Tuesday, July 10, 2007

That didn't take long

In a recent post, I compared the best-case-scenario argument that some Multi-Partnered Relationship advocates make to the argument that the kind of argument that anti-gun control advocates make when they say that lots of people should carry guns, but they should all be well-versed in gun safety and law-abiding.

Of course, now someone is claiming that I have compared the sweet and healing love of poly relationships to loaded guns, weapons of destruction.

I am comparing the kinds of arguments being made, not the substance of the arguments, as a careful reader will readily see.

There are none so prone to see offense in the comments of others as those whose argument depends on being seen as a victim. It is an essential feature of the passive-aggressive stance that the MPR advocates are taking relative to the Unitarian Universalist movement. Prove to us that you are not bigoted and prejudiced against us! And the only way to prove that is to agree to our central claim, which we have not otherwise proven, that multi-partnered relationships are morally equivalent to two person monogamy.

4 comments:

hafidha sofia said...

Ten years ago, I would have said to you (and anyone else) that unless the persons were married, even two-person monogamy was extremely immoral.

No one could have 'proven' to me that a man and a woman living and having sexual relations together before/outside of marriage was moral, because it simply went against my religious beliefs, which defined morality for me.

Without this kind of Because-God-Says-So authority, on what basis is polyamory immoral for you? Is it your own personal authority? Is it tradition, culture, statistics? Is it U.S. law, or a religious teaching? For me it would be a lot easier to understand your opinion on this if I understood that. Right now it seems like maybe some combination of several of those things, but it's just not clear.

Robin Edgar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
fausto said...

Quite frankly, I have had a gut full of the soteriology of victimhood. It is false on its face, as is every bit of UU social and moral teaching that is founded upon it. There is nothing worthy about being a victim.

Adam Becker Sr said...

Without this kind of Because-God-Says-So authority, on what basis is polyamory immoral for you?

The fruit of the tree. Poly leads to divorce, to kids being raised with one parent absent (usually Dad.) Yes, monogamy is in bad shape and way too many conventional marriages lead to divorce. [I see the current divorce regime as a much worse problem than poly is. But you were asking about poly.]

So roughly 35% of kids in the US are raised in father-absent homes. That's a disaster. I expect that widespread acceptance and practice of polyamory would raise that percentage several points.

I don't want to see that percentage raise in the general population – and I don't want to see it rise among our UU congregations.

Yes, family breakdown is a disaster. Children from father-absent homes are five times more likely to live in poverty, 3 times more likely to fail in school, two to three times more likely to develop emotional and behavioral problems, and three times more likely to commit suicide.(1) (if you want bibliography and citations, check Fatherhood Facts.)

There is overwhelming proof that fatherlessness causes poverty and a host of social ills. The proof that poly leads to fatherlessness is weaker – the studies haven't been done. But the anecdotal evidence is persuasive. Under these circumstances, its up to poly advocates to come up with some hard evidence about its effects on children. Because the most plausible scene is that it is just another ton piling on to the ongoing disaster that is divorce and out-of-wedlock motherhood in this country.