Polygamy vs Gay Marriage


If gay marriage is legal, permissible, acceptable, respectable, laudable… Then many of the arguments used to support it apply equally so, or even more so, to polygamy.

Polygamy, like gay marriage, is between consensual (and ostensibly adult) parties.

Polygamy, like gay marriagee, ‘doesn’t hurt anyone’.

Polygamy has been practised and even instituted throughout human history across multiple cultures… Unlike gay marriage which was completely unheard of until very recent times.

Polygamy is sanctioned by Islam and was formerly permissible in ancient Biblical history… Unlike gay marriage and any form of homosexual activity which is forbidden by all three Abrahamic faiths. (Wait, don’t tell me you’re gonna be all Islamophobic and oppose polygamy while supporting homosexuality?!!)

Polygamy can be argued to possibly provide the same benefits towards children, families and society as monogamous marriage… Unlike gay marriage.

Advantage: Polygamy.

So drawing from the advances hard-won by proponents of homosexuality…

Each of a person’s multiple spouses should receive full partner benefits, just as same-sex partners do.

Students attending proms must be allowed to bring all their multiple partners, just as homosexual students are allowed to bring a partner of the same gender. And selecting only one prom king/queen/in-between must be considered mono-normatively discriminatory.

If you don’t support it (especially if you do support gay marriage), I have only this to say: WHY ARE YOU SUCH HATEFUL BIGOTS?!!! YOU BACKWARDS POLYGAMOPHOBES!!! FUTURE, MORE ENLIGTHTENED GENERATIONS WILL LOOK DOWN UPON YOU IN THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY!!!

And speaking of the slippery slope, from The Gospel Coalition:

5. Legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to the legalization of “marriage” in other cases.

If marriage is a contract based primarily on romantic feelings, why should the state discriminate against brothers and sisters who wish to marry? If a bisexual insists on the need for both a male and a female spouse in order to be satisfied, why should the law discriminate in favor of couples instead of threesomes?

(Think this is far-fetched? Brazil already has a case on the books: a civil union for a trio. The notary cited the changing definition of marriage and family as justification. This columnist from the UK agrees. Why resist?)

Those in favor of same-sex marriage say traditional marriage laws are discriminatory. If we apply the same standard across the board, we must admit same-sex marriage is discriminatory too. Any law that regulates marriage establishes limits. Discussing marriage laws should prompt us to ask the question no one is asking: just what is marriage anyway?

UPDATE: Hypothetical? What hypothetical? Three lesbians are married to each other.

———————

See also related:

Public Health Hazards That Should be Banned: Smoking vs Homosexuality

After Relegating Homophobia to the Dustbin of History, Pedophobia Next

Irreligious: Why is Animal Rape Wrong, But Animal Slavery-Imprisonment-Murder Okay?

After Homosexuality, Sexual Revolutionary Frank Kameny Moves on to Making Bestiality ‘Normal’

Woman Has Baby With Her Grandson – Liberals, Is This Morally Wrong?

Ultimate Quicksilver & Scarlet Witch: Incest is The Next Liberal Sexual Revolution

Consensual Incest – Atheists Please Tell Me Why It Is Morally Wrong

A Simple Example of Relative Morality

Fascism and Bestiality – Atheists Please Tell Me Why I Am Morally Wrong

18 Responses to “Polygamy vs Gay Marriage”

  1. Jason Says:

    What is the point of this article? I am not against polygamy. I am also not against gay marriage. It is bigotry to be against either one.

  2. Scott Thong Says:

    The point is:

    1) To either expose the hypocritical stance of proponents of gay marriage who do not similarly support polygamy, or else force them to support polygamy;

    2) To demonstrate that the arguments used to support gay marriage can be applied to other marriage arrangements as well;

    3) To point out that the norms and acceptance of sexual practices change over time if based on humanism, hence the danger of a ‘slippery slope’. (i.e. Why stop at homosexuality, when will it be considered acceptable to have sex with sentient animals?)

    Hence my various posts asking liberals and the irreligious whether they support incest, pedophilia, bestiality.

