art, that's an argument? that everyone has a little "poly" inside? according to whom? there's nothing in that excerpt that is persuasive. is she trying to say that being polygamist is innate? she's got to do much better than that.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Here is a more complete quote showing some foundation and a conclusion.

I don't know whether the according to whom has been answered yet, but if it hasn't, it will be soon enough. Someone will come up with similiarly credentialed psychologists armed with their studies to prove it.

I am not saying I agree. I am just saying this stuff is out there and it is not nonsense.

---

Up to now, gay-marriage advocates like Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch have dismissed the analogy between homosexuality and polyamory by arguing that homosexuality is a far more deeply rooted impulse than the superficial, even frivolous, desire for sex with more than one partner. By contrast, Emens offers a "continuum model" inspired by the radical lesbian thinker Adrienne Rich. In her famous essay, "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence" (which Emens's title deliberately echoes), Rich argues that all women, whether they identify themselves as lesbian or not, are in some respects lesbians. If women can just find the lesbian within, then, even for women who remain heterosexually identified, the prejudice against homosexuality will fall away. That, in turn, will make it possible for many more women to freely choose lesbianism.

Following Rich, Emens argues that everyone has a bit of "poly" inside. If we can just discover, nurture, and accept our inner polyamorist, then even for those who choose to remain monogamous, the prejudice against polyamory will disappear. This will allow everyone to make an unconstrained choice between monogamy and polyamory. So it's possible to see both homosexuality and polyamory as part of a complex continuum of human sexuality, says Emens. And when we begin to look at things this way, we can finally take down the legal, social, and cultural barriers to both homosexuality and polyamory.

But aren't at least some people at one end of the sexual continuum intensely homosexual? Yes, says Emens, but the very same thing is true of polyamory. According to Emens, whether for biological or cultural reasons, some folks simply cannot live happily unless they are allowed multiple, simultaneous sexual partners. And for these people, our current system of marriage and family laws is every bit as unjust as it is for homosexuals. A person with an intensely polyamorous disposition simply cannot be happy, says Emens, outside of a polyamorous family setting. For these people, argues Emens, our social hostility to polyamory imposes a vast range of unjust legal burdens.

Hello,

Leaving aside the gay marriage side of things, but substitute child molester, mass murderer, or any other illegal act that some people are compelled to do and she could make the same arguements. Just because something makes someone happy doesn't mean it should be legal.



Styrrell

every women has some lesbian in her? ok. i think there are a lot of guys out there that wish they did.

and her conclusion that some people "just can't be happy" without multiple wives/husbands as a basis for changing the laws is pretty weak. that's not the argument underlying gay marriage.

what is your source on this? it's not the emens' article directly, but rather someone reporting on it.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

I am not saying I agree with anything she presents, but your analogy to mass murderer and the like is very weak. Those obviously have unwilling participants and victims.

I also don't see how you can justify leaving gay marriage aside. It is not aside. It is a prominent issue from which she makes parallel arguments.

I really don't see much distinction between her arguments and those for gay marriage. There are probably some gaps, but those will be filled by the appropriate experts and studies and testimony over time.

I am pulling this from an article on National Review Online, all reprinted without permission.

She is the lawyer. She has put forward the people "just can't be happy" argument. You might be right in that it is weak now, but it would be weak only because it is presented without foundation.

As certain as the sun rises in the morning the appropriate psychologists with the appropriate studies and the appropriate experts and PhDs will emerge to "prove" this contention. Frankly, I think it would be easier to "prove" than the homosexual argument, but then maybe in ten years it will be explained to me that I have repressed my "poly" gene.

Why is pologamy bad?

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Well there we have it. The fountain of wisdom has come forth with the obvious question.

I really can't give you an answer to that question that would be intelligent enough to convince you, if you were not already inclined to be convinced. My answer would involve family and children and commitment and the like.

If I gave that answer I would be reminded that I was a neo-Christian.

I finally figured out what that means by the way, if anyone is interested.

that's a good question. i think there are valid reasons to preclude polygamous marriage situations. with that said, i don't think there is anything inherently wrong with it. especially if we are talking consenting adults(vs. say, the polygamy that occurs amongst fundamentalist mormons). monogamy is a social construct. if one wants to go the "natural" route, then it seems to me that monogamy is in the minority amongst the other animal species. or at least, it's an even split.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Hello, I leave the issue of gay marriage aside because it has nothing to do with polygamy. Its a common practice amongst people who want gay marraige banned. Tie polygamy, child molestation, beastiality and anything else to it. Basically try to convince people who might be on the fence regarding gay marriage that it opens the door to other unrelated issues.

