Why same-sex marriage will pave the way to polygamy

In the wake of Obergefell, we are much closer to a further redefinition of marriage -- to include polygamous and polyamorous marriages.

(RNS) “What harm would it do?”

This was the question frequently asked by those who supported same-sex marriage.

I sought to answer that question with a pamphlet that I wrote and the Family Research Council published, titled, “The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex ‘Marriage.’

Now, a year after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of redefining marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), we do not yet have the data needed regarding various changes in family structure. Some of my predictions, though, have already come to fruition.

The most obvious involves the rapidly growing attacks on freedom of conscience and religion. Before Obergefell, we were assured that redefining marriage would have no impact on anyone except same-sex couples. Yet today, LGBT activists increasingly wage attacks against even the mildest measures to protect religious liberty.

READThe weaponization of religious liberty

Another prediction has also received considerable validation — although without as much public attention. In the wake of Obergefell, we are much closer to a further redefinition of marriage — to include polygamous and polyamorous marriages.

Some commentators leaped at the opportunity to make the case for polygamy, one literally within hours after Obergefell. Freelance writer Fredrik deBoer wrote an op-ed for Politico, titled “It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy,” the same day the ruling was announced.

“Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone,” asked deBoer, “why should it be limited to just two individuals?” It would hard for any supporter of court-imposed same-sex marriage — especially homosexual activists — to reject deBoer’s assertion that the “progressive and enlightened” now agree that “consent is the measure of all things in sexual and romantic practice.”

However, Jonathan Rauch, a gay activist who works at the Brookings Institution, tried to make a distinction in a Politico rebuttal to deBoer. Rauch notes a number of (quite valid) concerns about the impact of polygamy. In polygamous societies, he said, there tends to be “competition among high-status men to hoard marriage opportunities (that is, wives), which leaves lower-status men out in the cold.” Such a system is socially destabilizing, resulting in (according to one study), “higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery, and fraud.”

READ: ‘Sister Wives’ clan loses battle over Utah polygamy law

Yet for all his protests to the contrary, the arguments against polygamy are very closely parallel to the arguments against redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. For example, Rauch cited the study’s finding that monogamous marriage “results in significant improvements in child welfare.” The same could be said about children being raised by their married, biological mother and father—something unavoidably denied to children raised by same-sex couples.

Rauch claims that homosexuals were being denied the ability to participate in the institution of marriage at all prior to Obergefell, whereas the same is not true of would-be polygamists. Since many people who now self-identify as gay or lesbian — including a surprising number of plaintiffs in same-sex “marriage” lawsuits — previously have been married (to an opposite-sex spouse), this argument is weak. The real demand in the marriage debate was to eliminate a restriction (based on sex) on freedom of choice regarding marital partners. The same demand (with respect to number) is made by polygamists.

Media reports sympathetic to polygamy have also been appearing, such as one published by ABC News less than a month after the Obergefell decision. It told the story of a lesbian couple in California that decided to expand to a threesome by inviting a man to join them. One of the women apparently took seriously the theory that as a bisexual, she could only fulfill her sexual orientation by having both a female and a male partner.

READ: From polygamy to incest, confronting the Old Testament’s strange sexual standards

The growing acceptance of polygamy is not just anecdotal. The online dating website OkCupid now allows users to search for polyamorous relationships. The website claims their surveys show that only a minority of users say they are committed to monogamy, with the number falling from 56 percent in 2010 to 44 percent today.

All this doesn’t mean there will be legal recognition of polygamous relationships — yet. But one of the first steps toward same-sex “marriage” was when the Supreme Court struck down laws imposing criminal sanctions for homosexual conduct, in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The polygamy movement already has its version of Lawrence — a case in which a federal judge struck down Utah’s law making it a crime to live in a polygamous relationship.

The shock troops of the sexual revolution did not stop trying to redefine “marriage” after opening it to same-sex couples. Meanwhile, they are trying to redefine “sex” itself, compelling everyone to affirm and celebrate males who claim to be females and vice versa. Americans are left wondering—from a cultural progressive movement that doesn’t ever appear to be satisfied, “What’s next?”

Peter Sprigg is Senior Fellow at Family Research Council.

About the author



Click here to post a comment

  • Oh, Petey, you have been claiming this for years and years and years. Funny, though, it hasn’t happened, any more than any of the rest of your dire predictions have come true. Wassamatta. Petey? The grift isn’t paying as well as it used to? Time to bring out some new pitchforks?

    But here is something that IS true, polygamy is in your holy Christian bible, apparently approved by God. It is in the Quran, apparently approved by God. It is practiced in Christian Africa, apparently approved by God. Polygamy is in the Book of Mormon, apparently approved by God.

    But here’s the most important thing. Everywhere that polygamy is practiced in the world in the present day, it is a heterosexual institution. Everywhere in the world today where heterosexual polygamy is practiced, it is approved by religious authorities. Except for the fundamentalist Mormons, who practice it not with the church’s approval, but with a nod, a wink, and mormonmental tsk-tsk, perhaps even a severe wringing of hands from religious authorities.

    Nowhere that gay marriage is available has polygamy become the law. And everywhere the polygamy has been practiced, it was HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE THAT LED TO IT.

    Every. Single. Time. Every. Single. Place.

    So perhaps the real problem is with God, with heterosexuality, and religion.

  • In America, we let the govt limit us, but only in a strictly constitutional manner. Govt may deny the right to marriage, but only if it can show that it has a rational reason related to a legitimate govt concern.
    No matter how you, or I, or even the majority of the country FEEL about a certain kind of legally recognized marriage, we only allow the govt the power to deny that marriage if the govt can prove, in court, that it has a constitutionally valid reason to deny it.

    Just because ONE law regulating marriage was found to be unconstitutional, due to a failure of the govt to provide a constitutionally valid reason that would allow the govt to deny it, doesn’t mean that ALL laws regulating marriage are suddenly void. It doesn’t work that way.

    If you want to marry more than one person at a time, and you think the govt has unconstitutionally denied that “right”, you are free to do what any citizen may do – appeal to the judiciary for constitutional relief.
    You (and the rest of us), will find out whether or not the govt has a valid reason to deny your “right” to marry more than one spouse at a time.

