Next frontier? Polygamists demand multi-sex marriage

i told you so…

A polygamy advocacy organization says the New Hampshire law that is intended to assure “equal access to marriage” for all instead specifically embeds in state statutes bigotry against polygamists.

The fact that polygamists, and indeed those with other sexual proclivities, would use the same “civil rights” and “equality” arguments forwarded by homosexuals seeking “marriage” rights has been predicted for years.

Scalia noted that the same arguments being applied to homosexuals as a class also could be applied to polygamists. Then in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state laws forbidding homosexuality. The Lawrence vs. Texas case established a “right to privacy” for consenting adults.

Once again dissenting, Scalia wrote, “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of [a] validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision…”

“This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation,” Scalia wrote.

wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100287

so should we start a pool on who will be next, pedophiles or beastiality?

and since im sure it will come up, yes i think gay sex, beastility, pedophilia are all pretty much equally bad. none of them have any redeming features.

Legally, they’re entitled to marry if gay marriage is allowed. If they aren’t it is because of hypocracy among people who want to make gay marriage the law of the land. Polygamy is normal and common, just like gayness. A lot of cultures permit polygamy. So if gays are allowed marriage rights there’s no leagle reason why polygamists won’t be able to.

Allowing gay marriage destroys the institution of marriage.

bingo

:confused:
I see the connection between gay marriage and polygamy, but how do you see pedophilia and bestiality in the mix? The first two are consentual, but the latter two are non-consentual and thus abusive.

As for legalizing polygamy, I think that is a tough sell. Marriage as a legal contract in the US, Canada and Europe has always been between two people.

So? It’s also always been between a man and a woman. :shrug:

In fact, I’ve argued that not having polygamy legal would easily be considered “discrimination” against bisexuals based on the same faulty reasoning that gay activists use regarding discrimination of homosexuals.

With regard to polygamy, it is legal already in some countries, and unlike gay marriage, it does have many precedents throughout history. Some forms of consentual incest were just legalized in Eastern Europe (Hungary or Romania, if I recall correctly). With regard to bestiality, if you can redefine marriage as no longer between members of the opposite sex, why can you not redefine the species as well? What parts of the definition AREN’T subject to change?

Just as a comment about pedophilia, I agree that this probably is the least likely of the above to be legalized. However, you may also have seen the article this week about the professor who was arguing that “sexting” was no more harmful or big of a deal than Spin the Bottle or playing doctor, and should be decriminalized. So… does this set up a slippery slope for the decriminalization of teenage pornography, and if so, what implications might that have for the age of consent and so on?

Serial marriage is more according to the norms of our society. Recognition of this ought to open the boundaries right up.

No surpise. Polygamy is the next step, followed by coupling with sheep and cattle; the left, of course, will continue to deny this fact until it’s happening right under their noses, and then they’ll champion it as a paragon of “progressivism”.

Moo.

“consensual” is just an arbitrary and capricious requirement to allowing sexual activity, thus it will be considered a form of discrimination against someone for their sexual orientation, by a court somewhere.

Rape one day will be legalized. Heck, in the UK, it is not even prosecuted if the perp is a muslim, so it is allowed for them.

Two is just an arbitrary and capricious part of the definition of marriage that’s basically preventing sexual activity, thus it will be declared discrimination by a court somewhere. It doesn’t matter if it is a tough sell, resistance is futile, the legislation from the bench will continue.

you have sick groups like nambla trying to get the age of consent lowered to 8! if they succeed then pedophilia could be very legal and consentual. figure in the groups in spain that got apes limited human rights(including the right to sue?) and who is to say they wont have some way of letting an animal agree or disagree that was legally binding?

Yes, but that doesn’t take away from the uniqueness of the two person bond. Expanding the legal contract of marriage to groups would be like turning the contract into a corporation.

Because animals can not give consent.

I’m not sure of that. Sexual activity outside marriage doesn’t seem to be prevented by current laws. You may be right that the two person definition of marriage ultimately falls in the US (I hope not). Earlier discussions of this topic seem to point to its inevitability in Canada, which may be where the polygamy debate first heats up.

Given my choice between living under this or living under Shar’ia law, I’ll take Shar’ia. At leaast the Muslims still have some morals.

Baloney. You are creating a false heirarchy of “uniqueness.” How is the “uniqueness of the two person bond” more important than the uniqueness of the male-female bond? Expanding the legal contract to more than two people is no different than expanding the legal contract to include people of the same sex. In fact, as there have been many more cases of state/society recognized polygamy in human history than homosexual unions/marriage, it could be argued that there is more support for polygamy than homosexual unions.

You have absolutely no basis to place the two person bond above heterosexuality from a legal, historical or moral standpoint.

You may be right. I am thinking in terms of psychological well-being, in which the close bond of a couple is very healthy. I’m not sure that a polygamous marriage would offer the same psychological benefit. But I admit that I know little about polygamy.

Sell? We are talking about the building block of all societies – the family. A film at this year’s Cannes Film Festival called Zoo sums up “mammal to mammal” ““love””. It’s all about sex – all about sex.

When sex is separated from love, this is what happens. Every possible mix and match combination imaginable.

Sadly, marriage has been reduced to a property and benefits arrangement.

Two ideas to keep in mind:

The Hippie: “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.”

Woody Allen: “Sex without love is a meaningless experience, but, as meaningless experiences go…” By the way, I’m sure Mr. Allen was not the first to think this.

Peace,
Ed

Man in India marries dog:
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311079,00.html

Woman marries dolphin:
msnbc.msn.com/id/10694972/

Of course, none of this was technically official.

My Understanding Under Shar’ia Law they are allowed to have 4 wives at a time.

And i think they can marry children as early as 8 years old

I stand corrected.

I’ll have to become Amish instead.

I posted this elsewhere, but for those who missed it, here is the cultural / legal chain of degradation. Each of these needs to be socially acceptable before the next could be introduced:

  1. Contraception.
  2. Premarital sex.
  3. No fault divorce.
  4. Gay marriage.
  5. Polygamy.
  6. Drastically reduced age of consent. (my prediction: 14)
  7. Incest.

After that, my crystal ball gets cloudy. Seems to be something to do with four horsemen…

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.