Home > Debate Club > Should Gay Marriage be Legal Nationwide? > Same-Sex 'Marriage' Would Lead to a Push for Polygamy

Same-Sex 'Marriage' Would Lead to a Push for Polygamy

Only the traditional union of a man and a woman truly serves society

Reader Comments
Back to argument

Dear friends,

I read your comments and wonder ... why has simple common sense left us ?

Or rather why did we forsake it ?

Physiologically speaking, a man is made for a woman ..

Our vast differences tells us we complete each other and our union is a source of inner balance for the children born of this union.,

This modern upsessive trend has its source in our generation rejecting God`s order for our lives.

This is the reason why no amount of argument can help.

God bless you all !

Rosemarie 1:42PM October 11, 2011

I was going to leave a well thought-out comment, but the previous comments say it alll. Bravo! The conservative, religious right is grasping at straws to deny legal recognition to married couples, such as me and my husband, simply to bolster what is no more than a firmly-held religion-inspired belief.

Corey Jensen of IL 7:53AM October 11, 2011

Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise. Based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida was satisfied in 2010 that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting

Peter Sprigg should be aware of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Misrepresentation_of_research

Petr Tomeš 1:34AM October 10, 2011

To Robert:

For a ban on same sex marriage to survive generations of scrutiny, it must have justifications that are 'consistently applicable to all heterosexual couples'.

Currently, no laws exist to stop people from getting married based on the ability of the couple to accidentally procreate.

Currently, no laws exist to stop people from getting married based on how high the divorce rates or 'breakup rates' are for their demographic.

Currently, no laws ban rapists, abusive parents, or convicted prostitutes from getting legally married.

Currently, there is no legal test of 'likelihood of long marriage' to determine if anyone can get married.

Did I mention, that currently, there are no laws stopping people from getting married if their genitalia are not functional as a result of self-mutilation, injury, surgery, or genetic affliction?

So, sir...exactly what justifies the use of procreation ability, moral opinions, or other such arguments against ONLY same-sex couples, and never opposite-sex couples?

(Now this I gotta hear.)

Albus Dumbledore of VA 7:03PM October 09, 2011

If there are currently no consistently applicable arguments to stop polygamy, blocking same-sex couples from being able to marry will not change this fact. Gays are not our martyrs to block the evil polygamists.

I could easily jump in a time machine and say that the same arguments used to push for interracial marriage can be used for polygamy or inter-species marriage.

Observe:

"If the State has no interest to keep the races separate, then what argument can be made to keep the species separate?"

"If a black person cannot change the fact that they are black, then cannot the same be said of a group of women who can't help but be plural?"

"If a white man loves his horse, and the State allows him to marry a woman despite her immutable characteristic of race, then isn't species also an immutable characteristic?"

"If the State has no value in the traditional definition of marriage and families, and will allow interracial marriages, then it has no value in stopping people from marrying farm animals either."

Interestingly enough, these arguments were actually made to block interracial marriage. The 'if you give a mouse a cookie' argument revamped and repackaged to fail again.

If family research councils (who get to decide what counts as a family, of course) are serious about "defeating" same-sex couples in their quest to destroy marriage, then they should fire their spokespersons. Comparing a man or woman's intended spouse to an animal or to a group of people is silly on its face.

Albus Dumbledore of VA 6:54PM October 09, 2011

Most arguments for gay marriage can logically be used for polygamy, as well as charges of racism that deny Moslems and Africans their right to polygamy; but people are not logical.

Luther of LA 1:07PM October 08, 2011

Everything in this article has been proven again and again. Homosexual relationships have a propensity to be together less than three years, and they are very, very promiscuous. Why do you think that Gay Bathhouses were banned in San Francisco to stop the AIDS epidemic there?

We must ask ourselves if we want to take thousand of years of human history, and throw it out the door to meet the demands of 1.8% of the population who are obsessed with the same sex? Do we want to experiment with our children to that this small group can feel better about themselves, when it’s been proven that children in a heterosexual environment do better?

The homosexual mafia always uses the false choice of do you want the children to be with drug addicts or two same sex people that love each other? Why isn’t the choice between a religious heterosexual couple and whatever? Is it really in the best interest of society to allow “trophy kids” to be adopted by couples that can not conform to social standards of morality? Do we need or want 1.8% of the population dictating our moral and social values?

The answer to all the above is NO! Society has the right to determine what it will Promote, Permit, and Prohibit in order for it to prosper. WE PROMOTE and encourage Heterosexual Couples getting married; we PERMIT civil unions; and, we PROHIBIT anything to be called marriage, with it privileges, that Society considers unnatural. All cultures have a right to do what they need to in order to continue their existence!

Robert Exton of CA 12:10PM October 08, 2011

the purpose of marriage is not and cannot be the proper raising of children. There are simply too many exceptions to this "purpose" and absolutely NO enforcement of this "purpose" beyond the superficial ban of gays from marrying.

When asked why we let infertile, elderly, or couples who refuse to have kids get married, we're given that it's "too invasive" to enforce this rule. Yet they have no problem enforcing this rule when it comes to gays. If you're only going to enforce this rule on couples you can safely assume can't/won't procreate ---then how is the purpose of marriage being fullfilled, and how can you state the purpose of marriage is procreation if you won't take the steps necessary to live up to that purpose for everyone? If it's too invasive to make sure every single marriage lives up to that purpose, then you cannot reasonably state that procreation is the purpose.

It's also ridiculous to state procreation is the purpose when you consider that a couple states will let first cousins marry under the condition they prove they cannot bear children. Apparently that's not invasive. How is procreation the purpose if we ask a couple to prove they can't live up to that purpose before we'll let them marry?

Jason Dabrowski of IL 11:56AM October 08, 2011

This might hold weight if Mormon fundamentalists were sprouting up in the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2001. Or Canada, where it's been legal since 2003. Or South Africa, Argentina, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Portugal or Spain. But it hasn't. Nor has the sky fallen in those countries.

James Wilson of OR 10:32AM October 08, 2011

Utah, Arizona and Texas have banned gay marriage, yet seem to have the greatest problems with polygamy among heterosexuals.

Divorce, war and premature death cause children to be without one or both biological parents.

And the ultimate statement: "Research also shows that homosexuals are less likely to enter into long-term partnerships."

Yes, Mr. Sprigg, when you ban marriage or civil unions or domestic partnerships, gays are "less likely" to enter into marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships. Hope you did not spend too much money doing that "research."

Leslie of CA 10:06AM October 08, 2011

<1 2 3 >