  • Holy sh!t I feel dumber by just reading that. First of all the Family Research Council is an anti gay hate group. Their opinion on marriage equality is on par with the Concerned Citizens Council’s on interracial marriage.

    No Petey, marriage equality never had a chance to lead to polygamy. The two are vastly different in their effects on marriage laws. What makes this argument so monumentally m0ronic, is that we bother have to talk about marriage equality as a hypothetical. It has been legally in existence in various states and countries for many years. If such effects were legitimate concerns, you would find real world examples of it by now.

    There is no widespread polygamy lobby riding on the coattails of Obergfell. Not here not even in Canada which had marriage equality for over a decade. .

    Petey needs to justify his continued gravy train now that his organization lost its sole purpose. Much like how segregationists had to scramble after the civil rights act was passed.

  • The author is being misleading when he labels things “….the mildest measures to protect religious liberty.”
    The cases revolve around prejudiced and spiteful people seeking to harm others through the ostentatious and very loud denial of service.

    No one is entitled to a special “religious liberty” to harm others.

  • Millions of Christian business people manage to sell stuff every day without violating consumer protection laws like anti discrimination regulations.

    A very tiny number, in the press maybe a half dozen, of prejudiced business operators are seeking a special “right” to violate consumer protection laws, and using religion as their excuse.

    It isn’t a “anti – Christian” thing, it is an “anti-gay” thing.

  • While growing up I spent lots of time with very close relatives that were in a polygamous relationship comprised of two men and one woman. She was married to one of the men, and after he passed away in old age, she married the other man. They have all been deceased for about forty years. They did a very fine job of raising five children, one of whom became exceptionally important in my life.

    So, I guess Sprigg would claim that the existence of deeply closeted gay people in the early 20th Century paved the way to that polygamous relationship.

  • Like a lot of the missives fired by professional right-wing agitators, this screed is long on claims and short on evidence. I’m sure some people are more tolerant of certain polygamous and polyamorous families, much as they come into contact with them. The outrage machine that worked so well against Western Mormon tribes 120 years ago these days just sputters and wheezes. The real game back then was to sell women, as their status was geometrically elevating, on the heterosexual romantic ideal and to resent those LDS fellows out Utah way with pioneer harems. The fact Utah of 120 years ago had more women physicians than just about anyone else – nothin’ compares with the childcare you get while in medical school than that from your sister-wives – is the sort of things prevaricators like Sprigg tries to keep from coming out. It’s kind of nice RNS hasn’t got a litmus test and we get to read a variety of opinions, but, man, don’t y’all have any standards? This is even too stupid for “Christianity Today.”

  • “The same could be said about children being raised by their married, biological mother and father—something unavoidably denied to children raised by same-sex couples.”

    I can’t believe RNS lets a spokesman from a hate group write op-ed pieces. And I almost can’t believe that same spokesman still peddles lies like this. Almost.

  • Most relationships will be in pairs. Most of those will be one female and one male. That does not mean all relations must be the same male and female for ever.

  • Ah, the old slippery slope argument. Fine. But if you’re going to use it, you need to admit that heterosexual marriage obviously led to same-sex marriage.

  • The op-ed by a goon for the infamous “Family Research Council” makes erroneous claims of success where none exist, makes the usual baseless, empty accusations and simply serves as an electronic effort to pass the plate among the prejudicial rubes foolish enough to donate.

  • Essays like this do not forward the propagation of the Gospel. Polygamy exists above and beyond the question of gay marriage, so do other configurations not consistent with tradition. Rather than spend time positing what ifs, the Family Research Council might profitably apply its resources elsewhere. I suspect the push for legalized polygamy will swell, but not for the reasons cited above. Would I oppose it philosophically? Yes, for the same reason I support traditional marriage, but I suspect it won’t make the difference in the end. A proper reading of scripture (Old Testament) indicates allowance for polygamy, not endorsement of it. The New Testament (i.e. NEW Covenant) rejects it completely. People really need to assay the scriptures more carefully.

  • Boy, you put a lot of thought and logic into that comment. I can’t put my arms around such profound wisdom. You should keep making those kinds of comments on all the issues plaguing the world today. You will likely help bring world peace and end childhood hunger.

  • The FRC makes its money, and has for years, by demonizing– that is reviling, slandering, and bearing false witness against gay people– nasty sins, every one of them, according to the NT. This stupid piece of propaganda is just more of the same

    I sure would like to see Christians calling them out for this, since the exact passage in Corinthians that allegedly applies to gay people clearly applies to this.

  • I put as much thought and logic as the author did on his piece…however, I agree that the RCC should be helping bring peace into the world and and end to childhood hunger, instead of trying to dictate who does what with whom in their bedrooms…or maybe he kitchen table

  • You can’t have a marriage without a man and a woman. A man cannot be a wife nor a woman a husband. That is why homosexual “marriages” are fake marriages.

  • Polygamy actually has more to do with STRAIGHT marriage than anything, since polygamists are invariably heterosexual. You could just as easily say, “If you allow a man to marry ONE woman, you have to let him marry as many women as he wants!!”

    It’s a red herring.

  • “The most obvious involves the rapidly growing attacks on freedom of
    conscience and religion. Before Obergefell, we were assured that
    redefining marriage would have no impact on anyone except same-sex
    couples. Yet today, LGBT activists increasingly wage attacks against
    even the mildest measures to protect religious liberty.”

    Seems to me the real purpose for this article was to try to prop up the tired and disproven trope of attacks on “religious liberty”, i.e. protecting my discrimination against those I find morally repugnant. So tired of this crap – let’s drag out Kim Davis all over again!

  • Many commentators here are missing the point completely. This issue isn’t so much about gay marriage per se, but a re-definition of what marriage is. In a modern liberal society, there’s really no justification for restricting the free choice of adults to create families however they see fit. In the past, when women were completely dependent on their husbands as a source of support, restricting marriage to one man, one woman made sense, but today such an arrangement is not only anachronistic but an affront to civil liberties.

