tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post8408904088153915506..comments2024-03-18T22:21:01.033-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: Aquinas on PolygamyGrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-40777743333657897252011-10-21T19:29:17.656-04:002011-10-21T19:29:17.656-04:00Not insulted, Cass.
Let me try to say it again. T...Not insulted, Cass.<br /><br />Let me try to say it again. There's no mechanism, legal or social, for A, B, and C to declare that the three of them are to be considered one family, and that the loss of one or two of the members does not sever the parental relationship between the other(s) and the family's offspring.<br /><br />I think we're actually agreed on that.<br /><br />My complaint is that there isn't such -- if there is desire to experiment with such -- and that proclaiming that there isn't such is not helpful to those attempting the experiment.<br /><br />I know all about the legal arrangements that can be made, and the problems that they can face. Spice and I tried that for a while, back when I was convinced that marriage was the primary cause of divorce.htomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10079911355302503367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-67898448785451769192011-10-20T15:13:06.365-04:002011-10-20T15:13:06.365-04:00C can join with A and B, then, but cannot expect t...<i>C can join with A and B, then, but cannot expect the government to respect that decision even though the neighbors have not been bothered; A, B, and C can't be a "family" of equals.</i><br /><br />I don't know how to express what I'm trying to say without sounding as though I'm trying to be insulting so I'm going to just say it straight out and rely upon you to correct me if I've misunderstood and understand that no insult is meant.<br /><br />What does "respect their decision" mean? You never spell it out, but it seems to mean "let them do whatever they want to and moreover, defend them against the rest of the world". So long as they (as you say) don't cause problems the government is not going to enter their home and tell them they can't live together. No law gives government that power, and government doesn't just create its own power - in a representative government people have the power to shape and change the law. So there's a concrete limit on government.<br /><br />So long as no one with a competing (and legally recognized) right comes along - and their actions don't impact others - ABC can pretty much do whatever they wish. The law even provides them a perfectly valid way to arrange for child guardianship. A&B may decline to avail themselves of it, but if they do they shouldn't expect the government to read their minds after they're dead, nor should C's word automatically carry the day.<br /><br />This has nothing to do with "respect" and everything to do with the ability to solve disputes between people with competing claims. If you shout your wishes into a dark hole, you can't very well expect the rest of the world to know what they are. There is nothing about a live-in arrangement that explicitly indicates you want any person living in your house to raise your children if you die, whether or not you are having sex with that person. There's no formal agreement to tell the world what they've decided. A marriage is just such a formal agreement. So is a guardianship agreement. <br /><br />The marriage is completely irrelevant - it's a red herring. It does not matter - the situation would be exactly the same for any group of people living together without benefit of marriage because <b>parental rights don't depend upon marriage and marriage does not create parental rights where no parenthood existed before.</b> You seem to want it to, but wishing doesn't make things so.<br /><br />Reasonable people don't leave important matters like who raises their kids up to chance, nor do they expect the rest of the world to read their minds and then defend their wishes against all comers.<br /><br />In the case of kids switched at birth, no I would not send the kids back home but neither would I deny the real parents visitation. They didn't stop being parents because the hospital made a mistake. Anyway this is covered by the "best interest of the child" principle I referred to earlier. Few folks would think it was in a child's best interest to uproot him and send him off to live with strangers, but then few folks would deny a child the change to know his or her real parents either.<br /><br />Neither is reasonable, and as I said earlier if C had been the primary caretaker of the children few courts would fail to consider that important fact.<br /><br />A, B, and C can be a "family of equals" <i>in all matters that involve only them</i>, but they have zero right to dictate how the rest of the world sees them.Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-22469248779640319352011-10-20T14:20:37.394-04:002011-10-20T14:20:37.394-04:00C can join with A and B, then, but cannot expect t...C can join with A and B, then, but cannot expect the government to respect that decision even though the neighbors have not been bothered; A, B, and C can't be a "family" of equals.<br /><br />"Blood ties"; there was a case in the headlines recently where a pair of teens were discovered to have been switched at birth; nearly graduating from high school, would you put them back with their "blood" families?<br /><br />I did politics for decades. Seriously, I trust my neighbors more than the politicians.<br /><br />Grim said something about building blocks in a society; we could build more interesting structures if we had more blocks to use than 1x2s. Some 3x4, some 1x5, some tiles, ... teens are probably 1x1s.htomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10079911355302503367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-38484605865480363212011-10-20T10:03:30.073-04:002011-10-20T10:03:30.073-04:00since poly-whichever isn't supported by both l...<i>since poly-whichever isn't supported by both law and society, it can't exist. Or if it does, law, society, or both together, can disrupt it as they wish.</i><br /><br />Yes, but that would be the case regardless of whether there was a government or not, htom.<br /><br />Without law or society, you have only that protection against your fellow humans which you can provide by yourself. If your polygamous marriage annoys or vexes your neighbors, they can band together and simply kill you or drive you out. The difference with government is that is that before government can interfere with you, laws must be passed and there's at least an explicit and predictable set of rules as opposed to sheer caprice.<br /><br />We have become so used to law and society that we no longer recognize the dangers posed by anarchy/human aggression. Those dangers didn't disappear (just ask someone who has served in a country where there is no real law!) but the presence of law and the social compact have made such dangers nearly non-existent here in America. If our neighbor attacks us, we call the police. That's government, protecting your rights.<br /><br />But this comes at a price. The reason there *are* police in the first place is that the folks in your community have agreed to be bound by a set of laws in exchange for government protecting certain rights. They give up some freedoms to gain some additional security (which in itself offers considerable freedom from fear and the burden of constant vigilance).<br /><br />Polygamy clearly *does* exist despite laws prohibiting it. On balance, unless polygamists start annoying their neighbors, violating the rights of other people, or imposing unacceptable costs upon the rest of society, society really has very little interest in disrupting it. There are other, far more important threats out there (rape, murder, theft, fraud, etc.)<br /><br />We see this every day - many laws on the books are not enforced unless and until someone really raises a fuss.<br /><br />What are your protections against government? Well, you can take up arms and rebel.<br /><br />You can get involved in lawmaking or persuade your fellow citizens that polygamy is a human right that ought to be protected. People do this all the time and it works, but it requires effort and most folks would prefer to complain.<br /><br />You can leave and go somewhere where you agree with the laws and find the bargain acceptable.<br /><br />Either way, government really *is nothing more that a collection of other people*, except in this case they are people who have agreed upon a set of rules they will live by. You can choose to live in anarchy (notably, few people do this b/c they then have zero practical rights that others will defend, theory being distinct from reality) or you can live under some form of government (you have *some* rights others will defend).<br /><br />You seem to feel that government has a duty to defend *everything* you want to do, regardless of the costs your actions impose on others, and even if they see no value in doing so. How do you justify such a stance?<br /><br />Government is delegated powers <i>so that it may protect a limited set of your rights against your fellow citizens</i>. You certainly don't have to submit to laws you don't agree with, but I'm not sure on what basis you keep elevating the "rights" of your hypothetical "C" above those of "D" (the family, who have blood ties to the children), or why you would reasonably expect society to do so when the parents could so easily have made their wishes wrt guardianship of their childen explicit and thus gained the protection of society and law for their wishes?<br /><br />Seems like the Mother of all free rider problems - we should be able to enjoy the benefits of the social compact while refusing to abide by it?Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-69214055520671274122011-10-19T20:37:34.988-04:002011-10-19T20:37:34.988-04:00So, since poly-whichever isn't supported by bo...So, since poly-whichever isn't supported by both law and society, it can't exist. Or if it does, law, society, or both together, can disrupt it as they wish.