"...Christian lobby groups have seized on the perceived 'threat' of polygamous marriage to argue against the case for gay marriage in Australia.
They claim that gay lobby groups' arguments for equality in marriage, must also logically extend to polygamous marriage – a notion which has been rejected by lobby groups and The Greens.
Those groups say they are simply fighting for recognition of marriage as being between two consenting, loving adults, not a group of three or more.
Mr Glasby believes polygamy poses no threat to Australian society, and would simply legally recognise something which already exists here informally.
"I think in mainstream society there is a view that any kind of multiple partner relationship is all about sex," he wrote, "In our case, we really had no choice. The circumstances in all our lives were such that in order to move on, we had to be together.
"As I was already very much in love with my wife, and as I fell in love with her sister, and as the sisters had bonded so strongly after being apart for so long, our choice to live like this made sense."
The three partners will share their story, along with Aboriginal and Muslim partners living on polyamorous relationships tonight on Insight, SBS at 8.30."
15 Comments
@14 - have to disagree with you. The world is shrinking and what affects one part of the world will make its way to other parts. This article shows how people will constantly push the boundaries of marriage once it is no longer based on male-female. You never answered my previous question from another post on how you would justify limiting marriage to two people, when that is merely a subjective value, rather than something based on science and nature.
More and more they claim by the sodomites that giving in to their demands would have no other effect is being shown to be the lie that it is.
I'll keep trying to reply...
Nice try, John. Heterosexuals - typically Christians and Muslims - have had an affinity for group marriages for centuries. This has nothing to do with, is not caused by, and is not a valid reason to ban civil marriage for same-sex couples.
14th: How could you leave out Mormons and their "sister-wives"?!!!
As usual 14th can never refute the evidence and gives posts that make no sense.
From the article:
"Those groups say they are simply fighting for recognition of marriage as being between two consenting, loving adults, not a group of three or more."
Their pro-SSM arguments, and their pro-SSM rhetoric, does indeed emphasize gay this and gay that. But those same arguments swallow whole such things as polygamy, polyamory, incestuous arrangements, and so forth.
The SSMers might poses as so-very-selective in what they are fighting for, but they are arguing against the marriage idea and thus are arguing against the limits of eligiblity based on the marriage idea.
Instead they push the weak and vague SSM idea which does not provide a just basis for the so-very-selective application of the pro-SSM arguments and pro-SSM rhetoric.
Gay identity politics drives the SSM campaign; but its corruptive influence on lawmaking, on public discourse, and on much else, does not self-limit to the stated (and implausible) goals of the SSM campaign and its devotees.
Reasonable SSMers tend to think, okay, but society can just say, no, to polygamy and the rest. If society makes the law then the law will have the limits that society deems okay. And so forth.
However, without justification for such limits, in the wake of the imposition of SSM, that is not reasonable but arbitrary. And the arbitrary exercise of governmental power is what the SSMers have been banging their drums about in their attacks on the marriage idea. They cannot pretend that arbitrariness is okay for society -- when it suits SSMers but not when, as the SSMers claim, the marriage law is not taylored to fit SSM. But they do. And when they do, they show their lack of devotion to reason and good governance.
It is largely the result of the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics. Group identity supposedly trumps all. But why be misled by such nonsense when one really hopes to be reasonable?
The grip of group identity is unrelenting, that is why.
You didn't promote any "evidence" for me to refute, John. Although you should at least attempt to provide some when you make absurd claims like the one above. And what in my posts doesn't make sense to you? Maybe I can further simplify it so you'll understand.
14th, we understand perfectly.
We understand that the imposition of SS"M" will, of necessity, deprive society of any basis whatever of restricting "marriage" status to any other motley crew which perceives the opportunity to grab a slice of the Federal Friendship Registry pie.
Perfect clarity, thanks.
See you in November.
Polygamy is a religious freedom denied. NOM us so hypocritical.
The evidence is in this blog and also elsewhere in many other blogs on this site as well as other sites. As usual your side ignores them and plays dumb and asks where are they.
Always the so what or it does not matter.
The point exactly. If civil marriage licensing is defined as for loving relationships, then the guy who wants to be married to two twin sisters (at the same time) would qualify. Aside from the possibility he 'fell in love' (in Shakespearean fashion) with both because the twins have similar genes, the need to live within a single home with both does not justify both will be his sexual mates and justify getting a civil marriage license for polygamy.