    The fact is, these polygamous relationships are increasing in popularity. Sites like https://www.secondwife.com/ and http://www.muslima.com/en/women/dating/united-kingdom/polygamy/that-accept-polygamy are gaining in popularity. This is not an abstraction, this is a real phenomenon underway.

  • Considering that some 40% of hetero marriages end in divorce, including promises before god, and 25-44% of them are adulterous, it sounds like hetero marriages are fake.
    In any case, all I care about is my government calling my marriage a marriage, with all of the rights, obligations, and responsibilities attached thereto.

  • This is so tiresome. Sexual preference is an inborn identity, and whether you are heterosexual or homosexual, you should be granted the right of marriage to ONE person who is not in your immediate family.

    Polygamy is a lifestyle, not an identity. So are marriage and monogamy. A polygamist has this lifestyle above and beyond his or her identity. I am not making a value judgment about any lifestyle here. Lifestyles can be good or bad, and whether polygamy is good or bad can be debated. I personally think it is bad. But this has nothing to do with being gay or straight. A polygamous can be either.

    I get two opposite responses from this – from the Left and the Right. The Right insists being gay is a lifestyle, and the Left insists being polygamous is an identity.

    You are BOTH wrong!

  • Is it any more difficult a concept than to say the difference is that prohibiting same sex marriage denies an individual the right other individuals have to marry the one person he/she loves, which is discrimination? There is no discrimination in prohibiting polygamous marriage because NO ONE is allowed to have multiple wives, therefore one person is not being discriminated against in comparison to others. Therefore we can allow same-sex marriage without having to allow polygamous marriage. QED?

  • “BOTH are a lifestyle choice.”

    And that is a FACT (Fantasy Accepted as Complete Truth).

  • Funny.

    My attitude towards polygamy is that it is not a moral issue, but a legal one. Polygamy wreaks holy hell on our binary based rights and obligations which come with marriage status.

    If polygamists can draft revisions to marriage laws and laws which relate to marriage rights which are equitable for all spouses involved, then they can make their case for its legalization. So the reason we can’t take polygamy legal right now is entirely due to the laziness of its proponents.

  • Moving toward society’s full acceptance of gay people, including same-sex marriage, has paved the way toward far fewer gay people entering opposite-sex marriages in order to survive and prosper in an anti-gay world. And that change is reducing the number of discordant opposite-sex marriages which is resulting in more loving environments for children with fewer divorces. It clearly benefits all of society.

    But Sprigg doesn’t want his audience to know about those benefits because he is driven by his irrational religion-based beliefs, so he must invent scare tactics to keep those beliefs alive among his followers. I’m sure his fondest dream is for gay people to return to the closet, and to marry opposite-sex people again. In Sprigg’s world, God prefers to deny benefits to all of society rather than allow gay people to have fulfilling lives.

  • I like that Richard. I want to remember it for the next time a homophobic bigot makes that facetious claim. Thank you!

  • “Rauch cited the study’s finding that monogamous marriage ‘results in significant improvements in child welfare.’ The same could be said about children being raised by their married, biological mother and father—something unavoidably denied to children raised by same-sex couples.”

    That’s a lie and you know it – or you should know it if you’re styling yourself as a public voice on same-sex marriage. You’re reading far more into the Regnerus study than Regnerus himself would have you read into it. Besides, the Regnerus study had issues, and it’s just one study, not representative of the entirety of work on this question. Regnerus needs to be read alongside at least three other articles in the same journal:
    Regnerus (Jul 2012): doi 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.009
    Marks (Jul 2012): 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.006
    Cheng and Powell (Jul 2015) 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.04.005
    adams and Light: (Sep 2015): 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.06.008

  • I’m happy to hear differing views, but I too am disappointed that RNS let a hate group write a column. In reality, this is no different than allowing the KKK write here.

  • Regnerus neither studied gay people nor gay people raising children. He admitted as much on at least two occasions. When asked about actual gay people raising children as gay people, he admitted IN COURT that those children were doing fine.

    He studied– not really– people in heterosexual relationships who, in the memories of their children, had ever had a homosexual experience.

    In other words, he lied.

  • Why? We have spouse swapping and swingers clubs for that stuff. As Ben of Oakland points out, it would take considerable effort to create equitable laws governing multiple simultaneous spouses, whether same-sex, one-male-multiple-female, one-female-multiple-male or mixed groups. No one not affected cares enough to sort out the legal spaghetti. Do you? I sure don’t.

  • Standing up against persecution is not being hateful. It is not an act of intolerance to call out real intolerance for what it is. That’s just more of the usual obfuscation by entrenched bigots who feel entitled to their wrongful prejudices.

  • Just pointing out the obvious and necessary conditions for what constitutes a marriage. Since husband and wife are necessary conditions for a marriage and only a man can be a husband and a woman a wife then that shows homosexual “marriages” are not real marriages. Its like saying there are square circles. They can’t exist.

  • Solomon infamously married animals and inanimate objects in an effort to circumvent the law and make steeling his stuff and staff punishable by death. He may have even “married” some of his male servants to extend the death penalty over any effort to take them away for whatever purpose. Nice guy.

  • Too late King Solomon already did all that so as to make stealing his stuff and staff punishable by death. In the modern age there’s no legal motivation under the law to do something so obviously ridiculous. But give a human a motive and finding legal loopholes becomes a treasure hunt. Look at all the stupidity social conservatives display searching for a way to deny civil rights to their neighbors whom Christ told them to love.

  • Solomon was not the standard of marriage. The Lord Christ in Matthew 19 tells us what God’s view of marriage is and its based on Adam and Eve.

  •       Many people think religious beliefs per se deserve respect. I do not.

          If your beliefs are respectable — worthy of respect — I will respect them. If not, I won’t. I respect your right to have them. I don’t get a vote on that; they’re yours, not mine, but I need not and will not respect your religious beliefs just because you hold them and think they’re correct. I also needn’t and won’t respect them no matter how popular they might be and no matter just how you insist.

          In fact, your insistence makes me respect them (and you) less, not more, because putting something in the category of a “belief” is often an intellectually bankrupt, lazy, underhanded, disingenuous way of exempting it from scrutiny and discussion, and I won’t have it.

