In defense of "Gay Marriage": Can you also object to polyamory?

So I find the position: I am fine with anyone doing whatever he wants in an intimate relationship, even if it’s polyamory, “open” relationships, whatever…

to be a consistent one.

What I find puzzling and inconsistent are the folks who say: gay marriage is fine with me, but A, B and C types of sexual relationships are not fine.

A = polyamory.

How does one justify this?

Does it not seem incoherent to you?

And how is it that one can say: I object to A, B and C but object to the Catholic Church making objections.

Is this also not incoherent?

I think the first proposition is easy: people may still claim to believe in monogamy.

On the second proposition, I have no idea. The Church is a moral agent passing on the teachings and commandments of God. Anybody who rejects the Church taking such stands has clearly conflated politics and morality and, possibly, has a very twisted view of the Church’s mission–it’s not a social justice organization committed solely to works of charity. Rather it’s primary concern is saving soles, improving the condition of mankind is an important mission, too, but the Church would rightly say that it’s first concern is that one receive the spiritually sustaining bread of the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and that receiving physically sustaining bread is secondary. Seems to be a big point of confusion.

What would their position be?

“I believe in monogamy because…”
“I object to polygamy because…”

And what would their sexual ethos be? “I believe that sex is for…”

The belief system about same sex marriage, you state as consistent depends on the definition of sexual orientation.

If the definition of sexual orientation is fluid, then that position is fluid as well. Pre-SSM, marriage was a heterosexual institution. Now it changed to accomodate another sexual orientation (homosexual) - I’m sure bisexual, trans, etc. are included as well. But It won’t stop there due to fluidity.

They really can’t rail against polyamory, since that’s a sexual orientation. They really can’t draw a line and say “nope! that doesn’t count”

The minute they draw a line, they must also draw a line on the definition of sexual orientation, and if they have a fluid definition of that, they can’t do that.

Yep. :thumbsup:

Of course it is incoherent. But they have a nice slogan, ‘love is love’. Worst of all this should apply to pedophilia. The proponents of love is love can only say that a pedophile shouldn’t act on his attraction, but they can’t say his attraction is wrong.

On the second point these are the same people who say we must tolerate everything, and then refuse to tolerate intolerance. They say there is no truth as a truth. Relativism is pretty ridiculous but its adherents are entrenched.

Yep to this, too. :thumbsup:

How are you defining polyamory? By emotional love? Or physical sex? Or are both mandatory? Would loveless casual sex with lust as the motivating factor be considered polyamorous to the spouse?

Anything with sex in the picture. Love is irrelevant.

The standard reply to your polyamory is that marriage is two people only, consenting adults. Of course that’s exclusionary, so it “violates the rights” of those who love more than one. :rolleyes:

Such a definition also “violates the rights” of those who are not adults. And those not consenting. And also many other groups as well.

But why should marriage be 2 people only?

The Catholic position has an answer.

But I’m curious why those who endorse “gay marriage” but object to polyamory believe it should be only 2.

And how they (the pro-gay marriage but anti polyamory folks) respond to the objection: you are being discriminatory against those who want to love more than 1 person.

Why should they be permitted to tell someone: you can’t love these people?

So would that apply if 3 elderly people who aren’t having sex want to get “married” for the sake of companionship and pooling of resources?

Would it apply to what? The definition of polyamory?

AFAIK, SSM advocates would reject that premise - and I think I would too (but open to be enlightened). The current theme is euphemistically termed “marriage equality” and spelled out as “everyone should have the right to marry the person they love”.

If the argument spreads to polyamory, I doubt that “orientation” will be the basis for that shift. Presumably some “personal freedoms” or such will be invoked.

I don’t think that’s true…

Richard Carrier, an advocate for SSM, recently “came out” as polyamorous.

He claims that’s his orientation.

I have not heard from pro-SSM advocates a reasoned answer to this. But I imagine it would appeal to practicality considerations (of a legal nature).

Certainly he does. Though I believe by weight of numbers his is in a minority (in the community at large, and in the pro-SSM or gay community) in regard to what constitutes a sexual orientation. Broader terms such as “sexual identity” may come to encompass the interest in multiple simultaneous partners.

In respect of SSM, those advocates I’ve seen speak generally declare that it should not extend to polyamorous arrangements. What positions they might adopt in future - who can say?

Not sure why “numbers” would be relevant?

I’m quite certain that this was an argument that was dismissed by SSM advocates when we said, "You’re only less than 4% of the population’.

In respect of SSM, those advocates I’ve seen speak generally declare that it should not extend to polyamorous arrangements

Then they need to be able to offer a coherent apologia for their position, “Love wins! But only if it’s between 2!”

Because the claim that polyamory is a sexual orientation is not established by one man. Nor is the topic a simple matter of fact. The arguments in favour of polyamory will not be advanced by positions which are not even held by the bulk of advocates.

Then they need to be able to offer a coherent apologia for their position, “Love wins! But only if it’s between 2!”

Sure, I’m waiting to hear it too.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit