If Gay Marriage, Why Not Polygamy? – John Corvino

If Gay Marriage, Why Not Polygamy? – John Corvino

Opponents of same-sex marriage often ask, “If we allow gays to marry, why not polygamy? Why not incest?” and so on. Here, John Corvino exposes the fallacy …

 

 

41 Comments on “If Gay Marriage, Why Not Polygamy? – John Corvino”

  1. John, You're a professor of  philosophy at a university??
      This argument is extraordinarily poor and incoherent. You try to frame this as a "slippery slope" argument, which it is not.
       The entire basis for the "constitutional" grounds for the gay marriage case is the "equal protection clause" of the constitution. This is extremely basic. The argument has always been and the court has ruled, that the government cannot show preference to any one group or arrangement over another. By denying any of these other arrangements "equal protection" you have immediately violated the constitutional basis for gay marriage. 
      As most people who argue for gay marriage, you have done absolutely nothing (at least in this video) to demonstrate or prove in any way that homosexual "marriage" is in any way "equal" to or "equivalent" to heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage has the benefit to society of potentially creating families. By family, I mean biologically related mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, sisters brothers and grandparents. The benefit to society of gay "marriage" is absolutely nothing.
    The stability of the traditional arrangement of heterosexual marriage is superior in every sense of the word to someone's "gay marriage", which is an oxymoron.
      In short, I consider this entire video, unfortunately, an incoherent rant.

  2. I knew the changes to the marriage laws wouldn't be based on the autonomy of consenting adults but on what liberals found offensive and inoffensive.  Leftists are okay with gay marriage but not polygamy.  This is because leftists don't really believe consenting adults should enter into any relationship that they want.  That's why Corvino played the gender card and made it all about polygyny even though 1). there is nothing stopping one woman from marrying multiple men and 2). his argument is an appeal to motive that 2a). is irrelevant to its legality and 2b). that's the same line of reasoning feminists make about the very institution of marriage itself.  If pressed, a leftist can't give a logical reason for supporting gay marriage but not polygamy without invoking special pleading or playing the gender card.

  3. YOU sir are extremely prejudice.  YOU sir are arrogant!!
    It's not about changing the subject, its about YOU wanting to redefine marriage while denying others the right to marry whom THEY love.  IF 3 people want to get married and say that they love each other equally, then WHO ARE YOU to say that they cannot.  You all started this concept the we all should be able to DO and HAVE everything we WANT WANT WANT, ME ME ME, so now that we are pointing out the fact that if you give into ONE dysfunctional, disordered lifestyle because of temper tantrums, you MUST give into them all, and YOU sir  are the downfall of society.  Marriage is NOT a RITE its a privilege that society gives to a man and a women to offer protections to make it the safest environment to raise children in stability as best as it can.  does it fall short sometimes??? hell yea, but still having a mother and a father that love each other and support each other is the best way for a child to be raised and be functional.  A GAY MARAIGE LICENSE is NOTHING MORE than feeding into the insecurity of every gay person that acquires one in order for them to get a pat on the back from society.  ITS JUST A LICENSE TO HAVE a Penis in a mouth or an Anus or a dildo in a mouth,  anus or  vagina.  you can call that LOVE all you want.  We all know its about sex and has nothing to do with LOVE!  Love who you want.  I love many people that I don't have sex with!  BTW your debating skills are extremely weak and I love how you think youre quite clever thingking that you can just say.  ITS 2 DIFFERENT THINGS???  well  Marriage and Gay Marriage are two different thing, but after your wining, now they are the same.
    Once Polygamy becomes legal.   AND IT WILL.  I will be marrying the ENTIRE COUNTRY of STRAIGHT people and putting them ALL ON MY INSURANCE.  you ignorant fool!!!!!

  4. i have no idea why most people think gay marriage is ok because "I have the right to marry the person I love", but for the same people marrying your sister is wrong

  5. But you fail to realize that there is a obvious relationship between the questions 'whether it's a good idea to allow unrelated people of the same sex to marry' and 'whether it's a good idea to allow abc to marry xyz'; the connection is that they both take into question the idea of marriage itself. Of course the are related. They had to change the idea of marriage itself to allow same sex marriage, and their reasoning was that people who love each other should be allowed to marry. You can pretend like this is a separate debate from polygamy or any other type of so called abnormal marriage, but in reality they are the same debate; if SCOTUS ruled that the state cannot give preference to straight couples over gay couples, they have by extension ruled that ANY kind of 'couple' gets equal treatment. If any polygamist took his case to court, they would be required to respect his right to marry whomever he wants under the precedent set by this court ruling. That's how our courts work.

