• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

What say you?


  • Total voters
    87
  • Poll closed .
See post #21

Let’s see…

Biblical-marriage.jpg


First, please allow me to apologize for taking so long to get back to you. Sometimes life jumps right in and changes your plans.

Now, let’s take a look at each of these one at a time:

1. Genesis 2:24
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

In support of this first verse given in your graphic I would also refer you to Genesis 1:27-28. Also, see Matthew 19:4-6 in which Jesus reiterates Genesis 2:24

Matthew 19:4-6
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.”

In these verses you have God’s design for marriage.

2. Man + Wives + Concubines = Marriage
The second part of your graphic then list a number of biblical characters that had wives and concubines and essentially states that this is the basis for marriage. But there is nothing to suggest that such behavior is “God approved”. Abraham was a liar, Noah a drunk, Moses an egomaniac, David a murderer, Solomon an idolater, etc. and just because these people behaved this way is in no way to suggest that God condoned this behavior.

Just because the Bible recognizes that a certain behavior exists does not mean that it condones that behavior.

3. Man + Woman + Woman’s Property (Slave) = Marriage (Genesis 16)
Genesis 16 doesn’t say this. What it does say is that Sarah took her servant Hagar to her husband Abraham so that Abraham could have sex with her so that Hagar could do what Sarah had been unable to do (up till that time) which was to give Abraham a child.

There is nothing to indicate that this is God’s idea for marriage.

What is described here is a custom that existed in Abraham’s day in which a man could conceive an heir when his own wife in unable to provide him with one.

4. Man + Woman + Woman + Woman…(Polygamy) = Marriage
Once again your graphic list a bunch of biblical characters that were polygamists as evidence that polygamy is endorsed by the Bible. But, once again, just because the Bible recognized something doesn’t mean that the Bible condones especially in light of Genesis 2:24 & Matthew 19:4-6.

The Bible also recognized that lying, murder, bestiality, rape and the devil all exist but it would be ludicrous to conclude from that then that God condones of such things.

5. Man + Brother’s Widow (Levirate Marriage)

Genesis 38:6-10
Now Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name wasTamar. But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was evil in the sight of theLord, so the Lord took his life. Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up [a]offspring for your brother.” Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also.

This stems from…

Deuteronomy 25:5-6
When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall [a]assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

Now, no one has explained what the complaint with this law is so I’m not sure how to respond? Do you think that it means if a man has a wife and his brother dies he must take another wife? There is nothing here to indicate that the (living) brother was married to begin with. Of course, there is nothing here to indicate that he wasn’t either so it’s a bit unclear?

What I do know is that there is a lot of concern given to widows in the Bible. The reason for this is that in biblical days if a woman was widowed and had no sons then she had no one to care for her in her old age. To provide a widow with a son was to provide for her when she became too old to care for herself.

Regardless, help me out here. What is the complaint?

6. Rapist + Victim = Marriage

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

This was a law placed into effect to provide for a woman if she had been raped. In Israel, if a woman was raped outside a settlement she was presumed innocent of consensual sex (as that would result in her being stoned to death--see verse 21) as she would have been too far away for her to cry for help (inside the settlement her cries for help would have been heard by someone deterring the rape).

I suspect I find this as abhorrent as you do but this was a different time and culture. Fortunately, the Levitical laws no longer apply.

But this law was--in part--a punishment of the rapist. I hardly think anyone would argue this was God’s design for marriage. Obviously, two people involved in a rape are never going to enjoy any type of real relationship.

7. Male Soldiers + Prisoners of War = Marriage

Numbers 31:1-18

Well, yea. After the war with the Midians, the virgins girls were spared slaughter and could be taken as wives. It doesn’t say anything about forced marriages, rape, or anything else--only that the virgins could be spared.

While hardly what you or I may think of as prime dating circumstances it certainly, once again, does not imply forced marriages, rape, etc.

Deuteronomy 21:11-14
and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her.

See above. Once again, there is nothing here to suggest the marriage is forced, we’re not talking about rape or slavery.

