Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Same-sex marriage threatens real marriage
Manchester Union Leader ^ | February 22, 2004 | Bernadette Malone

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: calpowercrisis; civilunion; counterfeitmarriage; familyvsvilliage; feminazisrunwild; fraudmarriage; gaymirage; genderneutralagenda; homosexualagenda; ittakesavillage; lawlessness; leftdestroyssociety; leftsagenda; marriage; romans1; samesexmarriage; thelefthatesfamily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-352 last
To: Brad's Gramma
Fallen for what? The idea that government has no place protecting a person from his own foolish behavior? Perhaps.
341 posted on 02/23/2004 6:38:55 AM PST by Redcloak (¡LIBERE EL QUESO! ¡LIBERE EL QUESO! ¡LIBERE EL QUESO! ¡LIBERE EL QUESO! ¡LIBERE EL QUESO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: catherine miller
Wow! A spam weekend.
342 posted on 02/23/2004 9:50:52 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Grut
"A civil union... is available to hertosexual couples as well,redefines marriage...redefines it away,in fact.

You made my point:same sex marriage destroys the institution of marriage.There is no reason why brothers and sisters or polygamists can't marry.
343 posted on 02/23/2004 9:59:09 AM PST by stimulate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
The solution to gay "marriage" is quite simple: Get the government out of the business of sanctioning any sort of marriage.

*** DING DING DING *** No more calls; we have a winner!

344 posted on 02/23/2004 10:04:36 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: georgette
Hmm, sounds like you need zotting, dear georgette.
345 posted on 02/23/2004 10:42:43 AM PST by Marysecretary (GOD is STILL in control, even if Bush loses in 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: expatguy
"Sleeper Cell" accounts maintained by DU infiltrators who are nothing more than lickspittle slaveys to the maniacal schemes of their blood-lusting Red overlords at the DNC.

I'll look at it as a badge of honor that some whacked out DUmmie feels they've lost the debate of ideas and has to resort to Internet harassment.

346 posted on 02/23/2004 10:55:34 AM PST by highlander_UW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
The solution to gay "marriage" is quite simple: Get the government out of the business of sanctioning any sort of marriage.

What the gays want is the financial benefits - insurance, social security spousal benefits, etc.

Follow the money.

347 posted on 02/23/2004 3:13:43 PM PST by Amelia (I have trouble taking some people seriously.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
To a large extent, they already get those benefits. This is really nothing more than the usual gay "LOOK AT ME!!!!" impulse.
348 posted on 02/23/2004 8:15:34 PM PST by Redcloak (¡LIBERE EL QUESO! ¡LIBERE EL QUESO! ¡LIBERE EL QUESO! ¡LIBERE EL QUESO! ¡LIBERE EL QUESO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
To a large extent, they already get those benefits. This is really nothing more than the usual gay "LOOK AT ME!!!!" impulse.

It's a sign that society has already degenerated quite a bit in the past 50 years that anyone will even consider this. However, homosexuals don't get Federal spousal benefits. They may get spousal benefits from some companies in some states.

See the article I linked in post 266 - it makes the point much more eloquently than I can.

However, I can assure you, it's about money.

349 posted on 02/24/2004 3:16:02 AM PST by Amelia (I have trouble taking some people seriously.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

Comment #350 Removed by Moderator

To: mylsfromhome
I wish them no harm, neither physically nor mentally.

I WILL fight against their trying to become a special interest group.

I WILL fight against their trying to make their SEXUAL preferences something that is shoved in my children's faces, my grandchild's face...telling them that this is natural, which it is not, and you know that as well as I do.

I WILL fight for the institution of marriage. One man. One woman.

Period.
351 posted on 02/25/2004 12:19:17 PM PST by Brad’s Gramma (Pray for America and Israel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: Elle Bee
"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told a crowd of more than 200 people Saturday that she is "fearful of not recognizing our country" if President Bush serves another four years.

Clinton, D-New York, made a stopover Saturday at the Key West home of John Evans and Guy Ross while in South Florida for several fund-raisers. The Key West event raised $25,000 for the Friends of Hillary fund.

Clinton signed copies of her autobiography, posed for pictures, answered questions and made a speech on the issues she believes are affecting the United States and the Democratic Party.

MIKE HENTZ/The Citizen Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is greeted by Henry Woods and Jimmy Weekley, right, Saturday at a fund-raiser in Key West.

She stopped short of endorsing presidential candidates Sen. John Edwards or Sen. John Kerry in their race for the Democratic nomination but pledged to support "whoever wins the nomination."

She won't endorse anyone and I am scared to death the endorsement will be for herself...if and when....Hanoi John fonda Kerry doesn't know it but he will be taken down by the Clinton machine. Dean...where are you when we need you...........

352 posted on 02/25/2004 9:25:29 PM PST by yoe (WMD come in small containers/vials...small minds don't want you to know that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-352 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson