Polygamy has had very little support in the U.S. since the Republican Party in 1854 declared it, along with slavery, one of the “twin relics of barbarism,” and Congress banned it in 1862. The Mormon church officially abandoned plural marriage in 1890.
... But when the California Supreme Court ruled in 2010 in favor of homosexual marriage, one dissenting justice warned that it would not be illogical to expect that support for polygamy soon would follow.
In fact, a polygamous group in Utah just last month challenged a ban on the practice in court, and now a new WND/Wenzel Poll, conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies, indicates there is a surprisingly high level of support developing across the U.S.
A full 22 percent of the respondents say there is no legal justification for denying polygamy, based on the fact that legislation and judicial decisions have affirmed the validity of same-sex “marriage” for homosexuals.
41 Comments
And this has what to do with ssm???
This is a serious question: Why should we not allow people to marry their pets?
Consider:
- It doesn't affect anyone else's marriage;
- It causes no harm to society
- It allows a person who loves their pet to be with that pet and provide for that pet
And the answer is: Because it would be redefining marriage to be something that it was never intended to be; it doesn't serve the (latest) purpose of marriage which is for two humans who love each other to, I don't know, get government benefits or whatever homosexuals' claimed purpose of marriage is.
Well I guess the slippery slope argument wasn't BS after all.
This should make for a nice movement, too, considering some of the SSM advocates in academia have the warm-fuzzies for polygamy.
You all have wild imaginations...
But let's be honest here...marriage was not developed because 2 people loved each other, marriage was formed for royals who wanted to form alliances and have protection as well as gain more money and land. Religion was thrown into the mix to make it seem more than what it is and to make it more accepted. .
Silly you for thinking you know what the intentions of marriage are.
Plus, I'm pretty sure you can't get an animal to sign a marriage certificate so I don't think you'll have to worry. about that.
I find polygamy odd and unexplainable, but I find humans who think they have say over others lives also unexplainable.
I guess that's life!
Can anyone explain to me why you are so concerned with how other people arrange their personal lives? God/Jesus is powerful enough to end any behaviors he really doesn't want us to engage in and has promised to punish those who disobey him. Why do you think he needs YOUR help in all this? I'm sorry but most of you sound like little children trying to usurp the parent's role in monitoring their kids behavior. God does NOT need your assistance.
Sigh. You folks just LOVE that slippery slope argument.
PETS are not consenting adults. Get over it, you will never be allowed to marry your cat. WE don't want to, I have no idea why the idea is of such a powerful attraction to YOU, but it is not going to happen.
Polygamy is an entirely different issue. It is not one that we are arguing for, or against. If people who want to enter into polygamous marriage fight for it, that is a SEPARATE issue. It has nothing at all to do with same sex marriage, as I think you will find most who are interested in polygamy are interested in HETEROSEXUAL marriage. So really, it is YOUR marriages that are the gateway, not ours.
The question is, what the definition of "is" is. Or in other words, do words have meanings? If we can change the meaning of words every day, depending on who wants what meaning, then how do we ever know what is meant? Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. There are other kinds of unions, but they are not marriage. The fact is that if you open the door to a change of meaning for one political consituency, then the door is open, and everyone will got through it. That is what polygamy has to do with same sex marriage.
Well, makes you wonder, considering the SSM logic, why not?
I have no problem with polygamy, seeing how it's practiced in the Bible. But legally, limiting marriage to couples violates no one's constitutional rights. That's no the case with limiting marriage to straight couples: that violates the constitutional rights of gay people to equal treatment under the law.
NOM's probably looking for polygamists to bring lawsuits in order to "prove" their irrelevant slippery slope arguments against marriage equality. Maybe we'll even find it in an internal memo....
The SSM argument is that marriage is based only on the eligibility requirement of adult consent. Well, if 2 can consent, then why not 3? And why not siblings? Or a parent/child/children? Where and why do we draw the lines around marriage, that make it unique from every other non-marriage union?
Anonygrl, don't even bother trying . They'll never get it. Ever. I have no idea why they're so obsessed with polygamy.
anony -
It's not a slippery slope argument. It's an argument about the definition of marriage and why it exists in the first place.