    Basically the same exact argument that successful pushed for gay marriage can be used for any kind of other marriage, as long as 'love' is involved, which is completely subjective to begin with. How can you say they are unrelated, or that one won't lead to the other? 

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for marriage equality, or rather I'm all for getting government out of marriages all together. Just don't pretend like gay marriage is a completely separate thing from other abnormal marriage types, because it isn't; once the definition of marriage was changed for one group, there is no reason that it shouldn't be changed for other groups as well.

  6. There is not one argument you can give that is pro gay marriage that can't be used for polygamy. bestiality is just insane but polygamy has its grounds

  7. Corvino:  "When people ask me 'What about polygamy?" I ask them:  'Why do you keep changing the subject?'"

    Me:  "When people ask me 'What about same-sex marriage?" I ask them:  'Why do you keep changing the subject?"

    Call it whatever you want.  But same-sex "Marriage" isn't "Marriage" as understood throughout all of human history and by nearly every society, including explicitly atheist ones.  So shifting from discussion of a male-female union to discussion of a male-male union is no more "changing the subject" than shifting from discussion of a heterosexual traditional marriage to a polygamous marriage.  It's just changing the subject in a different manner.

  8. I wonder if the slippery slope argument was used in the past against inter-racial marriages.If you allow a white person to marry a black person, why not also allow gay marriage, incest, polygamy, outcast, and marrying inanimate objects?

  9. people are idiots. If anything incest is more natural. If its consensual then its fine. Rape or forcing them is bad no matter the kind of relationship. Setting aside that incest is just like any other relationship except you happen to know each other. Homosexuals are so hypocritical. If u are afriad of babies then make it a requirement for the be unable to have children through a surgery or soemthign else. You guys are stupid. By the way incest especially between cousins was the preferred union in many cultures. Until the Western world AKA Americans started messing with everyone and tryigng to get everyone to adopt their morals. Forget u guys. I am not in an incestuous relationship.However if you guys want to talk equality then Shut up about incest if you are okay with homsexual unions. By the way if Incest is so wrong how come at least nature allows you to produce a child. Where as having sex with an animal or someone of the same gender is impossible. Think about that
    If you want to ban one ban them all!!!

  10. Whether you're pro gay or not this following message has meaning so don't immediately hate on it, look at both sides of the argument –

    It is it. It started with it being acceptable to be a gay and lesbian. Then there was the notion that you can like both sexes so there's bisexual. Then apparently you can change your gender so there's Transgender. Already Evidence of a slippery slope.

    But it doesn't end there. LGBT slightly changes to LGBTQ very subtly. Now people are saying LGBTQIA as well. So yes letters are adding and it's getting absurd.

    But now it's lgbtqiapl. Do you want to know what the p is? Polygamous. This means you can have more then one relationship so in other words polygamous. So yeah it was warned it could lead to this and it has and I don't doubt bestality will be more acceptable as well.

  11. so he is a incestaphope what a bigot and hypocrite I mean both homosexuality and incestuous relationships are in nature and both happen in several different species I mean if its two concenting adults right ….if you use that argument on a legal. level how can you accept one and reject the other. in not a supporter of incest btw ha

  12. in the other videos, you made more convincing points

    i think there is no danger of bestiality or child marriage becomming legal , but polgamy or incest between loving and consenting adults – these will be issues to tackle in the future – since we have said that love and consent trumps everything else, the arguments for possible societal consequences won't be enough

  13. your argument is fallacious, you argue against polygamy because of stereo types associated to it. so why do not the same arguments apply to gay marriage, no doubt their are also as many adverse social consequences associated to gay marriage. also just because some beliefs have been associated to polygamy in the past dose not mean that they exist today or would persist in modern society.

  14. It's soo riddled with errors, by filling your video with 'jokes' doesn't fool me with the actual content, which there isn't actually much. One of the errors he makes, is assumptions with no facts whatsoever. Then states his assumptions which are not verifiable, could easily have been made up, and states it as bad public policy. Why people conflate the issues, is an issue of slippery slope. If we're going to listen to the benefits of a certain sexual orientation, then the question remains is who judges what is a socially superior policy, and from what perspective is it judged on. It's this perspective if you like, that makes its a slippery slope.

