Polygamy and same-sex relationships

I have to say, polygamy doesn't bother me much.  I know people who like polyamorous relationships, and my internal response is usually, "sounds appealing in some ways, but also like way too much work."  Dyads are tough enough.  I don't see why polygamists should be felons, but I don't particularly think they have a claim on the legal sanction of their relationship, either.

The Christian right is gearing up to make a big deal about how the struggle to sanction same-sex marriage is paving the way for polygamy.  (Hey, it's an election year!)  Expect queer folks to be put in the position of defending or disavowing heterosexual mulitperson relationships.  An interesting article can be found in today's Slate by William Saletan. 

Polygamy is important to the people involved, but it's an issue that affects a very small number of Americans -- 30,000 to 50,000, according to Newsweek.  So why is this in the news nowadays?  One answer, "Big Love," the new show on HBO. 

The bigger answer?  It's easier for the right wing to talk about than the war they got us into in Iraq.

Comments

[dnash]

Well, that's what I felt too, until I started doing some reading about polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalists.

It's one thing if polygamy is done by fully grown consenting adults. But most polygamy in the US is practiced by Mormon Fundamentalist sects, where it's decidedly not consensual. It's really not much more than institutional child abuse. They take girls out of school at 6th grade, keeping them largely uneducated. As young as 14 years old they are forced into marriages with men not of their choosing. They've basically been brainwashed from birth that their "salvation," and the salvation of their family, depends on it. (See Jon Krakauer's book "Under The Banner of Heaven.") It's an appalling and vile situation and gay marriage advocates should be sure to draw the clear distinctions.

[SactoPete]

Dnash, if you’ve read Krakauer’s Under the Banner of Heaven then you know that he also includes (very few) examples of polygamous families that aren’t dysfunctional. But for the most part, his book is a bloody eye opener of a read.

I agree with John, polyandry or polyamory doesn’t bother me in the least. I’m not a jealous possessive sort, and I imagine there are advantages to that type of relationship. In the age of AIDS, I would hope any poly arrangement would be polyfidelitous as well rather than an intimate network.

I’ve been interested in the subject for many years and have discussed it with many folks and participated on a couple of on line communities. I briefly met one woman in the SF Bay Area who knew someone who knew Brother Jud, founder of Kerista. I had the opportunity to attend a birthday/gathering of alumni, but had a date with new boy friend in Fresno at the time. I still regret missing that party.

Yet for all that, I’ve only met one gay person who was actually in what I consider a healthy threesome that lived together for a number of years. And yes, he remembers that just deciding on a restaurant for dinner was an ordeal. Given the trouble, I don’t know why, but it still fascinates me.

John, of course the key to the Christian Right’s use of the issue is that the numbers are so small. Christians can legislate polyamory rights away and not too many people are going to object. They can then sit back and congratulate themselves on saving society once again.

I find the disconnect in the gay community on this issue interesting. Infidelity amongst gay couples is proverbial with lots of lip service paid to monogamy, i.e. the gay guy cruising chat rooms for hook ups whose profile reads “monogamously coupled”, etc. Most gay men have never heard the word “poly…”. Most would simply interpret it to mean “lots of sex”. Poly web communities are predominantly heterosexual. As a portion of straight society is finding their own “queer” selves, gay men only opt for the white picket fence on the cul de sac.

[Mark Poole]

Polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality. Gay marriage will inevitably lead to acceptance of all of these and more, according to the religious right. Whatever will help them win votes and dollars, with no regard to truth.

[Jigdral Dawa]

I'm with you, John - it's tough enough maintaining a deep heart relationship with ONE other person, let alone many. But people should have the freedom to try.

[Sacto Pete]

And unfortunately, Mark, you can't simply argue that they have nothing to do with each other, and therefore there is no slope to slip on. Once these associations are made they get repeated endlessly. Constructing equally fallacious arguments as illustration of the poor logic might help some understand, but that's assuming the hearer is willing to listen.

[Mark]

That's why we need to work harder to present the issues on our terms rather than those constructed by the religious right. Instead of arguing about whether acceptance of gay marriage or civil unions might lead to acceptance of polygamy, we should focus on the agenda driving the right's opposition to marriage equality.

I still don't hear much (even in gay media) about how the various constitutional amendments introduced in different states to 'protect' marriage are actually being used to revoke existing protections granted to same sex couples, or to render practices that are currently legal (such as domestic partner benefits) illegal in the future.

The right would like the argument to continue to revolve around what types of relationships society should 'sanction'. As long as the focus is on what is good or bad for marriage or society, the real agenda, which is to narrow or eventually eliminate the basis for homosexual civil equality, gets ignored.

[omelro]

Nice blog. Congratulations :)

[Brian]

Another related bugaboo of the gay marriage debate - sexual monogamy. A lot of the long-term male couples I know are not sexually exclusive at at least some point in their relationship, and under some set of agreements or rules. Honesty about this question can create all sorts of interesting tensions in the queer community, as well as in dialogue with other communities about justice and fairness issues.

Of course what no one acknowledges is that most heterosexual marriages are non-monogamous at some point or another. Usually it is seen as a huge violation of the marriage vows, and often results in divorce. In other couples it is tacitly accepted as a burden the female partner has to bear and live with for the sake of the family, the marriage, her financial security, etc.