  3. Jason Says:

    Scott, I pretty much agree with your first 2 points, but I do not believe in the mythical ‘slippery slope’. The acceptance of polygamy and gay marriage does not lead to the acceptance of pedophilia and bestiality. I left out incest because I don’t really care who people are having sex with so long as all parties involved are consenting adults. Pedophilia will always be wrong because a child does not have the tools to understand and consent to sex with an adult. Beastiality is wrong because animals cannot consent to sexual advances by humans. It has not yet scientifically been determined whether “woof” and “meow” mean yes or no or something else entirely. Pedophilia and beastiality have no place in a discussion about polygamy and gay marriage.

  4. Scott Thong Says:

    I agree in principle that based on matters of sentience and maturity, bestiality and pedophilia are different from homosexuality, incest and polygamy.

    However, that does not stop proponents of the former two from attempting to gain acceptance for their sexual preferences, as shown by the links I included. That is the ‘mythical’ slippery slope.

    And as per my post on Animal Rape, we already subject animals to plenty of acts without their consent. Why should sexual acts be considered any different?

    And if adults have the final word over countless things that children do ‘for their own good’, when will sexual matters end up under the same category?

  5. Jason Says:

    Scott,
    Are you saying that marriage equality will lead to more animal abuse? Adults also already have the final word on things that children do. We tell them not to have sex and we tell other adults to not have sex with them. Animal rape, abuse, slavery, imprisonment, and murder have zero to do with marriage equality.

  6. Scott Thong Says:

    I am saying that the rejection of millennia of accumulated human wisdom, culture, biological evolution, religious knowledge etc – and in fact the embrace of the very opposite – will lead to profound and overwhelmingly negative effects.

    Public Health Hazards That Should be Banned: Smoking vs Homosexuality

    In fact, thanks for reminding me, I’ve put that link into the main post.

    See also Chesterton’s Fence for the gist of the above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence

    Already other less-accepted fringe groups are using marriage equality arbitrary redefinition to argue their own cases. Sentience and maturity or not, mark my words, they WILL get their way – it’s not like zoophilia is illegal in several progressive countries!

  7. Jason Says:

    Scott,
    In regards to Chesterton I see the fence being religion. Why was the fence put up? Why should we take the fence down? Simple. Religion or the fence was put up to control the minds and behaviors of the masses is an ancient/archaic and outdated form of government. We didn’t understand or know anything about science or the universe and therefore if something was found to be bad such as eating pork for economic reasons, then it would be much easier to make people follow this rule by lying to them and saying God forbade it. Do you see a reason why the Jews would not be allowed to eat pork? Pigs require water and shady woods with seeds, but those conditions are scarce in Israel and the Middle East. It is economically unsound in biblical times to raise and eat pork. Time to tear down that fence along with many others.

  8. Scott Thong Says:

    Perhaps we need a corollary to Chesterton’s Fence… Call it ‘Hubris’ Survey’ that says ‘Be wary of surveying Chesterton’s Fence through the narrow lens of overconfidence in your own wisdom’.

    That said, a purely naturalistic, pragmatic and physical approach to Mosaic Laws will fall short, because some of those laws have a spiritual or typological purpose. For instance, why the prohibition against in Leviticus 19:19? It could have a purely practical purpose, but more likely it serves as a reminder to keep separate from sin and the ungodly (as hinted by the first words ‘Keep My decrees’ suddenly inserted there and the following switch to moral prohibitions).

    And I daresay that when we have enough accumulated secular knowledge, we will find that every fence built by the omniscient Creator will be proven to have a valid and relevant purpose. For example, the warnings against homosexual sex which has extremely high rates of horrible diseases (as well as relational breakdown) and illegitimate children which leads to sky-high crime and suffering.

    In fact, religion in general may be considered a still-important fence… Or rather, a dam against the immutable evil in human hearts. The past 100 years of de-facto atheist, 100-million-killing Communism is proof of this.