When you redefine it by removing its procreative foundation, you take away its State/societal purpose. When there's no longer a purpose, then its definition becomes open to anyone's personal preference, and what was formerly an institution with a noble purpose is nothing but a meaningless label that entitles the labeled party or parties to State benefits.
Again. You can't marry 3 people because polygamy is illegal. You can't marry your sibling because incest is illegal. You can't marry your pet because bestiality is illegal. Homosexuality is not.
Polygamy (whether one male and multiple females,one female and multiple males,or more than one of each) makes MUCH more sense,and has a far more legitimate legacy in human civilization,than allowing any number of persons of only one sex to qualify as a marriage.
THAT MALE BE UNITED TO FEMALE is the alpha and omega,the sine qua non,the sole useful purpose of marriage.That is what makes the union useful to humanity and entitled to recognition and benefits.
GZeus - Homosexual acts were in the recent past were illegal too (and still should be, I believe).
What's your point, that TODAY siblings can't be married and TODAY beastiality is illegal?
Well, making polygamy legal would just be catching up the law. Homosexuality is far more sexually perverse that polygamy.
Once you call homosexuality marriage you have robbed the word of any meaning. As such, you might as well allow any kind of relationship that people want to call marriage fall under that category. Since we live in a culture that accepts sexual activity outside marriage as well, why would the relationship even have to have a sexual component? Why not marriage between family members or anyone else?
Marriage supporter: "The sky is blue."
Marriage corruption supporter: "What does that have to do with the sky?"
Chelcia -
No one said that marriage was about 2 people loving each other. It's about the procreative ability of male-female sex.
If the coupling aspect of marriage was only about property rights and alliances, then why is there no history of homosexual "marriages" for those property rights or alliances? Surely there times where an alliance was sought but there was a male or female lacking on one side or the other?
The reason is because homosexuality is non-procreative. Whatever the alliances or property transactions surrounding marriage were, they were secondary to the male-female procreative relationship.
And it's against the law because why? Biblical support FOR polygamy exists (where it doesn't for gay marriage.) The only arguments against polygamy tend to be because of extreme cult groups and their practices.
No. That your slippery slope argument would only work if these things were legal. Because those people who would want to marry their sibling, multiple partners etc. would have to first lobby and get those laws overturned. And that as we all know is not easy or even possible depending on the law.
Your comment is inaccurate as stated.
The law limits marriage based on the biology of the partners, not whether they are straight or gay.
Furthermore, equality requires that rational laws be equally applied to all, and not that law be made irrational in order to achieve equality.
@Cara
I would think polygamy is illegal because it could pose to be emotionally and psychologically detrimental to children. I would also like to think it would pose a greater risk for partners to contract STDs.
bman
You made a great point about equality under the law.
The Bible has many passages supporting polygamy. Jesus himself supported polygamy. What's the problem again?
Oh yeah, we've been trained like monkeys to believe that certain things are bad. People can't seem to think for themselves, so they let other people do the thinking for them.
I have no interest in having multiple partners, but if someone does more power to them.
@Barb, very funny
@Bman, excellent point about equality.
People make the false assumption that if someone quotes the bible, then they're a bible thumbing fundamentalist who lives by the book. And if they only live by the virtuous and moral passages, then they're picking and choosing which verses they deem acceptable.
And if that's the case, then is it fair to say that the left picks and chooses which parts of the constitution to follow? They claim to be for individual freedom and speech but when it comes to things they deem unacceptable, then it must either be A) regulated or B) abolished. They think walking the streets of a major US city naked where little kids are sure to see them part of the first amendment, but if someone promotes their religious beliefs, then they're violating said amendment.
Since the bible has been mentioned..i will share jesus' own words on his view of marriage..
Mark 10:6-10 NKJV
But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a MAN shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his WIFE and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.
Polygamy has been regulated as a relic of the stone age for a reason. It degrades women to the status of material objects and promotes pedophilia. Just look at all the polygamous cults in which adult men as old as 40 marry multiple girls in their early teens, or even younger.
