I got wrapped up in one of those ridiculous online discussions today. You know the kind: everyone involved arrogantly touts their opinion without the slightest regard or respect to those with whom they're disagreeing. The goal, of course, is to get the opposing side to feel totally foolish for their obvious lack of insight and then to bask in the prowess of our own intellect. It's always such a surprise when it doesn't work out that way.
The argument was a well worn one: the slippery slope argument relating to gay marriage becoming legal. Now that the the door has been opened to making marriage more inclusive, will it just open wider and wider to include polygamous, incestuous, and who-knows-what type of marriages? I had always dismissed this as absurd but now I'm not so sure. I sarcastically commented on a thread that the slippery slope had really started when people decided that it was okay for interracial couples to get married. As I thought about it, though, I realized that it might be true. Lawmakers decided then that people had the right to marry outside of their race despite the fact that many people at the time had a strong conviction that such a union was immoral. The idea being that laws should protect the rights of the individual rather than the sensitivities of the moral majority.
So will the next natural step in marriage expansion be polygamy? I don't know. Historically in the US, the big problem with polygamy has been the sexual exploitation of children. If sufficient checks could be put in place so that lawmakers could be sure that it wouldn't result in child abuse, such as making it legal only if all participants are 18+, it does seem plausible. And would it really be a bad thing? I guess it depends on how you see marriage. To me, it was first finding someone who can make my soul sing and then making the decision together to move forward in life as a committed team. I have no interest in having more than one partner but it doesn't seem logical to ban polygamy just because it doesn't appeal to me personally. Incentive for the current polygamy laws to change seems severely lacking but anything is possible.*
And then what? Marrying your sister, the three snails in your backyard, or even the Eiffel Tower?** There are obvious inherent legal problems involved when trying to expand marriage to encompass more than two adults who are able to give consent. For the sake of this argument, let's assume that everything may someday be fair game when it comes to marriage except for when it amounts to abuse of anyone involved - particularly children, animals, and adults who are incapable of giving consent. If we eventually eliminate all restrictions involving who, what, and how many we can marry, what is the furthest extreme that it can be carried to? As best as I can tell, it's something like this: the option of making a legal vow to love, honor, and cherish everyone and everything. But honestly. Who in their right mind would want to make that kind of commitment? It's not quite my bag but different stroke for different folks, right?
**Erica Eiffel has already married the Eiffel Tower so it's off limits for anyone else until the polygamy hurdle is cleared
* I recently read an article that has me rethinking my stance of polygamy. It makes a compelling case for how it could actually be damaging to society if 3% or more of the population decides to participate. Here's a link of anyone's interested. http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/03/one-man-many-wives-big-problem
