polygamy and same-sex marriage --

[rogerashton]

The opponents of same-sex marriage have an argument that has convinced me -- that they are wrong. The argument is that recognizing same-sex marriage is somehow linked with tolerating polygamy.

Now, I had not thought much about same-sex marriage until it became a political issue, but I have long had a position on polygamy -- as a result of reading Stranger in a Strange Land about 1962. Here it is: If a man and 3 women -- or a woman and 3 men -- want to live together as a family in a state of marriage, who is harmed? And if nobody is harmed, what business has the state doing anything to interfere with their wishes?

This is, of course the classical liberal position. Classical liberalism, together with bad economics, underlies the free market position, which (as best I recall) I subscribed to in 1962. I have since learned a good deal more economics. I remain a classical liberal insofar as polygamy is concerned.

(I guess feminists might have objections to polygyny. Polygamy means plural spouses, while polygyny means plural wives, and the term for plural husbands is polyandry. Privileging polygyny, while prohibiting polyandry, would indeed be unfair to women, but I want to stress that the classical liberal argument in this case would not support any such prejudice, giving equal tolerance to polygyny and polyandry).

Exactly the same classical liberal position supports same-sex marriage, so I come to the conclusion that no one can oppose same-sex marriage who accepts (as I do) the classical liberal position that the state should never prevent harmless activities.

What am I missing? Why should a link to polygamy be an argument against same-sex marriage, rather than an argument for it?