Gay Marriage and the Slippery Slope to Polyamory


The juxtaposition of same-sex “marriage” being approved in California with the raid on the Texan polygamists seems to have made a few people ponder the logical connection between homosexuality and polygamy — and, in some cases unhappily, reflect that former senator Rick Santorum was right when he said the Supreme Court’s Lawrence decision would lead to sexual arrangements few people now approve.

And if so, the Unitarians will have gotten there first. A few years ago, a group called Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness declared that they wanted to “take their place beside the divorced, the intentionally single, gays and lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people as fully accepted people.” They defined “polyamory” as “the philosophy and practice of loving or relating intimately to more than one person at a time with honesty and integrity.”
They held a workshop at the Unitarians’ General Assembly that year, and issued a report afterward. According to Peter Steinfels in the New York Times,
The group is quick to distinguish polyamory from “swinging” or “cheating.” Polyamory “involves intentional open long-term loving relationships,” not recreational or covert sexual activity. U.U.P.A. speakers at the workshop left open whether polyamory was “a choice or a genetic predilection,” the report said, but they urged that being “openly polyamorous” should be as accepted as being openly gay and not subjected to prejudicial “labels such as ‘adulterer.'”
The Unitarian Universalists’ public information officer called the group “cutting-edge in the sense that its time has not yet come — but I wouldn’t want to say it won’t.”
Its time will come, I am sure, and not only in the Unitarian Universalist Association. It will come in the mainline Protestant churches and the dissenting Catholic groups. It will come with bells on. Polyamory’s time will come for all of them, because they have already approved it in principle. Only an unadmitted and irrational conservatism keeps them from leaping to approve polyamory as an alternative lifestyle.
The average liberal still seems to believe in monogamy. He believes in the temporary sort called “serial monogamy,” but he insists that you should only have sex with someone, and just one someone, with whom you are in “a committed relationship.” You may climb into bed with only one person at a time, for a period that should last some years, and only if the two of you have some sort of formal commitment, so that others will recognize you as a couple.
The liberal wants to extend this privilege to people who desire sex with their own sex, and wants to let people try again if their current commitment fails. (“Fails” is a word he usually defines to include boredom and the transfer of one’s affections to another, both covered, or covered up, with words like “growth, “forgiveness,” “pastoral sensitivity,” and “the need to move on.”)
As I say, he believes in monogamy, but his theology does not in any way require him to believe in it. He does not accept the biblical and traditional restrictions. He believes that sex and marriage are primarily modes of self-actualization, and that they depend upon a continuing mutual commitment. He believes that sexual desire (for an adult, anyway) is part of “who you are,” and that a man must be able to act upon his desires if humanly possible.
He may not always speak this way. He will often use the traditional language, and use it sincerely. But note what he says and what he does not say: Does he ever speak of “the bond of matrimony,” or in other ways say marriage is not easily escaped? Does he ever invoke the traditional causes of marriage, like the procreation of children and the prevention of fornication?
No, of course not. He talks about love and fulfillment. He talks about personal happiness. He talks about freedom. And he talks of these as if they were rights the Church must serve.
Think of how he argues for homosexual marriages. He does not refer to any biblical rule, except to argue that it does not apply. Most of the time he tells stories of homosexual couples suffering because they cannot solemnize their relationships that, despite the Church’s rejection, have made them happy, and helped them make others happy, too. They say that they love each other and therefore must be free to marry in Church. It is the only way they can be fully who they are. In other words, he argues as if marriage were a way to self-actualization, to which we have a right.
Hearing all this, the polyamorist naturally demands the right to “relate” (now there’s a euphemism) to more than one person at a time. It is what he wants, what fulfills him, part of “Who I am.” In insisting that one ought to have sex only with someone for whom one has forsaken all others, the sexual liberal is, on his own grounds, just clinging to a tradition and to social mores he does not believe in. The polyamorist takes the liberal’s principles and draws the logical conclusion.
And so one can plot the trajectory of polyamorousness easily enough: It has started with the Unitarians and it will end with the Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and We Are Church. Once you have replaced the Dos and Don’ts of Christianity with some idea of sex as self-actualization, you cannot rationally resist anyone who wants to be more liberal than you are, and there will always be someone more liberal than you are. Begin with the principles of sexual liberalism, and reason is always on the side of the person who wants to be more liberal still.
You want contraception; someone else wants easy divorce. You want easy divorce; someone else wants homosexual marriages. You want homosexual marriages; someone else wants threesomes. You want threesomes; someone else wants children. You want children; someone else wants sheep. And his reason for wanting sheep will be just as good as yours for wanting contraception or easy divorce or homosexual marriages.
At some point, of course, most sexual liberals will say, “But I don’t want that!” Nevertheless, the liberal cannot say no to the man more daring than he. To resist his proposal to increase sexual freedom — meaning receiving wide social approval for having sex with more than one person within a shorter period of time than hitherto allowed — you must give a reason for resisting, and reasons for resisting one thing have a way of ruling out many things you would like to keep ruled in.
A reason for saying no to threesomes may well turn out to be a reason for saying no to homosexual marriages, and a reason for saying no to homosexual marriages may well turn out to be a reason for saying no to easy divorce, and a reason for saying no to easy divorce may well turn out to be a reason for saying no to contraception. It may not, of course, but the risk is too great to run.
Hence you must never say no to any expansion of sexual freedom, even if you do not want to go so far yourself. And hence my certainty that the Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness will eventually succeed, not only in the Unitarian/Universalist Association but in the mainline churches as well. The polyamorist leaving Susan’s house to drive to Linda’s, while planning tomorrow’s meetings with Caitlin and Betty, lives the life the sexual liberal of today has provided, but more thoroughly than the liberal feels he can.