This just goes to show how the state enforced redefinition of marriage degrades society and its values back to the level of pagan barbarism.
So... if the argument goes in circles (polygamy is illegal, but once illegal as homosexuality is legal, but once illegal, and in the middle ages siblings married, but now this is illegal...and so on and so on...) then why is is logical that traditional marriage conservationists keep coming back to declaring that all debate is trumped by the" elemental" purpose of one man + one woman = procreation? By this standard we ought to immediately ban heterosexual women past reproductive age from getting married, yes? Goes for sterile heterosexuals, too - and any one who is unable or unwilling to have children.
The Utah challenge had nothing to do with marriage or polygamy. It was a challenge to the state's anti-bigamy law: which made it a criminal offense for men to be intimate with or live with someone other than his single wife.
"Can anyone explain to me why you are so concerned with how other people arrange their personal lives?"
We're not. Do what you want, live how you like and please-- don't ask us to put our stamp of approval on it. Keep your private life to yourself, out of the public discourse and out of the schoolroom.
"The Utah challenge had nothing to do with marriage or polygamy. It was a challenge to the state's anti-bigamy law: which made it a criminal offense for men to be intimate with or live with someone other than his single wife."
That's how it begins, Creighton.
Chuck @6
Why do you people make it our business by constantly bringing it up and trying to get government to impose the homo agenda on us?
Christ is not powerful enough to override the authority God gave Man; what's loosed on Earth is loosed in Heaven. That's His deal with Man. For Christ to have any authority in us, we must RECEIVE Him through His Word.
RE: John @28
And, so, the definition of "marriage" in law as that of a man and a woman matches that. Nobody is excluded who is either a man/male, or a woman/female.
Again. You can't marry 3 people because polygamy is illegal. You can't marry your sibling because incest is illegal. You can't marry your pet because bestiality is illegal. Homosexuality is not."
Homosexuality and marriage definition are apples-and-oranges subjects. If SSM is legalized, to accommodate those with a same-sex attraction, there is no rationale to prohibit marriages between siblings, parents and their offspring, or groups, is there? Ask yourself why opposite-sexed siblings are prevented from marriage, whether or not each individual is "gay" or "straight." Sexual identity politics is behind SSM, pure and simple and it has nothing to do with equality, or tolerance.
"If SSM is legalized, to accommodate those with a same-sex attraction, there is no rationale to prohibit marriages between siblings, parents and their offspring, or groups, is there?"
The rationale is that those relationships are illegal. For them to get married, they would have to first legalize all of those sexual combinations before even the possibility of marriage is debated.
Exactly GZ. The only difference between marriage and all those other groups having their relationships considered marriage as well is a few words in the law. Bigotry right? Why isn't their love just as good as yours? Once you remove children and families from the equation, nothing else matters. You can redefine marriage into oblivion. Meaningless.
"The rationale is that those relationships are illegal. For them to get married, they would have to first legalize all of those sexual combinations before even the possibility of marriage is debated."
Which is exactly the route taken to SSM: legalize homosexual behavior, use it as a justification for marriage neutering, a.k.a "SSM."
I couldn't have put it any better than you did.
GZeus said (in error):
"The rationale is that those relationships are illegal. For them to get married, they would have to first legalize all of those sexual combinations before even the possibility of marriage is debated."
SSM argumentation produces the result that, because there is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual behavior for those who'd SSM, SSM would not be a sexual type of relationship under the law.
Of course, marriage is a sexual type of relationship and that is clearly shown in the marriage law regarding the man-woman criterion, regarding the sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery, and paternity.
But let's proceed as if SSM argumentation defines not just SSM but also marriage. Now, since it would no longer be a sexual type of relationshp we can see GZeus' error.
He should have said this instead:
"1) The rationale is that those sexual relationships are illegal. 2) For them to get married, we would have to first establish that marriage is not a sexual type of relationship under the law and 3) then it would be unnecessary to legalize all of those sexual combinations before accepting the possibility of eligiblity to marry."
It is as easy as 1-2-3. No slippery slope argument is necessary since the SSM argumentation swallows 1, 2, and 3 and does so without chewing.