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 got your credits.
They only want it because it's easy and meaningless now. And now can offer monetary benefits to them without the inconvenient injunction to honor one's vows. If they had to maintain a vow, as heterosexuals used to have to, they'd do without the bennies.
Marriage hasn't meant much to many for years upon years now. And you can thank the worthless hets out there who divorced their spouses for myriad 'irreconcilable differences.' The blame for the dissolution of marriage and the family lies with their weak and wretched kind.
They only want it because it's easy and meaningless now. And now can offer monetary benefits to them without the inconvenient injunction to honor one's vows. If they had to maintain a vow, as heterosexuals used to have to, they'd do without the bennies.
Marriage hasn't meant much to many for years upon years now. And you can thank the worthless hets out there who divorced their spouses for myriad 'irreconcilable differences.' The blame for the dissolution of marriage and the family lies with their weak and wretched kind.
Excellent!
From your page, you're a younger woman.
I'm an older guy.
She like's us both, we can graciously describe her as eclectic.
No, it's not. It's about money.
It's about spousal benefits for insurance, retirement, social security, and other entitlement/benefit programs.
Government and society grant certain benefits to married couples because, as stated earlier, most cultures and religions have recognized marriage to be the best method of perpetuating the society. (Even though not all marriages result in children, odds are that many or most will.)
Homosexuality by definition does not perpetuate the society, which is one reason most religions and societies have prohibitions against it. Homosexuals want the benefits married couples get, but they don't benefit society in return.
Actually, I don't believe they would even be able to demand marriage or civil unions if not for the current cultural decline, and the fact that "the joining of one man and one woman and the binding force of the nuclear family" is much weaker than it used to be.
Many couples now choose not to have children. Where I teach, very few of the children live with both parents, and some don't even have fathers listed on their birth certificates. We can't really claim that marriage perpetuates the society, because so many of those who are perpetuating the society aren't remaining married.
It doesn't produce them, which is one reason most societies and religions have prohibitions against it.
I've only had one student I know of who was being raised by a homosexual (lesbian) couple, and he was unhappy and rebellious; however, I don't know if that was cause-and-result or if there were other factors involved.
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.