Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Songs from the Big Chair (1985). Thirty years gone.

Here.

Here.

To the Editor:

Whew! What a sense of relief I experienced reading Dr. Aaron E. Carroll’s article laying out the scientific evidence that refutes the need for people to drink eight glasses of water a day.

I can manage about two glasses of water on a good day, and I am never thirsty. My doctor told me a while ago that I get a lot of water from my food so not to worry. But I have lived with a nagging concern that I might be neglecting my health by not downing the recommended eight glasses of water a day.

Most people I know carry water bottles from dawn to dusk. As a good Seattleite, I drink at least three cups of coffee a day, but I had been led to believe that they don’t count because coffee dehydrates. This is another myth dispelled in Dr. Carroll’s article. So my doctor is correct and I can finally relax.

JANICE SABIN

Seattle

The elites at the New York Times are outraged by ISIS's destruction of cultural artifacts. Are they equally outraged by ISIS's destruction of Christians and other human beings? Not so much.

It would be presumptuous to deny that anyone could have a serious desire to have more than one marriage at the same time. It seems perfectly possible for someone to have the most serious religious or personal reasons for wanting this. So, offhand, my version of the fundamental argument for same-sex marriage seems to support a parallel argument for polygamy.

Although it is possible for someone to have such a serious desire to have more than one spouse, it seems (as a matter of brute empirical fact) that this is rarely actually the case. Even among Mormons and Muslims living in the West, there is remarkably little demand for polygamy. This point is not enough to overcome the presumption in favour of allowing polygamy; but it seems to make the presumption easier to rebut.

The presumption in favour of allowing polygamy could be rebutted if there is enough evidence that allowing polygamy would have uncontroversially harmful effects. While there is little historical evidence about what the effects of same-sex marriage would be, there is ample historical evidence about polygamy. This historical evidence clearly needs careful examination, which I cannot provide here. However, in my opinion, there is sufficient evidence to justify a serious concern that polygamy would have uncontroversially harmful effects, especially for women. If my opinion is correct, it would be wrong to allow polygamy until this concern is shown to be groundless.

The difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy then is not an essential difference in kind; it is a purely empirical difference in degree. There is much less demand for polygamy than for same-sex marriage; and there is far more evidence that polygamy would have clearly harmful effects than that same- sex marriage would.

This empirical difference in degree grounds a sharp difference in the requirements of political morality. We should hesitate to allow polygamy until there is serious demand for it, and until an examination of the ample historical evidence lays to rest the suspicion that polygamy would have clearly harmful effects. On the other hand, there is already serious demand for same-sex marriage, and little or no evidence that same-sex marriage would have uncontroversially harmful effects. So justice requires that we press ahead with the struggle to achieve full same-sex marriage.

(Ralph Wedgwood, "The Fundamental Argument for Same-Sex Marriage," The Journal of Political Philosophy 7 [September 1999]: 225-42, at 242 [italics in original; footnote omitted])

Note from KBJ: I have two comments. First, Wedgwood admits that his argument for homosexual "marriage" is also an argument for polygamy. The principle is the same. He simply thinks that polygamy is not an issue at this time, since not many people want it. (This betrays ignorance of how the law works. It is also naive. How many people wanted homosexual "marriage" until a few years ago?) Second, Wedgwood admits that "there is little historical evidence about what the effects of same-sex marriage would be." This is shocking. Why would he advocate a sea change in our understanding of marriage without ample evidence that such a change would have little or no adverse effects (on children, for example)? Oh, wait; he doesn't really care about adverse effects. It's all about making homosexuals feel normal and accepted. What Wedgwood and his ilk don't understand is that no law allowing homosexuals to "marry" can change the way people think or feel about homosexuals, their sexual liaisons, or their unions. Many people share the Roman Catholic view: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder" (from section 3). Only 42 years ago, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Homosexual activists changed that, to the discredit of the "scientists" and "medical doctors" who succumbed to the intimidation.

Here.

Here.

Here.