E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Homosexual marriage and polygamy

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

A letter to the editor was published on March 3 responding to my guest editorial, asking this question:

How do people like Scott, including legislators, come off as thinking they have the right to deny others, some of whom fought and died for this country, their human-given right to marry? Why can't the concept of marriage evolve beyond one penis and one vagina?

If that is the argument for homosexual marriage, then why should that not apply to polygamy? After all, there are polygamists who have served their country in the military, and even fought in war. Why can marriage not evolve beyond one man and one woman to include a larger group of people?

One can certainly find more historical support for polygamy than one can find for same-sex marriage. Even many of God's people in the Bible practiced polygamy - including King David, a man after God's own heart. If one wants to argue from Scripture, it makes more sense that polygamy be recognized than homosexual marriage. After all, polygamy does not fundamentally alter the nature of marriage the way homosexual marriage does.

Allow me to be clear: I am not advocating that government recognize polygamy. Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a creation ordinance, as seen in Genesis 2:24, Mark 10:6-9 and Ephesians 5:25-31.

I am making the point that there is no logical basis on which to disallow polygamy if we are going to allow homosexual marriage. If the argument is that we have no right to discriminate against people based on who they choose to love, then there is no reason that should be limited to monogamous unions.

(7 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

At March 4, 2014 at 7:10 AM , OpenID draxolotl said...  

Agreed! Why shouldn't any marriage arrangement be legal if it is agreed to by all parties involved? Anything else would be discriminatory, no?


At March 4, 2014 at 1:34 PM , Blogger Dan Hiester said...  

A polygamist can still get married once, just like I can. That's still equal rights.

Technically speaking, gay couples have fewer rights than polygamists do. Arguments comparing apples to oranges don't apply to discussions about equality.


At March 4, 2014 at 3:15 PM , Blogger E said...  

Sounds like a pretty good argument for legality of polygamy to me. Just have to sort out the joined tax filing/custody situations, etc...


At March 4, 2014 at 3:33 PM , Blogger Mike Newton said...  

"Allow me to be clear: I am not advocating that government recognize polygamy." Why not, since your own "holy book" supports polygamy, even making it obligatory in the case of widowed sisters-in-law? I thought you were a true believer!


At March 4, 2014 at 4:13 PM , Blogger Unknown said...  

Easy, because like which hand is dominant (right or left), eye color, and voice pitch one's sexuality is determined from birth -- unless you want to argue that someone simply chooses to be a heterosexual.

Polygamy, unlike sexuality, is a religious preference. One isn't born a polygamist, as one is born a heterosexual.

I don't understand the silly "creation" argument as a test for marriage validity. Next month I'll be married to a wonderful woman who is in her late 40s and thus biologically incapable of becoming pregnant.

Are you saying that it would not be an infringement of our civil rights in Indiana should this state pass a constitutional ban on marriage between any two people who are incapable of
demonstrating fecundity?

If so, all I can say is thank goodness we're getting married in California.


At March 6, 2014 at 6:42 PM , Blogger Mike Newton said...  

The "creation"" argument is specious on its face. Aside from flying in the face of science--which right-wing Xians believe is "satanic deception"--it provides the shaky foundation for their claim that women must always be subordinate and submissive to men. Another great reason to ditch religion altogether.


At March 9, 2014 at 3:23 PM , Blogger Scott Tibbs said...  

I've never said childless couples should not be permitted to remain married, or that infertile couples should not be able to get married, provided the couple is an unrelated adult man and woman.

And, no, the Bible doesn't condone polygamy. Jesus reinforced the creation ordinance of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

And polygamy is a religious preference? Some would argue that monogamy is unnatural. In fact, Matt Walsh deals with a critic who argued that premise on his blog.


Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.