David Mills


David Mills is executive editor of First Things and author of Discovering Mary.

  • James

    Whoa! This is one goofy blog.

  • Fr. Joseph

    Among the first symptoms that society is on the path to acceptance of a crime is slack enforcement of the laws that are still on the books.

    This is already happening with polygamy.

  • Deacon Ed

    I doubt this assertion very much. You must remember (maybe you don’t) that far too many of my generation who were newly married in the late 60’s and early 70’s practiced open marriage. Wife swapping is what it was also referred to by those who preached support for radical feminism. So there’s ample precedent. I think it’s more accurate to say that most in our society (including most Catholics) don’t have any idea what the NATURE of marriage is. Ergo, almost any variation of “hooking up” will do.

  • W.E.D. Godbold

    Those who don’t understand the “why” of something shouldn’t be entrusted with the power to alter it. (Of course, I suppose they could proffer a false reason for the “why”–like it was the product of an oppressive, patriarchal… Sigh.)

  • Joe

    …at the gut level, anyhow, and thus their males must pretend to, to engage in amorous endeavors. This slippery slope is certainly one which such men will be trying to push us all down. All of the tactics used to push social acceptance of homosexuality will be at least as valid for “polyamory”…it is a better scheme for the exploitation of women than even feminism was.

  • Judy K. Warner

    Poor Rick Santorum. He became the laughingstock of the left when he pointed out what has since become obvious. His comment might have cost him his re-election, yet the only thing wrong with it was that the vast majority who were not as prescient as he was could not understand it.

  • Hippocrates

    Back in the 1970’s, some people objected to the Roe v. Wade ruling because of what it portended for end-of-life issues. Euthanasia would be facilitated, they complained. They too were met with scorn and derision. But eventually they have been proven right. How sad for us that Mr. Santorum’s position has been vindicated so much more quickly.

  • David Mills

    To Deacon Ed: I was thinking of sexual liberals who are some sort of Christian, a kind I knew very well when I was an Episcopalian. They still speak as if they believe in monogamy, in the form I’ve described, and I think most do believe in it, so qualified.

    It would be hard to find anyone outside the obvious extremes who admits to favoring the kind of arrangement called “polyamory,” which was apparently too much even for most Unitarians. Almost everyone believes in “commitment.”

    And I wonder if you’re right about others, besides Christians. Look at the derision Sen. Santorum received for pointing out where Lawrence’s logic would lead, from people who said no one would want to do that. Look also at popular movies, women’s magazine articles, and the like, in which finding “The One” is so important. Limited or qualified monogamy is still our cultural ideal.

  • Catholic citizen

    Yes, Santorum was right. But few GOP and Christian leaders backed him up effectively. Courage, discipline and logic are needed to resist the current.