          I respect your right to think of me whatever you will. I respect you as a human being to whatever degree you respect me likewise. As long as you are not hurting me, I respect your right to live your life as you will, regardless of whether I would make the same choices, to whatever degree you likewise leave me be.

          And it is not enough just to be respectable; you will also have to be respectful. You may not tell me I am evil or that I am going to hell, no matter how loving you think you’re being or how urgently you think I need to hear it. I do not respect your “right” (i.e., privilege) to codify, enforce, or otherwise impose your beliefs on anyone other than yourself. And I do not consent to being used as a scapegoat or other accessory to the maintenance of your undeserved religious privilege.

          I do not respect ignorance, superstition, bigotry, jingoism, sexism, heterosexual supremacy, transphobia, racism, classism, or any other variety of hatred or pretended superiority; I reject it no matter how it is rationalised, whether it be manifested in words or in actions, and regardless of how fervently you might choose to believe your god or your religion approves it.

          And by the way, Peter, same-sex marriage is very much a part of reality throughout this country and a growing list of many others. You might not like it, and you might not agree with it, but those marriages are every bit as legally sound and valid as your own. Putting sneer quotes around the word marriage doesn’t invalidate them or make you look clever or insightful or anything like that, it makes you look like a snotty, not-very-bright 4th-grader. Shhhh, run along now; the grownups are talking.

          That is all.

  • That is a silly notion. And just your effort to find “moral equivalency” for harboring anti-LGBT sentiments. Having a tantrum over it does not make such childishness appear more grown up.

  • Nope. Christ just answers a question about divorce, and the same “Christians” who try to use Matthew 19 (or Mark 10) to justify their anti-LGBT bigotry also ignore the fact that Christ was dead against divorce, period. And yet so many “Christians” dump and swap spouses routinely while hating gays in Jesus’ name.

  • Why should anyone respect your beliefs?

    There is no such thing as a homosexual “marriage” because 2 people of the same sex cannot fulfill the requirements of a marriage which is a husband and a wife. Only a man can be a husband and a woman a wife.

  • This is why the anti marriage equality people lost in court. They fundamentally failed to understand the issues and arguments in play.

    Marriage is a permissive right. A given union is OK provided there are no rational and secular arguments against it. Its not a matter of whether two (or more) people love one another. It’s a question of what the government can say as to why not. With gay marriage no such arguments existed. The reasons for gay marriage bans were pretty ridiculous and dire stuff.

    Polygamy is banned because as I mentioned before it is impossible to shoehorn it into our current laws in an equitable fashion for all spouses. Making its ban both rational and secular in nature. Unless polygamists can figure out how to amend current laws to make it fit equitably, it stays banned.

    BTW that was some fine trollery on your part.

  • Jesus was clear that a marriage is only between a man and a woman. He bases this on our first created human beings i.e. Adam and Eve. No judge, no govt, no president can change this fact. You cannot make a lie the truth no matter who says otherwise.

    Its not bigotry to tell the truth.

  • Good thing there’s no registration quiz or folks like you would have to stay single.

  • There is not one positive affirmation from Christ on homosexuality let alone homosexual “marriage”.

  • Your apparent reading disability and deficient vocabulary are certainly regrettable, but they’re your own problems—not mine.

  • Good guess. Since LGBT marriage is only about 15 years old (anywhere, and only 1 year old across the US) and the last entry in the Bible dates back to about 70 A.D., reference to legal and lawful gay marriage in the Bible text would be a real miracle to add to all the fake ones that hallelujah hypocrites are so fond of.

  • Wrong argument. Gay marriage was already legal in several states for several years prior to Obergfell.

    There was no constitutional basis for a ban. Had the bigots not instituted gay marriage bans, the court would never have addressed the issue. Had they simply depended on voter apathy it would be at least another decade or so before gay marriage would be legal nationwide.

  • I’m just pointing out that the Bible is against homosexual practices. If corrupt society like ours want to create a fantasy like homosexual “marriage” then that is a different issue.

  • The trouble is that you aren’t telling “The Truth,” but just your own opinion of some old Bible verses that frankly have questionable relevance to life in the modern world.

  • except you are dead wrong. Matthew 19 is about why men should treat their wives well rather than consider divorce. It is hateful and bigoted to misrepresent texts in order to promote discrimination and hate.

  • Actually its your problem if you believe that there is such a thing as homosexual “marriage”. You must believe square circles exist because someone says they do.

  • Responding to real life and reality is not “creating a fantasy.” Hanging onto values long dead by writers we cannot prove ever actually lived is the fantasy. You have your sense of reality turned around backwards, along with your values.

  • Jesus is clear what constitutes a marriage.
    “And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘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 they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” Matthew 19:4-6

    Homosexuals cannot become “one flesh”. Only a man and a woman can.

  • The Bible is the most studied and read book in human history. It still has relevance and influence even today. Only fools are ignorant of it and its influence.

  • He was not defining marriage at all simply giving reasons why a wife should be treated better than property. Hence the title of Matthew 19 is “Divorce”

  • Homosexual “marriages” are fantasy because they are logically impossible like square circles.

  • Those decisions were never truly based on the Constitution but on the opinions of a judge. Even the supreme court judges said as much.

  • Too bad most of its adherents don’t read it in context or honestly. Preferring proof texting to understanding. Plenty of people study and understand it. You apparently aren’t one of them.

  • Sour grapes BS from someone who doesn’t bother to understand the issues involved. You should have studied Civics more closely.

  • “Square circles” are standard issue among hallelujah hypocrites, along with fake healings and talking gibberish as the “tongue of angels.” Granting LGBT rights, including equal marriage, is simply a matter of society progressing forward for the benefit of more and more people.

  • Ignoring it and being ignorant of it are separate issues. Hallelujah hypocrites are more often guilty of willful ignorance of the Bible than they can ever admit. And all your voodoo scare tactics about “ignoring sacred teachings” won’t change anything.

