Why do people say that if we legalize same-sex marriage, we have to legalize polygamy?

Question

I don't see a relationship between the two. Honestly, it seems like opposite-sex marriage has more in common with polygamy than same-sex marriage.

Also, nearly every Biblical patriarch was polygamous (Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, What's-His-Name-Who-Was-Samuel's-Father, etc.) so why do the Christians dislike polygamy and say it shouldn't be legal? I mean, it's not only "okay" in the Bible - it's encouraged!

I'm confused.

Edit: That should say "Samuel's Father". I don't know why Y!A shortens long words.

Answer 1

It's called the "slippery slope" argument.

Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy:

In order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P.

This form of argument often provides evaluative judgements on social change: once an exception is made to some rule, nothing will hold back further, more egregious exceptions to that rule.

Arguers also often link the slippery slope fallacy to the straw man fallacy in order to attack the initial position:

1) A has occurred (or will or might occur); therefore
2) B will inevitably happen. (slippery slope)
3) B is wrong; therefore
4) A is wrong. (straw man)

EXAMPLE: If same sex marriage is legalized, then polygamy is the inevitable next step. And after that, it's obvious that the age of consent will be striken from existence and children will be marrying adults. Then before you know it, close blood relatives will marry each other and my neighbor will finally be able to marry his llama. We cannot allow this to happen; therefore we must not legalize same sex marriage.

Response: The legalization of same-sex marriage does not validate or invalidate any argument for another position. The legalization of same-sex marriage neither enables nor prohibits the ability of any individual/group/organization/... from arguing their case for their cause. If these things are legalized, it will be based on the legitimacy of the arguments for them and on their own merits, not on the arguments for and merits of something else. Scare tactics and doomsday predictions do not render an idea "wrong". The legalization of same-sex marriage is to be reviewed, considered and resolved based on it's own merits.

Answer 2

I disagree with quite a bit of what has been said. Same sex marriage is a big issue because there are thousands of laws that govern marriage. It isn't just about kids and assets. It is entangled in many issues. Government benefits enormously from monogamy. Adults pledge to care for each other during illness, unemployment, volunteer work, elder care and more. Our laws reflect that. By simply saying marriage means 2 adults instead 9 of 1 man and 1 woman, all the laws concerning spouses are extended to gays. They get all the benefits and rights of straights. By saying marriage is to anyone in a group, you are commiting to examine each and every of the thousands of laws. Each law has to be discussed and evaluated. You can't, for example, just extend medical benefits for spouses to 4 women. The insurance companies will go broke. Does a sister wife have rights to another wife's kids or estate if there is a death? What part of the estate goes to each wife and the husband? Does it depend on how many years each has been in the marriage? Who decides how to divorce a family member? Is it a vote? Since polygamy is only associated with cultures where women have few rights, these issues have never been solved. The men have all the power, and polygamy reinforces that. This country has a whole lot of more important things to decide right now. You said both same sex marriage and polygamy address the needs of small groups, but I'll bet there are 100 gays for each polygamist in the US. I am not the least bit interested in legalizing their problems and I don't know any adults who are. If we committed to legalizing polygamy, the only fair solution to the legal mess would be to eliminate all the legal rights of marriage and make every person write their own legal contract of marriage. That would be a bonanza for lawyers.

Answer 3

Polygamy was never encouraged in the Bible, but rather discourage, albeit permitted. but that's another story for another question.

I think the better argument here would be that if we legalize same-sex marriage, based on the premise that any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry, then what's to stop siblings from making the same argument, or a parent and child, or other relationship that's considered incestuous? Then comes polygamy, then comes beastiality and who knows what else?

If in polygamous marriages, each individual marriage is between one man and one woman...it's just that the man has entered into more than one of these arrangements concurrently. So, even this is overturned by same-sex marriage.

Each of these 'alternative' situations, whether it be same-sex marriage, incestuous marriage, polygamous or polyandrous marriage, whatever, damages society as a whole and certainly should not be condoned or sanctioned by governments.

Thumbs away!

Answer 4

It's the scare tactic of the "slippery slope". If we allow this, that will happen!! It's a wedge issue used to scare the gullible.

Yes indeed many a biblical patriarch was a polygamist. Same is said for slavery. What you will hear on those score is "That was ok then, times have changed" It's amazing how what is ok in the bible changes by whether or not certain folks want to allow it.

Answer 5

There are so many "Christians" who practice polygamy it's ridiculous, and although their marriage is not recognized legally it is recognized "under god". Weather or not the people are real "Christians" or not doesn't matter to me since this is perfect proof that even "Christians" can't agree on what their religion is all about. Baptists, Catholics, Methodist, etc. Their all in disagreement with each other over the same book, which is the most edited and manipulated book in history. Besides that if Gay people want to get married that means that the don't want to live a promiscuous life style, they want to live their life with one person. Otherwise they wouldn't want to get married, Duh.

Answer 6

That's called a 'slippery slope' argument. One can be used as an extension of the first--giving more rights to more people. This is a form of argument used by some.

Personally I see nothing wrong with polygamy either. About the only form of sex I can't see as right in rape or sex with a minor, as this would hurt someone. Also modern man doesn't get his/her morals from the old testament, or we would have to execute people who broke the Sabbath

Answer 7

Show me where it says it is encouraged? It is certainly not encouraged!

Sarah's death is recorded in Genesis 23:1-2. It was after that (Gen. 25), that Abraham married Keturah. This, of course, was a perfectly legal marriage. There was no polygamy -- no divorce
Isaac Had Only One Wife
Jacob had One Wife After Conversion
God FORBADE polygamy for the kings of Israel
David REPENTED of Polygamy

ONE CHRIST AND ONE CHURCH (THE BRIDE)

Read the link please

Answer 8

If you're this well-educated and thinking about this stuff, AND have Sirius satellite radio, you'd get a HUGE kick out of Michaelangelo Signorile, if you don't already listen in on 106 (12 pm EST). He's constantly in battle against thinkers who give him the same idiot challenges YOU are questioning too. LOL

Answer 9

Are you aware that one sin leads to another etc and God gives you over to your sin at a certain point? Just wait 30 years and you'll be shocked with the godlessness of some of the world. The general fear is that we'll soon be marrying who knows what. BTW are you aware that bestiality is becoming more common on the internet? Pets are next! Yep, I said that!

Answer 10

Polygamy is nearer to mankind's good nature than same-sex marriage.In fact we can not compare between polygamy and same-sex marriage(if this expression is right).