<br /><br />It's interesting that rights, in this context, seem to belong to society or government, and do not belong to individuals as shields against society or government. I think that such "rights" are properly called "powers".htomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10079911355302503367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-16324316566426445702011-10-19T19:11:07.951-04:002011-10-19T19:11:07.951-04:00A & B are married, C joins them as a spouse (i...<i>A & B are married, C joins them as a spouse (in all three's opinion.) </i><br /><br />Their opinions are irrelevant here.<br /><br />What matters is what rights society has decided it wants to defend (marriage rights), not what rights the parties *wish* society would defend.<br /><br />They have no "right" to impose binding duties on society unilaterally. Nor should they.Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-89423025284054527432011-10-19T19:07:14.800-04:002011-10-19T19:07:14.800-04:00Oh, and u1 and u2 will only be able to assert pare...Oh, and u1 and u2 will only be able to assert parental rights if they are, in fact, the parents of the children involved.<br /><br />A court might decide to keep the kids together (child's best interest trumps parental rights).<br /><br />These are general (common law) rules, as this is all state law and state laws differ. But they're remarkably consistent in their reasoning, if not always in their implementation.Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-36033741227008965602011-10-19T19:07:14.203-04:002011-10-19T19:07:14.203-04:00Oh, and u1 and u2 will only be able to assert pare...Oh, and u1 and u2 will only be able to assert parental rights if they are, in fact, the parents of the children involved.<br /><br />A court might decide to keep the kids together (child's best interest trumps parental rights).<br /><br />These are general (common law) rules, as this is all state law and state laws differ. But they're remarkably consistent in their reasoning, if not always in their implementation.Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-59044719072649107442011-10-19T19:04:19.260-04:002011-10-19T19:04:19.260-04:00There is no legal mechanism for declaring a third ...<i>There is no legal mechanism for declaring a third spouse. None.</i><br /><br />That's irrelevant, though. The law says that, having promised 100% of yourself to one partner, you can't revise the original bargain after the fact. You can mutually rescind it via a divorce and then enter into some informal sharing mechanism, but that's a separate issue and society isn't going to defend any "rights" you feel you should have.<br /><br />Parenting trumps marriage where children are concerned. If C was the parent but A/B were married, C's parental rights don't just vanish. Two separate questions here.<br /><br /><i>u1 and u2 are going to have standing to challenge many, if not all, of the documents produced.</i><br /><br />You're darned tootin' they will because both parents never consented to reliquish their rights. They don't vanish and marriage between one parent and 3rd party doesn't cancel them either.<br /><br />Not sure what you're getting at here. It isn't really the marriage that matters but the blood ties, and the closer the better. Parent trumps everything else unless you can show unfitness (and that's hard to do).Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-28507008874467942492011-10-19T18:56:18.159-04:002011-10-19T18:56:18.159-04:00A possibly useful (and far more relevant than adul...A possibly useful (and far more relevant than adultery or promiscuity) example here would be that of common law marriage. Many if not most states recognize it.<br /><br />The common threads in criteria for determining whether or not a common law marriage exists are *obvious intent* and *permanence* - i.e., the passing of some statutorily determined time (as in 10 or 15 or 20 years) during which a couple or the person being sued for relief held themselves out to be married to the community at large. Examples would be referring to X as "my wife" or acting like a married couple does.<br /><br />Just being a live in lover for a short time would not satisfy this requirement (and in any case it wouldn't supercede the rights of an actual spouse since most states have bigamy laws to protect the rights of married partners and prevent multiple - and confusicating! - claims).<br /><br />Again, once individuals ask society to invest resources in defending their rights, it's hardly unreasonable for society to demand that they meet certain terms and conditions and that society receive some benefit to balance the duty of defending those rights. The more complex, ambiguous and confusing the arrangement is, the less likely society is going to be to want to support it against challenges.<br /><br />That strikes me as a pretty darned good reason for society to decide that polygamy is not worth defending ...unless it can be shown that on balance, the benefits <i>to society</i> outweigh the costs.Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-9298910502429087962011-10-19T18:48:50.548-04:002011-10-19T18:48:50.548-04:00Part of the problem (as I see it) is that governme...<i>Part of the problem (as I see it) is that government is going to stick its nose in. A & B are married, C joins them as a spouse (<b>in all three's opinion.</b>) </i><br /><br />Spouse, not merely lover. Parentage of the children was unspecified, as was/were the trio's gender(s). As mutual spouses, all would be involved in raising the children.<br /><br /><br />There is no legal mechanism for declaring a third spouse. None. You could make a sham of it, by filing a bunch of power(s) of attorneys, medical directives, ... each specifying that (one) designates the other (two), or the survivor of the other two, to be the person to make such decisions ..., guardianship, etc. -- and having done so, there are a number of people (human, corporate, and state) who would have standing to dispute such documents, and even if they survive the challenges (which can take years if A,B, and C have the funds and access to them) it may be too late. <br /><br />For a more detailed hypothetical, c1, c2, c3, c4, c5. c1 was adopted by A, a sibling's child. c2 was adopted by B, also a sibling's child. Neither's other parent is known (u1 and u2.) c3, c4 and c5 are the genetic product of A&B, B&C, and A&C. <br /><br />u1 and u2 are going to have standing to challenge many, if not all, of the documents produced. As will the State, under the supposition that u1 and u2 would have such standing if their identities were known (the State acting in loco parentis in some fashion.)htomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10079911355302503367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-84407347731241060782011-10-19T18:16:41.065-04:002011-10-19T18:16:41.065-04:00The standing granted by the recognition of the mar...<i>The standing granted by the recognition of the marriage between A & B would trump any documents the three might sign.</i><br /><br />What is the basis for this assertion? C's "right" to act <i>in loco parentis</i> to the children of A & B is never going to supercede the rights of A & B, but then it was never intended to. It was ALWAYS contingent on the death of A&B. If they intend otherwise during their lifetime then this arrangement should be made explicit by putting their kids up for adoption or voluntary relinquishment of parental rights according to the laws of the state in which they reside.<br /><br />If they make no arrangement, what evidence is there of their desire to have C assume parenting duties?<br /><br />It's possible that family members (D) might challenge any documents signed by A, B, and C, but they would do so, <i>not because A&B were married</i>, but because they have the closest blood ties to the children. The marriage is actually irrelevant in many ways.<br /><br />A, B, and their respective families all have blood ties to the kids. C does not, so in a case of competing claims the rights of D (the family) would be balanced against either the explicit wishes of A&B (if legal arrangements were made) or C's unsupported assertion that A&B "always meant to get around to making me guardian" (which is pretty unconvincing).<br /><br />And in the end, the standard that would be used would almost certainly be the best interests of the minor children - again, marriage is not the salient factor here: parenthood/blood ties are.<br /><br />Unsupported assertions combined with merely being a live in lover (unless that live in lover had been the children's primary caretaker, and a court might well consider that) is pretty specious grounds for awarding custody of children. Hard to even prove you're a live in lover unless you want to produce sex tapes...<br /><br />... and I suspect that last would be unlikely to make a favorable impression on the judge :)Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-16728163066200148012011-10-19T17:08:11.436-04:002011-10-19T17:08:11.436-04:00A fourth party comes along, refusing to recognize ...<i>A fourth party comes along, refusing to recognize C's relationship with A & B, and can contest C's status, where they would be unable to contest A's or B's decisions if it was B & C or A & C who were unconscious.</i><br /><br />A & B are the parents. C is NOT the parent, nor is C a family member, nor has C been formally designated as the guardian in the event of A/B's demise. <br /><br />C's standing was never made explicit by A or B. Government didn't "refuse standing to C" -- A & B did refused that standing by not making their desires plain.