A Time Essay Gay Marriage Essay, Research Paper

If gay matrimonies are O.K. , so what about polygamy? Or incest? The House of Representatives may hold passed statute law last hebdomad opposing cheery matrimony, but the people will shortly be trumped by the tribunals. In September the Judgess of the Hawaii Supreme Court are expected to legalise cheery matrimony. Once done at that place, homosexual matrimony & # 8211 ; like band aid Nevada divorces & # 8211 ; will hold to be recognized & # 8220 ; under the full religion and recognition clause of the Constitution & # 8221 ; throughout the remainder of the U.S.

Gay matrimony is coming. Should it?

For the clip being, matrimony is defined as the brotherhood 1 ) of two people 2 ) of the opposite sex. Gay-marriage advocators claim that limitation No. 2 is prejudiced, a merchandise of mere wont or tradition or, worse, bias. But what about limitation No. 1? If it is unsighted tradition or rank bias to take a firm stand that those who marry be of the opposite sex, is it non blind tradition or rank bias to take a firm stand that those who marry be merely two?

In other words, if matrimony is redefined to include two work forces in love, on what possible principled evidences can it be denied to three work forces in love?

This is traditionally called the polygamy challenge, but polygamy & # 8211 ; one adult male get marrieding more than one adult female & # 8211 ; is the incorrect manner to present the inquiry. Polygamy, with its rank inequality and female subservience, is excessively easy a mark. It invites development of and degrading competition among married womans, with frequently baneful societal and familial effects. ( For those in uncertainty on this inquiry, see Genesis: 26-35 on Joseph and his multimothered brothers. )

The inquiry is better posed by conceive ofing three people of the same sex in love with one another and desiring their love to be lawfully recognized and socially sanctioned by matrimony.

Why non? Andrew Sullivan, writer of Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality, offers this rejoinder to what he calls the polygamy recreation ( New Republic, June 7 ) : homosexualism is a & # 8220 ; province, & # 8221 ; while polygamy is simply & # 8220 ; an activity. & # 8221 ; Homosexuality is & # 8220 ; morally and psychologically & # 8221 ; superior to polygamy. Thus it deserves the province countenance of matrimony, whereas polygamy does non.

But this differentiation between province and activity makes no sense for same-sex love ( even if you accept it for opposite-sex love ) . If John and Jim love each other, why is this an look of some sort of experiential province, while if John and Jim and Jack all love each other, this is a mere activity?

And why is the impulse to fall in with two people & # 8220 ; morally and psychologically inferior & # 8221 ; to the urge to fall in with one? Because, in

sists Sullivan, homosexualism “occupies a deeper degree of human consciousness than a polygamous impulse.” Interesting: this is precisely the sort of moral hierarchy among sexual patterns that homosexual advocates decry as arbitrary and prejudiced.

Finding, based on little more than & # 8220 ; about everyone seems to accept, & # 8221 ; the moral and psychological lower status of polygamy, Sullivan would deny the cogency of polygamist matrimony. Well, it happens that most Americans, happening homosexualism morally and psychologically inferior to heterosexualism, would correspondingly deny the cogency of homosexual matrimony. Yet when they do, the gay-marriage advocates charge dogmatism and favoritism.

Or see another limitation built into the traditional definition of matrimony: that the married twosome be unrelated to each other. The Kings and Queens of Europe defied this tabu, happily get marrieding their cousins, with tragic familial effects for their progeny. For cheery matrimony there are no such familial effects. The kid of a cheery twosome would either be adopted or the biological merchandise of merely one parent. Therefore the cardinal footing for the incest tabu disappears in cheery matrimony.

Make gay-marriage advocators propose to allow the matrimony of, say, two brothers, or of a female parent and her ( grownup ) girl? If non, by what ground of logic or morality?

The job here is non the slippery incline. It is non that if society allows cheery matrimony, society will so let polygamy or incest. It won & # 8217 ; t. The people won & # 8217 ; t let polygamy or incest. Even the gay-marriage advocates won & # 8217 ; t let it.

The point is why they won & # 8217 ; t let it. They won & # 8217 ; t let it because they think polygamy and incest incorrect or unnatural or possibly harmful. At underside, because they find these patterns psychologically or morally detestable, surely undeserving of society & # 8217 ; s approval.

Well, that is how most Americans feel about homosexual matrimony, which constitutes the ultimate social declaration of the moral equality of homosexualism and heterosexualism. They don & # 8217 ; t experience that manner, and they don & # 8217 ; t want society to state so. They don & # 8217 ; t want their schools, for illustration, to learn their girls that society is wholly apathetic whether they marry a adult female or a adult male. Given the pick between what Sullivan calls the virtually normal ( homosexualism ) and the normal, they choose for themselves, and hope for their kids, the normal.

They do so because of assorted considerations: tradition, public-service corporation, faith, moral penchant. Not good adequate grounds, say the cheery militants. No? Then demo me yours for opposing polygamy and incest.