Believe it or not such laws were put in place to protect women…not harm them.

8. Male Slave + Female Slave = Marriage

Exodus 21:4
If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.

All this--and the surrounding verses say--is that if a man is a slave and is married, when he is freed his wife will be freed with him.

If a man is a slave and he is given a wife during his time is slavery, when he is set free the “wife” remains with the master as does any children. The wife and children remain the responsibility of the master. All slaves remained in servitude for six years and were set free on the seventh year…including women. After her time in servitude, she too, would be set free (to re-join her husband, I suspect).

In any event, how does this not fit with the one man + one woman = marriage scenario?

Your graphic does a lot to confuse the issue about God’s design for marriage but falls apart under scrutiny. God’s design was defined in Genesis 2 and reaffirmed by Christ in Matthew 19 and calls for one man and one woman.

Any variation is simply an example of man’s hard-heartedness against God.
 
I see. You only support the Supreme Court decisions that go your way. Landmark decisions have been 5-4 many times. Better understand that when you roll those dice, it might decide this forever and it may not be the decision you want. That's life.

And the SCOTUS has made many decisions of this nature that have later been overturned, one less than 2 decades since the first decision was made.

I stick by the Constitution. If it makes you feel any better, I don't agree with several of the SCOTUS decisions that have come out in the past decade or so. I abide by them just like all other citizens do, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them or feel that they should not be challenged or legislative action taken to make those decisions moot.
 
What about the polygamists!?!

And the SCOTUS has made many decisions of this nature that have later been overturned, one less than 2 decades since the first decision was made.

I stick by the Constitution. If it makes you feel any better, I don't agree with several of the SCOTUS decisions that have come out in the past decade or so. I abide by them just like all other citizens do, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them or feel that they should not be challenged or legislative action taken to make those decisions moot.

Challenge away. That's what they are there for; to make the tough decisions. Decisions like this one. Decisions that you and I will probably never agree on. Well, maybe when you get older and wiser we might but just sayin'.
 
Challenge away. That's what they are there for; to make the tough decisions. Decisions like this one. Decisions that you and I will probably never agree on. Well, maybe when you get older and wiser we might but just sayin'.

And once they finally do decide to overturn the anti-ssm laws/bans, they won't be revisiting the issue because the other side has no standing to challenge. As long as same sex couples are being denied access to marriage, they will have standing.

No we won't agree unless you change your position. Age does not grant wisdom. Wisdom comes from experience and openminded understanding. I have felt like this for over 18 years (and prior to that, I was a child that had no clue really what legal marriage was about nor really what intimate relationships entailed). People don't change their positions on issues such as this and go to not accepting something such as homosexuality or believing that people should not have rights that they used to believe they should have. It is a very rare change in opinion and generally would only occur with some serious harm done from the group they support or from some form of brainwashing.
 
And once they finally do decide to overturn the anti-ssm laws/bans, they won't be revisiting the issue because the other side has no standing to challenge. As long as same sex couples are being denied access to marriage, they will have standing.

No we won't agree unless you change your position. Age does not grant wisdom. Wisdom comes from experience and openminded understanding. I have felt like this for over 18 years (and prior to that, I was a child that had no clue really what legal marriage was about nor really what intimate relationships entailed). People don't change their positions on issues such as this and go to not accepting something such as homosexuality or believing that people should not have rights that they used to believe they should have. It is a very rare change in opinion and generally would only occur with some serious harm done from the group they support or from some form of brainwashing.

I don't think that gays can actually substantiate themselves as a married couple in a heterosexual world...

Sure..everyone has to accept it...because it is the law...

Won't stop people sniggering behind their hands though....
 
I don't think that gays can actually substantiate themselves as a married couple in a heterosexual world...

Sure..everyone has to accept it...because it is the law...

Won't stop people sniggering behind their hands though....

