The most common argument in favor of gay marriage is an appeal to the belief that any two adult individuals who love each other should be able to get married. I have no issue with this argument except for the use of the number “two.” I believe that the number “two” should be replaced with the variable n, where n denotes any positive integer greater than or equal to two. To clarify, I want bisexual polygamy to be legal.
In an ideal world, the government would not be in the marriage domain, but the vast majority of voters seem to have no issue with the government’s role in marriage. This is why most libertarians argue for the legalization of gay marriage instead of for the abolition of government involvement in marriage. I do not believe that vouching for gay marriage adequately conveys the libertarian belief that consenting adults should be able to engage in any type of relationship they desire. Vouching for gay marriage is a step in the right direction, but it feels analogous to arguing for a slightly lower tariff on steel imports when one could instead be arguing for completely free trade.
Libertarians often describe their beliefs as socially liberal and fiscally conservative in order to indicate that their beliefs are part-Democrat and part-Republican. This description is inaccurate as it does not convey just how much more socially liberal we are than the Democrats and just how much more fiscally conservative we are than the Republicans. Enthusiastically expressing support for “fringe” viewpoints like the right of a man to be married to a woman who is married to a man who identifies as a woman serve to show those who are stuck in the two party binary just how close-minded their political ideologies are.
Next time you hear Democrats talk about how open-minded they are because of their belief in the legalization of gay marriage, ask them about their view on bisexual polygamy. If they are against it, then they clearly have no basis for claiming that they are socially liberal. If they are for it, then point out that their party officially only advocates for gay civil unions–not even marriage–and that their interest in defending civil liberties is better served through libertarianism.
I look forward to the day when we can laugh at the idiocy of the two person marriage limit at the wedding of Michael to Jane to Daniel to Bob to Sarah who was previously Stephen.
The situation between a polygamous marriage and the typical two person marriage is vastly different and ignores what the nature of a marriage contract usually entails. For instance, assume Partner 1 is ill and needs medical care. In a marriage the spouse determines what care to accept or reject if Partner ! is unable to do so. Now, in a three way relationship who decides? Do they have to be unanimous? Any disagreement creates a problem that doesn’t exist in the typical marriage.
Now, since this person wants a bisexual polygamous relationship to be equal to marriage then you an interesting problem with the right to not testify against your spouse. Since you know have spouses any criminal conspiracy can escape the compulsion of testifying by simply all marrying other.
A more useful solution to the people who want this is simple: legalize same sex marriage and decriminalize bigamy or adultery in all shapes and forms.
I don’t give a hoot if people want polygamous relationships. But there are legal difficulties in apply a marriage contract to that relationship. While there is no conflict between extending the marriage contract to any two people, there is a great deal of complexity when trying to apply to three or more.
Excellent points James. Thank you for your comment.
“I look forward to the day when we can laugh at the idiocy of the two person marriage limit at the wedding of Michael to Jane to Daniel to Bob to Sarah who was previously Stephen.”
I look forward to the day when said people no longer believe marriage legitimizes their relationship in any way, but I’ll settle for this too.
Also, marrying witnesses/conspirators so as to avoid testimonial evidence is brilliant and an argument, in most cases, FOR bisexual polygamy
Libertarians should definitely advocate a total divorce between marriage and the state purely on the grounds of freedom of association. But the notion that libertarians in general seek the social legitimization of whatever orgies people want to call “relationships” is nonsense. I’m not denying outright the possibility of a three or four-way relationship, but there are very good reasons to suspect they’d generally be inferior (less stable, much more emotionally complicated) to two-person relationships. Humans form relationships one person at a time, and the more people you add to the ring, the weaker the ties get. That’s just the physics of human emotion.
There’s nothing wrong with advocating freedom. But spare me the pity party about people who feed on eccentricity whining about being viewed as outsiders.
I disagree that poly situations are inherently less “stable” than monogamous ones. My own polygamous “marriage” has lasted longer than many with only 2 people (“marriage” being in quotes of course because there is no formal legal contract). Some of us are libertarians, and this has greatly influenced our beliefs about what should be our human rights; this does not mean we are “whining about being viewed as outsiders”, but that we consider it within our basic rights to make our own lifestyle choices.
I won’t presume to speculate on the nature and stability of your own relationships. However, it is patently obvious that certain models work better than others. I see this as an (all too common) example of libertarians overstepping the message from “freedom is good and people should be allowed to do what they like” to “every non-aggressive action equally serves human interests.” Sorry, but that’s just not the case. More importantly, the suggestion that two-person romantic relationships are some sort of dogmatic institutional construction is utterly laughable, and reminds me vividly of feminists who argue that classifying people into the two genders of male and female stems from some sort of patriarchal conspiracy. Plenty of social systems emerge because they benefit certain people at the expense of others—slavery, feudalism, the caste system, etc. But these days we forget much too often that plenty of them are maintained because THEY WORK.