Thursday, April 18, 2013

"Marriage Equality" Includes Polygamy

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
We have said repeatedly over the past number of years that same-sex marriage will also give us polygamy.

Each time I have raised the issue, we have been mocked and ridiculed by those seeking to redefine marriage. Other more influential voices have agreed, with the same response.

Now a major voice in the homosexual community is calling for legalized polygamy. Because when you redefine marriage, there is little basis to deny legalizing polygamy.

For thousands of years, all major civilizations have recognized marriage as:

1. The union of two consenting adults,

2. Of the opposite sex,

3. Who are not close blood relatives.

Same-sex "marriage" advocates say the second element can be jettisoned, but the first element cannot be.


Slate Magazine is now saying that "legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist and sex-positive choice."

Ken Klukowski is a lawyer and fellow with the American Civil Rights Union and on faculty at Liberty University School of Law.

He has written an excellent and well researched response to Slate's latest move to forward the real homosexual agenda. I strongly recommend you read this article. It will be helpful.

However, especially in light of recent victories, homosexual activists are going to vigorously work to advance the legalizing of polygamy and other forms of group marriage, etc.

Slate Magazine says, "All marriages deserve access to the support and resources needed to build happy, healthy lives, no matter how many partners are involved."

Senator Ed Murray, Rep. Jamie Pederson and others have promised the public that legalizing same-sex "marriage" would not, in any way, open the door for polygamy and other devaluations of marriage.

They were not telling the truth.

I have a growing sense, however, that with recent victories, those seeking to completely redefine marriage and the family are going to overreach, feeling the public will buy anything from them now.

I personally believe there is a point when the sensibilities of average people, combined with their common sense is going to create a significant push back on these kinds of issues.

It will be led by spiritual renewal, and most likely by young people.

This agenda to redefine marriage and family is not about "equality."

It is about affirmation of a behavior and lifestyle that is foreign to normal human behavior. And in defiance to biblical teaching.

And it's about rebellion toward the Creator.

Do not grow weary in well doing. Let not your heart be troubled.

The final chapter has yet to be played out.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Informed. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.


  1. The left will never allow polygamy, for the simple reason that it would benefit the Mormon fundamentalists. No-rules sex is one thing, but they consider anything done for religious reasons to be icky.

  2. I think someone tried to marry his car a few years ago and was it was rejected, now perhaps he will have more success.

  3. I'm guessing that modern polygamy wouldn't follow the traditional Biblical model. I think it would be the opposite with one woman and multiple husbands to serve and take care of her.

  4. I’m not sure if this argument is more sad or humorous.

    First, this is no “homosexual” push for polygamy, and the supposed “major voices” you are referring to are people I’ve never heard of. Sure, there are gay people who support polygamy, but there are multitudes more straight people who support it. Polygamy has always been a straight-community phenomenon, not gay. I do not support polygamy.

    Fifty years ago, Gary could have added this characteristic of marriage to his list: “4. Who are of the same race.” We "jettisoned" that in the late 60s? So why hasn’t that brought about polygamy? What makes “jettisoning” the “opposite gender” characteristic any more likely a catalyst for polygamy that “jettisoning” the “same race” characteristic? Using Gary's logic, I suppose we shouldn’t have “jettisoned” the “same race” characteristic if we’re afraid of polygamy.

    Every push for change has to satisfy its own set of questions. The questions surrounding two people of the same gender who want to marry do not satisfy any of the questions that arise from a man wanting to marry five women. The polygamist is on his own here. He gets no help from the same-sex marriage movement, just as he got no help from the interracial marriage movement.

    To illustrate the absurdity of this losing argument, ask yourself these questions: When we dropped the drinking age to 18, why didn’t we have to drop it to 6? When we allowed women to vote, why didn’t we have to allow children to vote? When we allowed women to vote once, why didn’t we have to let them vote twice? When we increased the speed limit from 55 to 70 mph, why didn't we have to increase it to 200 mph? When we allowed interracial marriage, why didn’t we have to allow inter-species marriage? When we freed the slaves, why didn’t we have to free prisoners? When we allowed blacks to own land, why didn’t we have to allow dogs to own land?

    Good questions? No, just silly arguments...

  5. They'll allow polygamy, they just won't allow polygyny. That way they can have secular marraiges with multiple partners, without having to worry about religious concerns. Also, they may still throw in clauses that religious leaders are exempt. And, if a religious leader refuses to do a girl with multiple boy marraiges, they will then dissalow that same minister to do a man with multiple woman marraige. (They already have done this by charging 'discrimination' to vendors who hire/sell to homosexuals but refuse to cater to homosexual events). I don't think some people marrying for religious purposes will stop them from normalizing/legalizing polygamy. (Polyamory has already been fairly normalized in the secular culture, unfortunately).

  6. The reason that some of the above has not hppened is becouse no one asked for it. But the real question is: Why two of same sex want to get merried?? When you answer that question then you mey have a reasonable response. As it has been for thousands of years "Marriage" meant the union of two unequals to be united and become a new unit. Example: Two magnets can be united only and only if you join a N pole of one to a S pole of the other, then you will have a new bigger or longer magnet. You can have a 'Parent' couple if and only if you join a male and a female. You can join two small electrcal cord and have a new longer cord if and only if you connect a plug of one to an outlet of the other. That basically is the definition of marriage.
    Two males or two females joined together can never become a parent. You can fake it but mother nature will never let you do it.

  7. So, if they weren't interested in being parents, would a black and white be opposite enough? How about a hot headed Italian and a cool Hawaiian, they be opposite enough to attract each other, right?

    1. By your reasoning , if the weren't interested in being parents, brother and sister could marry. Are you really that obtuse? Man and woman fit together, neither man and man nor woman and women do. Maybe you hadn't noticed that?

      Craig in Lacey

  8. In the human race, there is no such thing as a homosexual. The human race is biologically divided into two sexes: male and female. Sex is strictly defined as male genitalia intercourse with female genitalia. Everything else is masturbation. A true biological homosexual would have to be able to sexually reproduce with someone of the same gender (no cheating by hiring out a stud). This is not possible in the human race. However, a so-called "white man" could sexually reproduce with a "black" woman because they are opposite genders of the same race: the human race. There is nothing biologically preventing the natural reproduction. It is solely man's belief in evolved races that makes the distinction that one's skin color makes him a different human from the rest of us. Nature makes no such distinction.

    1. Oh boy. First of all, sexual orientation and sexual identity are two entirely separate things. Neither is binary.

      Sexual orientation is the attraction to men, women, both or neither. There are a substantial number of gradations.

      While we conveniently divide people as male or female, roughly one of every 1,000 births result in a child with ambiguous genitalia. Some remain as intersex people. Physicians and parents are faced with a decision and the child will take hormones for life.

      Nature is far more complex than you understand or appreciate. Moreover, sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to procreate.

      You can continue to make spectacularly ignorant statements but, at least for now, you cannot claim that you did not know.

    2. First, sexual orientation is a choice, be it male, female, animal, child or whatever. The natural choice is the opposite sex, regardless of race or ethnicity. It's why men and woman are built the way we are, anything else is a perversion of nature.

      Because a person is born an with ambiguous genitalia changes nothing, a person born that way has a gene abnormality. No such scientific basis exists for homosexuality, bestiality or pedophilia. It is a perversion of God's design.

      You can continue to make spectacularly ignorant statements but, at least for now, you can't claim you didn't know.

      Craig in Lacey


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.