James Poulos, Ed. · Sep 8, 2010 at 4:57am

I've made the argument recently that we miss something important by viewing gay marriage as a slippery slope to the normalization of polygamy and other misfortunes. We miss the fact that the present and future mainstreaming of an additional range of once-frowned-upon lifestyles comes from a single conceptual root. I suppose gay marriage could serve as a kind of thought experiment in action -- if there's no reason to oppose this arrangement, what arrangement is there reason to oppose? -- but watch this promo clip (via Joe Carter) for TLC's new polygamy-loving show:

This isn't the consequence of loosening attitudes toward gay marriage at all, right? Something much deeper is at work, right?

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Humza Ahmad
Joined
Jul '10
Humza Ahmad
Tom Lindholtz: On a more serious note: I know quite a number of people in arranged marriages; all Indian. I know several of them well enough to have discussed the inner relational workings of their relationships. It has persuaded me that, ala Fiddler on the Roof, there may be some benefits to this that are sadly lacking in our society.· Sep 8 at 11:14am

Mr. Lindholtz, agreed. My parents are from Pakistan, and arranged marriages are very common amongst second-generation Pakistani-Americans in general and within our religious community in particular. I think its biggest benefit is that it prioritizes one of the most important aspects in any marriage; shared values. It is from that basis, shared religion, faith and societal perspectives, that healthy arranged marriages are built on. I think arranged dating would be a healthy practice within religious communities in the US, if this is not already being done.

David Schmitt
Joined
Aug '10
David Schmitt

David Parsons

Aaron Miller: I believe affection (emotional love) is rightly a goal of marriage, but it is not a necessary condition for marriage.

"I believe marriages would in general be as happy, and often more so [italics mine], if they were all made by the Lord Chancellor, upon a due consideration of characters and circumstances, without the parties having any choice in the matter."

I had a good acquaintence in graduate school. He was Catholic. Shortly before Christmas, his parents notified him that he was to return home (he was from India). A couple weeks later, he returned to the US--you know the ending--with his bride. I cannot recall now, but it may have been that they had not known each other. Nonetheless he certainly did not know that he was to be getting married over break. For the remaining time that we were at the same institution, he and she seemed like a very close pair. Beautiful. Simple trust and--as MFR points out--determination to work their marriage.

David Schmitt
Joined
Aug '10
David Schmitt

Humza Ahmad

Tom Lindholtz: On a more serious note: I know quite a number of people in arranged marriages; all Indian. I know several of them well enough to have discussed the inner relational workings of their relationships. It has persuaded me that, ala Fiddler on the Roof, there may be some benefits to this that are sadly lacking in our society.· Sep 8 at 11:14am

I think arranged dating would be a healthy practice within religious communities in the US, if this is not already being done. · Sep 8 at 4:55pm

Humza and Tom, I had not gotten to your posts yet in responding to David Parsons. I can see that we have by happenstance converged to the same conclusion.

Paul DeRocco
Joined
Aug '10
Paul DeRocco

Aaron Miller: As I recall, eHarmony was sued by some gays for offering their services only to straight couples. The gays won the court ruling, and eHarmony had to either include gay couples (and advertise directly to them) or go out of business.

That was an abomination. What next, requiring vegetarian restaurants to open branches that serve meat?

Paul DeRocco
Joined
Aug '10
Paul DeRocco

Midget Faded Rattlesnake

But polygamy is so old-school. The latest trend is polyamory.

Sure. The puerile iconoclasts of the left aren't interested in cheering on Mormon patriarchs with their harems of sister-wives. Polygamy doesn't really flout convention, because a marriage is still the union of one man and one woman: a man with three wives is merely involved in three marriages. It's like a "job", which is the union of one worker and one boss: polygamy is like having more than one job.

Polyamory is different because it involves multiple people all "marrying" each other. In a feminist world, in which Rule One is that all gender distinctions are a sin in the same category as racial distinctions, polyamory is the next logical step after gay marriage.

When there are more than two participants in a relationship, there must be some homosexuality going on in there somewhere. (The same isn't true of heterosexuality: a polyamorous marriage could in theory be three men, or four women.) Given the strong affinity between feminism and homosexuality, this is an added plus.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In