That was a ridiculous statement. People should focus on polygamy. If a man can marry another man, then why can't a man marry two men?
If marriage isn't defined as one man with one woman, it can (and will) be defined as just about anything. If homosexual marriage takes root, polygamy and other polyamorous relationships will become legal codified.
>>”I hate it when people make the case against gay marraige with ridiculous arguments like this. It just looks stupid.”
>
>That was a ridiculous statement. People should focus on polygamy. If a man can marry another man, then why can’t a man marry two men?
>
>If marriage isn’t defined as one man with one woman, it can (and will) be defined as just about anything. If homosexual marriage takes root, polygamy and other polyamorous relationships will become legal codified.
Not in my state; our State Constitution states:
Article 21, Sec. 1. [Religious toleration; polygamy.]
Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship. Polygamous or plural marriages and polygamous cohabitation are forever prohibited. (As amended September 15, 1953.)
I agree with Justice Scalia in his dissent of Lawrence v. Texas that the Supreme court has eroded the ability of the government to legislate moral behavior through its expansion of an implied right to privacy.
Left unchecked the “right to privacy”, which legalized abortion and sodomy, will eventually give us gay marriage and polygamy.
Any state (New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.) that legalizes homosexual marriage should immediately be faced with a slew of pro-polygamy lawsuits based on the exact same legal arguments. The fight for traditional marriage would best be fought united rather than incrementally.