<br /><br /><i>They could have chosen to do so,</i> but they didn't. Your scenario would have government just assuming (on no evidence, I might add) that A & B wanted C to have certain rights (or, more broadly, that if you take a lover then you must want that lover to raise your kids if you die, as opposed to your parents or siblings doing so). In this case, A&B's desires were never documented, formalized or made explicit but somehow government is supposed to decide what they wanted after they're dead just b/c C says so? A logical question would be, "Why didn't they let anyone know?"<br /><br />That doesn't fly in any court of law I've seen.<br /><br />Why would/should government do such a thing? I certainly don't want government assuming things on my behalf.<br /><br />Attitudes have nothing to do with cultural institutions or laws. Laws may be affected by attitudes, but in general until a critical mass of people push for a change in the law, it will remain the same.Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-32514860320173709772011-10-19T15:32:54.861-04:002011-10-19T15:32:54.861-04:00Government has stuck it's nose in by refusing ...Government has stuck it's nose in by refusing standing to C. The standing granted by the recognition of the marriage between A & B would trump any documents the three might sign. A fourth party comes along, refusing to recognize C's relationship with A & B, and can contest C's status, where they would be unable to contest A's or B's decisions if it was B & C or A & C who were unconscious. <br /><br />Yes, there are strong interests in providing for and protecting children. Government can have a proper role in such. <br /><br />I understand that girlfriends, lovers, and fiances don't have the standing of wives. I'm saying that if society wants to allow other than marriage of twosomes, that's going to have to change. (Just as it is changing to allow homosexuals to marry.) That recognition and support is a demonstration of how other unions are hindered by government; there is no mechanism to gain such legal recognition. (cf Church of Latter Day Saints and their religious belief in multiple wives.)<br /><br />A couple of years ago there was an uproar in the American press that the President of France had a mistress whom he appeared in public with. The French seemed to think it all a big yawn, and didn't understand why the Americans were bothered by that public, adulterous, relationship. Different cultures, different attitudes.htomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10079911355302503367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-49254648632168615102011-10-19T14:46:41.800-04:002011-10-19T14:46:41.800-04:00One more thing:
Part of the problem (as I see it)...One more thing:<br /><br /><i>Part of the problem (as I see it) is that government is going to stick its nose in.</i><br /><br />Actually this isn't true unless someone - almost always someone with standing to make that request - <i>chooses</i> to ask government/society to enforce their rights. Before government can stick its nose in, it has to find out.<br /><br />I have known of scads of people sleeping/living with someone they weren't married to and government really could not care less. The problems arise when there's a dispute and the parties involved ask government to enforce their rights.<br /><br />Finally, government (and society, and families) do have a strong interest in protecting the welfare of minor children who are parentless. The presumption is that families share more than casual or even frequent sexual partners: blood ties, family history, love.<br /><br />As I mentioned before, we see this all the time in the military. A Marine has a girlfriend who (inexplicably) expects to be treated as though she were a wife. Or he leaves his wife (or she leaves him) and he hooks up with another woman who then considers herself to be his wife. He dies.<br /><br />Guess who gets notified (and gets his death benefits)? <i>Whoever he designates</i>, and if there's no designation there are clear rules (wife first, parents second, and so on). Girlfriends and lovers don't have any rights in this situation, nor should they.<br /><br />His designee can certainly turn around and notify the girlfriend and even give her the money (IOW, they can choose to honor his wishes if they know what those wishes were). But it's up to him to make his wishes known and if he doesn't there are clear rules for what happens next.<br /><br />These rules are clear evidence that society recognizes/supports marriage and family in a way that they manifestly do NOT recognize or support promiscuity or adultery.Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-74840493602450468472011-10-19T14:34:16.892-04:002011-10-19T14:34:16.892-04:00I'm not sure in what sense adultery or promisc...I'm not sure in what sense adultery or promiscuity could possibly be said to be cultural institutions. An institution is typically some sort of arrangement formally recognized by society as having importance or value.