Comebacks to "Here Come The Brides"
The Weekly Standard's anti-polyamory cover story (see previous entry) is getting taken apart on various blogs. Right off the mark, The New Republic's Rob Anderson weighed in:
Anderson, however, bases his argument partly on the fact that polyamory is too small, disorganized, and unpopular to constitute a "menace" of any sort. "There is no meaningful leadership, no agenda, no broad-based organizational structure," he writes, "no PAC, no lobbyists, no fundraising." Unfortunately this is true! Read the whole article. (You'll need to register for free with The New Republic.)
Meanwhile, Sean Bugg at the Metro Weekly ("Washington DC's gay & lesbian magazine") opines:
On the respected AndrewSullivan.com, Julian Sanchez takes the piece apart from a libertarian perspective. He also pulls the plug on Kurtz's most breathless legal prediction: that judges will have to grant bisexuals the right to multiple marriage because bisexuality is in their nature:
The latest Weekly Standard cover story, "HERE COME THE BRIDES: PLURAL MARRIAGE IS WAITING IN THE WINGS," proves something that its author, Stanley Kurtz, most certainly did not intend it to: The conservative case against gay marriage is growing weaker by the day. Opponents of same-sex marriage have traditionally relied on two strategies to drum up support for their cause: the "ick" factor and the slippery-slope argument. But now, even the staunchest of conservatives must admit that America is becoming more tolerant of homosexuality.... With the "ick" factor heading towards irrelevancy, the slippery-slope argument against gay marriage is all they have left.
Enter Stanley Kurtz and his near-obsession with what he calls "group marriages"....
Anderson, however, bases his argument partly on the fact that polyamory is too small, disorganized, and unpopular to constitute a "menace" of any sort. "There is no meaningful leadership, no agenda, no broad-based organizational structure," he writes, "no PAC, no lobbyists, no fundraising." Unfortunately this is true! Read the whole article. (You'll need to register for free with The New Republic.)
Meanwhile, Sean Bugg at the Metro Weekly ("Washington DC's gay & lesbian magazine") opines:
As anti-gay marriage activists go, Stanley Kurtz is one of the most predictably hysterical and, consequently, entertaining (and I mean entertaining in the sense that watching Elvira, Mistress of the Dark is entertaining).... The whole polygamy argument is going to get louder from anti-marriage activists as time goes on, and it's always helpful to have a few arguments in your pocket and ready to go.
On the respected AndrewSullivan.com, Julian Sanchez takes the piece apart from a libertarian perspective. He also pulls the plug on Kurtz's most breathless legal prediction: that judges will have to grant bisexuals the right to multiple marriage because bisexuality is in their nature:
Consider, for a moment, some other dimensions of sexual preference. Along many of those dimensions, I have no terribly rigidly defined "type". I've found myself attracted to blondes and redheads; to Anglo and Latina and black and Asian women; to lit majors and econ geeks. Kurtz, presumably, would infer from this diversity of romantic tastes that I need some kind of elaborately orgiastic living arrangement to be satisfied. And, come to think of it, that does sound like it might be fun. But it's scarcely necessary — and the assumption that it [legally] would be is about as well supported as Kurtz's parallel assumption in the case of bisexuals. Which is to say, not at all.
1 Comments:
There is no meaningful leadership or agenda because there are simply too many ways to "do" poly. For every closed (pseudo-monogamous) multi-partner relationship that craves legalized polygamy, there's a primary with a score of secondaries who couldn't give a fig about it, and a free-love-r who feels government marriage should be done away with altogether. How do you make a cohesive front out of that? It's sad, but we are a fractious lot.
Post a Comment
<< Home