Engaging the text #2
Wolfson begins this reading with an extended definition of marriage to make it seem like marriage should apply to any people who are in love. He makes this his first task because his emotional appeals build off this. He intentionally does not portray marriage as being between a man and a woman, despite his references to the word marriage in cultures that only recognize marriage as the unity of a man and a woman. As a result his definition is at best slanted and at worst dishonest. Based on the ambiguity and lack of any actual evidence, to support his point that marriage is about love regardless of who is involved. I will take the position of devils advocate to prove him wrong.
I agree that marriage laws in the US are unfair; the definition of marriage confines it to being between a man and a woman. Thousands of people who want to marry are not allowed to because of this. That is why the US should legalize polygamy because current laws restricts the legal right of 3 or more people, engaged in a loving relationship, to marry. If these people love each other obviously it doesn’t matter what their genders are, or how many of them there are. In Islam the Koran says that a man may have as many as 4 wives. In Africa having multiple spouses is not unusual. Thousands of loving couples in Utah are forbidden from the benefits of marriage solely on the basis of numbers. As a result I believe that the definition of marriage should be changed to include polygamy as a legitimate way for people to have a loving relationship.
You will note that the first 12 paragraphs of Wolfson’s argument support this. So don’t be a polyphobic, allow polygamy to be a legal form of marriage.
Q.E.D.
2 comments:
First off, QED only applies to mathematical or philosophical statements, of which this was neither. Your blog started off well but became rambling and frankly silly when you tried to liken homosexuality to polygamy. Homosexuality would still maintain the traditional marriage, person to person, except these people are of a similar gender. Everyone is still equal in the relationship, legal rights are still clearly defined. It is the exact same as what is wrongly described as "traditional" marriage of a man and a woman. Polygamy, however, would forever alter society in ways that would be damaging. The least of which is the legal problems that would arise with the passing of a member of the family. In the legal system today, inheritance is clearly outlined between parents and kids, but in a polygamous relationship the death of one would lead to confusion and if the deceased person was allowed to choose which spouse received what benefits it would lead to intense jealousy.
This is the least of the problems, however, because more than that, polygamy would create a male dominated society in which harems/clans flourished. A male can have as many kids as he wants at once, but a woman can only have one at a time, meaning she would never need more than one spouse at a time, making the whole ideology of polygamy a masculine dominated lifestyle. There would be no (or very few) families in which there were multiple male spouses with a female wife, but rather many families of men with multiple wives. This would further lead to inequalities when many women would marry a rich man purely for the economic benefit, creating almost a clan or harem, further aggravating class divisions.
So no, not QED, polygamy is not akin to homosexuality. A polygamous society exists in backward nations and would not work, whereas a society accepting of homosexual marriage would suffer no real harm.
Also, polyphobia is a fear of many things, not of polygamous marriage.
Post a Comment