  • That’s why the Holy Roller version of Christianity is “dead man walking.” Research has clearly shown the truth and reality of being LGBT beyond a question or doubt. The same cannot be said for your delusional form of “Christianity.”

  • You haven’t said anything other than an opinion. Not even a well developed one. You are far too lazy to waste time responding to. I made my arguments here.

  • What medical research has shown that being homosexual is healthy? Ever seen the Center for Disease Control data on the serious health issues related to homosexuality?

  • If you think you made your argument then that only proves you are public school educated. That is the only thing that explains your comments.

  • And here is a fun fact: FACT is a sibling of TRUTH (Truly Repugnant and Unacceptable Theological Hogwash).

  • Bull’seye on both. Would you like me to attribute both to you when I use them? (I suppose first I should ask your permission to use them. May I?)

  • Of course polygamy is en route. And just about any other consensual lifestyle under the sun. The only thing that stands between those things and legalization would be a government decision to stop sanctioning marriage in any form.

    I see lots of people here arguing that “polyamory is bad for society, so no marriage”. It logically follows, then, that you believe polygamous marriage would either: 1) enable a harmful relationship model to exist where it currently does not, or 2) increase the prevalence of it by offering society’s consent. The first argument, or course, is very easy to debunk; there are already plenty of people who live a polyamorous lifestyle, and nobody is advocating that we throw them in jail (notice the similarities to SSM?). The second argument was heavily used by opponents of SSM, and yet ultimately proved fruitless when it came down to it.

    Indeed, in the era of gay marriage, the case against polygamy is exceptionally weak. There are already plenty of people in this country who live a polyamorous life….just very often in a manner that is far less stable than a marriage would be (again, getting deja vu yet?). The fear of high-status men hoarding wives, thus denying low-status men the ability to marry, is similarly void. What are the marriage rates today for men without a college degree? How about without a high school diploma? 75% of African American children are born out of wedlock, and the idea of a “marriageable man” is prevalent in our society. Polygamy won’t deny low-status men the ability to marry because, quite frankly, women have beaten them to the game. I also see little merit in the suggestion that polygamy would be bad for children…not because it isn’t true, but because 1) we don’t prevent those who are clearly unfit to have children from having them, and 2) because gay marriage has eliminated reproduction from the criteria for marriage.

    Ultimate the gay marriage movement was about rejecting the suggestion that society had a right to make value judgments about other people’s consensual sexual behavior. That viewpoint, at least temporarily, has triumphed. Now watch how many unintended consequences you produce.

    If anything, polygamy will be less damaging to man’s – and society’s – long term prognosis, as it at least provides the capability and likelihood of producing enough children to keep things going. Something startlingly absent from every other lifestyle model the social left seems to fall in love with.

  • Yep. I have. A person has a greater chance of being killed in a car crash than from contracting HIV. Are you going to push to have cars banned now, too? Funny, how the highest rate of HIV infection among gay men and boys all takes place in Bible-belt states where folks like you push to keep gay boys in the closet.

    Hallelujah hypocrites love to hype the CDC numbers on HIV, but taken in perspective of other ways people can die, it’s not the big crisis it once was.

    If the government had spent the money sooner, like back when Reagan was President, the numbers would be even lower now, but Reagan had to fight his own party, because of people like you, to do what little he did do. Really getting the crisis of neglect under control so fewer people died was left for Bill Clinton to do after Bush 41 got fired at the polls.

    Twice as many people die by gun violence, between suicide and murder, every year as die from AIDS. Are you planning to go after the guns any time soon? Probably not. Cars kill as many people every year as AIDS does, but are you going after the cars? Not a chance.

    Your boring efforts to speak against the LGBT community have been making the usual rounds of Family Research Council horse manure. So, I guess your next stops will be the phony links to pedophilia and the nonsense about gay sex being “unnatural” when everything LGBT do to express physical love is something straight people do more often in much larger numbers. You really need to go troll someone else.

  • Except that passage wasn’t defining marriage. Simply giving reasons why the traditional view of marriage, where the woman is the property of her husband is far too cruel and inappropriate. Its actually a very interesting and socially redeeming passage. But you didn’t read much into it beyond proof-texting to justify your own bigotry.

  • So you agree that homosexual sex is very very unhealthy and lead to serious diseases and early deaths especially among men? If you need some stats let me know.

  • Please feel free to use them. No attribution required. If I’m able to contribute something that someone else finds worthwhile, it allows me to feel like I’m not wasting my time, and that’s far more than enough satisfaction for me.

    And, by the way, I appreciate your comments. Thank you.

  • Some people have the innate ability to understand sarcasm…obviously you don´t

  • You must live under a rock….over 15 countries in the world have legalized it, gay couples are getting married and creating families whether they are real in your mononeural brain or not

  • “If polygamists can draft revisions to marriage laws and laws which relate to marriage rights which are equitable for all spouses involved..”

    This is hardly the only issue. Since marriage is massively subsidized in the US through the Social Security spousal benefit and other less costly benefits, a more important issue is: why should those opposed on moral grounds, those who are monogamous, and those who are single have to subsidize polygamists by paying their household multiple Social Security spousal benefits, while the monogamists get only one and the single–who are already poorer on average than the married–get nothing.

    Spousal benefits were implemented because women used to be legally barred from good paying jobs simply because of their gender; they needed the economic support. It’s unfair to offer a Social Security spousal benefit to two married men who both worked because they did not face legal job discrimination as men, while women of my mother’s generation do need spousal benefits because of perfectly legal sex discrimination when she was working age.

    Now that women are no longer legally barred from holding good jobs and the government says gay marriage must be legalized, the spousal benefit should be phased out. Social Security benefits should be based on age and income alone (like Medicare), not whether you got someone to marry you or not.

  • Marriage is much more than a permissive right, something the opponents failed to emphasize enough. It is massively subsidized by taxpayers–in our country mainly through Social Security. Something that is massively subsidized is more than a right: it means the government considers it a public good.