Most Christians assume that the social norms around sex and marriage are divinely-mandated and eternal, but the Biblical argument is pretty thin, and our current notions of the heterosexual family are a much more modern, Victorian invention.

All of this talk about sex, a topic about which Jesus had to say rather little, of course distracts from the real message of the Gospel -- God's primary concern for the poor and outcast, and for the transformation and redemption of the world.

[Ron Ballew]

Interesting. Polygamy historically has been based on economics. When you live in an agrarian society the more people in the family the more you can farm and eat.

Concerning the christian right, the sad fact is they are winning. Their demographics are increasing and blue state demograhics are shrinking. The fastest growing demographic in the US is Hispanic and like it or not as a group they are viruently anti gay. In 50 years with the rise of Islam (homosexuality is punishable by death) the issues we are discussing now will be moot.

[Sacto Pete]

An interesting point John. In "A New Religious America" (2001) Diana Eck writes that there are more Muslims in America than Presbyterians or Episcopalians. I wonder how many refugees the recent trouble in the Middle East will create.

[Robb Pearson]

The reasons why the religious wrong are coupling the issues of gay marriage and polygamy:

1) Mid-term election year.

2) There are two ultra-religious-conservative lithmus tests that are always on the menu: pro-life, and anti-gay. This time they're ordering anti-gay (with a dash of anti-polygamy for flavoring).

3) They already recognize that allowing two people of the same sex to marry really isn't all that awful (especially since the Supreme Court already said it's okay for gays to have sex with one another). So they have to tag it along with something that's just a bit more repugnant to "Christians" (i.e., polygamy) in order to make it look worse than it actually is (you know, that guilt by association thing). Why do they do this? Because it appeals to their ultra-moralist supporters (fundamentalist Christians) whose best talent is condemning those who aren't like themselves (knocking others down makes them feel tall). And they love nothing more than someone who will enable their superiority addiction.

It's mere political posturing for getting votes. Nothing more, nothing less.

Of course, the religious wrong never seem to mention the 50% divorce rate among American married heterosexuals. And I am certain 50% or more of gay marriages (yes, they will happen) will also fail. But divorce is neither a heterosexual nor a homosexual matter. It's just people stuff.

By the way, when gay marriage is a reality, polygamy will not be on the menu at all. With our capitalist mindset, polygamy would introduce an economic burden that we simply wouldn't want to deal with.

That's why some couples (gay and straight) have occasional threesomes or fourgies. The guest comes (haha), then the guest goes. All fun, no financial burden. Everyone's happy.

[David Mariner]

Oh Lordy,

"The Christian right is gearing up to make a big deal about how the struggle to sanction same-sex marriage is paving the way for polygamy."

EVERY TIME you repeat this assertion, you strengthen the connection in someone's mind. It doesn't matter so much whether or not there is a logical connection. If the religious right succeeds in getting you and others to simply say those two words closely together in the same sentence, and often, there will be an unmistakable connection in most people's minds.

We have to REFRAME this issue. Try this ...

"Fundamentalists, be they christian fundamentalists or islamic fundamentalists, have a history of treating women poorly. Regardless of your views about polyamorous relationships between consenting adults, most civilized people can agree that the polygamy practiced by fringe Christian and Morman groups in the United States is reprehensible. No fourteen year old girl should be forced into an arranged group marriage. No man can be a decent father to thirty or forty children simultaneously."

See what I did there? Rather than REPEATING the association that the Religious Right was making (thereby reinforcing it in people's minds) I created an entirely new association - connecting Christian fundamentalism to the type of polygamy that oppresses women and children.

This is an ACCURATE connection, of course, it was recently discussed on the TV show 'The Big Idea with Donny Duetsch' In fact, anyone who really wants to take the entire bible literally (i.e. fundamentalists) have to accept the fact that the Bible is quite accepting of polygamous lifestyles.

And by SHIFTING the focus, I can talk about this issue on MY TERMS and not 'take the bait' that is set up in the way this issue is being framed.

Something to think about.

David
www.outjourney.org

[Robb Pearson]

David . . .

Re: taking the Bible literally.

Christian fundamentalists will tell you the Old Testament was accepting of polygamy but the New Testament is not. It's a dichotomy for sure, but one which fundamentalists can convincingly resolve.

Ultimately the basis of the American religious fundamentalist argument against gay marriage has nothing to do with homosexuality or marriage. It has to do with achieving superiority (social and political) over others. Because, as has been human nature since day one, superiority brings certain unique rewards.

The religious right has oppressed women. They have oppressed slaves, then blacks. Now it's gays. They were all essentially non-moral political issues, specifically civil rights issues. But the religious fundamentalist lobby always presented those issues as moral ones.

There is nothing more threatening to those who desire or possess superiority (or majority) than to have that sense of superiority jeopardized or diminished (which would entail the loss of whatever rewards they have enjoyed with such superiority).

And their answer is always to oppress.

It's not about homosexuality or morality. It is merely because gays dare to seek equality and have the boldness to speak out to that end.

The religious right's latest victim (gays) is now fighting back, and the religious right is trying desperately to whip it back down. Because when the victim fights back, the power of the abuser evaporates, and he is nothing.

[Jim Thio]

Why not let the women decide? What about if some wome prefer to share one alpha male than being the only one for a loser?

[brad]

its hard to let the women make make an honest decision if they have been raised to be obedient passive quasi-slaves.