Some new thoughts on polygamous marriages

About six or seven years ago I came to the conclusion that banning gay marriages made no logical sense and was wrong. I was attending a conservative Christian college at the time, and was surrounded by people who believed homosexuality was a sin. I shared that belief, but nonetheless concluded that it was not right to base laws of our country on my religious beliefs. Years later, I would change my mind and cease to think of homosexuality as sin. I would also cease to be a Christian.

Last night I was thinking about this topic. I was thinking of an (insensitive) argument I have heard opponents of gay marriage make, which goes something like this: "Allowing homosexuals to marry will begin a slippery slope; if we accept homosexual marriages, what will stop us from having to accept marriages between HUMANS AND ANIMALS?!" As ridiculous (and insulting) as this argument is, I have nonetheless come up with a simple and logical rebuttal: the majority of Americans agree with the notion that marriage should be between consenting parties. Animals have no way of understanding what marriage is, and they have no way of consenting to a marriage. Therefore, marriages between people and animals will never be a legitmate issue for debate in America because it would be opposed by the masses AND, more importantly, it would be clearly unethical.

This reasoning led me to another argument I have heard from opponents of legalized gay marriage. This argument (again) relies on the over-utilized slippery-slope angle. It goes something like this: "If we legalize homosexual marriages, what will stop us from legalizing polygamous marriages?!?" And it dawned on me last night: That's a good point!

But it's not a good point in opposition to legalizing gay marriages. It's actually a good argument for the legalization of polygamous marriage. Yup, I said it. There doesn't seem to be a good logical argument to make for banning polygamous marriages. (If you are experiencing uncomfortableness or disbelief at this time, I challenge you to consider that this is probably because you have been raised in a culture that views polygamists along the same moral grade as rapists and pedafiles. Interestingly, our culture once also group homosexuals into this category...sadly some individuals and groups still do.)

Consider first that polygamous marriages, so far as I know, do not cause any more potential harm to the willing parties than do traditional, heterosexual marriages(assuming each party is a willing participant). This cannot be said of a marriage between, say, a human and animal (the animal is being committed to the relationship without its consent) or between an adult and a child (children are not developmentally able, cognitively or emotionally, to truly give informed consent to a legal marriage). Secondly, the only arguments against legalized polygamous marriage, it seems to me, have to be based on either (a)religious beliefs, (b)the "tradition argument," or (c) slippery slope arguments.

Argument "A" (religion) has no legs to stand on. First, which religion should we base our laws on? The Taliban believes laws should be based on Islamic Law. Surely we are not willing to accept Islamic Law as the basis for American law (ask the women of Afghanistan how that worked out for them). What about basing our laws on Christianity's teachings? The Bible states that adultery occurs when a man marries a divorced woman (The Apostle Paul says so clearly in the New Testament), and adultery is listed in the Bible as a sin. So banning the practice of getting re-married after a divorce would have to become illegal in our country. (I'm dumbfounded that I have yet to hear anybody point this out. How quickly would conservative American Christians back off on wanting gay marriages legalized if they realized how hypocritcal they were being.) What would the legal penalties be for people who broke the laws of having lustful thoughts, lying, worshiping other gods, taking God's name in vain, etc. (these are listed as sins in the Bible)? Would the cops cite me for saying "Goddamnit!" as I stub my toe on a public curb?

Argument "B" (tradition) has a nasty history in American life. Some traditions are healthy, of course, but laws based simply on tradition's sake unfortunately have an amazing propensity to stop us from progressing as a society. America clearly has had many regretable "traditions" in its relatively short history. Here is just a small sample: selling Africans as slaves to white families; prohibiting women from voting; not allowing races to intermarry; not allowing blacks to drink from the same fountains as whites; slaughtering and stealing land from Native Americans; paying equally-qualified women significantly less in wages than men who do the same work (this is still a rampant problem today. Research is very clear on this.). All of these practices would continue today in America were it not for individuals brave enough to buck tradition and declare that change was needed.

Argument "C" (slippery slope), I have a problem with because this kind of argument often fails to address the specific issue at hand. Let's use, as an example, the decision to allow American women to vote. A slippery slope argument can easily be made to oppose a woman's right to vote. It might go something like this: "If we allow women the right to vote, then what's to stop the next generation from allowing African-Americans to vote?" (This reminds me of my argument for why polygamous marriages should be legalized. Of course African Americans should be allowed to vote. There is no logical reason to deny them that right.) "If we allow women to vote, we'll have to let African-Americans vote! And if we allow African-Americans to vote, we'll have to allow criminals to vote! And if we allow criminals to vote, we'll have to allow illegal immigrants to vote! If we allow illegal immigrants to vote, we'll have to allow foreigners to vote! If we allow foreigners to vote, we'll have to allow the Chinese to vote! And if we allow the Chinese to vote, China will take over America! And if China takes over America, we'll lose our sovereignty! THEREFORE, WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW WOMEN TO VOTE! That's the danger of slippery slope arguments.

My conclusion: without an argument based on religious doctrine, tradition, or slippery slope reasoning, I fail to see how we can justify banning polygamous marriages.