Threesome Liberation

Defenders of traditional marriage have lost, alas. Rather than just sulk, I suggest that conservatives, especially those from Utah, respond by promoting legalization of polygamous marriage. This will put “progressives” in a lovely bind.

They will have a hard time opposing the idea because it is supported by the same arguments they used to support gay marriage. Why is love among threesomes any less valid than love of couples? Surely it’s past time for threesomes to come out of the shadows and break free of the yoke of suppression! End triophobia!

They will also have a hard time supporting it because almost all plural marriages, whether among Mormons in times past or in Islamic countries currently, feature one man with multiple wives. Clearly these are exploitative sexist unions! Most un-progressive!

Conservatives, don’t get mad, get even! Put it out there and watch ‘em squirm.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Threesome Liberation

  1. The “progressive” argument against polygamy is that, whereas same-sex marriage promoted greater equaltiy, polygamy reduces equality by letting the rich get wives at the expense of men who are poor and may not be able to find a wife. Every wife a rich guy gets is a woman unavailable to poor men. (Not that I endorse this argument, but this is what they will say.)

    • It’s an interesting argument, since it will run in parallel with another, contradictory argument: men have no right to women’s bodies. If men don’t have said right, then there shouldn’t be a problem for women choosing to shack up with rich (and taken) providers, as some women might do given the chance. If men do have said right, then of course heterosexual marriage would have to be limited to one man, one woman.

      I can’t imagine a progressive making that argument, though. I’m curious to see how they’ll get around it.

    • I think this is perfectly progressive, as it is perfect communism. The old argument about everything. No man should have two until every man has one.
      I agree that the argument doesn’t really make sense, especially as regards to marriage. The real problem is that even without plural marriage, this is the same situation we are currently in. Woman seek out the well off who can provide for them. Nothing will actually change, except the legal recognized status.

  2. Polygamy is a red herring. Plural marriage is only a matter of time; the shorter the better in my opinion. Let the religious do what they want. Marriage is and should be a matter of contracting and that is the state’s only legitimate interest. If N consenting adults wish to engage in a marriage contract so be it. The number of men and/or women in N is not relevant.

Please keep it civil

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