• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

I have to laugh every time a same-sex marriage apologist suggests a society can somehow, arbitrarily, without consequences and further confusion, redefine marriage as an institution between two people of either sex.

For instance, if marriage is a discriminatory institution because it prohibits same-sex couplings, why would it not be discriminatory to prohibit more than two people from participation?

It’s an obvious question avoided by both the advocates of same-sex marriage and those with a laissez faire attitude toward adoption of the most radical social transformation in the history of the world.

A good example came in the recent Iowa GOP presidential debate when libertarian Ron Paul was confronted with the question by Rick Santorum.

{$evsignupform}

Ron Paul responded in typical fashion – with a preposterous argument I have heard every time I have raised the issue with homosexual activists, feminists and other defenders of a concept that will destroy the foundations of Western civilization faster than anything else.

Ron Paul explained that there was just no demand for polygamy. He said that was an old debate, like slavery, that is over. No one is pushing for polygamy any more, he claimed.

Why is this preposterous?

Because it’s untrue.

In fact, there is much more demand for polygamy throughout the world than there is for same-sex marriage. There is indeed an active political movement for it right here in the U.S. based on the premise that same-sex marriage is discriminatory. Furthermore, the only way polygamy in the U.S. was banned was through a national action – the prohibiting of the entry of Utah into the Union without an anti-polygamy law.

It took nearly 50 years for Utah to be admitted into the Union for this reason. And it was Republican Party opposition to polygamy that forced the action – just as it was Republican Party opposition to slavery that resulted in an end of that hideous institution in the United States.

Today we have even some Republicans in denial of history and in denial of the natural lusts of men throughout history.

Believe me, there is no legal or moral argument that can be made against polygamy if the institution of marriage is redefined as one between any two people. At that point, I would have to agree that marriage, as redefined, really would become discriminatory, since it is based on nothing more than judicial rulings and legislative actions by men.

The second-largest religion in the world condones polygamy – characterizing it as a natural right of men.

Anyone who believes men won’t re-embrace polygamy enthusiastically if it is legally condoned just doesn’t understand human nature.

Now let me ask you this question: Do you think this would be a step forward for women or a step backward?

If you can’t answer that question definitively without thinking about it, just take a look around the world where polygamy is a reality – in the Muslim world.

Too many of us have been suckered into believing that marriage is a paternalistic, chauvinistic and archaic institution that is oppressive to women. Nothing could be further from the truth. Marriage elevates the status of women – just as Judeo-Christian values generally have.

Those who tell you that same-sex marriage is no big deal and won’t lead to the further diminishment of the 6,000-year-old institution of marriage are either being disingenuous or are just plain ignorant.

Marriage is the most important cultural institution in any free and self-governing society.

If you want to plunge into the moral abyss of chaos and barbarism, then just cast your vote for same-sex marriage. Just pretend this profoundly faddish idea is only the latest breakthrough in “civil rights.” Just don’t raise your voice of objection to this bizarre idea being rammed down America’s throat by those who have no appreciation for what really works in God’s economy.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.