Is the prospect of group marriage far-fetched? Probably not. There are several avenues that could soon lead to legal recognition of unions involving three or more people. The efforts come from the fringes of the left, from the darkest corners of the fundamentalist right, and from the laboratories of fertility clinics and hard scientists around the world….
All of which begs questions: How do children feel when they are raised by three or more persons called their parents, especially when those people disagree? If their three-plus parents break up, how many homes do we expect these children to travel between? And why would anyone watching news coverage of arrests at polygamist compounds in Texas or British Columbia — seeing hundreds of pale women wearing identical ankle-length dresses and braided hair amid reports of widespread abuse of and pregnancy among girls — think that polygamy is compatible with a society that values women’s rights and children’s safety?
Get ready for the debate. And in the meantime, wedding planners: start figuring out how many brides and grooms you can fit down that aisle.
Read it all (another from the long queue of should-have-already-been-posted material).
This is exactly why I have never been able to get on board any sort of Gay Marriage boat. If you can morally and legally justify allowing marriage between two same sex partners, then I see no way you can logically deny polyamorous (for lack of a better term) marriage without being a complete hypocrite because there is a whole lot more justification for polygamy in both scripture, tradition, and biology across species than for homosexuality and same sex marriage.
“Elizabeth Emens of the University of Chicago Law School published a substantial legal defense of polyamory in a legal journal. She suggested that ‘we view this historical moment, when same-sex couples begin to enter the institution of marriage, as a unique opportunity to question the mandate of compulsory monogamy.’ ”
The vanguard attack on traditional marriage by GLBT supporters leads to this logical progression of the overall attack on traditional values.
And some may say, “So what?”
Well, traditional marriage, whether or not it bears the fruit of children, is fundementally all about ‘one man and one woman’ binding themselves together (cleaving unto one another) in marriage for the purpose of providing a family unit for the rearing of children.
And in answer to my hypothetical “So what?,”
I say that the absence of such a traditional family unit makes it much much more likely that children reared outside of such a unit will become dysfunctional adults.
The Lord didn’t say “Thou shalt leave thy father and mother and cleave unto several women.” He did say “Thou shalt cleave unto thy woman and take her as thy wife,” or words to that effect. Emphasis on the singular “woman.”
From the quoted part of the article it appears that as long as the women don’t dress alike and braid their hair the same way it’s somehow more acceptable to the author. I suppose the hair and clothing could be a sign of evil male domination, but I can’t help but think the people complaining are cluching at straws trying to get a grip on what they’ll accept now that the definition of marraige is open for interpretation.
Ditto #1, and to me, the whole thing hallmarks a reversion to paganism.
Sounds kinda like survivor, where you could bounce people out until you find yourself in a monogamous relationship.