Posted on 07/01/2015 7:24:07 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
am a gay marriage advocate. So why do I spend so much of my time arguing about polygamy? Opposing the legalization of plural marriage should not be my burden, because gay marriage and polygamy are opposites, not equivalents.
By allowing high-status men to hoard wives at the expense of lower-status men, polygamy withdraws the opportunity to marry from people who now have it; same-sex marriage, by contrast, extends the opportunity to marry to people who now lack it. One of these things, as they say on Sesame Street, is not like the other.
Yet this non sequitur just won't go away: "Once we stop limiting marriage to male-plus-female, we'll have to stop limiting it at all! Why only two? Why not three or four? Why not marriage to your brother? Or your dog? Or a toaster?" If there's a bloody shirt to wave in the gay-marriage debate, this is it.
The shortest answer is in some ways the best: Please stop changing the subject! When you straights give yourselves the right to marry two people or your brother or your dog or a toaster, we gay people should get that right, too. Until then, kindly be serious.
If I sound exasperated, it's because the polygamy argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. That doesn't stop it from popping up everywhere. A good example of the species can be found in this publication, where Fredrik deBoer welcomed Politico Magazine's readers "to the exciting new world of the slippery slope."
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Having pried open the definition of marriage just wide enough for gays it is time to close it. It’s typical in just about any social structure. marriage won’t be special to gays if everyone else gets in.
Yeah, I guess I’m not smart enough to belong to a “think tank,” so I get confused when someone says choosing your partner’s sex is different than choosing partner quantity.
I used a similar line on Facebook today about a friend's post about the trio applying for a wedding license out west.
The LGBTA activists are the biggest liars outside the Glow-bull Warming Mafia. They told the polygamists to keep quiet during the recent struggles. Now the polygamists are coming out in force.
If marriage had been redefined through a normal legislative process, then this douche-bag might have a point. But since the Supreme Court has once again short-circuited democracy, what this ass-wipe thinks is somewhat irrelevant. What is relevant is what bull-s**t can be sold to 5 Progressive Justices on the Supreme Court.
He’s right. Legalized pedophilia is next.
“group marriage” is not the polygamy of old from the past - the multiples spouses of one person were not married to each other - just the patriarch. Now there are group “marriages” being pushed where all of the parties are in fact married to each other - that’s something new.
This author is rather clueless. The polygamy of old is actually much more feasible to get to than same-sex “marriage” as it does not require any ignoring of the meaning of words like the latter does - it violates regulations and moral standards, but not language or biology.
Not to mention the fact that same-sex marriage only gets majority support due increasing numbers of people not taking the concept of marriage seriously at all - strip away those who believe it is okay to have children out of wedlock (not simply errors in judgment - but on purpose) with someone you are not married to and do not even intend to marry, live together with someone you are not married to and do not even intend to ever marry, etc. - it would have very little support.
“If the high-status man takes three wives, two lower-status men get no wives. And so on.”
ok, so the liberal argument is: polygamy can’t be allowed because it has the same destructive effects as sex selection abortion...
...hey, wait a minute...!
The 1878 Supreme Court ruling striking down polygamy was based on common law going back at least to James the First. That supposition is no longer true. Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall.
Polyphobes!
Love is love, right? Why would polygammy be stigmatized like a mental illness and not this degeneracy of homosexuality?
I don’t think the polygamists have much of a chance for the simple reason the left generally opposes polygamy. Feminists definitely hate it. Therefore, Kagan and Soto-whatever are almost certainly going to make up constitutional reasons why gay “marriage” is OK but polygamy is unconstitutional.
You see, we conservatives still think this is all about logic, reason, and the rule of law, but it’s not! The court will rule for whatever it wants irrespective of the law, historical understandings, or whatever, and then devise excuses (also known as rulings) as to why whatever they want is constitutional. It doesn’t even matter if they said the exact opposite just a few years prior!
Therefore, slippery slope arguments that say the court will soon mandate polygamy are likely invalid. They could simply write that “marriage” has traditionally been thought of as a union of two people. “Wait,” you say. “That’s illogical. They ruled against tradition when they mandated states accept sodomite unions!” Exactly right. It is illogical, but it’s also exactly where we stand today in regards to the courts.
Bottom line: The oligarchy gets what the oligarchy wants.
LOL. Because the 14th Amendment is whatever they (the ruling elite) say it is—nothing more and nothing less!
Well, I agree.
And that result becomes hugely damaging because then it’s really true that: “The law is ... whatever.”
You simply cannot hope to govern a country on that basis.
Yep. That's the route that homo marriage took. Started in 2003 in Massachusetts. Kennedy cited the numerous court decisions, substantial amount of public discussion, referendums, and so on. But the number of judicial decisions was a big factor in inventing or imagining a fundamental right to homo marriage.
The poly marriage argument may be different, involving acceptance by mohammedans as the wedge to justify lower court decisions. IOW, poly marriage may be the free exercise of religion, and who is the government to stand in the way (this decision would reverse the old Reynolds poly marriage case).
Anyway, the process of getting SCOTUS to jam poly marriage down the public's throat is to first get lower courts to do so. It'll take some time, 5, 10 years maybe.
It's not. YOU made it so, Mr. Pay Attention To Me.
WOW that has to be the stupidest argument I have ever heard. These morons know that once the Polyies get marriage the pedo’s are next to try and they understand the BACKLASH that will be directed at them when that happens.. But you better come up with better arguments then this silly thing....
Yep. The law is...whatever. As for running the country like that, it looks like they’re giving it a try.
Let’s not play this game anymore. There is no constitutional right for gay marriage. Back when the first (homosexual) judge ruled Prop 8 was unconstitutional, that judge should have been squashed. Of course he wasn’t, because powerful interests, including many Republicans applauded that judge’s rebellion.
It’s the same situation with illegal immigration. Millions upon millions—I’m sure a solid majority—of Americans oppose amnesty, but powerful interests controlling both political parties want virtually unlimited immigration. I’m convinced even many Republicans secretly love it when Obama or the Supreme Court rule by decree, because gay “marriage”, open borders, Obamacare, etc., are exactly what they want.
They do not have popular support for many of these things of course, so the Supreme Court gives the rebels cover and makes it appear as though everything is on the up and up, because there probably would be rebellion—at least a political one—if voters knew how badly the system is rigged against us and our best interests as American citizens.
WAIT ONE SECOND HERE!!! I thought Marriage was all about love! If three people and their goat love eachother it should be no one’s business.
Kaitlin and Bruce.
Together forever. Hugs ‘n kisses. XOXOXO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.