I Can’t Think of One Reason Not to Legalize Polygamy and Polyamory. Can You?
I’ve been saying this for years. And not just me, many voices concerned about the fallout of the legalization of same-sex “marriage” have said it.
If the government legalizes same-sex “marriage,” what legal or moral basis would there be to refuse to legalize polygamy or polyamory?
Let’s think logically for a moment. The U.S Supreme Court has found a “right” to same-sex “marriage” in the constitution. Often citing autonomy of adults and their ability to consent, SCOTUS decided that a civil right exists to allow homosexual adults to marry. If that is the case, then what possible moral of legal reasoning could there be to refuse to legalize polygamy and polyamory?
Go ahead, I’ll wait while you think about it.
Oh, you say it’s bad for the kids. I see. So not having a mother or a father – as in the case of same-sex “marriage” is acceptable, but having two or three moms or dads is not? Is that what you’re arguing? Come on, you need to do better than that.
The Supreme Court just ignored every argument for what is best for children and found a civil right for relationships in which kids will be denied one or the other – do you really think they will deny legalization of polygamy on the basis of kids having three moms of two dads? If the court doesn’t think it’s a big deal for a child to have no mom or no dad, they will surely not care if a child has multiple of one parent or another. Try again.
It’s too confusing, having multiple wives or husbands, it will be a legal nightmare. Really? That’s what you’re going with. Once again, the Supreme Court just granted legality to relationships in which two women will marry and will “contract” with a man to be able to have children. Or, in other cases, where two men will marry and contract with a woman to carry a child for them and then hand it over. When the women are asked who the father is, one of the women will raise her hand and say that she is. When two men are asked who the mother is, one will raise his hand and say he is. If that is not confusing I don’t know what is.
So what possible legal or moral reason could you give to deny granting “equal rights” to polygamists or polyamorists? Chief Justice John Roberts clearly sees the writing on the wall, as he stated in his dissent of the Obergfell decision:
“Chief Justice John G. Roberts said it best in his dissent in Obergefell: ‘Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective ‘two’ in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world.’”
Critics of anyone that sees a slippery slope toward legalizing other relationships – such as polygamy or polyamory – are too dismissive of the evidence that is clear in the Obergfell decision. If the Supreme Court can see a civil right to homosexual marriage then it stands to reason they will very soon see a civil right to polygamy and polyamory. And if taboo unions such as homosexuality can be given a civil right, why can’t incest, bestiality, and pedophilia?
An article at The Daily Caller carries a comment by the lawyer that defended a polygamous family in Utah after the Supreme Court legalized homosexual marriage in the Obergfell case:
“…much of the language of the majority clearly resonates with our arguments against the criminalization of private consensual relations. It also speaks to the stigma that is borne by families in being excluded in society. That is an even greater danger when your entire family is declared a criminal enterprise merely because the parents chose to cohabitate as a plural family.”
All the criticism in the world doesn’t change the fact that advocates for polygamy, polyamory, bestiality, incest and pedophilia are currently lobbying for their “rights” in federal courts. Using many of the same arguments used by homosexual advocates they claim laws are unconstitutionally infringing on their “civil right” to consenting relationships as adults. Who’s going to argue? What moral or legal grounds exist to deny their request to be granted rights?
If two men or two women have a “civil right” to be in a legally recognized relationship then what defense can withstand the same request by a 17 year old and a 47 year old? Or a man and his three girlfriends? Or a man and his horse?
Yeah, I get it. I’m the old-fashioned fuddy duddy that is out of touch with culture and a changing moral compass. Well kiddos, I’m cool with that. Traditional marriage is my jam, yo.
Seriously though, can anyone give me one reason we won’t soon see the legalization of polygamy, polyamory and eventually other deviant forms of sexual relationships? I’m all ears if you have a legal or moral defense against these relationships that can stand in the wake of the Supreme Court finding a civil right to homosexual marriage.
Unfortunately, however, whatever argument you conjure has most likely been used, abused, and tossed aside in favor of consenting adults being allowed to do whatever they want. Morals be damned. Children be damned. The logical end of the sexual revolution has finally been realized as sexual rights now trump all others.