The DU Thread Of The Day: Next Up After Gay Marriage — Polygamy

10 Nov, 2008 by John Hawkins

Print this article Font size -16+

One of the things I’ve been saying for quite a while is that gay marriage is just another stop on the slippery slope, not an end point. In other words, if we have legalized gay marriage, we will have legalized polygamy relatively soon afterwards and then next, eventually, we’ll end up with every other bizarre marriage custom from around the world becoming legal here: marriage to animals, the dead, siblings, trees — you name it.

In fact, when it comes to polygamy, you can actually make a considerably better case for it than you can for gay marriage. There is much more worldwide historical precedent for it, it has a longer history in the United States, it leads to procreation, and almost all the same arguments that are used for gay marriage can be used for polygamy as well.

Now, you may say, “C’mon Hawkins, almost nobody other than a few Mormons and immigrant Muslims want to make polygamy legal.”

Really?

Well, let’s take a look at some of the responses from a thread at the Democratic Underground called “Should polygamy be illegal?”

As you read what these DUer’s have to say, remember that these are hard core, pro-gay marriage left-wingers — exactly the sort of people who want to see the courts implement gay marriage all across the United States…

dmesg: I’ts got a much longer history than monogamy NT

Catch22Dem: No, I don’t give a sh*t who marries whom

azurnoir: No as long s it works both ways. I suppose in the case of a women with more than one husband paternity issues could be “complicated”

elshiva: No, it should be legal as long as everyone is 18 and over and a consenting adult.

mrih: It should be legal, but…Hell, if your married to one b*tch, why on Earth would you want another one?

TexasObserver: No. Why should I care how many people want to be married to each other? As long as they’re all of age.

Mari333: I think polygamy and polyandry should be legal. what 2 or more consenting adults choose is none of my business when it comes to marriage. I said ADULTS.

curse of greyface: No and most arguments against it are sexist and insulting to women.

DuStrange: No. Years ago some religious people were persecuted and prosecuted for polygamy. The government hammered them with the notion that marriage is for one man and one woman only. This group took that notion to heart. And we saw the effect last week.

Omnibus: No. As long as all parties are above the age of consent, and their consent is without coercion, why not? What business is it of mine how other people want to get married?

Warren Stupidity: no of course not. it really isn’t any of my business what living arrangements consenting adults choose to make with each other.

FarCenter: No, the govt should get out of the business of licensing sex between adults

Prayingforrain48: Marriage is a civil, not religious, right and thus should be extended to any consenting adult(s).

Impeachment_Monkey: I think someone should be able to marry as many or as few as is agreeable to all: CONSENT RULES! Either gender, both/and including polyamorous households who wish to marry as a group.

Even if you set aside the other reasons to oppose gay marriage, it’s worth opposing it because it’s a Pandora’s box. Once you legalize gay marriage, you are implicitly, whether you realize it or not, paving the way for every other freaky marriage custom across the planet to be brought here and made legal using exactly the same non-logic that would allow gay marriage to become the law of the land.