Arguments against polygamy in relation to gay marriage

Except for the fact “legally” they would be breaking the law. Two men who got married before the supreme court decision would not have been recognized by some states but they would not be thrown into the pokey. You practice polygamy and don’t stop, prison time is a possibility. DOn’t remember any state throwing married lesbian couples into jail…

Perhaps you are confused about the difference between a monogamous marriage and a polygamous marriage. One is legal; the other is not.

Also, most of the bisexuals I happen to know are involved in one relationship at a time, be it dating or marriage. Are you saying your bisexual acquaintances are always polygamous?

You make no sense. Polygamy laws, using your analogy, also would be considered discriminating against heterosexuals and homosexuals as well. That argument didn’t fly; multiple partners, whether same or opposite sex, is against the law in this country. You are throwing up straw dogs.

The courts opened wide the door to overthrow polygamy laws. Legally there is no reason why more than two people cannot unite.
Perhaps many people consider these laws archaic and should be repealed except they would create a burden on the state.

I am not saying I agree with it but it seems plausible.

Up until 2000 or so many states still had laws making sodomy illegal. .

Then why didn’t the courts throw the door wide open to polygamy when interracial marriage restrictions were eliminated or when sodomy no longer was considered a crime?

They will eventually. It is only a matter of time as there are probably millions of couples not satisfied with one partner.

What is the legal reason to restrict marriage between only two adults?

The racial laws had to do with appearance, which has no bearing on the nature of marriage. Sodomy may or may not be considered a civil crime, but it can’t be marriage because there is no sexual complementarity. Complementarity is needed for marriage.

It seems the original polygamy laws were directed at Mormons.Claims were made that these marriages exploited women and children and that the bedrock of our society has always been traditional monogamous marriage. One district court ruling against a polygamous man referenced laws banning incest and homosexuality as well! So a judge was grouping these instances all as abnormal and contrary to the good of society.

As did some judges who upheld interracial marriage bans, the ban against miscegenation, because the Bible was against the mongrelization of the races.

Loving v. Virginia

In 1958, Richard and Mildred Loving had married in Washington, D.C. to evade Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law (the Racial Integrity Act). Having returned to Virginia, they were arrested in their bedroom for living together as an interracial couple. The judge suspended their sentence on the condition that the Lovings leave Virginia and not return for 25 years. In 1963, the Lovings, who had moved to Washington, D.C, decided to appeal this judgment. In 1965, Virginia trial court Judge Leon Bazile, who heard their original case, refused to reconsider his decision. Instead, he defended racial segregation, writing:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay, and red, and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix."

Good point, and I agree with this argument.

Why doesn’t it? Marriage had always been man & woman. Now you say man & man or woman & woman also. Why does it stop there–if you were able to redefine it to get what you want–why does one get to say marriage is limited to two individuals? By what authority can you limit it at all? Why can’t three or four people love each other wholly and undivided? Sorry, you opened the door–after all you said we couldn’t limit it to a man and woman so what make you think it can be limited to two people? Marriage existed not because two people loved each other–it’s a bit more than that.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

Because no such door to multiple partners was opened after the state redifined marriage as no longer limited to just people of the same race. No need to create boogie men where they don’t exist

There were laws defining marriage as between a man and woman–those laws have been struck down. You’ve heard of DOMA correct? And you think laws against polygamy can’t likewise be struck down? Laws can be deemed unconstitutional by the courts.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

For the same reason they didn’t throw the doors wide open to “gay marriage” either. No one questioned that marriage was between one man and one woman. That was marriage. The reason the interracial marriage restrictions were unconstitutional was not because two people of opposite race “loved” each other and couldn’t marry–it was because two men (women) of opposite race–didn’t have equal opportunity to marry the same woman(man). The two men(women) were treated differently–i.e. I could marry a woman that an African american man couldn’t and vice versa. In this regard a gay man and myself were not treated any differently–neither of us could marry a man and both of us could marry a woman.

We have now questioned what marriage is–that’s why the door is open.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

I can see now posting this question on CA was a waste of time. I came here to ask like minded people help in apologetics and I created controversy. If I wanted to spark a debate I would have asked in Facebook.

back to churchmilitant.com i guess.

I’ll post on CA when I have a meaningless topic. Like the environment or Donald trump.

I do not think your post was a waste of time Charles041.
Redefining what has been traditional marriage for the world since the beginning has opened the door wide. Many judges opposing same sex marriage have brought up this very point. The bans on interracial marriage were not even close to what we have now: not only legalized but glorified sodomy. The saddest part of this situation is that children are being brought into it and they will suffer because of the sins of their caretakers.Also children are now being indoctrinated into a system where they will be considered outcasts and “haters” if they do not embrace the homosexual agenda.

It seems you believe that the laws forbidding multiple partners will be eventually struck down. In USA the laws were created and enforced primarily because they claimed polygamy exploited women and children.

What are the societal consequences of polygamy? Polygamy has been around since biblical times and aside from jealousy between members of a polygamous group there probably were no serious societal consequences. That is if you take a secular view.

If you believe what Jesus said about a man and a woman clinging together then anyone can understand what true marriage is. There are numerous biblical references about the beauty and purpose of marriage.

news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/10.19/01_monogamy.html

According to many scholars man is naturally polygamous. It has been disputed if that is also true of women.

Many people use the argument of homosexuality in animals to defend the practice in man. Animals often kill their weaker offspring and eat them.Dogs eat their own vomit and occasionally feces. Female dogs will also hump other dogs but it is a sign of dominance.

.Certain primates in particular bonobos are known to have sexual contact with all members of a closed group including children.It is assumed the behavior is to induce bonding.

I am not sure if most species are monogamous though some do mate for life.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.