Why are gay marriages legal but not polygamist ones?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by St Leo
Polygamy was once legal in China (even though only men could have multiple wives) and it was a royal mess.

That's not polygamy. That's polygyny.

Is that all you are going to respond to, you language Nazi?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Do you believe children are born gay, and cannot change their orientation as they grow up?

Current reseach indicates that is a strong possibility.

[Ben Kenobi]

I was hoping more for some straight Jesus stuff, as he's the only guy in the Bible who seems to at least have a general idea of what's what.

Cinch:
You may have wanted to read what Christ chooses to quote, which is why I provided the quotes from Genesis. For him to allude to Genesis in his teachings, seems to me good evidence that Christ considers Genesis authoritative.

As for Paul, Paul grounds what he says in Jesus' sayings.

The most important part is that Christ holds up Adam and Eve as the ideal for marriage.

UR:

I'll agree to an analogy with alcoholism. Even if one is genetically predisposed to homosexuality, it still does not follow that they will exhibit homosexual behavior. Genes are not absolutes.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Rufus:

Consider the types of infertility present in heterosexual couples.

Some are an accident of birth. This is not analogous to homosexuality since this is entirely outside the control of the person. Do you believe children are born gay, and cannot change their orientation as they grow up?

Yep, sure do; and science increasingly seems to agree. It's true that gays can fake straightness -- hence the notion of the closet -- but it's like me faking left-handedness, or pretending to like eggs. I can use my left hand, I can physically eat eggs without gagging (most of the time), but I'm clearly not wired to do either.

Your point seems to be that marriage is a reward that must be withheld from homosexuals for engaging in same-sex sex because same-sex sex is somehow "unnatural," because it can't lead to reproduction. But I'm still lost here. If that's the case, then why should any couples who can't reproduce be allowed to wed? My father-in-law just married a wonderful woman who's had a hysterectomy; clearly they can't have kids, and clearly their sex life will be about intimacy and pleasure, not kids. Should this have been prevented for some reason? If so, what? (Note: reasons involving somebody's half-baked, Levitican notion of God are not reasons).

Marriage is a state institution, not a religious one (don't believe it? Try getting married without a license from the state). The only question is, within the framework of the State's own laws and philosophical underpinnings, is there any reason to allow men to form certain contracts only with women, and not with other men (or vice versa)? I have yet to hear anyone offer a compelling reason in those terms; instead they, like you, resort to banalities like the "naturalness of heterosexuality," the "sancitiy of marriage," and other folderol that is far more religious/superstitious/irrational than it is logical.