Posted on 07/01/2015 7:24:07 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
am a gay marriage advocate. So why do I spend so much of my time arguing about polygamy? Opposing the legalization of plural marriage should not be my burden, because gay marriage and polygamy are opposites, not equivalents.
By allowing high-status men to hoard wives at the expense of lower-status men, polygamy withdraws the opportunity to marry from people who now have it; same-sex marriage, by contrast, extends the opportunity to marry to people who now lack it. One of these things, as they say on Sesame Street, is not like the other.
Yet this non sequitur just won't go away: "Once we stop limiting marriage to male-plus-female, we'll have to stop limiting it at all! Why only two? Why not three or four? Why not marriage to your brother? Or your dog? Or a toaster?" If there's a bloody shirt to wave in the gay-marriage debate, this is it.
The shortest answer is in some ways the best: Please stop changing the subject! When you straights give yourselves the right to marry two people or your brother or your dog or a toaster, we gay people should get that right, too. Until then, kindly be serious.
If I sound exasperated, it's because the polygamy argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. That doesn't stop it from popping up everywhere. A good example of the species can be found in this publication, where Fredrik deBoer welcomed Politico Magazine's readers "to the exciting new world of the slippery slope."
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Did he just compare women to property or a commodity? Misogynist!
He either doesn’t understand how legal precedent works, or he thinks we don’t.
Yes, well, every time two lesbians marry, two normal Chinese men are denied wives.
I want to marry myself.
I don’t see why I shouldn’t be able to. Its certainly more natural than gay marriage.
It’s open season, the leftist liers are out in droves. “Oh no Churches wont have to perform gay marriages, oh no they won’t lose tax exemption.
All liers, bull dyke Kagen has given them the green light. The same Justice whom lied about there being anything in the Constitution which allowed for gay marriage just a few years ago. Was there a Constitional amendment meantime?
His argument: By allowing high-status men to hoard wives at the expense of lower-status men, polygamy withdraws the opportunity to marry from people who now have it.
I don’t see how that is an argument against polygamy happening. There are many women who would marry for SECURITY and there are many high status men who would want to have more than one woman.
Is he suggesting that this won’t happen? Why not?
AS for “polygamy withdraws the opportunity to marry from people who now have it.”, again, how is that an argument against polygamy occurring?
Either a person will strive to become high status or he is out of luck. There are many out of luck people who don’t have the means to marry now. That does not : A) Stop them from marrying; B) Stop those who have the means from having mistresses.
We should all be able to...consummate marriage with...ourselves with a clear conscience.
...I think the author is dishonest about the matter...
I think the author is more than a little biased.
By that logic, you should be able to marry your sheep, your goat, your camel, your sex robot, your dildo, or your sister. The guy is off his meds. If he really believed this, he'd rail against China's one child policy which results in almost no opportunity for men to marry.
Now did he tell the Muslims that “group marriage is in the past” or whatever he said?
Ooops, wrong again, Politico!
HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.
Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses — but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.
It’s really like Three Card Monte —
“Watch the red card ... the red card ... keep your eye on it ... don’t look at Montana ... watch the red card ...”
It will be some unelected federal judge who will approve polygamy using tortured legal reasoning and the SCOTUS will uphold it 5-4. Federal judges will also uphold persecution of Christian churches that do not support gay marriage
Who is this man to judge the polygamists? If two of the same sex can marry, my gosh can't more than two of the opposite sex marry? Polygamy is found everywhere in nature, but homosexuality is an abomination to nature! (Even bacteria doesn't engage in it!)
If two homos can marry, polygamy should be an easy one! It shouldn't even be questioned.
While we're at it, why not marry anyone or anything? What difference does it make now?
What a moron.
Wouldn’t this mean more men to marry one another? Seems to me he’d be all for it.
The first polygamy challenge is starting in Montana right now. The likely plaintiff was very clear why he and his two wives were doing it: the Supreme Court opinion.
I don’t think I ever met a homosexual that didn’t have the exact same right to marriage I have.
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.