How far should marriage equality go?

Today is apparently National ‘Put a red equal sign on your social network page’ Day.

gospelgeeks.net

From what I understand, this symbol represents the desire for equality in marriage, and those that display it support the idea that anyone should be able to get married.

I have a question. Please understand that I am not asking this question as a buttress to either side of the issue. It’s simply a question.

How far should marriage equality go?

Why should not a man be able to marry five women, or vice versa? Suppose he truly loves them and they feel the same?

Should people be able to marry non-humans? This line of reasoning is said to be a straw man argument, since who would really do such a thing? Not so. Indeed there are cases of women marrying both dogs and snakes. Google it. It’s true.

So, if you do believe in what some are describing as ‘equality of marriage’ would you support legalizing marriages of polygamy, polygyny, and polyandry?

 

Comments

  1. I have a different take on the marriage issue that, I think, might satisfy all parties.

    Here are a couple of things that are true:

    • The LGBT community can find churches and clergy to marry them

    • The LGBT community can legally bind themselves to each other through wills, trusts, power of attorney, co-ownership, etc….

    • The LGBT community can adopt children

    • The LGBT community can introduce each other as ‘husband’ and/or ‘wife’

    If they can do all of these things, what’s the issue?

    There may be a few tax breaks, but the real issue is official recognition by the U.S. Government. If the government puts its stamp of approval on it, then the last vestige of illegitimacy disappears.

    Here is my solution: the government should get out of the marriage business.

    Early in the Empire, Rome outlawed marriage for those serving in the military. The thinking was that without a wife or family, the soldiers were less likely to go AWOL or quit the service. Despite the government creating a system of ‘marriage inequity,’ many soldiers formed de facto marriages anyway.

    All this to say that, historically, people have always done what they wanted—regardless of the government’s approval. The best way to end this debate is for our government to step out of the marriage business.

  2. I’m a christian, but these are stupid questions. None of those situations are just 2 human beings that can express a mutual love for each other. Polygamy is not 2 people. Marrying an animal does not involve a 2nd human giving consent. The only situation I can think of that might work would be incest, but that would produce messed up kids, so that’s a valid reason not to allow it that most people would agree to. I don’t think it’ll go any further than gay marriage.

    • “I don’t think it’ll go any further than ________,” says everybody who lets the genie out of the bottle. BTY, why such a polyphobe, Steve?

  3. I cannot respond as to whether or not the questions above are stupid–that’s subjective. I can say that over the years I have asked these questions and I have heard them asked.

    If love is the ultimate attribute that negates any set of morals, why is polygamy wrong? Two is just a number. Why not three?

  4. Annoyed Human says:

    You reason as if a marriage between a heterosexual couple does not involve two people… “Two is just number.” Correct. Well done.

Speak Your Mind

*

website security