There are people that don't approve of interracial couples or people who get divorced. There are still those who not only "snigger" behind their backs, but are outright hostile toward interracial couples. This was even more true in the decade after interracial marriage became legal. Now, it is isolated and is likely to be viewed by others as wrong and stopped if done in public. The same type of pattern is likely to be seen in acceptance of same sex couples. There will be some at first who will be openly hurtful and angry and even possibly violent toward same sex couples. But with time, that will change to mainly looks of disdain and comments made in private, because when done in public, a person would be likely to get called out for it.
 
What about the polygamists!?!

There are people that don't approve of interracial couples or people who get divorced. There are still those who not only "snigger" behind their backs, but are outright hostile toward interracial couples. This was even more true in the decade after interracial marriage became legal. Now, it is isolated and is likely to be viewed by others as wrong and stopped if done in public. The same type of pattern is likely to be seen in acceptance of same sex couples. There will be some at first who will be openly hurtful and angry and even possibly violent toward same sex couples. But with time, that will change to mainly looks of disdain and comments made in private, because when done in public, a person would be likely to get called out for it.

There should be no hostility and there's no excuse at all for violence over this no matter how it goes or how theses eventually end up written. This is something g we have to decide together and the. We have to accept the outcome together, all through proper and civil means. I think homosexuals are to marriage what water is to "dry". But we will all decide together and it won't be my opinion that is the last word, nor your opinion that is the last word, but OUR opinion tested and tried and debated and decided. And that's how things work in this country and that's one of the things that makes it a great country.
 
There are people that don't approve of interracial couples or people who get divorced. There are still those who not only "snigger" behind their backs, but are outright hostile toward interracial couples. This was even more true in the decade after interracial marriage became legal. Now, it is isolated and is likely to be viewed by others as wrong and stopped if done in public. The same type of pattern is likely to be seen in acceptance of same sex couples. There will be some at first who will be openly hurtful and angry and even possibly violent toward same sex couples. But with time, that will change to mainly looks of disdain and comments made in private, because when done in public, a person would be likely to get called out for it.

This hypothesis may be OK in America...where black people are ''free''..it is not ok in the UK..where we have a number of African immigrants who would klll gays without a second glance..

And kill gay people in their relative homelands..

Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
There should be no hostility and there's no excuse at all for violence over this no matter how it goes or how theses eventually end up written. This is something g we have to decide together and the. We have to accept the outcome together, all through proper and civil means. I think homosexuals are to marriage what water is to "dry". But we will all decide together and it won't be my opinion that is the last word, nor your opinion that is the last word, but OUR opinion tested and tried and debated and decided. And that's how things work in this country and that's one of the things that makes it a great country.

There will be hostility. Hopefully it will be isolated and very limited, but unfortunately, people are people and there are those who cannot behave civilly, especially when their opinion of how something should be is not upheld. There is no excuse for it, but that doesn't change the reality that there will almost certainly be hostility when same sex couples are allowed to marry throughout the US.
 
This hypothesis may be OK in America...where black people are ''free''..it is not ok in the UK..where we have a number of African immigrants who would klll gays without a second glance..

And kill gay people in their relative homelands..

Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And that sounds like a problem with British laws if they are not holding immigrants to the same standards as they hold native Brits.

But we are discussing US laws here, not British or Ugandan laws. The laws in Uganda and other African nations are atrocious, but any time someone comes to another country, they should obey the laws of that country, particularly if they are living in that country. And countries should hold people to the laws of their country. I don't approve of the laws of Uganda or any country that oppresses any of its people, but I think that is why we should impose sanctions on countries that have such laws.
 
And that sounds like a problem with British laws if they are not holding immigrants to the same standards as they hold native Brits.

But we are discussing US laws here, not British or Ugandan laws. The laws in Uganda and other African nations are atrocious, but any time someone comes to another country, they should obey the laws of that country, particularly if they are living in that country. And countries should hold people to the laws of their country. I don't approve of the laws of Uganda or any country that oppresses any of its people, but I think that is why we should impose sanctions on countries that have such laws.

Well you must look at other things...all cosey cosey there in the good ole USA..

People are dying because they fall in love with the wrong person..beheaded...hanged..

Would you go into a Mosque and demand to get married there??