If people want to look at weather or not polygamy should be legal, fine, but it has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage.

As far as unwilling participants look up the history of polygamy in this country. It usually coerced.



Styrrell

What as a society do we do if homosexuality and polygamy are determined to be genetically and biologically driven? I mean that in an honest way, because I personally envision some "solutions" that segments of the population would put forth and I don't particularly like them.

But if homosexuality and polygamy are genetically driven that has some big impacts. How do we handle these types of issues given that the majority of Americans find both these _______ (behavior would no longer be the correct term there) to be morally reprehensible, and illegal? Should we make acts/behaviors that are genetically driven illegal? I can see how the answer would have to be on a case by case basis, which is thoroughly complex and muddled.

Obviously we would we only be talking about voluntary polygamy here.

You can say all you want that gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy, but intellectually, that is just not the case. The exact same arguments apply.

These arguments are going to be well formulated, tested, revised and tested again. The various experts will do the various studies which, surprise, will all support the pro-polygamy conclusion.

You can try to dispose of people like this law professor with a wave of your hand, but they are simply not going to go away, nor should they. They have a reasonable, consistent, well thought out case that will get better and better intellectual support over time.

These arguments already have some strength as evidenced in the fact that you deflect them rather than address them in your responses.

This is all predictable and predicted as a direct consequence of the gay marriage/sodomy legal arguments.

Well, one idea might be to continue the practice of the past 10,000 years and have a married man and woman be the basic family unit of society.

But, hey, I am a neo Christian, so what do I know?

i hear what you are saying art, but doesn't the equation change IF these are genetically based behaviors? wouldn't that be penalizing someone based on something over which they have absolutely no control? wouldn't that be similar to stigmatizing someone that is suffering from down's syndrome?

or to use another comparison, if someone is insane(sanity being something over which the individual has no control), we don't hold that person criminally liable for their acts. wouldn't we be doing something similar if polygamy was kept illegal and it turned out to be a genetic behavior?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

I could be legally married with 3 girl friends or not married with 4 girl friends and I have broken no secular laws, right? So perhaps marriage is more about morality and who get's to define that for me? Oh, all those religious GIANTS that know what's right for all of us. If you want and can afford the love/time that goes with multiple wives and the women have no problem either do I. Same with one woman and multiple men. Let freedom ring.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

I see the argument, but I just don't buy it. Society determines the norms of behavior. It makes collective value judgments. Some groups are always going to have more trouble than others conforming.

That doesn't mean we should not be supportive and tolerant of those individuals, but we should make policy based on what is in the enlightened best interests of the most people.

Why did you leave out the obvious case of multiple women and multiple men?

Too much freedom ringing for you?

That's one view, although I don't think anyone has attacked you for that (yet) in this thread. Wouldn't that just be a Christian/Judaism/Muslim view? There's nothing "neo" about that view. What's the opposite of the prefix "neo"?

I was focussed more on the legal ramifications for laws like the anti-sodomy laws that exist, or the legal aspects of marriages (aka civil unions). Or the sudden impact on society that something it had viewed as abnormal was actually inate to the design of humans, especially if one believes in "intelligent design" or that humans are created in god's image.

It still makes no difference to me. Ring that freedom bell Art! C'mon, you can do it.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

It was very clearly explained to me that I was a neo Christian. That seems to be a fact. I am just going to have to deal with it. These are my views, so they must be neo Christian.

Seeing as no one else on this board has been called a neo Christian, I was finally able to figure out what it means.

A neo Christian is a Christian male with European ancestors, who is a conservative Republican and has done four IM over four years and has yet to break 13 hours.

This is what I am. There is just no getting away from it.

Your comments are beyond my level of knowledge of her theories.

I should have also noted that your objections mostly apply in the context of homosexual marriage as well. You speak of one opinion vs. another, no society based on her marriage model, crumbling of 1000s of years of law and tradition. Arguably, two sides of the same coin.

I will admit up front that the backup you look for might not all be there yet. Some of it is probably out there now. The rest will be, as I have described above.

Yes, it is perfectly obvious she speaks only of voluntary polygamy, but you know that.

There has to be more people like you out there. I think you should join a support group, you guys can meet once a week, someone special will lead the meetings. You'll have to donate some money though to keep the group working and pay for the special meeting place . . . ;-)



I work with and am related to too many neo Christians to understand why people ahve to be so angry at each other for having different religious, political or legal views. People disagree, big deal, it happens in life. I may not agree with you very much but I hope you keep sharing your views. Don't let crazy people like me get to you.

Amy I really stupid if I just noticed you spelled "polygamy" wrong in your subject line and original post?