    It makes perfect sense why the government subsidized marriage and considered it a public good: women used to have to bear more children and breast feed them in the past just to keep the population from falling. (Before sterilization was practiced, babies who were not breastfed had astronomical death rates). Multiple pregnancies made some occupations for women difficult, and men made things even more unfair for women by legally barring them from top jobs and top education, and legally paying them less than men for the same work. Since women were vulnerable to poverty due to few opportunities to work jobs that paid enough to allow self-support and this was exacerbated if men left her with children to care for, the government tried to encourage men to stay with women and help support them, even when they had no children, but particularly if they did have children. None of these motives for subsidizing marriage made any sense if the couple were two men worked and have no children. Men were not legally barred from good jobs and schools. There was (and is) good reason why, the government historically did not think 2 men sharing a household needed the subsidies extended to heterosexual marriage.

    Those who were opposed to legalizing gay marriage really dropped the ball by not making its subsidy rather than legality the crux of their arguments. Those against abortion have always been quick to oppose federal funding of it even as they had to accept its legality.

  • By your low standards, breathing is unhealthy and perhaps you should just stop. And no, I don’t want your hyped and tainted statistics. Homosexual sex in a lot more healthy than the typical southern, fat white-boy diet. Sexually active gays stay in great shape; frankly, better than the rest of us. The worst health risk in their lives is dealing with the stress of bigots like you. But the healthy solution there is to abandon traditional organized religion. Gays who “come to Jesus” die a lot younger and with far worse lives than those who put their trust in condoms and lube.

  • But it’s about much more than rights, since marriage is massively subsidized.

    Is it fair that the monogamous and the single must be forced to subsidize multiple Social Security spousal benefits to the polygamous?

  • Since there would be massive money to be siphoned away from the single and monogamous taxpayers to the polygamous via the Soc Security spousal benefit, I’m sure someone will try.

    After all this is much of the motivation for legalizing homosexual marriage in the first place..

  • Obviously not since same sex marriage has been around at least since c. 3000 BC (recorded history), and presumably pre-history as well, at least judging from the fact that all hunter-gatherer societies have marriage .

    What led to same-sex marriage is the decline of fertility and infant mortality, coupled with the relatively recent rejection of sexual division of labor and other gender-role norms, which are as old as opposite-sex marrieage and just prevalent in hunter-gatherer societies.

  • Corrupt means conflict of interest. Ruling for something to which you stand to materially benefit. The legal profession undoubtedly has a disproportionately large number of homosexuals. Marriage is massively subsidized in this country.

    Therein lies the conflict of interest.

  • Polygamous relationships–both adulterous and otherwise no doubt have always been around.

    This is a completely different issue from whether taxpayers have to subsidize them, they currently have to subsidize any relationship the government deems a marriage.

  • Sigh. I assure you an historian of the pre-modern Mediterranean that Jesus assumed that marriage was always heterosexual, and so did the society he came from: both Jews and the Roman state reserved legal marriage between males and females. There was no legal gay marriage. To call someone “hateful and bigoted” for pointing this out is absurdly ahistorical.

    Gay sex was not uncommon among pagan Romans, although the Jews of Jesus’ day rejected it. But just because ancient pagan Romans did not criminalize gay sex does NOT mean they would have thought gay marriage appropriate to legalize. Obviously they did not because they never did. And if you understood anything about ancient Mediterranean societies you would understand why they did not (sexual division of labor norms were strong; mortality very high so average woman had to bear over 4 children and breastfeed them in order for the population to avoid crashing).

    Most ancient people would have found your term “hateful and bigoted” for anyone who believes marriage is between opposite sexes only truly baffling, if not offensive.

  • Marriage was already defined in the Jewish law of Jesus’ time as between opposite sexes, and in the Roman law of the time as between a man and a woman.

    You are truly distorting history if you would pretend otherwise.

  • Marriage was already defined in Jesus’s day as being between opposite sexes. It’s absurdly ahistorical to use words like “bigotry” for pointing out that neither ancient Roman law nor Jewish law accepted legal gay marriage, and Jesus’ subscribed to that same basic assumption.

  • Wow. Foolishness and conspiracy theories all mixed together. The motivation behind equal marriage is simple. LGBT have shown themselves to be productive members of society who push themselves to get educations, good jobs, and then use a large portion of wages earned to get protection from homophobes via political relief. You and your bigotry is what motivates LGBT to seek justice and relief from your persecution. You are your own conspiracy theory in action.

  • You are right that Jesus would only have considered marriage in terms of man and woman because it was the only type out there at the time.

    Where it crosses into bigotry and ahistorical is the assumptions that such statements in Matt19 would be against gay marriage or was meant as a definition of all marriage. It is way outside the context and intent of the passage. If anything the honest and unbigoted view is to say Jesus was silent on the subject of gay marriage.

  • That is a ton of exegesis and interpolation to get to a point which is entirely negative inference. To say Matt 19 even addresses the subject of gay marriage, let alone could be a justification for saying he forbade it involved reading it out of context and ignoring the clear stated intent of the passage, which was divorce. You are right, there were no gay marriages in Jesus time. Which means when discussing divorce, it would not be addressed at all. Divorce required an existing marriage.

    To make any claim that Matt19 is Jesus forbidding gay marriage is to apply bigoted proof texting to a passage which more honestly would be described as silent in the subject.

  • You miss the point wildly and now advocate that civil marriage should have been abolished entirely rather than allow for gay marriage. That was never going to fly either.

  • Civil marriage is not really subsidized as it is a legal shorthand and set of default obligations and rights for the couple involved. There is too much entwined with civil marriage to just do away with it, nor enough cognisable benefit from doing so for society for doing so.

    What sounds clever in your head here is really kind of silly. Anti gay proponents defending a gay marriage ban should just ban all civil marriage? That would be too harmful to their own rights. It’s not about attacking civil marriage, it’s about denying it to gays.

  • Bigotry is to claim that a passage which would, by your own argument, be silent on a subject, is really a ban or forbade it.

  • Just because something it’s inmoral or not true to you to you doesn’t mean it is also for everyone else

  • Just to be clear, I was NOT suggesting that polygamous relationships be recognized as civil marriage ‘subsidized’ by taxpayers.

    Sprigg seems to be trying to manufacture another scary TrueChristian issue that is as phony as the current bathroom wars.