  • Anne Gardiner

    What’s most awful here is that there will be perfect self-righteousness at every step down. What seemed initially unspeakable becomes first tolerable, then acceptable, then perfectly lawful. There is no bottom to the human capacity for self-deception.

  • Denyse O’Leary

    One powerful incentive for polygamy will be a desire to accommodate the growing numbers of Muslims in our midst.

    Informal polygamy is probably far advanced, but you will hear little about it until you are informed that it must be legalized because it is happening anyway.

    So too with marrying animals, children and close relatives.

    There are also groups who want to marry inanimate objects or marry themselves, I am told, and they too must eventually be accomodated in a liberal regime.

    Now, here is what I predict will happen: At that point, marriage will, for all practical purposes in the debased popular culture of the West be a shopping trip with sex.

    However, for Muslims who retain their culture and for some gays, marriage is a meaningful and important idea. So, along with Catholics and Orthodox Jews, they will insist on their preference being given respect and legislative protection.

    Thus, polygamous marriage, gay marriage, and Catholic/Jewish marriage will end up being the only meaningful types.

    I have often wished that evangelical Christians would not speak out on these matters because their marriage breakdown rate is so high that their jeremiads lack any credibility – especially when you consider that the concept of marriage is critical to Christian theology.

    I will never forget indexing the book on Johnny Cash, and being struck by the sheer shameless heartlessness with which that entire evangelical show business subculture treated Johnny’s first wife – including character assassination. And it was all completely accepted. I packed off the index, thinking, “This will not go unrewarded.” Indeed, it has not.

  • Graeme

    Your logic is flawless.
    The aweless are lawless.
    They long for a world
    that’s completely faux pas-less.

  • Joe H

    This is not a slippery slope.

    This is one flood too many taking its toll on levies that are on the verge of collapse.

    The institution of marriage in the US has been crumbling for generations. 50% divorce rates, and they’re higher on average in places like the South, where we’re told traditional values are strong. It also happens to be where people are likely to be poor, jobless, and less educated.

    Our entire culture is obsessed with sex – to blame this on “the liberals”, with some sort of tacit implication that the conservative is sitting in the corner with a little halo on his head, is disingenuous. The liberals didn’t create the economic climate in which every form of filth and perversion would become the source of massive fortunes and media empires. The same FOX News that so many of these people get their news from, and that regularly sounds the gay marriage alarm, also airs some of the most sexually charged content on network television.

    The sexual revolution of the sixites long ago gave way to the market revolution of the eighties. You can’t commodify everything and elevate economic growth and personal wealth as untouchable dogmas of society and then pretend to draw a little barrier around the sanctity of marriage. Why shouldn’t a man who is bored with his wife trade her in for a new model? Why shouldn’t a woman who isn’t sexually satisfied with her husband go out and find someone else who can do the job? When we get tired of things, we throw them away and buy new things.

    I sincerely hope that a regeneration of heterosexual marriage, the family, and the community is on the horizon in this country. Until it is, it is sheer hypocrisy to shout and stomp about gay marriage, polygamy, bestiality, or any other gamy or ality. Until the American right acknowledges its role in this crisis, nothing will change. We live in a moral and cultural cesspool, and all these homosexuals, polygamists and others want is the opportunity to splash around in the same part of the pool that heterosexuals do. This can hardly make things worse than they already are!

    • TomD

      “Our entire culture is obsessed with sex – to blame this on ‘the liberals’, with some sort of tacit implication that the conservative is sitting in the corner with a little halo on his head, is disingenuous.”

      We are all fallen and bear some of the blame, but conservatives did not advocate for changes in our divorce laws, making divorce far easier, liberals did. Conservatives did not advocate for a loosening of sexual morals and ethics in our culture, liberals did. And conservatives have not advocated for a change in the definition of marriage, liberals have.

      And, please, enough with Fox. Fox News, and Rupert Murdoch are not, and have never been, conservatives. Fox is dominated by a strange, idiosyncratic brand of right-wing libertarianism. I am a conservative and I despise Fox programming and am quite disdainful of the “quirkiness” of Fox News.

      • Sarto

        Tom, this is a pretty good post. But why did conservative Newt Gingrich and a bunch of other conservative Republicans have their sordid affairs? Did they catch the liberal disease, or are we talking about a whole society afflicted by the can’t say no sickness?

