Polygamy has been practiced by various human civilizations for hundreds of years whereas “gay marriage” has been a recent invention barely one generation old. From a legal viewpoint, it makes more sense to legalize polygamy than to invent a new definition of marriage involving same gender partners.
Look for future ‘marriage contracts’ with expiration dates. Since they conveniently ignore Biblical principles then why insist marriage lasts a lifetime? A 20 year marriage contract or similar with a rider to renew or just let the terms expire. My prediction this will ‘evolve’ in the future.
Among the “great” civilizations only polygyny has ever been practiced.
Around the 1830's; GOD told a man that polygamy was now to be an eternal law.
It lasted 47 years.
Polygamy has been practiced by various human civilizations for hundreds of years whereas gay marriage has been a recent invention barely one generation old.Wrong! Same sex marriage was common place in the Roman Empire. In fact Nero had his lover castrated and married him.
You need to check your facts.
There’s a long history of same-sex marriage. For instance: two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz were married in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain on 16 April 1061.
You are exactly right. Having more than one wife is not unusual in many cultures and compared to homos and the genitally mutilated, it seems rather tame.
“Polygamy has been practiced by various human civilizations for hundreds of years whereas gay marriage has been a recent invention barely one generation old. From a legal viewpoint, it makes more sense to legalize polygamy than to invent a new definition of marriage involving same gender partners.”
Correct.
It’s also correct that the arguments being made for gay marriage - ‘Equality means you can marry who you want’ - are clearly arguments that lead to affirmation of not just polygamy but incestuous relationships, all outlawed in state law. Gay marriage will inevitably lead to these being tested in courts.
Even this lib justice is smart enough to realize that SSM opens a pandora’s box in the courts. I dont think the Supremes will want to declare SSM a right. They better not, it makes a mockery of the Constitution to rule so.