  • The health ramifications of homosexual sex is worse than smoking. Consider these stats from the CDC:
    “• More than 1.2 million people in the United States are living with HIV infection, and almost 1 in 7 (14%) are unaware of their infection.

    • Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSMa), particularly young black/African American MSM, are most seriously affected by HIV.

    • By race, blacks/African Americans face the most severe burden of HIV.
    CDC estimates that 1,201,100 persons aged 13 years and older are living with HIV infection, including 168,300 (14%) who are unaware of their infection. Over the past decade, the number of people living with HIV has increased, while the annual number of new HIV infections has remained relatively stable. Still, the pace of new infections continues at far too high a level— particularly among certain groups.

    HIV Incidence (new infections): The estimated incidence of HIV has remained stable overall in recent years, at about 50,000 new HIV infections per year.

    Within the overall estimates, however, some groups are affected more than others. MSM continue to bear the greatest burden of HIV infection, and among races/ethnicities, African Americans continue to be disproportionately affected.

    HIV Diagnoses (new diagnoses, regardless of when infection occurred or stage of disease at diagnosis): In 2012, an estimated 47,989 people were diagnosed with HIV infection in the United States. In that same year, an estimated 27,928 people were diagnosed with AIDS. Overall, an estimated 1,170,989 people in the United States have been diagnosed with AIDS.

    Deaths: An estimated 13,834 people with an AIDS diagnosis died in 2011, and approximately 648,459 people in the United States with an AIDS diagnosis have overall. The deaths of persons with an AIDS diagnosis can be due to any cause—that is, the death may or may not be related to AIDS.”

  • So, you had to go and regurgitate all the hyped data from your FRC masters as their trained dog. Nice, but entirely useless. You try to conflate the shock value of just under 14K deaths out of more than a million people living with AIDS by including all deaths from as far back as 35 years ago when it really was an epidemic of needless death. Your litany of wow is nicely rehearsed (or copied) but is only impressive to the same sad folks who hate their neighbors bad enough to waste their time learning such dreck. Your long rant is there in hopes you can get another fool onboard with your hateful nonsense. We are done. Next step will be to block you from discussion if you keep ranting.

  • Wow. That’s amazingly vapid, silly notion that shows just how ignorant you choose to be. And you thought yourself brilliant by sharing it. You and the newly evicted Sacramento hate preacher, Roger Jimenez, would get along fine. Most gay men get along great with women because they are not interested in them sexually. But you do show just how obtuse a hater like yourself can be. Sadly, there’s no cure for stupid.

  • Do I think that it is fair that the government treat married citizens differently? Sure, it makes sense to me to encourage citizens to form mutually supportive family units – people with spouses probably make better taxpayers, they support each other, are less likely to use govt services, etc.
    I am unaware of any benefits to the polygamous.
    Whatever else you think is “much more than rights”, still doesn’t permit a right to be denied. No matter what other motive you ascribe to someone who is advocating that their rights be protected, it doesn’t change the underlying question of whether a right was denied, or the solution if a right was denied.

  • Funny. The polygamous are an open secret in Utah, but it takes a Warren Jeffs to actually get prosecuted.

  • The key difference between same sex marriage and polygamy is the impact on law. The legal rights and responsibilities of spouses are now based on monogamous relationships. Same sex marriage has no effect on them, since it is still a two party situation. Legalizing polygamy means new and revised law. Would a three person marriage mean a three person partnership or one person in two separate partnerships? What happens when one person files for divorce in a three person marriage? What would be the rules on alimony, child support, and property division? It gets even more complicated when we are considering four or more participants. Societies that practice polygamy have set rules on how all this works; we don’t. I’m not saying we should or shouldn’t legalize polygamy; I’m saying it is a monumentally greater legal issue.

  • Undoubtedly, eh? Well, it’s an interesting conspiracy theory, but devoid of facts. But chock full of “homosexuals run the world.”

    All of the Supreme Court justices are heterosexual. Since gay marriage supposedly destroys heterosexual marriage, all of them had an interest in voting against it.

  • So, now you claim to be a woman? You keep bugging me with your silly remarks, not the other way around. Go troll someone else.

  • There you go. A short answer from you instead of your Hallelujah hypocrite handlers. Nice. Still wrong and wrong-headed but at least it came from you.

  • Your logical fallacy is:

    slippery slope

    You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

    The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

    Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we’ll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

  • Your logical fallacy is:

    slippery slope

    You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

    The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

    Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we’ll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys..

  • “The same [improvements in child welfare] could be said about children being raised by their married, biological mother and father.” No, it can’t be said, not without proof, which you’ve not cited, because it doesn’t exist. This article is merely an upwelling of desperate, baseless, emotional handwringing, in reaction to the unbearable fact that those who aren’t like you deserve the same rights you have.

  • I am confused. If three people fall in love with each other and want to marry each other, why not? I don’t understand. I would like to understand. I have known in my over thirty years of adult life many people who have been in three and four partner relationships that have lasted for years–even decades. These people love each other, are very committed to each other, and one helped raise each other’s kids. Those children are now grown and they are healthy and married in “regular” heterosexual partnerships of one man and one woman. They weren’t harmed. As for the triads and quads, they are getting older and older and if something happens, they won’t have legal protection. Property or ICU visitation, etc. So–IF–polygamy is the next step, WHY DO YOU CARE?? If you don’t like it, get married to one woman and keep it that way! Take care of yourself and your own home. Don’t worry about your neighbors. Mind your own business! Did society crumble when women got the right to vote? Did the world end when the races were allowed to intermarry? Did culture come to a stop when mixed children grow up and have kids of their own? I do not know why you care what other people do lovingly. Leave them alone! Get over it! Use your time and money to stop war and cancer why don’t you??? Why in this world don’t you do What Jesus Would Do?

  • Why should anyone have to do anything if they can claim they are opposed on moral grounds, whatever that means?
    this is a the nature of Social security, and every kind of insurance. Pool the risks.

  • Nope, it was ignorant sour grapes BS when JP said it, doubling down does make it any more sensible.

