Posted on 02/22/2004 6:54:58 AM PST by 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.
I just don't think it will damage real marriages.
Family isn't about hsading a household. Family includes relations outside the household. People are supposed to each have a mother, father, two grandmothers, and two grandfathers, all distinct and identifiable individuals and all distinct from their great-grandparents (who will, except when first cousins get married, also be distinct from each other). If a person's parents have siblings, that person will have uncles or aunts. If the person's siblings have children, the person will have nieces and nephews. If any of the person's parents' siblings have children, the person will have first cousins.
Ties among relations--not just within a household but also spanning households--hold society together. The ties are strong because they are among the few social ties that cannot be broken: a person's parents, children, siblings, cousins, nieces, and nephews, will always be that, forever.
Things like same-sex marriage and the sure-to-follow adoption blur these lines. When a heterosexual couple adopts a baby, there's no question about who the baby's mother and father are and will always be: the mother is the female member of the couple and the father is the male. But in a same-sex couple, things get fuzzy. If one member of the couple is listed as "mother", while "father" is listed as unknown, then what happens if after a custody dispute the child gets awarded to the other member of the couple. Would the person be listed as step-mother, with the child's mother remaining the former? Or will it be decided that the wrong person was listed as "mother" on the birth certificate?
Give college degrees to dunces, and college degrees lose their meaning. It's the same thing. And where do you draw the line. If you can't draw a line, then you are a social liberal.
And now some people want to extend the vote to illegal aliens.
In response to your question, in a very real way it did destroy voting. To be sure, there are sound reasons why everyone should have a say in government, but the proper balance would have been to have a bicameral legislature, one half of which was controlled by property owners and the other half by the public at large. In this way, both groups could be protected from each other.
There you go - and that is why gay marriage is shouldn't be recognized by the state - it does nothing for the state, whereas heterosexual marriage does.
You realize that you are saying that your marriage to your spouse will mean less and be less valuable because a homosexual couple somewhere is married? You'll love your spouse less? You'll be less devoted? Exactly what will change about your relationship?
I don't think nonsensical is the correct term to use here. There is a lot of sense in the defense of marriage as defined between a man and a woman. The movement to "naturalize" gay life has proceeded for some time in the midst of the movement to have cultural diversity and situational ethics. Taking a stand against this movement makes sense at any point that an individual steps in.(for that individual.)
The point is that gay marriage is a step in a continuous opening up of society to ideas and changes that the left finds value in. It leads to the support of socialism as an economic system. As I loook at it, there is very little difference in gay marriage and open borders. Or in the destruction of the Boy Scouts and free lunches at school. The result is that our society will be changed in a direction favored by the coalition of left voters and in a way that leads to a weaker society less able to defend itself in this fragmented world.
If "everything goes" is a goal then gay marriage is certainly a sensible step to take.
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
How about fag and fagette, depending upon which one prefers to pitch or catch on a particular day.
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.