        • TomD

          Sarto, we are all fallen, regardless of our political or ideological orientation. If someone fails to uphold what he says he believes, that does not mean that what he says he believes is wrong, it means that he is human.

  • dad29

    SCOTUS already has written the language which will be used to “authorize” polyamory (see Kennedy’s opinion in Casey.)

    In addition, the Cal SC opinion can be used to support such efforts.

    This is not a matter of speculation, nor desire. It will be a matter of law in the next 2-5 years.

  • david pence

    I have never understood people saying after gay marriage what is next? polygamy? Polygamy has a long history not entirely dishonorable. Almost all systems of polygamy have children and responsibility at their core. To think polygamy is a slide from sodomy is to elevate sodomy–what a tribute to the lavender publicists. Now if this isn’t clear see if you can find fault in what Clem said to Joe; “I dont know what the world is coming to Joe, my cousin just died of cancer. What is next? Do you think my brother might catch a cold?” .

  • David Mills

    Joe H. would have no reason to know this, but I have made more or less the same point myself. Writing years ago for conservative Anglican publications, I pointed out that the affluent suburban parishes leading the anti-homosexual movement had horrendous (generally no) marital discipline and should stop condemning people whose chosen form of sin was different from theirs. They offered a “pastoral” response to remarriage (even second remarriages) but utter condemnation to homosexual people, both defined as “the biblical teaching.”

    I once suggested that since conservative Episcopalians almost unanimously approved non-procreative sex (i.e. contraception) for themselves, and did not believe that the ends of marriage necessarily included children, they ought to approve those who practiced the same kind of sexual relationship but with a different combination of organs.

    Neither of these arguments went over well.

    But please notice that I was writing about “sexual liberals,” and the qualification was deliberate. They can be found among poltical, economic, and even cultural conservatives, even among cultural reactionaries. It is a kind of mind I am describing. “Liberal” may be too confusing a term to use, but I can’t think of a better one.

    To David Pence: You are right, but the article is about the logic of sexual liberalism and the movement to polyamory, a different thing than polygamy. (Writer’s don’t choose titles.)

  • Joe H


    You did write “sexual liberals” but before you said that, you wrote “average liberals.”

    I would also point out that the liberal logic is almost impossible to dispute in the absence of any organic basis for marriage, family, and community. We can say gay marriage and other forms of non-heterosexual marriage are morally wrong, we can even write down on a piece of paper that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anyone who believes that will do anything more than temporarily pacify the public is deluding themselves.

    Though he was no Catholic philosopher, Hegel understood how the growth of “civil society” – i.e. market society – undermined the basis of the family, which had always been agricultural.

    The existence of the family today, in mass industrial/information society, is largely a holdover of more primitive times. No one today “needs” a family in the same way they needed one 500 years ago, that is, for sheer economic survival.

    The same applies to marriage – a woman doesn’t need a man, nor a man a woman, in the same way. Now our most pressing needs are psychological, and it seems excessively futile to insist that people confine themselves to relationships that offer no prospects of self-fulfillment.

    That is why Marx denied that communists wanted to abolish the family – he thought it was already abolished in all but name, and all he proposed to do was recognize it officially. The defense of family in a market society where there are economic forces constantly shaping our consciousness as consumers rings hollow.

    Unlike the secular, atheistic communists that believe these trends can and should be pushed through to their logical conclusion, we resist them on moral grounds. That is what we must do as Christians. But like the secular, atheistic communists, we have to also recognize the economic forces that develop (I wouldn’t say they cause) these trends.

    My answer, the answer I believe is leaping off the pages of Catholic social teaching, is the regeneration of community not only as a political or moral unit but primarily as an economic unit. Rootless individuals and broken families will not regenerate on their own. That is why I wrote a piece for this blog about workers cooperatives, which I think are the key to this project.

  • L.

    I`m female, liberal, Catholic (not devout — and not Catholic, according to some people) and monogamously married — and if consenting adults want to legally pair off in polygamous relationships, it`s perfectly fine with me. I just don`t see a problem with it, as long as no one expects me to do it, too.

    Therefore the argument that legalizing gay marriage (which I also support) is going to lead to legalizing polygamous relationships just makes me say, “So….?”