It nevertheless does show that people can 'fall in love' with two or more persons at the same time (so what's new). But there are jealousies in polyamory. If 'love' and adulthood is the only requirement for civil marriage (and voters can certainly make it whatever they want, otherwise we wouldn't be debating th eissue), then polygamists qualify too.
All polygamists can argue that financial need is why they have to live together (true), as many families do (true), but to say that their sexual acts are sufficient for a marriage license is ridiculous (false). The government is NOT GOING TO be checking if he actually has sex with both women (twins).
The government seeks to favor opposite-sex monogamous relationships because a) they need to be regulated, and b) because they sacrifice financially and in many other ways to engender (not just rear) the next generation of voters and workers, and therefore give up a competitive advantage (same-sex relationships, by definition, do not engender in mass the next generation, and therefore have a competitive advantage within business.
That's why i have argued that civil marriage is not about the sexual act, contrary to many writers on this blog. It is about the POTENTIAL of opposite-sex relationships to engender children without having prepared a nice nest for them, without thinking of limiting their instincts in such a way as to benefit the children who in-turn bring much happiness to the relationship.
Because of privacy laws, the government cannot possibly check if marriages are doing the sexual act in the privacy of their home. Note government can, and does so, if the sexual act is done in public places (if caught).
Therefore, marriage cannot be OFFICIALLY about the sexual act, and same-sex marriage cannot be OFFICIALLY about the sexual act, either.
The potential for engendering children is restricted even more by government in setting minimum ages in each State for marriage licenses, and/or parental authorization in some States for certain ages. Again, this is not about the sexual act in itself within the privacy of their/a home, but it is about the potential for engendering children in an irresponsible or unready manner. It is all the government can really do to optimize (not guarantee) the quality of life of the next generation. It cannot make laws based on our private matters, and that is good.
So, let's get the fundamental points: a) marriage is not about love, and b) marriage is not about the sexual act (but is indeed about the potential of opposite-sex couples to engender children).
Since it is impossible for the government to check every opposite-sex relationship for fertility (again would invade our private life), therefore the decision is to offer marriage licenses to opposite-sex relationships as a special government-sponsored association, regardless of fertility. (Fertility comes and goes, as we all know.) Fertility never comes, and never goes, for same-sex relationships.
Note the government gives special support (like tax deductions) to genetic families during the time they have 'dependents', and even to same-sex relationships rearing adopted children. This is a support, beyond the status of civil marriage or civil union, directly tied to the number and age of children.
Like the term 'civil union', i believe we should use the term 'civil marriage' when discussing the secular definition of marriage.
As Christians we have a fuller understanding of marriage because it is a covenant between two people (man & woman) and God, not a 'contract' between 2 people and the government. A contract can be easily broken, as it is being broken by 50% of marriages (sometimes due to the need to relocate to find a job), but a contract is all a government can propose to assist families on the average engendering the next generation. Government cannot propose a covenant - a particular spiritual matter.
I don't agree with changing the definition of civil marriage or civil union to include same-sex relationships, whether an aunt & niece who need to live together, or friendships who PROMISE commitment to each other. I think these relationships should have a separate category without automatically being assigned all the legal benefits of marriage, and government could assess its Public Purpose.
I think that is a very great mistake to simply ascribe all the benefits and responsibilities of civil marriage to same-sex relationships, for it destroys the intellectual need for civil marriage.
The government is almost broke and heavily in debt. Why would we extend the number of relationships for which benefits are paid, or for which taxes are lessened, when the country is in debt? That alone should bring us back to lucidity.
Sorry for the long comment, but so-called 'gay' want to argue a certain way and then not let polygamy advocates argue the same way.
Very nice work Little man.
If only rationality could win the day...
But never stop, whatever 'they' do.
Just a tweak. Maybe you are a Catholic, for you to have taken such a confident stance on Christians in your post. But many Christians and Christian denominations are going to adopt the perversion of the times to their religion. Which will make it very hard to lump all Christians together on this subject of marriage. I think a very clear and visible distinction between the two dividing protestant groups must soon be made. One as clear as the one between Catholics and Protestants of today. So that one knows from the outset if they are walking into a church where 'god' will be blessing homosexual marriages or not.
Anyway. Nice job on your post.
For as much as NOM has tried to back peddle from their foul goal of DRIVING A WEDGE BETWEEN GAYS AND BLACKS, they sure have been intent on promoting that division in recent weeks. Black pastors this and black pastors that... Really, you filthiness could not be any more obvious!!!
Thom, these black pastors think and speak for themselves. Try to show more respect in your comments.