You are hiding behind your American laws..not the real world!!
 
Well you must look at other things...all cosey cosey there in the good ole USA..

People are dying because they fall in love with the wrong person..beheaded...hanged..

Would you go into a Mosque and demand to get married there??

You are hiding behind your American laws..not the real world!!

Okay? I don't support those laws, but I can't change them from my current position. I can try to convince my government that such things are wrong and should be taken into serious consideration when we look at giving aid or support to those countries or when discussing those countries. But I live in the real world. In the real world, you pick your battles based on what has a chance of winning. Guess what? I don't agree with women in S. Africa being raped or the persecution and death of women in Muslim countries for just trying to be more equal to men or even just educated, having freedom. I don't agree with religious persecution that still happens in other countries or countries where the power rests in the hands of a small minority that craps on those not in power. It sucks, but there is very little I can do about it from here. You can be mad or upset with me about my position as you wish, but it doesn't change reality and it won't help those who are being persecuted wrongly.
 
Okay? I don't support those laws, but I can't change them from my current position. I can try to convince my government that such things are wrong and should be taken into serious consideration when we look at giving aid or support to those countries or when discussing those countries. But I live in the real world. In the real world, you pick your battles based on what has a chance of winning. Guess what? I don't agree with women in S. Africa being raped or the persecution and death of women in Muslim countries for just trying to be more equal to men or even just educated, having freedom. I don't agree with religious persecution that still happens in other countries or countries where the power rests in the hands of a small minority that craps on those not in power. It sucks, but there is very little I can do about it from here. You can be mad or upset with me about my position as you wish, but it doesn't change reality and it won't help those who are being persecuted wrongly.

I am not mad with you...

Good post..
 
Hi, ChrisL

This is for you:

The destructive nature of homosexuality

Granted, it's from a Conservative site, but there are some references. Either way, the information is indisputable. At least indisputable from an honest perspective.

Now it's your turn, defender of gay marriage: Please drum up some evidence that proves homosexuality is not/will not be destructive to the institution of marriage.
 
Hi, ChrisL

This is for you:

The destructive nature of homosexuality

Granted, it's from a Conservative site, but there are some references. Either way, the information is indisputable. At least indisputable from an honest perspective.

Now it's your turn, defender of gay marriage: Please drum up some evidence that proves homosexuality is not/will not be destructive to the institution of marriage.

All of that is and has been easily disputed.

It is not nor will not be destructive to the institution of marriage. You are supposed to provide evidence that it will be, not the other way around. People cannot prove a negative. Nothing in what you posted, in that link, provides evidence that it will be destructive. All it is is opinion and bias views. It doesn't provide any evidence at all.
 
All of that is and has been easily disputed.

It is not nor will not be destructive to the institution of marriage. You are supposed to provide evidence that it will be, not the other way around. People cannot prove a negative. Nothing in what you posted, in that link, provides evidence that it will be destructive. All it is is opinion and bias views. It doesn't provide any evidence at all.
Uh-uh. Easily disputed within liberal circles.

Evidence is thin right now, because the corruption of marriage in this country is still new. But the groundwork is already there. Homosexuality IS destructive. Saying that you need to test homosexuality in a marriage setting is like saying you need to put your hand in a meat grinder to see if it will actually jack up your hand.
 
Uh-uh. Easily disputed within liberal circles.

Evidence is thin right now, because the corruption of marriage in this country is still new. But the groundwork is already there. Homosexuality IS destructive. Saying that you need to test homosexuality in a marriage setting is like saying you need to put your hand in a meat grinder to see if it will actually jack up your hand.

Easily disputed by logic. It has nothing to do with being liberal or not.

Marriage is a legal contract making two people legal family, much like adoption records or a birth certificate.

You cannot prove homosexuality is destructive. All you have is rhetoric and failed assumptions due to your personal bias.
 
Easily disputed by logic. It has nothing to do with being liberal or not.
Neither does your argument, but you keep throwing that word around as if you owned it.

Marriage is a legal contract making two people legal family, much like adoption records or a birth certificate.
Marriage is between one man and one woman. Always has been and always will be. Doesn't matter that your liberal pals poisoned the SC. One way or another, things will be rectified.

You cannot prove homosexuality is destructive.
Sure I can. Read below:

The Health Risks of Gay Sex

http://carm.org/is-homosexuality-dangerous

Family Research Council

CDC - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health

And of course, there's nothing like showing a little pride to celebrate gaydom's superior state of enlightenment:

Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
 
"
Easily disputed by logic. It has nothing to do with being liberal or not.
Neither does your argument, but you keep throwing that word around as if you owned it.

Marriage is a legal contract making two people legal family, much like adoption records or a birth certificate.
Marriage is between one man and one woman. Always has been and always will be. Doesn't matter that your liberal pals poisoned the SC. One way or another, things will be rectified.

You cannot prove homosexuality is destructive.
Sure I can. Read below:

The Health Risks of Gay Sex

Is homosexuality dangerous to society? | Dangers of Homosexuality | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Family Research Council

CDC - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health

And of course, there's nothing like showing a little pride to celebrate gaydom's superior state of enlightenment:

Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Mind you, I'm already aware of the Onion's satirical background. This, however, is from their non-satirical arm of the publication:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion
 
Last edited:
Neither does your argument, but you keep throwing that word around as if you owned it.

Marriage is between one man and one woman. Always has been and always will be. Doesn't matter that your liberal pals poisoned the SC. One way or another, things will be rectified.

Sure I can. Read below:

The Health Risks of Gay Sex

Is homosexuality dangerous to society? | Dangers of Homosexuality | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Family Research Council

CDC - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health

And of course, there's nothing like showing a little pride to celebrate gaydom's superior state of enlightenment:

Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Seriously, the fact that you used The Onion as a source shows that your sources are trash and are not evidence of anything.
 
Wrote this back in 2009:

I managed to reduce your wall of text down to these ten points:
1. Monogamy is justified because it can be defined by sexual orientation.
2. Polygamy is unjustified because it cannot be defined by sexual orientation.
3. Love alone is not enough to justify marriage, it must also benefit the state.
4. State support of monogamy benefits the state because it benefits children.
5. State support of monogamy benefits the state because it makes families happy, productive, and commited.
6. Poligamous relationships have social hierarchies.
7. It's impossible to avoid rivalry and jealosy in social hierarchies.
8. Jealousy and rivalry lead to adultery and harm to children.
9. Adultery is the #1 cause of divorse.
10. Research shows that monogamy is beneficial while polygamy is detrimental.
Regarding points 1. and 2., why does marriage have to be definable by sexual orientation?

Regarding points 3., 4., and 5., if love alone is not enough to justify marriage; if marriage can only benefit the state by somehow benefiting children, then the only people who should ever be married are parents.

Regarding points 6. through 9., not true at all. People can be jeolous without malace. As long as every member of a polygamous marraige knows their place and accepts it, there is no rivalry. If they can't accept it, then it's time for them to divorse themselves from the family.

Regarding point 10, also not true.
The Three Reasons for Polygamy
The paradox of polygamy I: Why most Americans are polygamous
The paradox of polygamy II: Why most women benefit from polygamy and most men benefit from monogamy
 
Last edited:
Seriously, the fact that you used The Onion as a source shows that your sources are trash and are not evidence of anything.
Figures. You conveniently ignored the follow up edit post.
 
Last edited:
NOt sure how I missed this but since it was brought up by SapphireSpire I took at look at it.

Wrote this back in 2009:

First. let us take a look at the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The striking difference is obvious. Homosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the same sex, whereas heterosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the opposite sex. Why would a heterosexual woman want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Why would a homosexual man want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Clearly, from an individual standpoint, this is a, if not the main reason for one wanting to marry a specific other. Love, attraction, emotion. Now, this does not justify gay marriage being validated, and, in fact is a weak argument that I never make. Love, attraction, and emotion does not benefit the state, which is why marriage exists. However, polygamy does not fit well in the criteria that I have identified. There is no polygamous sexual orientation. Polygamy is, typically, a heterosexual orientation, covered already. However, being that there is no polygamous sexual orientation, using this, a mainstay of the individual reason for marriage, will not work or apply. Therefore, polygamy from an individual standpoint, does not meet the same criteria for marriage as do homosexuals or heterosexuals. Lack of orientation.