  9. Scott Thong Says:

    Speaking of the slippery slope, from The Gospel Coalition:

    5. Legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to the legalization of “marriage” in other cases.

    If marriage is a contract based primarily on romantic feelings, why should the state discriminate against brothers and sisters who wish to marry? If a bisexual insists on the need for both a male and a female spouse in order to be satisfied, why should the law discriminate in favor of couples instead of threesomes?

    (Think this is far-fetched? Brazil already has a case on the books: a civil union for a trio. The notary cited the changing definition of marriage and family as justification. This columnist from the UK agrees. Why resist?)

    Those in favor of same-sex marriage say traditional marriage laws are discriminatory. If we apply the same standard across the board, we must admit same-sex marriage is discriminatory too. Any law that regulates marriage establishes limits. Discussing marriage laws should prompt us to ask the question no one is asking: just what is marriage anyway?

  10. Ron Says:

    There seems to be a disconnect in your logic.

    How can there be a slippery slope from SSM to polygamy when you yourself acknowledge that such practices were once common in the very cultures which openly disdain homosexuality?

    If anything, the reverse is true: allowing marriage to one woman ultimately leads to allowing marriage to multiple women.

    So my questions to you are:

    1. What moral objections can be raised against polygamy given that there are no scriptural prohibitions against it (a fact to which you attest), and certain Christian cultures already permit it?

    2. Why should multi-partner marriage contracts be considered different from any other multi-partner contracts permitted by the state?

  11. Jason Says:

    Scott,
    Athiests are not responsible for 100 million dead in the past hundred years. Are you trying to say that Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot were Athiest?
    Hitler was raised Catholic. He allied with Pope Pius in converting German society and made a deal with the church whereas the church absorbed Nazi ideals and preached them as part of their sermons, and in turn, Hitler placed Catholic teachings in public education. This lead to Hitler enacting doctrines of the Church as law. He outlawed all abortion, raged a death war on all homosexuals, and demanded corporal punishment in schools and home.
    “We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933
    Joseph Stalin was raised to be a Catholic Priest and I remain curious as to why his Christianity is shoved aside in all these arguments. Yes, there is no way to get around the fact that in his early career, Stalin made a vast effort to rid Russia of religion, but that had nothing to do with atheism. It was the only way he knew to seize power of the country. Once Stalin was firmly seated in office, he revived the Russian Orthodox Church in order to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. Stalin was part of a council convened to elected a new church Patriarch. Then the Russian theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. Even the Moscow Theological Academy Seminary was re-opened, after being closed since 1918. He did not use atheism to gain control, but religious principles that were modified to fit his own, sick and twisted method of revolution.
    What about Pol Pot?
    Truly a monster, having killed some twenty-five percent of the entire population of Cambodia. Pol Pot targeted not just different religions, but education, science and medicine in his quest for total domination. Now, let’s take a head count of atheists who are against education, science and medicine. Thought so… Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge were composed of Buddhists and Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist. He studied at a Buddhist monastery and then at a Catholic school for 8 years. Cambodia’s communism was influenced by Theravada Buddhism. So, while Pol Pot was definitely not a Christian, he was also definitely not an Atheist.
    Let’s get on with some Mass Murder, shall we?
    Add up the deaths that were attributed to Hitler, Stalin and Pot. Then round up for good measure. You can safely say that the number is staggering. Probably upwards of fifteen million. However, consider the following conflicts where the only differences between the opposing factions were and are religion:
    • Albigensian Crusade, 1208-49
    • Algeria, 1992-
    • Baha’is, 1848-54
    • Bosnia, 1992-95
    • Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901
    • Christian Romans, 30-313 CE
    • Croatia, 1991-92
    • English Civil War, 1642-46
    • Holocaust, 1938-45
    • Huguenot Wars, 1562-1598
    • India, 1992-2002
    • India: Suttee & Thugs
    • Indo-Pakistani Partition, 1947
    • Iran, Islamic Republic, 1979-
    • Iraq, Shiites, 1991-92
    • Jews, 1348
    • Jonestown, 1978
    • Lebanon 1860 / 1975-92
    • Molucca Is., 1999-
    • Mongolia, 1937-39
    • Northern Ireland, 1974-98
    • Russian pogroms 1905-06 / 1917-22
    • St. Bartholemew Massacre, 1572
    • Shang China, ca. 1300-1050 BCE
    • Shimabara Revolt, Japan 1637-38
    • Sikh uprising, India, 1984-91
    • Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1834
    • Taiping Rebellion, 1850-64
    • Thirty Years War, 1618-48
    • Tudor England
    • Vietnam, 1800s
    • Witch Hunts, 1400-1800
    • Xhosa, 1857
    • Arab Outbreak, 7th Century CE
    • Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948-
    • Al Qaeda, 1993-
    • Crusades, 1095-1291
    • Dutch Revolt, 1566-1609
    • Nigeria, 1990s, 2000s
    If you add up all of the lives that were lost in the name of one religion or another, you come up with a staggering figure that is in excess of eight-hundred-million. That’s eight-hundred-million. An eight, followed by eight zeros. So, even if the believers who are uneducated enough to think that Hitler, Stalin and Pot were psychotic mass murderers because they thought these men were atheists, it is horrifically clear that religious murder wins out.

