A nice Washington Post editorial on polyamory

Charles Krauthammer had some poly-friendly things to say about gay activists who want to avoid talking about polyamory lest the “slippery slope” argument lead moderates to conflate gay marriage and poly unions and marrying a goat.

After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one’s autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement — the number restriction (two and only two) — is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.

Posit a union of, say, three gay women all deeply devoted to each other. On what grounds would gay activists dismiss their union as mere activity rather than authentic love and self-expression? On what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?

Call me agnostic. But don’t tell me that we can make one radical change in the one-man, one-woman rule and not be open to the claim of others that their reformation be given equal respect.

— Charles Krauthammer, “Pandora and Polygamy“, March 17, 2006 Washington Post

p.s.: my original subject line involved ‘WaPoOpEd’ until I saw what it looked like…

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

3 responses to “A nice Washington Post editorial on polyamory

  1. sylvar

    Susie Bright seems to think that he’s setting up a straw man. And she also seems to think that his argument is weakened by her ad hominem attacks. But the argument stands, I think, independently of whatever his intentions are.

    I think a little less of Susie Bright for bashing the author. She might have just said “I’m one of the gay activists who sees no problem with polyamory. Other gay activists want to keep the civil rights movement ‘pure’ by focusing only on gay monogamous marriage, lest we lose that fight because of the slippery slope this guy is setting up.”

    I’ve never heard of the guy, but whether his tone is ironic or not, he seems to be making a pretty good case.

  2. tiger_stripes

    I have a problem with the author because he treats polyamory and gay marriage as if they’re the same thing.

    They are not, and that’s such a neocon view of the world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s