    How would Justice Kennedy stand to benefit from his decision in Obergfell? You couldn’t cough up anything to suggest he could. The only benefit he stood to receive is the one inherent to SCOTUS justices. Their name on a well known decision, posterity.

    Your marriage is subsidized by the government argument is a heaping dose of baka. Civil marriage is an interconnected series of rights and obligations with a clear legal and societal benefit.

  • I can’t marry my monkey or my car? I’m so disappointed. And I was going to divorce my gay husband just so I could,.

  • A great many heterosexual men don’t like women at all. And yet, they remain heterosexual.
    A great many gay men love women, yet they remain quite gay.
    you sure manage to come up with some pretty funny stuff.

  • THIS many times over.
    If you don’t mind, I’ll steal it. Imitation is the sincerest form of plagiarism.,

  • The only thing “paved” by the decision on SSM, for future issues, is to show what the actual constitutional test that is required for a law to a right – the case demonstrates that the govt must provide a rational reason linked to a legitimate govt concern, in order to satisfy the due process requirement.
    Just because state govts failed miserably trying to find any reason that could meet that test, in the case of SSM, doesn’t suddenly mean that other laws suddenly are void – the law doesn’t work that way. Each law has to meet constitutional muster all on its own.

  • Ultimately, as the many federal court cases show, even IF you could show a less-than-optimal probability (a point I do not concede), it wouldn’t logically be a constitutionally valid reason to deny the right of marriage to same sex couples.

    No existing marriage has to prove an optimal environment to raise children – if they did, we would ban marriages for poor people. Every sub-optimal outcome you can name is directly tied to poverty. We do not ban marriages of alcoholics or drug users. We don’t prohibit marriages of prisoners serving life without parole. As one judge quipped, if we accepted that criteria, the only people who could get married would be affluent Asian couples living in the mid-west – statistically they out perform everyone else.

    We don’t encourage marriage because we want only perfect parents – we encourage marriage because being married is optimal FOR THE FAMILY that gets married – it suffices that the marriage benefits THAT family.

  • Why should anyone respect YOUR requirements of marriage?
    So what if YOU don’t think there can be a same sex marriage.

    It suffices that all legal marriages meet the LEGAL definition of marriage, that the government and the courts honor all LEGAL marriages the same, including same sex marriages.

    You may continue to assert that they don’t exist. You may assert that the moon is made of green cheese, too.

  • Regenerus study was repudiated by his own University – the put out a press release that said that his conclusion was not supported by his data.

    In court, the judge told him, to his face, that his financial backers got the “result that they paid for.”

  • Massachusetts has had SSM for more than a decade. Where, in that state, is there evidence of the “paving the way to polygamy.”

  • That which can be asserted without evidence, can be disregarded without evidence. Carl Sagan.
    Where is your evidence of corruption?

  • A homosexual judge is no more biased than a heterosexual judge in marriage matters. Or a single judge.
    Do you assume that a Black judge would not be able to judge a discrimination case?

  • Every working married couple pays more in income tax than if they were both single. The so called “marriage tax” is well known.

  • People are actually anti-social. Two people is the smallest number possible without actually being alone.

  • religious marriage and civil marriage are two separate animals; let them thrive (or not) separately. but tying one to the other will ruin both

  • You’re right. The LDS Church has not prosecuted anybody. What is it you want the Church to do? If you know of anybody breaking the law, why don’t you provide actionable information to the police?

  • Yeah, right. If you allow Gay couples to marry just like Straight couples, next thing you know, moms will be marrying their sons, fish will be marrying bicycles, etc.

    Get a grip. The issue of polygamy or “plural marriage” is no more relevant to Gay couples than it is to Straight couples. Otherwise you could just as easily say, “If a man gets to marry ONE woman, who’s to say he shouldn’t be allowed to marry two or three women? I mean, WHY NOT???”

  • Bullsh!t, Polygamy is not banned for moral reasons whatsoever. Its banned because of the havoc it wreaks on marriage rights and obligations under various laws. Also because nobody has yet come up with a polygamous arrangement which provides equitable and just division of rights among all spouses.

    The reason why the anti-gay bigots lost in court and why you completely missed the point as to why gay marriage is legal now is because they failed to address the points at issue. There was no rational and secular purpose behind gay marriage bans (unlike polygamy bans) therefore there was no legal justification for their existence.

    The whole, “what if ___ love each other, isn’t it unfair that they can’t marry” argument was m0r0nic when it was first used by anti-gay bigots as a form of sarcasm, it remains so now that marriage equality is the law of the land. You and the other nabobs failed to address the idea that marriage bans require some kind of reasonable justification.

    “Ultimate the gay marriage movement was about rejecting the suggestion that society had a right to make value judgments about other people’s consensual sexual behavior”

    Dead stinking wrong. It was about trying to justify value judgments and what criteria could be used. In this case only rational and secular value judgments are allowed here. There are plenty of those against polygamy, none exist for gay marriage.

  • You want polygamy, work on drafting revisions to marriage laws to fit it in so that all spouses have an equitable and fair distribution of rights and obligations.

  • The church does not prosecute anyone. The state does, or would, except that they don’t. I would would suggest you talk to people in Utah about the wink and the nod. The Jeffs clan are not alone.

  • Coming from a country where polygamy is legal, I can see the pros and cons of it. That only wealthier men were allowed to marry multiple wives came with the expectation that men would be the providers, an idea that does not stand so much under our current societal trajectory. So that was/is a form of security for the women involved. Also, in my country, a polyganous man is still expected to build a house for each wife he marries, something a poorer man cannot affords to do. This is because having a place to call “home” is very important in my culture. Each wive’s children are expected to have a place to call home without having to contend with the children of other wives.

    And I can also see how polygamy and same-sex marriage are vastly different because then more Muslim and African countries where polygamy (mostly polygany) is practised openly would also allow same-sex marriage. Which is not the case.

    Also, the bible was very accepting of polygamy. God did not reprimand Abraham for having a child with the servant, but because he was impatient to see out God’s plan as God intended, and lacked faith (that his old wife could bear him a child). That Christians look down upon it is a more Western concept, and not entirely biblical.