and decision-making. Polyamory throws into sharp relief one important aspect of this ideology: consent as the only moral touchstone in issues of sex and relationships. More on this after the jump:
The cornerstone of polyamory is the assumption that, through openness in sexual and other matters among parties to the relationship, this informed consent to the arrangement and sexual liaisons among the
group vitiates any ethical qualms. The article specifically describes the arrangement as such:
“[T]hey do believe in “ethical nonmonogamy,” or engaging in loving, intimate
relationships with more than one person–based upon the knowledge and consent of
everyone involved.”
Polyamory and the sexual revolution which spawned it, however, are based on an impoverished view of consent in human relationships. The sexual liaisons occurring in a polyamorous arrangement are by their nature pre- or extra-marital and, as such, deny the full communion of persons unique to the marital bond. In “consenting” to sexual intercourse with multiple individuals based on the whims or fancies of the moment, one acts toward giving up the only thing one cannot feasibly relinquish: one’s human identity as a subject of relational activity, rather than an object.
That is to say, the application of the word “consent” to polyamorous (and other extramarital) relationships is inherently flawed. In engaging in these activities, the couple (or triad, etc.) mutually deny to one
another the full giving of the self inherent in the sexual union, a union which
entails permanence and exclusivity in order to be sensible. Otherwise the complete and total gift of the
self that is the marital act is terribly impoverished; it is rendered merely
the mutual fulfilling of sexual desires; it is, in the strongest sense of the
word, mutual objectification. And one can
no more “consent” to be related to as an object than one can “consent” to be
traded as property; it is a denial of the inherent
dignity that defines human beings.
This is to say nothing of the children on whom polyamorous sexual arrangements are often imposed. The six-year-old boy whose biological parents
make up two of the quartet profiled in the Newsweek
piece certainly did not “consent” to being raised in such a household.
Whether in a house in a tony Seattle suburb or in one of the mansions that dot Prospect Avenue in Princeton, the idea of consent is thrown around to justify any number of sexual encounters. When serving as the sole ethical touchstone of sexual actions, however, it impoverishes the comprehensive dignity of human relations and is, in the end, simply nonsensical.
Ah, yes, only with the dawn of enlightened modernity did marriage come to be viewed as “the friendship of a free man with a free woman” rather than “a sort of friendship of a slave with her master.” Somebody ought to have informed St. Thomas Aquinas (SCG, III:124:3&4).
Marriage is a political institution, and as such is ordained to the maintenance of the common good by way of the rearing of children and solidification of political friendship. The former is the more peculiar and thus more significant for marriage qua marriage. For a solid defence of this much-neglected common sense, see this.
Peace.
Ah, yes, only with the dawn of enlightened modernity did marriage come to be viewed as “the friendship of a free man with a free woman” rather than “a sort of friendship of a slave with her master.” Somebody ought to have informed St. Thomas Aquinas (SCG, III:124:3&4).
Marriage is a political institution, and as such is ordained to the maintenance of the common good of the body politic by way of the rearing of children and solidification of political friendship. The former end is the more peculiar and thus more significant for marriage qua marriage; consequently marriage must be regulated chiefly according to that end. For a solid defence of this much-neglected common sense, see here.
Peace.
No one has answered Will’s very capable argument. Another dodge?
The central claim in this article, that the involvement of more than two people in a relationship necessarily “impoverishes consent” (whatever that means) has not been substantiated in any way.
Loose, vague metaphors hardly constitute logical argumentation.
How can “consent” even be “impoverished”? What exactly does that mean? Can it be “enriched” as well?
I could respond to this bloated legalistic argument point by point..but I’d rather ask a simple question. Why are so many people completely obsessed with other peoples business?
If two homosexuals get married, does it interfere with YOUR liberty in any way? Of course not. So really…. why are you so consumed by this issue?
I could respond to this bloated legalistic argument point by point..but I’d rather ask a simple question. Why are so many people completely obsessed with other peoples business?
If two homosexuals get married, does it interfere with YOUR liberty in any way? Of course not. So really…. why are you so consumed by this issue?
The article leaves the impression that monogamous marriage is between equals. This is because of very recent forms of marriage – in which for example women gained the right in the US to establish their own independent financial “credit” apart from males, circa early 1970’s.