<br /><br />Adultery and promiscuity are <i>human behaviors</i> (like stealing or lying), but there's no agreed upon set of rules for stealing, lying, adultery, or promiscuity as there is for traditional marriage because none of these behaviors is something society is encouraging or supporting.<br /><br />As for your example of a married couple living with a 3rd person and wanting that person to raise their kids if something happens to them, the military runs into that sort of situation all the time and it's an unGodly mess caused by the failure of the parties involved to act like grownups.<br /><br />If two parents want a non-family member to be the guardian of their children, there are existing legal instruments to ensure that and good parents think of these things. My husband and I were formally designated as the guardians of our nieces and nephews by all 3 sets of parents. There were other siblings, and also grandparents. But if you care you don't leave these things to chance. <br /><br />Absent an explicit agreement between the parties, society has exactly zero basis for arbitrarily setting aside the natural interest of the children involved and of other family members in preserving the family as a unit. Because society recognizes and values marriage and families, it has rules to protect their interests and support those institutions. That is not the case with adultery for very good practical reasons.<br /><br />In your example, adultery has occurred regardless of the intent of the parties. Adultery is sleeping with someone not your spouse. Doesn't matter whether it was "OK" with your spouse or not. I will accept that adultery in this case is not necessarily a <i>breach of faith</i> but it's still adultery according to the literal meaning of the word.<br /><br />That's an important distinction. People often use legal terms with distinct meanings interchangeably as though they meant the same thing, but those legal meanings pertain to legal rights recognized by society (and which individuals can reasonably expect society to uphold as its end of the social contract). We don't punish faithlessness but may choose to punish adultery (or not, as the individual may choose not to ask society to protect his/her marital rights). <br /><br />That's a separate question from whether such rights exist as a consequence of marriage. They do, whether or not they are ever enforced.Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-33838750617246285882011-10-19T00:57:45.176-04:002011-10-19T00:57:45.176-04:00Part of the problem (as I see it) is that governme...Part of the problem (as I see it) is that government is going to stick its nose in. A & B are married, C joins them as a spouse (in all three's opinion.) Something happens, say an auto accident. C expects to take care of the children, but they're taken by the state and given to someone else, since C has no legal (in the State's eyes) attachment to them. Or C isn't allowed to give medical directives, because the parents of A & B don't want C interfering. Or ... the list is long. Adultery would be straying outside the bounds set by the group, just as it is now. Promiscuity, too, doesn't change much; those who are promiscuous do not seem to exercise normal amounts of self-control in sexual behavior.<br /><br />Faithfulness, in this context, is avoiding adultery. It might not always be a bright line, differing even from couple to couple. D & E are happily married. F & G are happily married. D & F used to be married. Due to a horrible accident, D and F find themselves together, spend the night together, and each confesses when they get home. E says to D that due to the circumstances, D is forgiven, not to do it again. G files for divorce. Same rules, same event, different people, different meanings attached.<br /><br />If the adultery is planned, an ongoing series of planned meetings, I can see a partner having a very different feeling than a one-night event when both were in shock.<br /><br />I think both adultery and promiscuity are cultural institutions; American culture about such is very different than European. Here, with our "forbidding" and "disgraceful" attitudes about extra-marital encounters, we actively hinder the creation of rules for such "rule breaking" behavior. <br /><br />I'm happily married and have no desire to have an affair (although in the last year I've learned that I could, indeed, be tempted -- both of the ladies seem to feel exactly the same way as I do, we're all determined that it's not going to happen, I've talked to Spice about both, she says she'd probably eventually forgive me, although I wouldn't like the process, and I know I'd hate myself in the morning before she even knew.) Is this being faithless? Adultery in the heart? Or merely the facing of reality, that temptation must be faced and defeated, with the help of your partner? No answers required.htomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10079911355302503367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-90779102902328339332011-10-18T18:40:03.327-04:002011-10-18T18:40:03.327-04:00It's interesting that you say that, Cass. Aqu...It's interesting that you say that, Cass. Aquinas certainly would not have agreed with you -- he is quite clear that <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum587.htm" rel="nofollow">the sacrament aspect of marriage</a> is that it is what helps you avoid the stain of those very sins. (A 'sacrament,' he notes, is "a sanctifying remedy against a sin.") <br /><br />So Aquinas (and Paul, for that matter) saw marriage as directly related to -- and indeed the remedy for -- these ills.