The OP knows that gay marriage is a heated political issue. I think it’s a fair inference that they know polygamy is, too. The OP brings up both, as well as the question of whether “polies [should] campaign for the right for a civil union.”
I’m pretty sure that the OP is talking about polyamory, not polygamy (I don’t know if you were unaware of that, or if you deliberately brought up polygamy as an analogy).
If I wanted to be cynical I’d say that polygamy and polyamory describe pretty much the same phenomenon, except that polygamy is detestable and reactionary and oppressive, whereas polyamory is the complete opposite; or that polyamory is when it’s done by fashionable white people, and polygamy is when it’s done by weird brown foreigners (I don’t think either of these is a fair statement!).
I agree with your main point—I don’t particularly want to see more discussions of social policy on LessWrong, especially when they don’t push the analysis very far.
I know that there are several poly- words, including polyamory and polygamy, but am not knowledge about the distinctions. I thought polyamory was a catch-all word for “romantic relationships where people can have more than one partner, with the knowledge and approval of all other partners.” Or something to that effect. And polygamy is a particular kind of polyamory where the partners are married. I could definitely be mistaken about those words’ meanings, though.
Since poly was brought up by the OP in the context of gay marriage and civil unions, I used polygamy. But I certainly didn’t mean to imply any sort of connotation by the use of “polygamy” rather than “polyamory.”
or that polyamory is when it’s done by fashionable white people, and polygamy is when it’s done by weird brown foreigners
I thought it was “polyamory is when it’s done by New Yorkers (Californians?), polygamy is when it’s done by Utahans,” and weird brown people have harems and concubines instead.
(Though of course I also don’t think this is a fair characterization)
I’m pretty sure that the OP is talking about polyamory, not polygamy (I don’t know if you were unaware of that, or if you deliberately brought up polygamy as an analogy).
If I wanted to be cynical I’d say that polygamy and polyamory describe pretty much the same phenomenon, except that polygamy is detestable and reactionary and oppressive, whereas polyamory is the complete opposite; or that polyamory is when it’s done by fashionable white people, and polygamy is when it’s done by weird brown foreigners (I don’t think either of these is a fair statement!).
I agree with your main point—I don’t particularly want to see more discussions of social policy on LessWrong, especially when they don’t push the analysis very far.
I know that there are several poly- words, including polyamory and polygamy, but am not knowledge about the distinctions. I thought polyamory was a catch-all word for “romantic relationships where people can have more than one partner, with the knowledge and approval of all other partners.” Or something to that effect. And polygamy is a particular kind of polyamory where the partners are married. I could definitely be mistaken about those words’ meanings, though.
Since poly was brought up by the OP in the context of gay marriage and civil unions, I used polygamy. But I certainly didn’t mean to imply any sort of connotation by the use of “polygamy” rather than “polyamory.”
I thought it was “polyamory is when it’s done by New Yorkers (Californians?), polygamy is when it’s done by Utahans,” and weird brown people have harems and concubines instead.
(Though of course I also don’t think this is a fair characterization)
Oh, I had forgot about Mormons—here in France, Muslim immigrants are the first thing that comes to mind on discussions of Polygamy.
Ah! Well, good to know. Generally I expect “Utahans” and “weird brown foreigners” are to be inflected similarly in both of these versions, anyway.