Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
I think that's a great point. The thing is, as was pointed out earlier, the specific problem here is exploitation, which takes the form of polygamy in this case. Which is altogether different from "polygamy as an abstract principle." As an abstract principle, it's possible to imagine a polygamous relationship between consenting adults, and in that case they wouldn't be harming anybody by doing what they do. Cases like Bountiful don't really meet that standard--they use polygamy as a way of granting the sanction of religion to the exploitation of children and young women. I do think the point made by octothorp stands, though--what's wrong about this isn't polygamy itself as an abstract principle, however bound up it may be in all of these problems.
But you're absolutely right that in cases like this where the real-world consequences are quite grave, you can't fall back on moral relativism as the answer.
|
Ah, but aren't they harming people? Think about this for a second. If marriage is now no longer defined by number of people then theoretically sposual support pensions, benefits of employment would then have to apply to all participants. If some guy and 8 women want to live together and call themselves married and want reconition for it and everything stops there then great.
However many pension plans have clauses that the employer has to pay out for the duration of the life of the spouse. So in the case of the 60 year dude with 15 year old wives then the policy would have to pay out for like 60 years after hubby kicks the can while we wait for the last wife to perish. The cost of employing that guy just went high enough as to justify not employing him in the first place. That's just one benefit, what about health and dental benefits for like 8 people?
I understand that an arguement could be made that there only are so many people who do this and thus their net effect would be little, but what about cities/towns that have a higher concentration of these people, like Bountiful for instance? Well the cost of labor in those places will skyrocket and all the non-wackos won't be able to get jobs because we just had to be 'inclusive.'
This seems to be an awfully high price to pay for the incredibly small number of those well-meaning secular "Alternative lifestyle Enthusists" to label their combined relationship legally married. Quite frankly as a society we have to draw the line. Simply stated the agency costs of identifying, ehshrining, and maintaining special rights to every odd situation add up once we start to get to such a narrow band of people. The 'what's next arguement' must count for something at some point.