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.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Yes, see #157!

[hellinahandcart]

Aha! it's the same one who's been doing this for days then. Tijeras Slim had a thread about troll mail, ginawild was one of the names.

I was just in contact with another freeper who has received mail this afternoon from zara, catherine miller, and georgette, and from what he said about his comments page, it looks like georgette had copied farmfriend's environmental ping list. He got a ping to a removed post, AND two freepmails.

Apparently they are collecting names and mass-mailing. Gawd, if I didn't have more of a life than that...

[longtermmemmory]

(s)We have to allow polygamy because it will compensate for the lack of children produced by homosexuals. It is a rough job, but someone has to do it, and do it, do it. Of course the child support becomes and issue. Will just the father pay or all the co-wives too. (/s)

[ohioWfan]

Me neither, Dog. I don't never make nobody mad.......EVER......hehe

[Dog]

LOL!

[onyx]

Oh, I'm sorry Ernie. You missed the mail from 'zara' and two others whose names I've already erased from memory. Feel left out?

[Brad’s Gramma]

Ernest! I still have zara's .... shall I forward it to you?

HEHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Dog]

You want my hate mail?

[ohioWfan]

Should we feel honored that we are the chosen to be mocked by this coven of whatevers??

I think we should......... :o)

[Peach]

Me too! If you find em, ping me. It's a slow tv night. LOL

[Dog]

LOL!

[Peach]

Those three traps you bought worked out. So glad. I gave you 48 hours but you said it would only be 24 - you were right!

[onyx]

Hell no! I've deleted ALL of them, without reading them!

Let's wave to them!


You know, the "universal" wave? LOL!

[longtermmemmory]

There is the fed do not span list. This could be a test case for that.

[Brad’s Gramma]

You GO FORTH AND HUNT!

I'd say, from what I've seen...the link among us is our support of Israel and any of the social issues...perverted behaviors like homosexuality. PERVERTED is the word. Yes indeedie!

[Brad’s Gramma]

I know my rats.

[onyx]

Ernie, remember from last night, that ProfUtonium? He was banned and then came the mail this morning!

[Brad’s Gramma]

How about Sagittarius (sp) who was on the thread with the latest MURDERS of the Israeli's?

That idiot is no more, either.

[farmfriend]

I've received freemail from all three of those names. How could this person have copied my list though. Only a few names show and the list is cut and paste so it is always the same names showing? If this is the case I will suspend use of the list until the troll is under control.

[ohioWfan]

Come on over and see the Dose. It's dedicated to the memory of Spot.

No rats there.......