Homosexual & Polygamous Marriages

[prisonchaplain]

I suspect that the day will come when the United States sanctions homosexual marriages. As with five other nations thus far (South Africa being the latest), our courts will force this social revolution upon us.

My question is, if homosexual marriage is an innate right, then what about polygamous marriages. Quite frankly, there is more social precedent for them than there is for the same-sex type. One of the world's largest religions sanctions it (Islam). And, as many at this site would be painfully aware, America has its own fundamentalist off-shoot religions that embrace it. What possible justification can there be to outlaw a marriage system that dates back thousands of years, while forcing society to accept a marriages that defy 6000 years of social order?

Where will this lead? In Canada, two male remates have already married, openly admitting that neither is gay. There purpose? To cash in on the social programs available to married couples (soon to be units, me guesses).

So, next will be communal arrangements. Eventually, the whole thing will implode. I expect that government will get out of the marriage business all together, and simply become a mediator of social contracts.

Here's an ironic twist. An acquaintance of mine is living with his partner. He told me one day that he doesn't marry because he's not religious. He sees marriage as "holy matrimony"--a religious ceremony for religious people. Frankly, I respect his insight. He respects the sacrament of marriage, and realizes it should be left to those who embrace it's full meaning--commitment to family and spiritual union.

Am I on to something, or shall "this too pass?"

[sgallan]

My question is, if homosexual marriage is an innate right, then what about polygamous marriages.

Works for me. People already have affairs, even to the point of supporting another family, and it is legal because the actual civil proceeding of marraige isn't involved. So what is the difference if it is done through a religion without being run through the 'system'?

Here's an ironic twist. An acquaintance of mine is living with his partner. He told me one day that he doesn't marry because he's not religious. He sees marriage as "holy matrimony"--a religious ceremony for religious people.

I see this point as well. I doubt I will ever 'marry' again. Seriously. But I also doubt - though I am not interested at the moment - I will remain relationshipless either. After a certain amount of years it all becomes common law anyhow.

[Outshined]

You're probably right. In the Netherlands, where homosexual unions have been legal for some time, they have already had their first polygamous union.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301

[pushka]

I see no problem with any unions becoming official, as long as the people in those unions are supporting each other, and any dependants that they may have in that union.

As for Polygamy, when this becomes a two way system, meaning that women can take on more than one husband as well as husbands being allowed more than one wife, I think it will be fairer and thus okay to practise if all parties are in agreement.

[Guest ToasterOfen]

PC, this was actually a discussion my husband and I had a long time ago. If gay marriage is legalized, then why not polygamy, or any variation of it? Several weeks ago, my husband sent me the article Outshined referenced, and we just said "see, here we go."

In pure, historical "mormon" polygamy, and the polygamy most of history knows, one man is married to many women, and the many women only to the one man. But in the article from Outshined, it adds an interesting twist to things. In the article, both women are "married" to the man, but the women are also "married" to each other.

So, eventually in the USA, I think polygamy will become legal, and then, because of the gay issues, gay polygamy will enter the arena eventually. If you have legal "gay marriage" and legal polygamous marriage, it is only a matter of time before gay polygamous marriage is legal. PC's point that polygamy has more social and historical precedent than homosexual marriage, in my opinion, would mean that polygamy would have more pull and would be more religiously and socially acceptable, and would more easily pass legislation. But our world is screwy, so we deal with the issue of homosexuality first.

(A little off topic...)I think I mentioned before that I have a brother who is gay. We don't talk much in general because he "hates" the LDS church and degrades it. (I don't judge him because of his choice of lifestyle. That is his choice, but I love him no matter what.) I wouldn't mind him having a "civil union", but I do feel "marriage" needs to be reserved for a man and woman. I also appreciate PC's friends insight that marriage has religious significance, and that he isn't going to encroach on that. If more gay and lesbian people would be more understanding in that regard and not so blatant and try to infringe on something that is religious, I think it would help make the gay issue less of a hot button.

I want to clarify...I do not agree with the gay lifestyle, I believe it is a choice, but it is their choice, like we all have a choice in how we live. "Hate the sin, but love the sinner"? I'll never stop loving my brother, but we'll never agree on his choice and I won't fight about with him.

[sgallan]

If more gay and lesbian people would be more understanding in that regard and not so blatant and try to infringe on something that is religious, I think it would help make the gay issue less of a hot button.

Following this train of thought then non-believers shouldn't be allowed to get married either. More realistically, I could get married by an athiest JOP to an athiest in an office at a courthouse with absolutely nothing religious about it whatsoever.

[Guest ToasterOfen]

Originally posted by sgallan@Dec 5 2005, 06:27 PM

If more gay and lesbian people would be more understanding in that regard and not so blatant and try to infringe on something that is religious, I think it would help make the gay issue less of a hot button.

Following this train of thought then non-believers shouldn't be allowed to get married either. More realistically, I could get married by an athiest JOP to an athiest in an office at a courthouse with absolutely nothing religious about it whatsoever.

←

What I am meaning to say is: if gays weren't pushing the "marriage" card, I think they could pass "civil unions" more easily.

Athiests, because of lack of religion, aren't going to look on homosexuality the same as religious folks are, and may not view marriage in the same way we do, either. For them, marriage may be more about the social and economic benefits, rather than being religious in nature. But even if they are athiests, it is still a male and female, following the religious and moral presidence that was set thousands of years ago, and that is God-ordained, by being married by a priest, bishop or judge.

I may not be coming across very clearly, I have a migraine headache...so forgive me. I can see where that thought could have left room for you to follow that particular train track...I just can't articulate very well at the moment what I want to say.

[sgallan]

What I am meaning to say is: if gays weren't pushing the "marriage" card, I think they could pass "civil unions" more easily.

I agree.

Oh because religious folks are pushing the 'ordained by God' thing is a reason I may never marry again. If it is just a religious thing, and has no other real meaning in any secular sense, then why bother. Just get a union for the benefits. But I think in making the case they are, religious people have also demeaned an apsect of marraige. There seems to be no value for anything except a religious marraige.

FWIW, the "it's the way things have been done for thousands of years" argument can be countered that it was the same with slavery/racism/women treated as second class/ and so on..... but we eventually came to our senses.