  • Tysen Woodlock

    This is a story demonstrating polygamy is already advocated by some groups:,23599,23916410-2,00.html

  • Sara

    The main argument gays have used to legalize and mainstream their sexual behavior is the claim that homosexuality is their “sexual orientation.”
    The are only sexually attracted to members of their own sex. This can not be cured with counseling, they claim, it is who they are. They claim to have been born with this sexual orientation. True or not, we have not found much success in changing the sexual orientation of gays; although some have changed through counseling and Christianity.

    You are concerned about the sexual lifestyle choice of pologomy but that is not a sexual orientation. A pologomist may choose the lifestyle but the sexual orientation is heteroeseuxal.

    However, what we have not faced up to yet is pedophillia. This is a sexual orientation where an adult is only attracted to homosexual or heterosexual sex with children. Like homosexuality, all the counseling in the world does not seem to change the orientation except for a few. We saw it in the church where pedophiles can not make themselves stop their sexual attraction to children no matter how much counseling they receive. We see it in the prison system where punishment does not stop offenders from re-offending.

    To me, this is where the danger really lies in the homosexual movement’s sexual orientation argument. I fear that it will one day lead to the argument that pedophiles must be free to act out their “sexual orientation” towards children. Further, adult sex organizations work to lower the age of consent for children so that it can be named “consentual sex.” Plus, the APA is on the way to claiming childhood sex with an adult does not harm the child, psychologically. They published a “study” proving this about ten years ago. Congress denounced the “study.”

    Further, secular sexperts are introducing public school children, at younger and younger ages, to adult sex. I give it ten years and we will be shocked that the courts have named adult child sex a “right” of the child and the adult, per the adult’s sexual orientation. A young child rarely has the maturity and courage to tell the adult “no” so that could easily be twisted to mean “consent.” And it will be in the future.

  • John Cox

    Stanley Kurtz for several years has been arguing a somewhat similar point, though more from a sociological standpoint, as in the “Weekly Standard” piece from Feb. 2004

    “More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.”

    This same set of dynamics seems to be in play in the U.S., as David suggests in his analysis of the assumptions that undergird and drive the liberal position. And as suggested in “L’s” post, I think.

    That being the case, the Catholic response needs to continue to be mult-layered: advocacy of marriage in terms of public policy, and the witness of, and in, our own marriages of the redemptive power of God.

  • Patricia

    Well it’s interesting L that you would take that stance. You see, it may not be required that you be part of a polyandrous relationship, but your daughters may not have the choice you have.
    My father and mother never worried about the divorce laws either in 1968 in Canada because well, they were faithfully married and never intended to divorce. But my dad was completely devastated when his son-in-law abandoned his only daughter exactly 30 years later and left her with 4 children under the age of 8.
    You never know what goes around, may come around again too.

  • Todd M. Aglialoro

    You should write a book about this, David.

  • Anon

    Relax, everything will be fine when the worshipers of the One True God gain control of all western society and impose Sharia Law.

    It is only a matter of a generation or perhaps two but it is inevitable. None of these petty questions will matter any longer.

    Hitlers extermination of his opposition will look like Pee Wee League tryouts.

  • L.

    Patricia, I would be unhappy if my daughter were forced into ANY kind of relationship, but if as an adult she freely chooses polygamy, I would have no problem with that (depending on the specific circumstances, of course).

    And child abandonment happens even in societies in which divorce is illegal.

  • DGP

    Mr. Mills writes of the stubbornness of reasons, but of course reasons have little to do with any of this. Mostly only lawyers and journalists traffic in reasons, and then usually only to render predetermined conclusions more persuasive.

    All people who are not depressed want to feel good about themselves. We differ rather in how we cultivate this feeling. There is a consortium of people whose chosen methods share the common goals of the affirmation of homosexuality.

    The largest group of this consortium is typified by the Caring Liberal. He prides himself on his sensitivity and good will. He looks for oppressed persons whose receipt of his benevolence will have the invisible but powerful effect of reinforcing his pride. He will always find willing victims

  • Patricia

    @ L: I feel very sad that you would support your daughter in her choice of polgamy.
    And you are correct – you are not Catholic. You are a liberal humanist.

