Same-sex marriage threatens real marriage

Manchester Union Leader ^ | February 22, 2004 | Bernadette Malone

[billorites]

ONE QUESTION for the Rev. Gene Robinson, the nation’s first openly gay Episcopal priest (now bishop) who cautions those of us opposed to same-sex marriage: “Don’t waste your time and energy defending marriage from something that doesn’t threaten it.” Doesn’t polygamy threaten marriage?

Would the Rev. Robinson rise to defend polygamy, and perform wedding ceremonies for a man and two women, or a woman and two men (polyandry)? Because if same-sex marriage doesn’t threaten real marriage, why should polygamy? There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two institutions when you study them.

This comparison is not intended to be degrading or insulting; it’s not likening same-sex marriage to bestiality or incest or any other perversions that harm children and animals. Both same-sex marriage and polygamy are voluntary arrangements by consenting adults; why should we care what people do behind closed doors?

And if marriage need not be limited to one man and one woman — as Robinson is saying — why need it be limited to couples only? What’s so sacred about the number 2?

It seems a bit arbitrary to allow one man to marry another man, but not to marry two women. Why should the government restrict his choice, provided his partners are willing? Would the Rev. Robinson concede that letting groups of three, four or more marry would water down the meaning of marriage, which elevates and sanctifies the precise biological recipe for creating children?

Many homosexuals don’t take the polygamy analogy seriously, or they become easily offended when the comparison is made. But there are many sound reasons to consider legalizing polygamy, advocates of same-sex marriage must admit.

Just like people feel that they are born homosexual, which justifies their right to marry same-sex lovers, people also are born with the proclivity to have multiple sex partners. For many people, monogamy does not feel like their natural, biological state.

Animals, for the most part, are not monogamous. So should people who are born with a strong urge to mate with more than one woman be denied their constitutional right to follow their urge? Why should a man be thwarted by the government if he can find two (or more) women to go along with him?

Proponents of same-sex marriage claim it will have a stabilizing effect on homosexual relationships. Don’t we want to encourage marriage and lifelong commitment, they ask?

Similarly, marrying more than one woman might be a stabilizing, civilizing influence on natural-born philanderers. They may be less inclined to pursue mistresses and patronize prostitutes if they have legally sanctioned variety at home. They may become less inclined to take advantage of no-fault divorce laws to abandon their wives for other women (opting instead to bring them into the household).

And perhaps polygamy will even cut down on pornography, once threesomes are no longer relegated to the world of naughty fantasy, but are a staple of routine married life.

Polygamy, like homosexuality, has long and storied roots in antiquity. In the Bible, Abraham kept the concubine Hagar alongside his wife Sarah, and had sons with both. Hagar’s descendants are modern day Muslims, who are permitted by the Koran to have up to four wives, provided they are all treated equally.

Why are Muslims denied this Allah-given right by state laws? Why were the Mormons — a perfectly lovely group of Christians — slaughtered and persecuted for practicing the ancient institution of polygamy? Mormon men took multiple wives to protect them spiritually; but even modern-day economics shows that married women fare better than unmarried women. Why not allow men to “look out” for more than one woman at a time?

Considering same-sex marriage is like trying to walk on top of a chain-link fence: you’ll fall off within minutes, and your only decision is which side of the fence to fall on: The side that favors keeping marriage between one man and one woman, the formula for baby-making and dual-gender parenting, or the side that favors letting any combination of men and women call themselves a marriage?

But one can’t walk along the top of the fence indefinitely. There’s a 50 percent chance of falling onto the side that favors any collection of people as a marriage, and that’s why the Rev. Gene Robinson is wrong. In opposing gay marriage, we are defending marriage from something that does indeed threaten it.

Bernadette Malone is the former editorial page editor of The Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News.

[MEG33]

I just got one from Liza Minelli saying Osama was captured.It was a hoot!

[winker]

Homosexual Marriage and Cloning are the New World Perversions joining a satanic union between two moronic idiots destined for Hell! If you sign on to this agenda you will face the wrath of Jehovah God for being a abomination and a child abuser that comes from experimenting with the Creator's creation. Go ahead and make yourself a mutant creature you will still burn in HELL!

[b4its2late]

Trying for some hits on your pitiful website no doubt?

[onyx]

Works for me --- georgette, zara, and liza minelli? Hopefully, you received the message from the latter? It's the most recent.

[Peach]

Gay marriage is also about recruitment, as another Freeper reminded me.

The radicals make their agenda very clear.

[Amelia]

Here is an article which makes my arguments better than I did.

[ejo]

Georgette-zara- catherine miller have been very busy tonight with their spam mail....Got four mails on each subject......I wish they were a bit coherent in their raves, they sure made no sense to me...Must be products of public school system.

[Brad’s Gramma]

ME TOO!!!!


LIZA! You're a REtard! REturd! RE......fill in the blanks.

[Brad’s Gramma]

That's the one I got!

You GO Liza!

[okie01]

"Catherine double mailed me on this topic as well, and earlier today a third from another newbie, via private mail. Obviously a new tactic. All should be advised."

FReepspam.

Courtesy of Georgette, Catherine Miller and liza minelli -- spoiled, whiney, intolerant libs, all of them.

They can't handle opposing opinions, so they vandalize.

[ambrose]

I'm being spammed as well.

Tells you where these scumbag liberals are coming from.. spam bomb someone just because they don't agree with you...

[MEG33]

There was zara,too!

[MEG33]

"caraibo" is not pleased with the US.Bet it's nancy and the many names of.Action:DELETE

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Can I get in line?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I got that one too, by a Sex Slave that had an imbedded transmitter and got into the camp, made them all happy I guess!

Left a web address.....I feel so special!

www.pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold/ScenesofAfghanistan-part1.xls

Doesn't go any where though!

[onyx]

You're reading your spam! I am deleting without reading.

[Brad’s Gramma]

Wimp! You don't READ THEM? After all the WORK these poor slobs went?

My gosh, picture them. They have the dictionary out, trying to find the right section for the right word....ALL THAT WORK THEY'VE GONE THROUGH and you don't read them.

Shame, shame, SHAME!

:-)

[onyx]

FOFLOL! Yeah, either I am a wimp or my time is too precious to read spam.

This so too funny. I like your spirit.

If I could be assured that the troll would receive a read my response, I'd have a ball typing what I cannot type here unless Jim first lifts the ban on swearing.

[Salvation]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055 § 1; cf. GS 48 § 1).

---

1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:

- not being under constraint;

- not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

---

[Brad’s Gramma]

Oh, they're reading it alright.

But why lower yourself to the DU mentality? Use REAL words. It will throw them for a loop.

Again...............picture them using the dik-shun-air-ee.