  15. I love how homophobic people find videos to keep their homophobic nature still! Look at the likes on this video ? ya'll homophobic people are on the wrong side of history!

  16. I'm not changing the subject. I am opening up a new one. A completely different one if you want to take it that way, and I want answers.
    Why not polygamy? I don't care if its hetero or homosexual and to be frank, that argument of "giving everyone someone to marry" is pretty weak because it makes you sound like you are away people's freedom of choice to choose who they want to marry and are forcing them to marry someone.

  17. Hello!! What does homosexuality, poligamy, incest and beastiality have to do with each other? They are all sex perversion! For someone who "looks" education why ask a ridiculous question?

  18. Actually you are wrong. The lgbtq trending hashtag is #loveislove and biology conpatability regarding birth and thriving between partners can be completely disregarded within the marriage covenant. Hence polygamists, incests and beastality supporters can use the exact same principle and demand their beliefs regarding marriage to be recognised. So it is certainly not as separate as you think. P.S marriage is still one man and one woman, that's how you thrive, that's what a child needs, a mother and a father.

  19. You didn't really properly evaluate gay marriage, considering the divorce rate shortly thereafter gay marriage.

    Along with the severe disfunction in homes that are raising a child that had feelings against gay marriage because of the natural struggles in school they receive when others notice a gay parents setup.

    That alone makes your whole logical thinking process just suck..

  20. Maybe poly was rooted in sexism, but the game has changed. There's a famous throuple of three women and another with a woman and two men. Power dynamics come into play sometimes but usually after discussing it together and agreeing to it. (See dominant/submissive lifestyles). Poly is just as valid as homosexuality, just as easily abusive as some mono-homosexual (and mono-heterosexual) relationships, and just as much not the government's freaking business as any other relationships between consenting human adults.

  21. Polygamy, gay and incest are sexual minorities. By protecting rights only one group you showing a double standards. Its like a protect the rights of white people and say, that right of black is a different question.

  22. Well, I think that YOU changed the subject when you started explaining what polygamy is and the culture it is based on.

    I'm sorry but I think you're are not answering the question this way.

    Those who ask "why then shouldn't we allow polygamy, incest, etc.?" ask this question for a reason: if you want homosexual people to be allowed to get married, you are providing a different idea of marriage/love/family than it was earlier, so their way of thinking is: why can't we expand this concept of love, family and marriage to other kinds of unions, such as a three-way union or polygamous union, and so on and so forth?

    Mind you, I'm not on this side of the debate, I'm just trying to EXPLAIN the reason for this question because I am also interested in how to give a good and exhaustive answer but, unfortunately, this video has not helped me at all.

  23. please read this article carefully till the end : sodom and gomorrah are some of the cities of the plain in which homosexuality was practiced by the people of prophet lot(lut) until god destroyed them. you know all metal ,rock ,rock and roll musicians are homosexuals ,gays ,lesbians or maybe bisexuals .sodom and gomorrah is back .everyone has a fate and it is their fate ,god s will and they have no choice ,god has arrange history and this world this way .and god destroys sodom and gomorrah and all cities of the plain to hide his love towards homosexuals from the public. homosexuals are awesome and they love each other more than heterosexuals. and god loves them more secretly .and homosexuals are more innocent compared to heterosexuals and also homosexuals are more up to date people than heterosexuals because homosexuality although was in ancient times but apeared in history after heterosexuality and heterosexuality was from the beginning .homosexuality is not a sin because homosexual people are born with it i mean god created them this way .homosexuality is evolution of human race . i am not a homosexual myself ,i am asexual but i love homosexuals .

  24. i dont think marriage has nothing to do with anything. i mean yeah. they may want to marry and may want that right. but to me marriage is nothing. what comes after? DIVORCE!!!

    ok. so if you are one of those who thinks they can handle more than one woman. cool. good for you. but do you really have to marry them? or all?

    ppl should just mind their own fucking business. i think what people "struggling" with GSA or incest want is peace. how does it affect anyone else.

    no it is not disgusting. and if it is. well maybe your mom or dad or relatives arent good looking. and you cant see yourself with them sexually. but to me. its totally normal.

    if i find something disgusting i wont practice it.

    what you eat dont make me shit!

  25. The argument is based in the twoness of marriage. Marriage as a monogamous institution is found in the twoness of sexes. If you take away the twoness of the sexes, why should it be limited to two?

Comments are closed.