They don’t care. They want marriage destroyed anyway.
Why would they mind collateral damage?
It'll come in through Islam.
Why not Incestuous Marriage?
As long as two People Love each other and they have reached the age of consent, what the heck.
Once the Dam breaks there is no way to stop the flood.
The same arguments which have been made for homosexual marriage, can and will be made for polygamy and group marriage.
I think the author is right. Those who have pushed to change the definition of marriage cannot be intellectually honest and oppose changing the definition to include more than two people.
It is now a mainstream view among the judges who are imposing homosexual marriage that it is discriminatory to limit people to an opposite sex partner. Its not a stretch that judges will also decide that not allowing polygamy is also discriminatory.
I would.point out that the reason we have so many states allowing homosexual marriage nowadays is due to activists judges. I would take issue with how widely accepted homosexual marriage has become. Only a handful of states went through the political process to change the definition of marriage.
There’s a push to separate Sacramental Marriage from Civil Marriage. Is it time to get on board yet?
Are there homosexual marriage advocates on FR?
Your questioning reminds me how richly we as a nation deserve the flame death God heaped upon the Sodomites.
My millennial renters may give a clue to the millennial generation. One asked me for a copy of their rental agreement that both signed. They are making a cohabitation agreement and needed documents that they both signed.
Polygamy is a great beer.http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/28908/1683/
Roger Olsen has his head up...er, in the sand. Those traditional arrangements aren't changing. Blanket statements like that are just inflammatory...as well as wrong.
There have ALWAYS been "alternative" marriage arrangements when people thought they could get away with it. Monogamy works the best because it's what God wanted and wants for us. He "built" us for it and it's good for the spouses and children.
Adultery has always been wrong, sinful and destructive, as least with sane people who have some feelings of love and loyalty.
There has always been prostitution too, but that doesn't make it good. Where it's legal you find that people aren't one iota happier, healthier or more content.
Trite but true: happiness comes from within, from God and from living a good life. Anything different is propaganda put out by miserably unhappy, jealous and/or dysfunctional people. Roger Olsen sounds like a poster boy for said propaganda.
.
.
So there. :o)
Marriage is a religious institution and under the first amendment, any attempt by any government agency to regulate, tax or define marriage is a violation of the constitutional right to the free exercise of any religion (however unpopular or bizarre it may seem) that permits it.
If you can find a church that will marry you, that's between you and (your) God.
Anything else is a business contract.
To me this is a silly argument, the people that support gay marriage will be fine with polygamy, and those whose first reaction is that it is different, will quickly come around to persuasion just as they came around to support gay marriage.
Gay marriage supporters are not suddenly going to get all shocked at polygamy.
The biggest thing I see holding legalized polygamy back - at least for a while - will be things like tax codes and inheritance laws. I can see endless legal battles and constitutional questions raised over which wife’s (or husband’s) children get survivor benefits, over figuring income for tax rates (can one wife file jointly, while the other separate?) and so on.
I do see it as a very real possibility though, in terms of a push for it being socially acceptable. If I were a polygamist (and I am not), I would argue that if we can accept the idea of two men or two women being married, why not a man and two women?
Of course, gay activist types pooh-pooh such notions, arguing they are separate legal issues. There may be some truth in that, but it is also true that judicial decisions have consequences beyond the courtroom. One you begin to redefine something that has been unchanging and as clearly defined as marriage, it loses that air of immutability and permanence. The door is opened to any group seeking to expand the definition to include their agenda.
If there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage (which I dispute), then I don’t see how you can argue there is no constitutional right to polygamy.
In certain times and places (notably in ancient times) when there was a shortage of men--usually due to war--polygamy was allowed by God, simply as a practical necessity. A woman alone was then either a prostitute, a beggar...or dead. So, like slavery (where POW's became dead....OR slaves) polygamy was allowed, though never ideal--and never God's original plan.
Homosexual relationships though, by biblical morality, were NEVER allowed, period. They were always seen as a sign of the most depraved and corrupt people--hence our term "sodomy."
According to Dr. Gagnon, Old Testament scripture treats homosexual acts--on about the same level as incest--which in ancient Israel demanded the death penalty. Polygamy on the other hand--while warned about (Kings for example were warned about having many wives...and making treaties through marriages (a very common practice)), was allowed...
It took Jesus teaching--bringing back marriage to Adam and Eve--and thus limiting causes for divorce--which reminded God's people of the original design--of one man and one woman-- (thus by omission--condemning homosexual relationships....) so that the Christian church first banned polygamy for Church leaders and very soon after made polygamy unacceptable for all Christians.
homosexual “marriage”
plus
lowering the age of consent as far as possible
plus
polygamy
and what do you get?
Islamic Sharia Law.
(That’s the obvious goal, anyway...preparing USA for IslamoNazi rule)
or else, its all an amazing coincidence....
Gay’s would love nothing more than to see traditional marriage ridiculed and destroyed even more than what they have already done. The question to ask gays is why not normalize pedophilia. That is how they maintain, and grow their numbers.
I imagine there are some fringe Mormons asking the same question, along with a substantial fraction of Muslims in our country. I expect polygamy to be the law of the land in my lifetime.
Polygamy has much more going for it than homosexual marriage - it is natural, it is scriptural, and in certain societies such as ours, where more women want husbands than men want wives, it is logical.
But more to the point: Every single legal argument, every court decision, which has enabled same-sex couples to marry applies with MUCH greater force to legal polygamy.
If the Supreme Court hears the right case, it will be legal, and very soon.
” I am only talking about arrangements where all the parties to it are knowledgeable, free adults and where there is no abuse or coercion.”
Who are you to say abuse and coercion are wrong? What about people who are coercionexuals? Who are you to stand on the courthouse steps and deny them their right to marry?