Friday, May 16, 2008

"Homogamy to Polygyny"

Been there, said that. From Vox.

"Now, what is tremendously amusing to me is the way that many who look favorably on homogamy appear to be reluctant to recognize how this creates the de facto legalization of polygyny. For if it is bigotry or an arbitrary denial of a basic human right to define marriage as 'one man and one woman', the same reasoning that applies to changing the nouns must also apply to the numbers. Now, I don't have a personal problem with this, in fact, I just had lunch yesterday with a good friend who has two de facto wives. I'm having dinner with another friend tonight who has three children by three different women. Not my life, not my problem."

But "homogamy", that's new, I like that. It illustrates where the blinkers are. I too would wish that Government simply get out of the business of marriage which frankly, it hasn't been in that long anyway. The tax code though, gets in the way. Most of us no longer remember a time that marriages weren't any of the business of the state. Here's what I put down in writing in 2005;

For quite some time now I have been reminding people that Homosexual "marriage" will lead to bisexual "marriage". The category of bisexual is recognized as a different type of "orientation" when compared to heterosexuality or homosexuality. What does a bisexual need to do to formalize their relationship in the same way that a homosexual would? He or she would of course "marry" in the same way that homosexuals are said to "marry". The catch is that a bisexual would need two other partners minimum in the arrangement. While I am no fan (a dramatic understatement) of either homosexual or bisexual union, they were bound to be created somewhere.

The Netherlands have created bisexual "civil unions". I was listening to a nationally syndicated talk show and the topic came up. From a legal standpoint there is no distinguishing feature between a bisexual union of a man and two women and Polygyny except that the participants in a Polygyny would be heterosexual and there would be no sexual relationship between the same sex members of a Polygynous union. Thus we inch one step closer to it being legal to have two wives in this country. I do not like the baggage such a process will bring (bisexual "marriage") but it is coming. Figure on some state like Massachusets to decide that those relationships can be recognized under law at some point in the next 5-10 years. I think I'm being way too pessimistic by the way and some state will have it happen much sooner. I keep saying this, the issue is at the doorstep. We're going to have Polygynous men that are legally married in the pews of our churches. What are we going to do?

Hugh McBryde

Sphere: Related Content

No comments: