How can a person be for same-sex ';marriage'; and against polygamy?

Changing the definition of marriage to mean ';any permanent relationship'; rather than a permanent mating relationship would seem to remove the rationale for restricting marriage to only two partners. Two persons, a man and a woman, are biologically paired in actual marriage, making marriage necessarily monogamous. However, permanent relationships such as same-sex ';marriage'; don't involve mating at all. Wouldn't this mean that polygamous ';marriages'; would have to accepted by the same standard? How can a person be for same-sex ';marriage'; and against polygamy?
Calling a relationship between two men or between two women marriage is completely compatible with legal polygamy. Both could certainly be permanent relationships. However, both are incompatible with the traditional view that marriage is the permanent relationship of one man and one woman.





Man-woman marriage is honored because a man and woman make great sacrifices to start a family. Only a man and woman could lead a family for two reasons. First, only a man a woman can sexually reproduce. Second, if they do have children, the children need both a mother and a father.





All the limitations on marriage choices, including having only one spouse and choosing a spouse of the opposite sex, are designed to protect permanent mating unions. For other relationships, these restrictions make no sense; they become obsolete.How can a person be for same-sex ';marriage'; and against polygamy?
I do not believe in same sex relationships or marriage because the Holy Bible states it is an abomination. Please don't take my work for it. Do your research and see for yourself:Leviticus 18:1-30

Report Abuse

I think it is downright awful to say that marriage should be defined as ';a permanent mating relationship';. What about the people who can't have kids? Should they not be allowed to be married because supposedly marriage is for a man and a woman who will produce offspring?





Not everyone can produce kids. Meaning, same-sex couples aren't the only ones who can't have kids.





Don't be so offensive. Have some sympathy for those who simply can't have kids themselves because of some sort of low sperm count or non responsive uterus.





You are saying that they shouldn't be ';married'; like same-sex couples shouldn't be ';married';. That's bizarre rational.





A couple who wants to commit to each other should be able to be joined in marriage regardless of whether they can reproduce or not. That goes for same-sex couples and couples who can't reproduce.
The problem is that it's really not precisely defined what the heck a marriage is. So anyone can say anything. You don't need marriage to live together. So what do you need it for?





As it is now, it's just legal stuff to determine how will the children be supported and how you will split the common property if you separate. That being so, legal contracts can be invented for same sex ';marriages';, for poligamy and for damn near anything else you can think of.





If you go from a religious viewpoint, then different religions will ask for different stuff. Some religions have poligamy. Unless someone can prove that God meant it only one way for the entire mankind, how can you say yes to some and no to others? There would be no end to discussion.





First of all it needs to be answered what is it that we (as the people making laws) want to accomplish with the institution of marriage. Only after we know what the F we want, we can say what the marriage should be.









Most people don't view marriage solely as a relationship intended for the purpose of mating. If that was the case, infertile people wouldn't marry and married heterosexual couples wouldn't make the decision to remain childless. Those same people, however, do believe marriage to be a life long monogamous commitment in which the two are bonded exclusively. So, if you remove mating as the sole purpose of marriage, it becomes very possible for a person to condone same sex marriage but oppose polygamy.
This question does not make sense if you understand the definition of both. Polygamy is having relationships (marriage) with many opposite sex people at one time. Usually one husband and many wives. Same sex marriage is an exclusive relationship between two people just the same sex. Easily one can ';BE'; for or agree with one and not the other just based on your opinion of hetero vs. homo...or monogamy vs. polygamy. IF you are asking about whether or not the definition of '; any permanent relationship'; describes both, that's a different question.
Personally, I think that people should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it isn't harmful to others. Whether that be a man marrying another man or multiple women. Polyandry should be discussed too, what if a woman wanted to marry multiple men?





But then again, I know of people on welfare having so many children they can't support them even with the state's help, so maybe we should focus on what's really important and start helping people to help themselves lead better lives.
no I'm for gay marriage however Polygamy needs to stay against the law for many of reasons! When I see men who believe in Polygamy trying to marry young girls it's not only sick it's like a way for a sick pervert to get his rocks off by many of women young and old.


So I doubt the government will ever allow it to become legal.
It's really all about getting the public's monetary benefits.
Marriage is a MONOGAMOUS union between two people.


.
no because marraige is a thing of bond between two individuals, not multiples.
Apples %26amp; oranges.