The article implies that monogamy is the only way to prevent partners from being “objects” in a relationship, when until quite recently women were essentially “property” within the context of “marriage”.
I see no particular reason why one and not two, why male-female rather than male-male or female-female are the appropriate combinations of people necessary to constitute a marriage. Marriage is not a given, invented by an outside presence (if you believe this, I have discovered where the cause of our disagreement truly lies); rather, it is a societal behavior, based upon the behaviors and desires of individuals. There are many individuals who wish to form lasting relationships with other individuals: this is the genesis of its legal recognition. Sex is secondary. Tolerance and personal freedom are hallmarks of Western thought, a beautiful tradition I wish to uphold. If marriage can be adapted to a given partnership, it should be out of respect for their desires. (I, for one, can see no threat to others’ partnerships. The only threat is to the happiness of loving individuals. There are already legal same-sex marriages in this world, and there have been more or less open non-legal ones since the dawn of history, with no attributable destruction of marriage as a whole.) In this case, it would be extremely uncomplicated to allow same-sex couples to marry; all of our laws that apply to marriage, regarding divorce, child support, insurance benefits, and the like might apply in the same way to same-sex marriages, with no translation necessary. Civil law should serve the needs of humanity, not the “moral” principles of self-deluding partisans. If polyamorous groups (who also already have non-legal marriages) can adequately adapt marriage to their needs, then I will support polyamorous legal marriage, as well. The inherent complexities of more than two people living together would undoubtedly require some modification, but there is nothing sacred about the word marriage. There is something profound, however, about the free exercise of love, about medical decisions and equality before the law. It is troubling for humanity that, enjoying that profundity without restriction, so many male-female couples and those who aspire to their ranks would refuse it to others.
A weakness in this article:
The author says that adults cannot consent to certain types of relationships because he does not define those as relationships.
Simply defining monogamous marriage as the only relationship that bestows fulfillment and emotional support does not make it so. This is circuitous logic.
Furthermore, while the article does not explicitly mention it, I assume the author would be in favor of gay marriage. If a sexual union needs “permanence and exclusivity” to be sensible, surely we should promote these traits in gay relationships too.
This is hardly a straw man.
Same-sex advocates are advocating that we redefine marriage, to shift it from the way it is now to something they want it to be.
Yet when we traditionalists (for lack of a better term) ask the logical question such advocacy raises — namely, what do you want to shift “marriage” to and why would it simply be altered in that one particular way and no other? — same-sex advocates dodge the question.
So we are left with dodges such as Jeff’s above. Or we get late night comedians joking about how absurd it is to think “gay marriage” will threaten heterosexual marriage.
But the threat to this institution that has served well as a basis for ordering society for millenia is real.
What is the predicate for the argument of same-sex marriage? Consent between adults? Then why not polygamy (or a whole host of other forms we now wouldn’t codify into law)?
To consider the implications of what a vocal and well-funded advocacy group wishes to enact is hardly a straw man. It is central to the question that advocacy group itself has raised.
Why should same-sex advocates be required to make the case for polygamists? They’re not advocating for polygamy, just against gender-based marriage discrimination. Straw man!
The question same-sex marriage advocates always fail to address is this:
*Why* is *one* partner the stopping point in the drive to re-define marriage? Why privilege one over two (or more)?
The question same-sex marriage advocates always fail to address is this:
*Why* is *one* partner the stopping point in the drive to re-define marriage? Why privilege one over two (or more)?
Thanks for your comment. I should point out, however, that I never make the case in this post that consent is the only principle on which same-sex marriage advocates base their support. I merely lament the fact that an impoverished view of consent is the only moral touchstone used for sexual activity generally – not the legal recognition of marriage. Indeed I never even use the terms “same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage” anywhere in the post.
As for your contention that “there is no reason gay marriage would lead to legalization of polygamy, any more than straight marriage would do so,” well, that is a discussion for another day.
Straw Man alert. The unifying justification for both straight and gay marriage is NOT consent or love. It is commitment to ONE person based on love (and consent). There is no reason gay marriage would lead to legalization of polygamy, any more than straight marriage would do so. Allowing gay marriage is simply a recognition that there are some people who have romantic/sexual attractions to/partnerships with people of the same sex.
It is dishonest to argue that gay marriage/gay rights advocates offer consent/love as the only justification for gay marriage.