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.
Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality
That is only because we no longer remember the concept of "sacred". Marriage is considered sacred. Things are made sacred by "setting them apart".
On a nonreligious scale, we create things sacred in our lives by such acts as having a favorite chair or a favorite coffee cup. These objects have been set aside by members of the household in a way to honor the person's wishes to keep his favorite chair or favorite coffee cup "set aside" for the sole use of one person.
On a spiritual sense we set aside buildings and spaces within buildings for worship. These areas have been set aside in space and time for one purpose and that makes them become sacred for the people involved.
Since the earliest times we have "set aside" certain relationships and have given them honor. For example the relationship of the individual with God creates the desire and in some cases the obligation for the person to "set aside" or make a portion of his time sacred for God. This is sometimes called Sabbath, prayer time etc.
Other relationships that have been "set aside" by societal and religious norms include the parents and their children. An outward sign of the relationship of the father and his daughter is acted out in the marriage ceremony when the father gives the daughter away. What has been set aside for the father is transfered to the new husband.
Finally, the relationship of a man and a woman who have pledged a lifetime commitment is a relationship that we have "set aside" and made sacred.
Things stay sacred while they remain set aside. If the persons favorite chair and coffee cup is being constantly used by anyone and everyone then it is no longer sacred. When the bride picks any random person to escort her down the aisle, the sacredness of the event is missing. And when marriage has no entry barriers it no longer remains an arrangement that sets aside a relationship and thereby making it sacred.
What some people rightly see is a trend that will follow from removing the male/female requirement which makes marriage more separate from other relationships. This will start the beginning of ending the sacredness of this relationship.
The irony is the gays who wish to have acceptance by having their relationship considered sacred will end up destroying the meaning of marriage and losing what they want to acquire.
It already is. Listen carefully to people refer to "spouses", especially in the media, when referring to heterosexuals. Husband/Wife are already terms that have been marked for the p.c. trashcan.
I actually heard, when this MA thing started, a talking-head refer to "non-gay marriage"; as if the marriage of a man and woman were the ones who needed a qualifier and "gay" marriage was the norm. That one freaked me out. Fortunately, I have not heard anyone do that again, but, I am also sure that they will.
Bad analogy. One does not have to redefine the act of voting to allow women to vote. Just as one did not have to redefine marriage, in order to rid ourselves of the laws that prevented people of different races to marry.
Same-sex partners is a completely different definition of marriage. When marriage can be anything, it means nothing. This is not simply a matter of "religious" views, this is the view of human society for thousands of years. I'm not ready to redefine a basic tenet of human culture just because we live in weird p.c. times and "gays" are the current fad.
I hope the mods don't ZOT she/it!!! This one is so bizzare it would be fun to torment it for awhile before finally ZOTTING into FR "Neverland!"
Perhaps. Sometimes a heterosexual shackup honey is referred to as a "partner," though this seems to be more common outside of the U.S.
Interesting questions, but they don't address the real issue, which is the FUTURE of our society. Men and women currently married were married under the old system, based on traditional cultural values.
The more important question is what our society will look like ten years from now, after we reduce marriage to the temporary joining of any number of people for whatever reason they find mutually beneficial (and that's exactly where we're headed). What will our young people think of marriage then? It will no longer be looked upon as the joining of one man and one woman and the binding force of the nuclear family.
Marriage provides an important purpose in all societies. It defines when sex is considered acceptable behavior and when it is not. Although obviously not all people respect the limitation of sex within marriage, it sets a standard for what most in society consider proper.
The primary goal of gay marriage activists is to break down traditional standards for sexuality. For them, it's not enough that we tolerate their private behavior in the bedroom. They want society's stamp of approval on their sexual practices. And that will be our loss if we allow it to happen. Gay marriage is not about hospital visitation rights. It is about cultural approval of their sexual practices.
Hardly. It doesn't just endanger the institution of marriage, it is the second step in eliminating it as a cultural institution.
Redefining marriage to include homosexual couples does several things.
First of all it equates homosexuality and heterosexuality as morally equal and gives the government stamp of approval to same. Logically following that will be the teaching in public school that the two are morally equivalent. Of course they aren't but once the states imprimatur is put on homosexual "marriage", public schools and institutions will be required by law to preach just that.
I, of course, oppose any such morally relative notion and will fight it tooth and nail.
Next up will be hate laws forbidding the condemnation of what the government has put its stamp of approval on. In other words, preaching from the altar that homosexuality is a sinful act will become verboten.
The countries that have equated homo and hetero have a history of increasing out of wedlock birth rates and less traditional marriage. More out of wedlock birthrates result in more government, not less. The statistics are quite clear that children raised in families with one Mother and one Father are less of a burden on the public at large.
What we have learned form the liberalization of divorce law is that Fathers lose rights, children suffer, the government expands and the rest of us get to fund it all.
That public policy on the institution of marriage has resulted in more of the above and damage to the institution. Using that damage to the institution for more bad public policy that will further damage the institution is foolhardy and illogical.
well, I appreciate the acknowledgment, but I do not condone homosexuality. I simply see that it is no threat to Marriage.
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.