Polygamy and incest are the ultimate wedge issues for supporters of gay marriage. Some oppose polygamy (here) while others support it (here and here).

The standard argument for gay marriage is that marriage is a basic civil right that should be available to all people. One problem with the standard argument is that it also applies to polygamy and incest. This backs gay marriage supporters into a corner. If they support polygamy and incest then they make the slippery slope argument of conservatives a reality. But if they oppose polygamy and incest they must drop the standard argument or become hypocrites.

Supporters of gay marriage have tried to create replacement arguments that draw a line between polygamy and gay marriage, but they are all much weaker than the standard argument. Here is a summary of polygamy-proof arguments for gay marriage:

Jealousy

In this argument (made here) gay marriage is advocated because “You commit to one person, and that person commits wholly to you. Second, the number isn’t arbitrary. It’s based on human nature. Specifically, on jealousy.”

This is a strange argument. The only reason we human nature leads to jealousy is because it takes two people to reproduce. A third person can only break that reproductive unit. Either the husband will raise another man’s child, or the mother will be abandoned by the father to another woman. Jealously only reinforces the biological basis of marriage. This is an argument for heterosexual marriage against both gay marriage and polygamy. Finally, the jealousy argument would support incestuous marriage, so it is only effective against polygamy.

Not a choice

Andrew Sullivan makes that point here. Polygamy really is a choice, whereas homosexuality is not. This does a nice job of creating a distinction that puts homosexual and heterosexual marriage on one side and polygamy on the other. However there are two problems with the “not a choice” argument.

But first some clarification. It may be the case that homosexuality is not a choice, but it is also the case that it is not genetic. The science behind the “gay gene” has withered (here) and only about 30% to 50% of identical twins of homosexuals are themselves homosexual (here).

The first problem with the “not a choice” argument is that while it prohibits polygamy, it allows other forms of marriage such as incest. No one would choose to fall in love with their sibling. Pedophiles and some rapists could make the claim that their sexual attraction is not a choice. Of course, pedophilia and rape can be disqualified because they do not involve sex between consenting adults - but this illustrates the fact that consenting adults is the important factor, not the lack of a choice.

A second problem with the “not a choice” argument is that lack of a choice is a poor basis for making the law. If X is objectively bad, then it should not matter whether people do X freely or compulsively. And if X is objectively good, then it also shouldn’t matter. This leads to what is perhaps the most important of the non-standard arguments for gay marriage: whether or not gay marriages are objectively good.

Good of Society

This argument states that relationships that are good for society should be recognized as marriages, those that are negative should not (Dahlia Lithwick makes that point here, although it is hard to tease the substance of her argument from among the fireworks). Polygamy has three big problems. The first is that it leads to powerful men coercing young women and girls into marriage. The second is that it leads to powerful men viewing young men as a threat. It was only one generation after the founding of Mormon colonies that Blood Atonement against adolescent males began. The final problem is that high-status favored wives can gain more of the father’s time and money for her children against the children of the lesser wives.

You can make just as strong - if not stronger - of an argument against homosexuality. Gays have much higher rates of domestic violence, STDs, substance abuse problems, and infidelity (some references here). Gay marriage supporters claim that this bad behavior is caused by intolerance and lack of legalized marriages. This is a difficult position to maintain because other discriminated and oppressed groups have had strong marriages, such as Asian immigrants and blacks in the first half of the 20th century. It was only after the civil rights movement that the black family disintegrated. Finally, consider the last time in history when homosexuality was legitimate, and when Christians were the subject of discrimination and oppression: the Roman Empire. Christians had strong monogamous marriages in stark contrast to Roman society around them (many people had literally dozens of wives). Even the famous Enlightenment critic of Christianity, Edward Gibbon, conceded in his book The ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’, that Christianity restored the dignity of marriage.

We have decades of quality research showing what happens when you introduce non-biological parents into heterosexual families: higher rates of social maladies such as depression, substance abuse, promiscuity, low self-esteem, bad grades, and dropping out of school (see here). Although there are exceptions, this is the statistical pattern. It defies common sense to claim that gays are an exception to this rule, but that is precisely the argument they make.

Gay parenting is a fairly new phenomenon, and the research is very preliminary, much like the research on single motherhood back in the 1970’s. Back then liberal sociologists believed that alternatives to traditional marriage were good for children (see here and here for articles that describe the change of mindset).

One of the main flaws of the early research on gay parents is that it suffers from a selection bias - researchers recruit volunteers rather than find random samples (here is an article in which it is argued that appeals case trials are more random than recruiting volunteers). Nevertheless, there is already plenty of research confirming that children raised by gay parents do worse (see here, here ). Supporters of gay marriage have been forced to massage the data (see here and here).

I have the misfortune of living in Massachusetts, one the bluest states in the nation. Housing prices have been increasing even though Massachusetts is the only state in the nation with a declining population. Once you understand this you will understand why people are “voting with the feet” and moving to red states.

The short explanation for the skyrocketing housing prices is the Law of Unintended Consequences. As this article in the Economist explains, housing prices are rising fastest in the northeast and in the west coast (read: blue states) due to government limitations on the development of new housing. There are several reasons for this.
(more…)

I want three amendments for Christmas: a balanced budget amendment, an amendment to allow Congress to overturn the Supreme Court much as it can overturn a Presidential veto, and an amendment requiring term limits for Congress.
(more…)

This has happened to greater or lesser degrees throughout the Anglosphere. if we are going to be open to immigration from other nations and cultures, as I believe we should, this hgihly succssful, and by no means accidental, engine of assimilation must be allowed to operate as it has in the past. it is one of the world’s greatest success stories. Any shortcomings we now have are more likely to be solved through extending the model rather than turning it on its head, as the multiculturalists have done over the past few decades.

A great post on Albion’s Seedlings. Read the whole thing here.

I will sometimes debate abortion. It is pretty easy. The violinist argument of Judith Jarvis Thompson is easily dispensed with. This leaves the personhood argument, which I freely concede and focus on species instead. If the definition of a human being is a member of the human species, then biologically a fetus is a human being. The mere act of invoking personhood is then revealed for what it truly is: a device for separating humans into those who get rights and those who can be killed.

Most liberals appreciate the logic, but then triumphantly break out their trump card: “Are you in favor of the death penalty?”

There are two consistent and ethical positions on these issues. The first is the protection of all life, guilty and innocent. That is the position of the Catholic Church: pro-life and opposed to the death penalty. Or you can support the protection of innocent life. That is the standard evangelical protestant position: pro-life and pro-death penalty.

But the liberals (unwittingly, IMO) have a more twisted view of ethics. They believe it is acceptable to kill innocent human beings but morally wrong to kill the guilty ones.

Here is PETA’s official position about abortion: abortion:

There are people on both sides of the abortion issue in the animal rights movement, just as there are people on both sides of animal rights issues in the pro-life movement. And just as the pro-life movement has no official position on animal rights, the animal rights movement has no official position on abortion.

PETA is being hypocritical. Their ethical system is built upon the premise that we should prevent suffering of all animals. Since humans are animals that should also include humans. PETA claims to be fighting speciesism but they are being speciesist — against humans.
(more…)

when you talk to the children themselves, you find that rampant “good divorce” talk mainly reflects the wishes of adults, while silencing the voices of children. The divorce debate has long been conducted by adults, for adults, on behalf of the adult point of view, but now the grown children of divorce are telling their own, very different stories.

This sobriety is emerging in movies, in studies, on blogs. I’m convinced there’s more to come. Our generation’s story needs to be told, because our society still strongly wants to deny just how devastating divorce really is.

Read the rest of the article here.
(more…)