Talking past each other on same-sex marriage and polygamy

Talking past each other on same-sex marriage and polygamy June 29, 2015

Here’s the current debate (e.g., in comments to my post on polygamy):

Progressives to traditionalists:  “Marriage is all about love, so its unjust, immoral, and unconstitutional to deny the opportunity to marry to same-sex couples.”

Traditionalists to progressives:  “Your rationale for supporting same-sex marriage is clearly wrong, as demonstrated by the fact that it leaves no room for objecting to polygamy. ”

“Does not!”

“Does so!”

etc.

But this debate is based on two alternate understandings of marriage:

For traditionalists, marriage has a fundamental meaning, based on natural law, if you will, or on the basic functions of marriage.  This meaning, primarily concerned with the upbringing of children, extends beyond one single time and place, even if the particulars of marriage varied from place to place.

For progressives, marriage is nothing more than a social construct, which each society is free to define as they choose, so long as no one is discriminated against (at least with respect to any sort of “protected class”).  Beyond the restriction of “no discrimination”, the particular parameters can be determined by social consensus or by legislation, and can be as arbitrary as for any other sort of institution, such as, for instance, regulations around corporations.

Traditionalists, on the other hand, once their meaning of marriage has been upended, still demand that, if marriage has redefined, it nonetheless ought to hold to some set of principles.

Progressives don’t really care whether there is any deeply philosophical ground for limiting marriage to two persons, rather than three or more.  It’s arbitrary, and if the consensus (or the consensus among progressives) later moved from two to three or more (which may well happen), that’s fine too.

So that’s that.  Let’s move on.


Browse Our Archives