No doubt. Every legal argument in favor of gay marriage would apply equally to polygamy. Even incest in the case of same sex relatives or relatives who can't procreate.
I think that Graham’s goal is gay Polygamy.
An idea that old Light in the Loafers finds appealing.
Polygamy has the advantage that it is openly practiced in much of the world (primarily among Muslims) and has historically existed since the dawn of time.
Unlike recognition of gay marriage.
Every legal argument in favor of gay marriage would apply equally to polygamy.
The logic used to advocate for gay marriage can - and will - be applied to every sexual pairing, tripling or grouping of any man, woman, child, animal or inanimate object.
We have an interesting episode that has developed in Germany. Various asylum seekers come and go. So, one day, there’s this guy from Iraq who shows up with two wives....asking the Germans for asylum for himself and wife one, and wife two.
A court had to get involved, and eventually wrote a legal paper that said....for the time being, wife one and two could be issued visas with the husband. They simply noted, later on...an assessment ought to occur over the legality of benefits by the German system (this was not the question posed so they couldn’t go too far on a legal opinion). That was 2003. So, presently in Germany....two wives are legal, if the marriage occurred in a Muslim country.
Looking at Polygamy...I’d say that the door is wide open now and only a matter of time. Find one state where marijuana is legal....get it on the ballot, and it’s fifty-fifty odds that it’ll pass. Once accepted in one state...the rest will be challenged day after day. Threesome marriages, in my humble opinion....will be a regular thing by 2030.
The question here is....what’s next after that?
Anarchists , ocmmunists and liberaltarians would have no problem with polygamy, incest and getting rid of the age of consent
Nope - no exception there.
Their position is "Any two people who love each other should be allowed to marry."
Then, when they start to backpedal, point out that there are already lots of restrictions on real marriages, too ... not related, not already married, and so on. One of those restrictions just happens to be "Male and female, one each".
AND any pedophile can demand the same rights by invoking the mantra of the LGBLSMFT crowd” it is my sexual orientation”
Since there is no test or requirement of sexual activity in a marriage, there is no reason why fathers and sons, or mothers and grand-daughters, or even fathers and daughters should be prohibited from marrying each other, given the new elastic understanding of marriage.