Trib columnist shows honesty about logic of ‘gay marriage’

Photo credit: soxophone player / Foter.com / CC BY

One question we’ve often asked those who advocate for “gay marriage” has been this: If you believe that legal recognition of marriage should be based only on “love” – as opposed to the rights of children, or the benefits or marriage to society, or correct sexual morals, or another reasonable standard that would support traditional marriage – then where do you draw the line?

Should polygamous marriage be legally recognized because those involved love each other? How about incestuous marriages, such as between a brother and a sister, as long as the two parties agree to sterilize themselves to avoid harm to any potential offspring? Perhaps not surprisingly, “gay marriage” advocates have sought to deflect rather than answer this question … until now, that is.

Recently, a columnist at The Salt Lake Tribune penned an article calling for legal recognition of polygamous marriage. Her reasoning?

I got to thinking once again about the nature of marriage. And, as a strong believer in the right of same-sex couples to marry, it came to me that willing adults who enter into plural marriage should have the same rights.

She continues:

[T]he question of polygamous and gay marriage is one of adult choice. Who am I to oppose the choices of two women who join in matrimony, or two or more who choose to enter what now is called a “spiritual” marriage with one man?

This world has seen uncountable changes in customs and mores, and it surely will see more as time goes by. Let adults be adults, committed and accountable.

I have friends who ask if their gay marriage has ever affected my straight one. And I ask them if mine has affected theirs. The answer is always no.

So there you have it. All of the logic and reasoning for “gay marriage” also applies to polygamous marriages, and perhaps “gay rights” activists will, like this Tribune columnist, finally start being honest about it. Such logic could also be applied to incestuous marriages between sterile adults, since these individuals could claim the same “love” that exists in a homosexual couple. If legal recognition of marriage is just about “love,” then opposing legal recognition of any kind of marriage between consenting individuals becomes logically indefensible.

Then again, if legal recognition of marriage is based on something less selfish, such as the internationally recognized human right of a child to have a mother and father, or the benefits to society that marriage produces, or reasonable sexual morals, then there is a logical reason not to legally recognize polygamous or incestuous marriages.

So where’s the line? For “gay marriage” advocates, it doesn’t seem that there is one: We should just let “adults be adults,” and let legal recognition of marriage be driven by someone’s ability to convince another person (or people) to maintain an ongoing sexual relationship. Will that put innocent children in the best circumstances for happiness and success? Will that be the best thing for society?

When it’s all about “love” between adults, evidently things like children and society take a back seat.

This entry was posted in Marriage and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://twitter.com/adisonsays Adison

    Your marriage might serve only your children but there are many legal marriages here in Utah that don’t have any children. Culture has shifted on the purpose of marriage over time from a man purchasing a wife to serve him and bear him children, to proscribed contracts made by the parents of children to promote wealth and power, now many people marry to simply show their love and commitment for one another and become one unit rather than two separate ones. Were marriage only for those who could have children then it would be a requirement for people when they got married to show that they planned to and even could have children. It is possible for us to medically check if someone is capable of having children. Should people who are not able or don’t want to have children be denied to option of marriage? Marriage can be only about children for you but everyone has their own reason. 

    • Paul Mero

       Everyone can have their personal reasons for or against marriage. Society doesn’t have that luxury. Marriage either benefits society or it doesn’t and, if it doesn’t, the state shouldn’t encourage it. Fact is, it does and so the state encourages it. The great question for “gay marriage” or any other form of relationship: does it benefit society? So far, the best homosexuals can come up with is that it somehow would make homosexuals feel better about themselves.

      • http://twitter.com/adisonsays Adison

        You are right society does not have the luxury, and if children are the sole benefit of marriage then all those who are not able or do not want to have children should not be allowed to marry. Then marriages that have run their course and don’t have kids at  home anymore should be disbanded. We would not want the state to encourage a no-child family. There are legal and financial aspects to marriage that help couples to grow and be stable financially and socially. Allowing gay marriage would allow them greater freedoms in combining assets and better protections in our healthcare system. 

      • Jacob F

        You are not intelligent 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=540460453 Seth Caldwell

    marriage should come with no benefits and not be recognized by the state. It is a spiritual understanding and part of the church.

