In an article for the National Review Online, Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage has stated that, "Polygamy is not worse than gay marriage, it is better. At least polygamy, for all its ugly defects, is an attempt to secure stable mother-father families for children."
I'm sure Gallagher would feel the same if she were born into a polygamist cult and forced to marry a man at 15 years-old. Or maybe she'd feel great about those "secure stable mother-father families" after her son was abandoned because he'd be competition for the other men in the camp? I'm not sayin'… I'm just sayin'. Polygamy as a concept may not offend dear ol' Maggie, but ignoring the way that it's practiced is inexcusable.
– Dewitt
Photo credit: Chronicle/Kim Komenich
Maybe it wouldn’t only be practiced in such abusive and secretive ways if ignorant assholes like you weren’t always spewing your judgmental shit.
E-man are you talking about Maggie Gallagher or Dewitt? This is surprising coming from you. I am stumped.
Dewitt.
Haven’t you noticed by now the high number of posts from Dewitt which are merely some form of childish insults directed at someone he doesn’t agree with or isn’t attracted to?
And then this crap. I’m sure Dewitt wouldn’t want all gay people judged based on the actions of, say, pedophile priests, yet he has to run his mouth off about multiple marriage based on the culture of some isolated sects that happen to be high-profile in the media.
E-man, I have found some of the things Dewitt has said in the past to be objectionable. I do think he fancies himself the next Perez Hilton of the gay blogs. But do what I do. Politely tell him he is out of line but don’t lower youself to attack him. When you attack him you are no better then he is. I have always felt you were an upright kind of guy. I kind of admire you. Maybe I should give you a big hug?
And Dewitt? No offense but lighten up with some of your comments please. I think this blog is awesome and I appreciate your hard work!
I really don’t have a problem with polygamy, as long as its mutual. However i view it as a very old, and very sexist institution. However, i believe naturally humans would fit very well in a bisexual poly-sexual society. Somewhat resembling that of the great apes. However for political purposes, the use of marriage as a partnership, should still remain between two people. The reason we have to fight for gay marriage, is because people still don’t understand what homosexuality is. We are the same as straight people, we love the same, i don’t see a difference. Once people understand that, partnerships (legal) will be just that.
Although It may be interesting for my friends and i to all get “married” and for our own little commune. hmm interesting.
The main problem I’ve always had with polygamy is that it’s usually being depicted as one man with more than one woman, not the other way around.
It just keeps coming off like some greedy/horny straight guy and some submissive straight women, some unconventional religion/cult being mentioned as well.
Polygamy cases between other-sexed groups would/will be an interesting topic of discussion, that is, if/when these other groups can marry.
Then again, I’ve never understood monogamy; I mean, it’s one thing to have someone in your corner through thick and thin, but to also ask that one human being to be my everything? Is that even realistic? Is it even fair?
I guess with polygamist marriages I don’t really get the point. But I kinda think that maybe my own views are ignorant and will probably read up on all of this.
But at the moment I kinda agree with dewitt.