  • SV2

    Polygamy is a biblical institution. According to Thomas Aquinas it contradicts the secondary but not the primary natural law. Missionaries in Africa have begged the Church to recognize polygamy. So this post is a bit of a damp squib.

    “This can not be cured with counseling, they claim, it is who they are. They claim to have been born with this sexual orientation. True or not, we have not found much success in changing the sexual orientation of gays; although some have changed through counseling and Christianity.”

    “Changed” here is ambiguous; can an exclusive constitutional heterosexual become a true homosexual or vice versa? I doubt it.

    “You are concerned about the sexual lifestyle choice of pologomy but that is not a sexual orientation. A pologomist”

    Poly – many. Gamos — marriage.

    Therefore POLYGAMY not POLOGOMY.

    “pedophillia. This is a sexual orientation where an adult is only attracted to homosexual or heterosexual sex with children. Like homosexuality, all the counseling in the world does not seem to change the orientation except for a few. We saw it in the church where pedophiles can not make themselves stop their sexual attraction to children no matter how much counseling they receive.”

    If this is true, we should be much more compassionate to pedophiles than we are.

    “To me, this is where the danger really lies in the homosexual movement’s sexual orientation argument. I fear that it will one day lead to the argument that pedophiles must be free to act out their “sexual orientation” towards children.”

    Was this argument not already made long ago? The reason why your argument is a poor slippery slope argument is that children are not capable of adult consent. Homosexual acting out between consenting adults does not have the harmful effects that pedophilia has. Otherwise, the pedophile argument would have won approval comparable to that which the gay argument and even the polygamy argument has.

    ” Further, adult sex organizations work to lower the age of consent for children so that it can be named “consentual sex.””

    Consensual is the word. Many countries have low ages of consent — the Netherlands is one I think. But there are often other laws governing people’s sexual relations and these are liable to be invoked when an adult is involved with a young teenager.

    “Plus, the APA is on the way to claiming childhood sex with an adult does not harm the child, psychologically.”

    I think many if not most psychologists would agree that it does not ALWAYS, NECESSARILY and IN ITSELF harm the child but that it is USUALLY LIKELY TO and especially in view of SOCIAL CONTEXT. The reason psychologists think this is that they have experience of both results; some patients traumatized by childhood sex abuse, others not.

  • Tony Esolen

    The comments on this post prove David’s point … Self-styled Catholics, unable to conceive of the meaning of marriage as anything other than the fulfillment of subjective individual cravings, without the slightest sense, which even a good pagan would have, that those cravings bear upon the welfare of other people individually and as a whole …

    There’s a point after which shortsightedness becomes sheer blindness. Let’s suppose you are married and you live through the next stage of cultural disintegration that is on the horizon: the acceptance of polygamy. Set aside for the moment that Western Civilization is founded upon the monogamy of post-exilic Judaism and Greece and Rome. What polygamy instantly does is turn every married person into an eligible bachelor or bachelorette. And to whom could the unwilling partner really complain? Remember, a person’s cravings are sacrosanct. “Yes, Judge, I do love her, but ever since our third child was born, we hardly ever have sex. I don’t want to divorce her, because I did vow never to leave her. So this seems the most reasonable alternative.”

    At which point, hardly anybody will even bother getting married in the first place — what would be the point of it, when the institution will be so porous? Polygamy worked, to the extent that it did, back among the ancient Hebrews because you had a very strongly patriarchal society, seminomadic, requiring the organized labor of many men beholden to obey the patriarch; otherwise it would all have dissolved in chaos, as so often Scripture shows that it nearly did anyway. But we don’t have any countervailing traditions that would rein back the unattached young men (and for obvious reasons there will be more of those than of unattached young women). All we have is an open sewer.

    I would also not call Blogger L a “liberal humanist.” The classical liberals understood that true freedom is not to be divorced from training in the cardinal virtues, among which is numbered temperance. Every single pagan philosopher and statesman this side of the hedonist Aristippus would have called us SLAVES for elevating sexual desire to the status of an idol. She is also not a “humanist,” at least not in the sense of someone who believes in a noble and transcendent end for the human being as such. Recommending such slouching back into the animal is unworthy of the true humanist — as you might find in Matthew Arnold or Paul Elmer More.