  • Trueliber

    Polygamous marriage is good for society.  If that is the standard, then there is no reason not to legalize polygamous marriages between one man and as many wives as he can well support.   It would take people off of welfare roles.  It would solve a lot of problems with fatherless boys.   Gay marriage is harmful to society and stops the production of children.  But polygamous marriage has many many benefits to society. 

    • http://twitter.com/adisonsays Adison

      Will you list these benefits. People say marriage is a prize given by the government to couples because they have children.  I bet that most other societal benefits can also apply to gay couples.  Please also list how gay marriage is harmful to society.

    • Utahlady

      Except it is against human nature. Polygamy ,it appears is one man and a bunch of females. Would you feel the same about 1 female and a bunch of males forming a union? Oh my ,perhaps we already have some variation of that nature and it is legal in Nevada. I heard a man once on a late night show say it was a very spiritual union he has once a week with 4 women at a little ranch in Nevada.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Timus5 Derek Briere

    The analytics behind this astound me. Polygamy is legal, in terms of personal freedoms. Their marriage is not legal, because combining more than two people’s assets could lead to some serious consequences. Polygamous relationships are allowed to have a married partnership between two or more of the people involved, provided an even number of participants. Gay marriage would equalize rights of citizens. You are thinking that marriage is a way to promote child birth and that gay marriage would prevent that. This is a very skewed thought process, given that those who would enter into a gay marriage would not otherwise have children, anyway. Not biologically. Marriage can be a stabilizing force for any couple, and thereby encourage raising children, even in a same-sex relationship. Incestuous relationships are illegal, even when not involving marriage for very good genetic reasons. This is a stab in the dark on the part of those using such statements to defend “tradition.” This is what it comes down to: Society, governments in particular, recognize an institution between two people. Benefits are awarded those individuals. Both of those individuals should have the same rights as each other, however; person 1 has the right to marry person 2 or person 3, but not person 4. Person 2 has the right to marry person 1 or person 4, but not person 3.  The reason behind this is gender. To be clear, this is a gender bias, which is illegal.

    • Derek H Monson

      That argument against polygamous marriage is pretty weak. So you’re arguing that society should accept “gay marriage” because of equality (i.e. it’s the moral thing to do) and deny marriage to polygamous couples because of assets? (i.e. the finances are difficult) That is morally contradictory, and it illustrates exactly why once society has accepted “gay marriage,” it must morally and logically accept polygamous marriage as well. I imagine the first question you’d face is “why do you hate polygamous couples so much that you can’t treat their love like everyone else’s?”

      Your answer on incestuous marriages is also lacking. Note that in my blog post I stipulated that the “genetic reasons” were taken care of by a brother and sister agreeing to get surgery to sterilize themselves. If marriage policy is simply about recognizing the love of two consenting adults, how can you rationally and logically deny them the right to marry? It may make you uncomfortable, but in the world of “gay marriage” that is simply a sign of your hateful bigotry against the “love” shared by consenting and sterile brother and sister (or father and daughter, mother and son…).

    • Derek H Monson

      As an example/confirmation of how your asset-based argument against polygamous marriage would be met in a “gay marriage” society, see the following quote from a “gay rights” activist writing about polygamy (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/04/gay-marriage):

      “But the reflexive belief that polygamous marriages must be evil and
      oppressive even in societies where they are traditional is basically an
      expression of cultural prejudice.”

      Of course, you aren’t arguing that polygamy is evil or oppressive…but neither are we making such arguments about “gay marriage” is evil, and yet the other side simply chooses to respond with accusations of hatred and bigotry. The result would be the same in the case of polygamy, and your concerns about assets would be smeared simply as a rationalization of your hatred for polygamous love, which you have simply because of a cultural abhorence towards the practice of polygamy.

  • Pingback: Sutherland Institute » Trib columnist shows honesty about logic of ‘gay marriage’

  • thohan

    If I may paraphrase “Shane”: Discrimination is a tool. It’s as good or bad as the man wielding it. Marriage is discrimination of the best sort. We’ve correctly identified that arrangement as ideal for everyone involved. Just as you have discriminated in choosing a spouse. Thank goodness for discrimination, rightly applied.