  12. Ron Says:

    In fact, religion in general may be considered a still-important fence… Or rather, a dam against the immutable evil in human hearts. The past 100 years of de-facto atheist, 100-million-killing Communism is proof of this.

    How did that still-important fence or dam hold up in Rwanda?

    Why is genocide wrong from a Christian standpoint, anyways? The OT is replete with instances where Yahweh commands and/or actively participates in wholesale slaughter. And the NT promises more of the same is yet to come.

  13. Scott Thong Says:

    How did that still-important fence or dam hold up in Rwanda? – Ron

    They avoided it by ripping a new causeway through it they named ‘Thou shall ignore the commandment not to murder’.

    Why is genocide wrong from a Christian standpoint, anyways? The OT is replete with instances where Yahweh commands and/or actively participates in wholesale slaughter. And the NT promises more of the same is yet to come.

    The difference between murder and justified life-taking is determined by authority – hence the government is not guilty of murder by executing a serial killer. God as the creator, sustainer and owner of life has the authority. In fact, put it this way – He could simply stop sustaining life and everyone would drop dead. The end result would be no different from ‘genocide’ committed by invading Israelites following God’s specific and limited command.

  14. Scott Thong Says:

    There seems to be a disconnect in your logic.

    How can there be a slippery slope from SSM to polygamy when you yourself acknowledge that such practices were once common in the very cultures which openly disdain homosexuality?

    It exists in the context of backwards, bigoted, superstition-addled liberals who celebrate the right of someone to marry an individual of any gender they please, yet simultaneously reject the right of someone to marry as many people as they please (Said liberals are apparently also Islamophobes, and Mormonophobes, but the latter do not have much of an established grievance mongering industry).

    Hey, maybe if homosexuals pushed for multiple-partner same-sex marriages, polygamy would come into political favour eh?

    1. What moral objections can be raised against polygamy given that there are no scriptural prohibitions against it (a fact to which you attest)

    I forget where I attest that.

    ———————–

    2. Why should multi-partner marriage contracts be considered different from any other multi-partner contracts permitted by the state?

    Using my patented ‘Reverse No True Scotsman’ technique, I can defend my position by pointing out the fact that I am obviously a Bible-thumping religious fundie who is by atheistic definition immune to ‘logic’ and ‘reason’. “Cos God says so in the Bible, is why!!!” is a valid response coming from opiate-of-the-people addicts such as I.

    Whereas rational, fair-minded atheists such as my very learned commentors here have to explain the humanistic basis of why [insert fringe sexual practice here] is illegal and frowned upon by society (even liberal progressive society), or else proclaim that they have no objections to such a sexual practice (which many self-proclaimed atheist have already done so in the comments).

  15. Scott Thong Says:

    If you add up all of the lives that were lost in the name of one religion or another, you come up with a staggering figure that is in excess of eight-hundred-million. – Jason

    The key point being ‘one religion or another‘.

