Jason Silver

Tuesday, September 7th, 2004

Polygamy and Gay Marriage

I posted comments on Shannon Davis' blog today and wanted to record those thoughts here. It's in response to hearing again the common argument:

"Now, I wouldn’t actually want more than one husband myself, nor would I want to share a husband with someone else. For that matter, I wouldn’t want to marry another woman, either. But if other people want to do those things, what difference does it make to me?"

It's the MYOB argument. Here's my two cents:

I that think part of the problem with arguing "What difference does that make to me?" when we affirm people's rights to be freely consenting adults, is that we forget to consider all those who would be affected for whom we are responsible.

It's our responsibility to protect children, since they cannot protect themselves. No one really knows the impact polygamy or homosexual marriages would have on children. It's important to consider.

This may sound hyper-traditional, but we also don't know the long term effects such things would have on our society at large. Perhaps we don't care about generations to come, but this would be foolish.

I believe that the strength of our society comes from the strength of marriages within it. Marriage is not a by-product of society, which we can freely dis/reassemble. It's the infrastructure on which society rests.

~Jason

UPDATE

Comments have continued on this subject, which shouldn't suprise me. It's certainly a volatile issue. Here's what someone had to say:

Jason:

I agree that the stength of society comes from the strength of the marriages within it - which is exactly why gay marriage (and polygamous marriage for that matter) are perfectly acceptable. Nothing makes those marriages any weaker than "traditional" marriage.

And my response:

 Perhaps. Talk to me in 50 years. ;)

You cannot really know this for certain. None of us can, as this is really a giant social experiment.

You see, I prefer to assume that marriage has traditionally been specifically defined as a union between one man and one woman FOR A REASON. This is not an ad hoc arrangement, but a tested forum. This is not a blind decision, but a reasonable one, based on natural science.

It's naive to think we can disasemble and not expect dramatic changes to society. Perhaps those changes are good, but maybe not. All we have as a guideline are the experiences of time-- which practically means the experiences of those who have come before us.

If we refuse to learn from history, or to accept our predecessors opinions, then we are a childish, self-destructive people.

I'm afraid that is an accurate description of what we are.

~Jason