Neither is monogamy a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation holds no bearing upon the number of individuals that you have an attraction to such that you wish to spend the rest of your life with. Additionally, your logic fails to account for bi-sexuality. By the way that orientation was presented above, then it would logically follow that a bi-sexual would want to marry one of each gender. Since we know that there are many, if not most, bisexuals who are monogamous, this also reenforces the concept that orientation bears no impact upon the number of other individuals that one might wish to marry.

I am going to have to assume that you note about what benefits the state only insofar as the legal marriage. If the state did not recognize marriage legally, marriage would still exist, as it did prior to the state codifying marriage into law.


Now, we move into the societal realm. Government supports marriage for a few reasons. The productive rearing of children is most important. Creating a stable family life is also key: it adds to the positive potential for healthy children, but it also creates healthy adults. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that those who live in a healthy, stable, committed relationship, are happier, healthier, and are more productive members of society. These are all things that benefit the state. Research shows that, regardless of sexual orientation, gay or straight, folks who live in these kinds of committed relationships, do better, and rear children better, than those who do not. This is regardless of sexual orientation. This is the second piece of the argument that will, eventually win the day for gay marriage. Polygamy does not offer the same benefits. And the answer to "why" is simple, and is psychological in nature. Jealousy, rivalry, and inconsistency. Just like my argument that psychology cannot be separated from economics, hence, because of greed, pure forms of both socialism and libertarianism are destined to be complete failures, neither can human psychology be separated from this issue. What is the number one cause of divorce? Adultery. Why? Jealousy and rivalry. In a multi-partner marriage, it would be impossible for their not to be some sort of hierarchy, and even if this is agreed upon, one cannot eliminate one's emotions. With this type of emotional instability at the familial structure's core, a healthy, committed relationship, similar to that of a single partner marriage, could not be obtained. Further, the inconsistency in caretaking responsibilities and in child rearing responsibilities, compounded by the hierarchies and rivalries will harm the children, affecting their functioning. We already see some of this in divorced families, where inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting, and rivalries, negatively affect children.


I'm not sure how you derived jealousy and rivalry as the causes of divorce, especially in comparison to polygamy. To whom is the jealousy and rivalry directed to in a monogamous marriage that causes one or the other to not only seek an additional romantic relationship outside the marriage, but to keep it secret? Additionally, if these feeling do arise in a monogamous relationship how are they handled such that the marriage stays intact? What inconsistencies occur in care-taking responsibilities between three adults that wouldn't also happen between two? Or child rearing responsibilities? These issues are in monogamous relationship currently. Obviously not all, and in some they either get resolved or find a medium that still allows a stable life for the kids. And of course in some they never get resolved at all and that is detrimental to the children. What evidence exists that states that these variations would also exist in polygamous families?

Lastly, though there is plenty of research that supports both heterosexual and homosexual unions as being beneficial, there is none that supports polygamy.

Aside from the fact that there is, it is, granted, mush less than the research into homosexuality. And for many of the same reasons. Religious tenants prevented anyone from even suggesting that homosexuality was natural yet alone not an issue within marriage. Why is it surprising that polygamy is still suffering from the same blindness?


All of this shows how there is not correlation nor slippery slope from homosexual to polygamous marriage. Polygamy, for the reasons I identified, is not only a very different animal than homosexual marriage, but has none of the similar benefits to the state that the government currently sees marriage as.
Polygamy as a reaction to homosexual marriage is a smokescreen and an invalid comparison.

I agree that polygamy is not a logical progression from SSM anymore than SSM was a logical progression from interracial marriage. However it cannot be ignored that all three have shared many common arguments that have not be valid for any of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom