Quote:
Originally Posted by frege64
HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE set the precedent for polygamy. One man being allowed to marry another MAN has nothing to do with one man marrying more than one WOMAN. One man being permitted to marry one WOMAN sets the OBVIOUS precedent for one man marrying more than one effing WOMAN.
|
In a sense this is true, because the "original" or "heterosexual" definition of marriage was a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. So there were really two components to it: gender (man-woman) and number (one plus one).
The argument for polygamy is an argument against the
number restriction, whereas the argument for gay marriage was an argument against the
gender restriction. So they are two different arguments.
The arguments merged, however, when the gender restriction was rejected by the successful gay marriage movement. Gay marriage demonstrated (or at least argued successfully) that the gender restriction was arbitrary. Once that was done, the second restriction in the original definition of marriage suddenly became more vulnerable. Why, if you can throw out the gender restriction, can you not throw out the number restriction? Are they not equally arbitrary?
So while the arguments differ, they are related in their effects upon the original definition of marriage. And because the gay marriage argument was successful with respect to the gender restriction, it has effectively paved the way for a similar argument against the number restriction.
It's a point that has been brought up before in this thread. Once you conclude that "tradition" is not an adequate justification of the gender restriction, you can't argue that "tradition" is an adequate justification of the number restriction.