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-52485690533410691992011-10-18T16:43:40.894-04:002011-10-18T16:43:40.894-04:00Personally I don't really care whether adulter...Personally I don't really care whether adultery or promiscuity are worse deviations from perfection than traditional marriage or polygamy. Marriage is an institution: a formal cultural arrangement with rules, norms, and the intention of fostering long term commitments between human beings.<br /><br />Adultery and promiscuity are not cultural institutions and they are nothing like marriage (with one or many wives). They have no formal rules or norms and they represent an escape from or unwillingness to enter into long term commitments. <br /><br />Different beasts entirely.Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-77841569604331683782011-10-18T13:57:18.325-04:002011-10-18T13:57:18.325-04:00By the way, htom, I think this is also relevant to...By the way, htom, I think this is also relevant to your point. You may say, 'We should let people try stuff,' but it's helpful (for them as well) if you can give an account of what the institution is about as a guiding lamp. <br /><br />They may decide they don't want some of the goods. We speak of faith, for example, which is a good that may be more important for Christians than for, say, Lakota (to use my wife's favorite example). Even though it's not the religious virtue of Faith, it's an analogue to it; and developing that particular virtue may simply not be as important to them as it is to us.<br /><br />Interfering with the principal end, though, will end badly. It may not start out badly, but natural law is the one kind of law that doesn't need enforcement. Sooner or later, like Kipling's Gods of the Copybook Headings, it shall 'with terror and slaughter return.' Until our nature changes, that will be true. (Of course, some people expect our nature to change pretty quickly now due to genetic engineering and other scientific advances. As to that, I shall wait and see: the New Soviet Man was supposed to change our nature, too.)Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-65331419573256120992011-10-18T11:45:28.782-04:002011-10-18T11:45:28.782-04:00Elise,
I'm not sure that's quite right. ...Elise,<br /><br />I'm not sure that's quite right. Notice that we have moved on from discussing whether polygamy is right according to Aquinas -- that is, in accord with natural law -- to whether it is a better or worse deviation from perfection than adultery. <br /><br />To have that discussion, it is necessary to look at what you are calling "aberrant" behavior. That is, after all, what "aberrant" means -- from the Latin, literally, 'to wander away from the path.' <br /><br />It's possible to wander a little way from the path, or off into an entirely different country; but we ought to be able to find general principles to guide us. Indeed, they should be the same principles that mark out the path.<br /><br />So, we have several we've come up with from Aquinas: the chief one being the 'principle end,' but also the secondary and tertiary end; and in addition to that, the marriage goods, especially fidelity or faith. Those should be just as useful in explaining what is wrong with aberrant behavior -- or why one kind is worse than another -- as they were in marking out what would be the <i>best</i> kind of behavior.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-2024400536594710242011-10-18T09:56:24.215-04:002011-10-18T09:56:24.215-04:00Grim -
With regard to you comment at 12:49pm -
...Grim - <br /><br />With regard to you comment at 12:49pm -<br /><br />I would argue first that you are trying to extract a general model from what should be considered aberrant behavior. Neither the football player nor the harem girls should be doing what they’re doing. (And neither should the “official” girlfriend if she knows what’s going on.) The fact that they are in - perhaps - sufficient numbers to warrant discussion at a major magazine means something has gone very wrong.<br /><br />I would argue second that allowing someone who behaves the way the football player does to have multiple wives (or multiple “official” girlfriends) is not going to satisfy whatever is driving him to this behavior (which is part of the “aberrant” thing). He does not want to have sex with a stable group of however-many women; he wants women who will:<br /><br /><i>service him in the barroom bathroom or wherever the beer is flowing</i><br /><br />This is not adultery in the traditional sense: a husband who has a girlfriend on the side. This is also not the “polyamorous” relationships described in an earlier link, where the various pairings - however brief or lengthy - are motivated by mutual love or a mutual desire for sexual adventure or even mutual lust. This is something else entirely. It is, to use an out of fashion but perfectly appropriate term, unfresh.