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.
For instance, the fact that there is order in the universe argues against the universe being the result of one or a series of "accidents." The fact that there is order in the universe means we can count on the Laws of Thermodynamics and Cause and Effect to hold true. The fact that there is order in the universe means that when we explore that universe we can count on certain things being true, even if it is Chaos theory.
When I read stories on this web site that reflect a different worldview, I make note of them - both as objects of analysis, and, more importantly, as examples for my teaching - examples that illustrate those opposing worldviews.
My teaching encompases ten key questions in the study of a biblical worldview and life system
Those questions pretty much cover the "waterfront" - and just about every thread in FreeRepublic touches on one of those key questions. Thus, just about anything is fair game for my students.
Does that help?
Yes, there are easy to spot actually.
I have found that a good rule of thumb is just to see how long they have been a member of FR.
Are you a hippy or something?
Got a thread you might find interesting:
Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality
The solution to gay "marriage" is quite simple: Get the government out of the business of sanctioning any sort of marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. The government has no business regulating a religious activity.
Some have proposed that marriage is more than a religious institution. They contend that it is somehow necessary for the continuation of the species, or at least society, but this is false. Breeding is a separate act apart from marriage. Far too many people have proved that a lack of paperwork does not serve as an adequate means of contraception! Nor does a bit of State-issue paper guarantee a stable household suitable to the needs of children. There are plenty of perfectly ghastly parents out there who hold valid, heterosexual marriage licenses issued by the State.
And those of us who do hold these State-issued licenses should ask ourselves "What did we get for our money?" (Besides a lovely piece of paper, that is!) Did the State "inspect" you or your spouse? Were you in any way screened for compatibility? Was a criminal background check done on either of you? Did you need to pass a test? Of course not. All that the State did for you was lighten your wallet a bit. Nothing of value, either to you or to society as a whole, was done in the issuance of that license. And since there is no value resulting from this government activity, the State has no reason to be doing it at all.
So how does this get rid of the "Gay marriage" question? The controversy behind gay marriage comes not from what gays do (They do these perverted things anyway!), but from the State giving a religious seal of approval to something most religions find abhorrent. Were marriage a strictly religious institution, none of us would care what a fruit-loop congregation in West Hollywood decided to call marriage; none of us would pay any attention to them. Yes, we'd call their sham ceremony a work of evil, but we wouldn't have the State jamming it down our throats as something valid. We'd be free to ignore the loons as we already do on scores of other issues. We can't ignore them when the State gives its blessing to their religion's activities. If the State were banned from recognizing any marriage, the problem would go away.
On the contrary, the objection I've been seeing here is that it extends traditional marriage to gays. A 'civil union', which many support as an alternative but which is available to heterosexual couples as well, redefines 'marriage' much more thouroughly - redefines it away, in fact.
I believe him/her/it got ahold of a ping list. I got e-mails from a couple of these trolls and I wasn't even here all weekend. I was wondering what the heck was going on. Sick puppies and all that...yuk!
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.