A trio of anti-gay activists penned a piece for CNN’s home page in which they argue that if gay marriage advocates are right, and that marriage is about love rather than just child-rearing, then gay marriage advocates must be for polygamy too.
And they wonder why we call them bigots.
But there’s a problem for Robert George, Sherif Girgis and Ryan Anderson, the authors of the CNN piece, that goes far beyond why three people are necessary to write an article that’s only 800 words and based on a stale old religious right template of [insert three out-of-context quotes from gay activists here to prove your point that millions of gay people nationwide are all crazy and undeserving of civil rights - it's a tactic that was effectively used by southern racists to attack African-Americans for centuries].
Religious right advocates George, Girgis and Anderson provide the best argument I’ve ever heard for polygamy.
Before we begin – how f’d up, thinking that marriage isn’t about love. (Todd Akin, your table is ready.) No wonder divorce is more common among religious right couples when they consider women, let alone marriage overall, nothing more than a baby-factory. But if marriage is only about procreation and not love, then what better method for taking care of children, following religious right logic, then polygamy?
Imagine a kid having 3 parents. That’s potentially three incomes to help that child thrive. Or even better, two incomes and one full-time parent – what kids gets that? Or even better, one really good income and two full-time parents – no kid gets that. And what if a parent gets sick and dies, you’ve still got two left! Or a parent goes to prison, same thing. Or one parent divorces and leaves, the kid still has two left. The list is endless of the benefits to the child, under George, Girgis and Anderson’s reasoning, of having the largest number of polyamorous parents as possible.
And if you have multiple husbands and wives in a heterosexual marriage, you up the chance for childbirth, since the potential for one spouse being infertile is vitiated by the additional spouses of the same gender all mating (and why not use the animal terminology since that is, after all, what George, Girgis and Anderson think of marriage, it’s only about sex).
And why not take their logic one step further. If we’re really concerned about mankind not disappearing from this earth, which a number of religious right gay haters have argued, because (they say) permitting gay marriage will somehow cause straight people to all become gay and stop procreating, then why not outlaw marriage all together and just encourage everyone to have sex with as many people as possible, so that the maximal numbers of babies are born, thus ensuring that mankind survives?
Let’s face it: What mom hasn’t wished she could be in two places at once? Now she can!
And what do you know, those very arguments – the same arguments the religious right is now using against gays – have been used to justify polygamy:
Whether or not you’re a fan of polygamy – personally, I don’t get it – polygamy is the natural conclusion from the crazy, and somewhat sexist (because you know who’s really going to be responsible for all of those babies, and it’s not gonna be daddy in these folks’ churches) argument that George, Girgis and Anderson are putting forth about marriage being nothing more than a baby-maker.
It would seem that our friends in the religious right must be friends of polygamy. Unless, of course, their arguments against gay marriage aren’t sincere at all, and are instead the typical Republican-right smokescreen to hide a visceral hatred of gay people.