Dada is the sun, Dada is the egg. Dada is the Police of the Police.


Massachusetts ravaged by the Gay Plague!

A very funny Daily Show piece can be found here (the QT is not of the best quality; go with the WMV), wherein Ed Helms visits the state of Massachusetts, armed with a "Homometer" to ascertain the fallout of the recent legalization of gay marriage (Mass. now ranks 50th in illiteracy!).

As a side note, the Daily Show piece contains a clip of Bill O'Reilly saying something like, "If you legalize gay marriage, you're going to have to legalize polygamy." This, of course, is a familiar argument, and is usually dismissed an instance of the "slippery slope" fallacy.

But really, what is the argument against legalized polygamy (assuming that we are talking about gender-neutral polygamy, and not a situation where only men were allowed to take multiple spouses)? Most people prefer monogamy, but most people prefer heterosexuality as well. Don't proponents of gay marriage who oppose polygamy have to make an argument that monogamy is somehow intrinsically superior to polyamory? If so, what is the argument?

Polygamy is clearly not an inevitable result of allowing gay marriage; if we can draw the line at man-woman, we can just as easily draw the line at man-man or woman-woman (as opposed to man-woman-man, etc.). But what is the principled basis for doing so? I don't know that I've seen anyone address this.

Blogarama - The Blog Directory Sanity is not statistical.