    One more thing: would somebody please try to remember that the acceptance of homosexuality has to do with more than Adam’s feelings for Steve, or even Adam’s feelings for Eve? Remember those pathetic little creatures that we scorn so much because they’re not worth our trouble — you know, the ones that get into trouble all the time, that won’t cross their t’s and don’t like sitting with their legs crossed — oh yes, BOYS. Imagine what it would be like to be an 11 year old boy trying to figure out what manhood is about, or whether it even exists, and to sort out your welter of feelings, in a world in which birds of prey, many of them female, are ready to pounce upon him from every corner, saying, “Oh, you must be gay, then! How wonderful for you!”

  • Eddie Soto

    When society that considers itself Christian gets away from the model (before the Fall) of heterosexual marriage, in Genesis, between one man and one woman then we can expect same-sex, polygamy, incest to eventually be accepted. What is to stop one from seeing other forms of “marriage” when we get away from the clear model in Genesis and of Christ and the Church in the New testament?

  • polk

    The Hypocrisy of Homosexuality
    Homosexuals have been fighting for the right of marriage in the United States for some time now and surprisingly a lot of Americans tend to be in favor of them being able to get married. The question that often arises when I ponder the topic is where does the general public draw the line? How is homosexuality different from other lifestyles such as polygamy? I have come to only one conclusion on the topic and that is that homosexuals like most individuals are looking out for their own self-interest which is only human nature. However somewhere along the way they fail to ask themselves what makes them so special that they should be granted rights that a polygamists should be denied. In their quest to demonize the people with deep concerns over gay married, they themselves and their supporters are guilty of the very same mentality they accuse others of having.
    Some people will argue that polygamy and homosexuality are two totally different things, but are they? I understand the argument that one involves numbers of participants while the other involves same sex couples, but the basis of the argument is usually that they shouldn’t be told who they can and can’t marry. Couldn’t that argument be applied to other groups as well? Some will argue that most polygamy originates in cults and results in and women being beaten. I would not deny this as it does seem to be true, however are those same people suggesting that there are no violent homosexuals?
    There is no question that a man and woman are meant to be and procreation serves as solid proof of this. Homosexuality is without a doubt in the sense of procreation at least abnormal. So this again leads me to the question of how a society could accept homosexual marriage and not polygamy when polygamy seems to be a more natural route than homosexuality no matter how immoral some may think it is.
    I am not against homosexuals all I am saying is that if we as a society allow homosexual marriage we need to take a hard look at other groups. There is always going to be a group out there that cries foul. Laws are the foundation of a society and with those laws come the responsibility of drawing the line, the question is where is that line drawn? Maybe we should just let everyone marry whomever they want. I believe if a person could look past their self-interests long enough to understand the dilemma it may shed some light on why homosexual marriage is a difficult task to accomplish. It’s quite possible that it is not the stereo typical mayonnaise sandwich eating, trailer park, racist, redneck that is holding the homosexual community back. It could be something as simple a preserving the countries core values by drawing the line on marriage. If you can’t accept polygamy it is hypocritical to embrace homosexuality.

    • Michael PS

      As a matter of fact, in Europe, the courts are having to address a number of cases of people who either settled in Europe or have assets here, who entered into actually or potentially polygamous marriages in their country of origin, where such marriages are lawful.

      Plainly it is impossible to leave them in a sort of legal limbo, especially where rights of support and succession are concerned.

      Politicians, understandably, are reluctant to address the matter and it is being largely left to the courts to deal with such cases.

      • nonsense, there are no nations with polygamy laws – unless you look at nations in the bible. The bible endorsed polygamy, with some of god’s greatest heroes being polygamous. Solomon the wise was said to have 700 wives and 300 concubines. Would it make sense to oppose the bible based on its track record of calling for polygamy? More sensible than this article’s argument.

  • Let’s see how the article’s claim that allowing gay people to wed will open the door to polygamy has fared in the real world. There are 72 nations and a growing list of states allowing same-sex marriage civil laws. Not one of these states or nations (some going back decades) have ever legalized polygamy. Case closed.

    • Sexual orientation is not a choice. Try to turn yourself homosexual and you will find out it is impossible to switch your sexual orientation.

  • Arguing that gays be stopped from marrying the person they love because it might lead to heterosexuals doing something objectionable is another argument that only makes sense to those who are prejudiced.