Welcome to Gaia! ::

This is about one aspect of the gay marriage DEBATE. Namely the slippery slope.

"If we let the damned homoseckshuls get married, next thing people will want to marry their goats and be allowed to marry more than one person!"

Why? Why does this come up, over and over and over and over and over? I DON'T GET IT!!!! What could POSSIBLY be so bloody bad about several people who give two shits about each other choosing to be legally bonded to one another to create what is LEGALLY a family, complete with next of kin rights?

I've asked the question before, and gotten a couple of answers, so I'll bring them to the discussion table.

1) If polygamy is allowed, then some men will get all the women and there won't be any left for the rest of us!

If you're so incredibly uncharming and have so little to offer a woman (or man!) that you don't think you'll be able to find the love of your life in a world that offers polygamy, then perhaps there's a problem with you. Not polygamy.

2) If polygamy is allowed, then men will be able to control all their wives and they'll be abusive and it's anti-feminist!

You DO realize that being overly controlling of one's spouse is considered abusive and that spousal abuse is illegal, correct? Even if being controlling isn't specifically abusive to the point of being able to prosecute, holding someone in a location is still illegal and there is nothing you can do to prevent a person from divorcing you (except for refusing to sign the papers and, even then, most states and provinces that I know of have provisions for that situation). And anti-feminist? YOU'RE anti-feminist if you assume that only men will have multiple wives and that it can't go the other way. YOU'RE anti-feminist if you think that women are too stupid to get themselves out of a bad relationship. Thank you.

3) Men will marry little girls.

Um... Marrying underage persons is illegal, last I checked. How will legalizing polygamy allow children to get married? Not everyone are the radicalist religious groups you see on the news. And you'll note that they continue doing what they're doing even though it's against the law.

4) God says no polygamy! (this seems to come from Christians, so I'll address it in that manner)

Funny that. Abraham had 3 wives, Sarah, Hagar and Keturah. There's a reason that we call Christianity an ABRAHAMIC religion. Think on that. Also think about Solomon, who had 700 wives and 300 concubines; David, who had somewhere around 8 wives and 10 concubines; Jacob, who had four wives and Moses, who had 2 wives. Think really hard, and then tell me where in the Bible God punished each of these men for having many wives. Recognise that being influenced by a wife to turn from God is NOT the same as God punishing someone for having many wives.

5) Society isn't set up to handle it and therefore, it just wouldn't work.

Society hasn't been set up to handle LOADS of things, but when brought into reality, society has adapted. And this WOULDN'T take massive adaptations. Insurance through work? Get the person to pay a premium (or whatever the word is for the monthly amount you pay for insurance) for each member of the family. Wait. That already happens? Seriously? The more people you have on a policy, the more you pay? HOLY s**t! But what about divorce? Well, I won't lie. It would be much more complicated with more people involved. But divorce becomes far more complicated when people have children and you don't see laws being written about "you may not have children" in order to keep divorces simple! Divorce is a matter to be worked out with an arbitrator between the people involved. When two people marry, their estates get combined. When they split up, the combined estate gets divided between them based upon many, many factors. When three people would get married, their estates would get combined. When they split up, the combined estates would get divided between them based upon the factors that the division of a two-person estate gets divided by.

It's not that hard!

Could someone PLEASE give me a *good* reason that will stand up to logic, as to why polygamy is so bad that it should be rated on par with raping animals (and yes, I consider it rape as I don't believe that animals have the ability to consent, but I would change my mind if someone gave me a good reason. Not protesting doesn't necessarily mean consent, after all)?

I'm all for polyandry, but I hate typing the word. I have OCD and words and language are a trigger. Polyandry makes me feel creepy crawly.

If you're arguing for gay marriage... then you're arguing against Christian religion confused What makes sense doesn't really stand a chance against THE WORD OF GOD!!!

I think the real answer to the civil rights issue for GLBTQ, or any standard not supported by Christianity, is to be found in arguing in favor of non-Christian marriage, that other religions have as much right to practice as Christianity in regards to marriage... in that you find a nice tidy loop-hole where social issues or unentangled by Christian precidents... and... you know, God (who apparently still wants us all to be family-raising baby-building machines of devotion and self sacrifice)

Of course, Christian fundamentalism will still oppose anything outside of its own choice of lifestyle... I honestly don't know how the US functions with that going on. (o/` Oh Canada... )

To Christians their bible is the word of God. It's all about that book... there is no "WHY" other than "God says so in the Bible"... which is rather a "WHAT" that can be used according the the church's plan for it. No room for reason in the dictation of "What", just accept the values and do what God has commanded through his book and prophets confused

As someone who's mostly pagan (just in the technical sense meaning "NonAbrahamic"), you needn't sell me on the origins of Christianity. As much as I respect some elements of what social values it has given us, especially after the decline of civilization, I really see The Church as being a conglomeration of various pagan groups. Essentially, the Christian Church is a tradition and organization of men who have distorted ancient wisdoms very thoroughly indeed.

The stance which the Churches take are political... really, I think a person needs to take university-level bible study to get a real sense of the amazing depth of apparent contradictions and myriad variations of interpretation of scriptures.

Still though... trying to argue with them about where their bible comes from or the family values at the core of their religion is ultimately fruitless, in my opinion... unless your real objective is to tear down the entire religion or downgrade its significance.