« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
03/23/2011
Duplicity per multiplicity: 'Traditional marriage' advocates lay path to polygamy
As we've said a million times when conservatives have tried to blame us for theoretical legalization of polygamous marriages: If plural marriages ever do obtain any measure of legality, then it will be because of the activists' ability to make their own case, judged on its own merits. If there is a "slippery slope," then the slope is wet not because of same-sex marriage or any other qualified kind of marriage, but rather because of the existence of marriage itself. As long as marriage is a concept, then human beings have the ability to push for new ways of looking at that institution, from the reasoned to the wacky to the debatable.
But now, while trying to once again blame gays for any future poly legalization that might ever come to be, Focus on the Family's Jenny Tyree actually helps us make our case. Here's Jenny's snip:
Jenny Tyree, marriage analyst at CitizenLink, agreed that the U.S. is on a perilous path.
“Marriage laws may be reconfigured to suit adults, but the truth is, children need their own mother and father,” she said.
“Despite biblical examples of polygamy, Christians believe God’s design for marriage is seen with Adam and Eve in Genesis, and in Christ’s affirmation of the Genesis account.”
Redefinition of Marriage Lays Path to Polygamy [Citizenlink]
See it? Right there at the end? The admission: That polygamy (or more accurately, polygny) is actually quite represented in the Bible. Polyamorous unions are very much in the history of "traditional marriage" in this nation and world, holding a thoroughly religious foundation. So in short: If anyone more fully bears responsibility for the potential legalization of polygamous unions, it's those who insist on using the Bible as the one and only guidebook for a nation's marriage laws!!
Jenny can't just pick and choose in the here and now, saying that "Christians believe" this or that, despite this or that or thing that happened. Why are personal interpretations of a handful of limited "clobber passages" the infallible reason to deny civil marriage equality to gays and lesbians, yet multiple instances of plural marriage are just the uninformed acts of another time?! Or even more apropos to this post: Why are gays the ones slickening the marriage slope when we seek nothing more than nondiscrimination with the context of the body of civil law that we currently have? Seems to us that penning all of modernity on religious "tradition" might be the more waterlogged suggestion!
Your thoughts
comments powered by Disqus