<br /><br />There is a discussion to be had on whether adultery is preferable to polygamy but the football player and his soft harem are not the example on which to hang that discussion.Elisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06594477709835944165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-13495648260262991032011-10-18T08:21:59.861-04:002011-10-18T08:21:59.861-04:00Decreeing that such should never be tried strikes ...<i>Decreeing that such should never be tried strikes me as foolish; let those who want to try such write the rules they want to follow, and how to admit and expel members, how to cope with children and assets, and let them try -- without the rest of society nattering at them about it.</i><br /><br />A few comments :)<br /><br />First of all, I haven't seen anyone here arguing that alternative arrangements "should never be tried". That's really not the question, since if one or more people want to have some kind of polygamous living arrangement they are completely free to do so. There is currently no law that I know of forbidding a man for living with two women, nor for having children with two women. And in most jurisdictions, laws against adultery either don't exist or are not enforced.<br /><br />Where the law comes into it is when these folks want *society* and the government to protect what they consider their rights. If you want to voluntarily enter into an agreement but want society to enforce the terms of that agreement, society has the right to decide whether there's any benefit to the larger community in doing so and - if the answer is yes - whether the benefits outweigh the costs/risks.<br /><br />This is what divorce law and marriage laws are all about - creating enforceable rights for each partner against the other and for both partners against the rest of society.<br /><br />So long as these folks aren't asking me to protect their rights under an arrangement I don't happen to think is terribly wise, they are entirely free to do as they please. They can make any arrangements or rules they please too. But their right to do so stops when it imposes duties and costs upon people outside the relationship.Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-52368117827431350762011-10-17T18:55:56.704-04:002011-10-17T18:55:56.704-04:00Grim, it appears that both quotes you offer is the...Grim, it appears that both quotes you offer is the standard RC argument against contraceptive sex.<br /><br />In addition, both are admonitions against merely satisfying lust, IOW, both underline that husband should treat his wife as much more than a 'woman'.<br /><br />Interesting that both can also be read as a faint argument against polgamy, too.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-24011944787162081092011-10-17T18:34:30.236-04:002011-10-17T18:34:30.236-04:00Neither loving nor boinking are rational activitie...Neither loving nor boinking are rational activities; they're both primarily emotional and/or not conscious. Trying to parse them with logic is a violation of the Rules of Magic, or something. People are not rational creatures, they're rationalizing creatures. That's why Rimmer's, and Heinlein's, multi-member things seem possible and yet foolish. Most people are not as rational as those characters in fiction are. We're Kirks, not Spocks (having is not as good as wanting....) That's part of why the football captain and the cheerleader have such melodrama-filled high school and college years (and for some of them, the excitement doesn't end there.) Males and females compete differently for who they consider to be their "best" mates.<br /><br />We (humans) have not tried most of the possible arrangements, at least not in any fashion that would yield reliable results. Looking at my own life, I can see where Spice and I could be in one of RAH's line marriages (which has to be considered a form of poly-marriage) with several couples we know very well. In some ways such could have made our lives better; in some ways things could be worse. Decreeing that such should never be tried strikes me as foolish; let those who want to try such write the rules they want to follow, and how to admit and expel members, how to cope with children and assets, and let them try -- without the rest of society nattering at them about it. We're not rational enough to do that, though, so it won't happen.<br /><br />We (a culture) need to learn to be more forgiving of error. Demanding that others be perfect sets them up to fail.htomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10079911355302503367noreply@blogger.com