Recently the Netherlands legalized polygamy in all but name by granting a civil union to a man and two women. “We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage,” said Victor, who tied-the-knot with both Bianca and Mirjam. Victor added that a fourth person would not be allowed into their marriage because they want to be "honest and open with each other and not philander."
While the battle to legalize polygamous marriages has not yet come to the forefront here in the United States, we only have to look to this example in the Netherlands to realize that someday we will likely face it.
One of the arguments against legalizing homosexual marriage is that there is no logical stopping point. If marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, why can’t it be redefined to accommodate the polygamous relationship of a man and two women? Or how about two men, five women and another person who isn’t sure their gender? And if it is redefined to accommodate these sexual preferences, why can’t it then be redefined to accommodate bestiality, incest, or even, eventually, consensual pedophilia?
And then there’s the guy in Australia who recently wanted to marry his television. What about his rights to marry anyone, or in this case any thing, he chooses?
Either marriage is between a man and a woman or it isn’t. If it is not, then there’s no logical argument that can be made to limit it to any particular couples or groups.
The timeless institution of marriage between one man and one woman is the foundation for building healthy families. For the sake of future generations, we cannot afford to tamper with it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
World Magazine recently quoted a man from Canada who was entering into a civil union there with another man . . . they were both straight, but wanted the tax benefit of being married. The man said something to the effect of "there are serious tax consequences we don't think the government has considered."
You're right . . . ones we open this can of worms, where does it stop?
Oops, "once" :)
I had not yet heard about the Australian and his television ... good grief.
Jordan - Here's a link to one article about the man marrying his T.V.: http://english.pravda.ru/fun/2002/01/29/26071.html
Quote: "The decision to marry a television was made by the poor fellow after two unsuccessful marriages with women. In the man’s words, 'only a TV-set can really make him happy and never grumbles and swears.'"
I can't help but laugh, followed by a long *sigh*. Thanks. :)
Post a Comment