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.

[ohioWfan]

Well it's either multiple maniacs, or one very busy maniac.

Maybe it's a coven...........

[Jim Robinson]

It's just a very determined troll. They've always been with us. Will always be with us. We will continue zotting them as discovered, as always.

[longtermmemmory]

The question is what do the tageted people like myself have in common.

I have been around the a few threads. I suspect a link can be determined by looking at the email cc lists of the sender. I wonder if they are generating a new list every time or is it a existing list they have saved?

[Peach]

Tammy Bruce's book The Death of Right and Wrong is a useful book to read regarding gay marriage, the gay agenda in our public schools and the leftists who promote them.

Bruce is a lesbian and former president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW. She has long since left NOW and condemns them AND the radical gay agenda thoroughly in her book.

It is one of the best books I've ever read and explains what is wrong with the left and the radical gays. Bruce has worked with Congress and Phyllis Schafley on these matters and is currently a commentator for FNC.

Bruce feels the radical leftists and gays have a mental disease called malignant narcissism and explains how it is rooted in trauma that never attempts recovery. These individuals, instead of seeking psychological help, are focusing on social change. In other words, they want the rest of society to mirror their own hurt and pain.

She makes a very convincing case for the fact that an entire wing of politics is invested in the victim-hood of its constituency, the leaders of which are trying to work out their demons on society.

The book is shocking and details how the radical left and gays have espoused sexualizing our children and how supposedly mainstream supporters of those efforts have stated publicly that "Sex is not harmful to children...there are many ways even the smallest of children can partake in it" (page 193). As outrageous as this sounds, it is not some fringe group of marginalized pedophiles that want this evil perpetrated to rationalize their depravity, but rather the leaders of the "special interest" groups on the Left, sponsored by their friends in the media. Well-documented facts throughout the book reveal this agenda clearly.

This is a MUST read book in order to take on the left using their own words against them.

When mainstream America realizes what is going on, we will be more aware and able to stop this dangerous agenda from moving forward.

Sorry for the long post, but I cannot stress more strongly how important this issue is and how this book will help us fight this fight.

[Brad’s Gramma]

IT'S ALL MY FAULT!!!!!


I caught a rat in a trap last night in my back yard and it's family has come to harrass my friends.

Sorry everyone.

[Dog]

Sounds like they have a list they are using.

I don't know how old loveable moi got on it....:-)

[Jim Robinson]

It's all Bush's fault.

[Brad’s Gramma]

I've heard of that book...I guess it's time to buy it, and get sick to my stomach...

[Peach]

You caught it!!!

[Paleo Conservative]

So did you get any mail from it?

[onyx]

Beats me. I've received 5 separate mails from five individuals, and the other 3 were from one of the five ---

[JamesA]

Could this be the beginning of the end of America? It is painfully true that our elected officials don't give a rip for majority rule and are driven by personal greed and the almighty vote....Read a post not long ago where someone said revolution is inevitable. Hope not but kinda-sorta looking more and more like something is about to break.

[Dog]

Don't worry about.....I like troll hunting .

[Brad’s Gramma]

I DID!!!!

10:15 last night, it met it's demise!

Gramps got to clean the trap this morning....oh, was HE happy! HAAHAHAHAAAAAA

[VRWC_minion]

I needed your link as a surrogate.

[onyx]

Thanks Jim. Tenacious trolls. I must say, the mail is a new wrinkle. Easy to delete. No problem.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I only had 4 , 2 from catherine miller and 2 from georgette.

The last gave me the link back to the Dennis Prager piece and no vile words..

Maybe she is reading it!

[Peach]

Anyone with children in their family MUST read that book. Should own the book for reference.

We MUST use their OWN words AGAINST them. They agenda has been clearly stated and it's frightening.

Bruce is not a nut. Far from it. And given her previous position within NOW and her sexual preference, she has a certain cache within the leftist establishment that she would not otherwise have.

[ohioWfan]

I haven't been on ANY of the threads he/she/they/it has pinged me to.

Just in case he/she/they/it is still lurking.......

LOSER!!!!

[onyx]

A 'coven' of course. Homosexuals and lesbians. Anything goes.