    Each religion has very different legal and ethical precriptions as well as metaphysical views on where human morality stems from.

    Whereas atheism of whatever stripe by definition has just one – there are no gods or supernatural, therefore mankind is the ultimate (and only) authority who decides what is right or wrong.

    Whatever atrocities self-proclaimed Christians carried out is despite and against what the Christ advocates… While whatever de-facto (there is the keyword – who was Stalin’s ultimate moral authority?) atheists did is fully in line with the ulimate conclusion of atheism – that man decides his own morals.

    And then you compare a very different religion such as [CENSORED BY THE ACLU]… You know, one that says “Slay the unbelievers until they submit” instead of “Love thy neighbor”. This one would fit the ‘fully in line’ description.

    Sure, the Communists had the advantage of 1) Higher populations to decimate, and 2) The latest advancements in social dynamics, technology and other human knowledge, which contributed to their sheer efficiency in accomplishing in mere decades what religion-abusing despots wished they could achieve in centuries.

  16. Jason Says:

    Scott,
    Now you are talking in semantics when you agree that genocide was indeed caused by ‘one religion or another’ and yet your religion and views are somehow morally superior. You want to argue that Stalin was indeed an Athiest and that it is the cause for genocide…fine…have it your way. I’m not going to even try and convince you that he was not an atheist because it is without a doubt that you will not be convinced and also it is completely and totally irrelevant. According to you Atheism is responsible for genocide in the past century. According the the history books your religion is responsible for genocide throughout history and it is well documented. Therefore your religion is not more superior to atheism if you base it on the cause of genocide. If both your religion and atheism are both responsible for genocide, then neither side has a basis for moral superiority. You cannot claim that atheists are immoral for committing genocide if your religion has also committed genocide.

  17. Ron Says:

    They avoided it by ripping a new causeway through it they named ‘Thou shall ignore the commandment not to murder’.

    In other words, it didn’t do much good.

    The difference between murder and justified life-taking is determined by authority – hence the government is not guilty of murder by executing a serial killer.

    What happens if the killer claims to have operated under the guidance of an even higher moral authority? Would you have brought Abraham to trial for attempted murder or let him go free solely on his say-so that he was following God’s command?

    God as the creator, sustainer and owner of life has the authority. In fact, put it this way – He could simply stop sustaining life and everyone would drop dead. The end result would be no different from ‘genocide’ committed by invading Israelites following God’s specific and limited command.

    Yes, I’m aware that you subscribe to the moral philosophy that might makes right; but appeasing the whims and fancies of a purported celestial dictator seems like a highly subjective moral standard.

    It exists in the context of backwards, bigoted, superstition-addled liberals who celebrate the right of someone to marry an individual of any gender they please, yet simultaneously reject the right of someone to marry as many people as they please (Said liberals are apparently also Islamophobes, and Mormonophobes, but the latter do not have much of an established grievance mongering industry).

    [Citation needed]

    Because the only place I’ve ever see these “slippery slope” arguments presented is on religious sites opposed to SSM.

    Hey, maybe if homosexuals pushed for multiple-partner same-sex marriages, polygamy would come into political favour eh?

    One battle at a time. Social justice is a hard sell. But it looks like we’re finally starting to see some progress.

    I forgot where I attest.

    First sentence of the fifth paragraph into your opening post:

    “Polygamy is sanctioned by Islam and was formerly permissible in ancient Biblical history…”

    I can defend my position by pointing out the fact that I am obviously a Bible-thumping religious fundie who is by atheistic definition immune to ‘logic’ and ‘reason’. “Cos God says so in the Bible, is why!!!” is a valid response coming from opiate-of-the-people addicts such as I.

    Yet, as I’ve already pointed out, there are no scriptural prohibitions against polygamy. In fact, God seems to be perfectly fine with it (2 Samuel 12:7-8).

    So the ‘logic’ ball is now decidedly in your court and only microns away from smacking you in the face.

  18. Ron Says:

    Speaking of progress…

    Evangelical Fuller Seminary Says “Yes” to Homosexual Campus Club

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 119 other followers

%d bloggers like this: