Poly Punctuation

Poly Punctuation

Hey, kids! Spot the punctuation error in
this National Review article
by Stanley Kurtz:

polyamory has much greater potential appeal [than polygamy], and poses a much deeper danger to the American family […]. Take away the stigma against multiple-partner marriage, and our larger family system will be profoundly weakened.

Yes, you got it: he put a period at the end, when obviously he should have used a colon and one or more explanatory clauses.

I’ve often seen the same mistake in articles against gay marriage. Right-wingers tell us that all sorts of things will happen if gay marriage (or, in this case, polyamory) is legalized. But with the exception of a few slippery-slope arguments, sometimes involving
box turtles, they never get around to telling us exactly why these things are bad.

If gay marriage is legalized, Bob will be able to marry Mike, and in the eyes of the law, their union will be exactly equal to the union of Sam and Debbie. Now, explain to me why this would be a bad thing. “It’s never been done that way” won’t cut it. “You’ll have to explain it to your kids” won’t cut it. “The average father of the bride won’t be able to afford two wedding dresses” is just silly.

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say that all those arguing against gay marriage either a) are homophobic bigots who nonetheless know that it’s not PC to come be blatantly homophobic in public, b) are deathly afraid of all change, or c) get their information about gays from the same people who told them that
Chinese women have sideways vaginas.

Getting back on topic: I can think of a problem with polyamorous marriage that isn’t fixed with the phrase “consenting adults”: Let’s say that A, B, and C are married. A goes into an irreversible coma, and someone has to decide whether to pull the plug or not. B says yes; C says no. What are the doctors supposed to do? With only two people in a marriage, things are clearer, but that’s math for you.

To solve this, the spouses might sort out these things when they get married: A signs a paper saying that in this sort of situation, B gets to make the life-or-death decision (or C, if B is incapable of doing so). This then leads to a “Sophie’s Choice”-style problem: C might think that A loves B more than she loves C. However, this seems like the sort of problem that a group of well-adjusted people should be able to cope with.

And what about polygamy? If polyamorous marriage is made legal, won’t that allow Mormons and Muslims to have multiple wives? When Rev. Moon marries 4000 people to each other, will they be able to file a joint 1040 form?

Well, sure. And no doubt there’ll be a lot of sucky marriages that way, just as today I can name lots of people who really oughtn’t be married to each other. The problem with polygamy isn’t the number of partners per se, but rather that they’ve tended to develop into abusive relationships. And yes, I imagine it’s a lot harder for law enforcement people to detect an abusive relationship than a merely polygamous one. I don’t see how this trumps civil rights, though.