The established national polygamy rights movement has repeatedly declared that it will not be re-defined - neither by homosexuals nor by anti-polygamists. Even so, supposed-to-be conservatives liberally “colluded” with a homosexual magazine, The Advocate, when that magazine published its June 6, 2006, edition. Both used the magazine’s cover story, “Polygamy & Gay Men,” to liberally imply a re-definition of polygamy and marriage, as if the fiction of “gay polygamy” was even possible.
During the previous months leading up to The Advocate’s June 6, 2006, issue, pay television network, HBO, aired its new weekly series called, “Big Love,” starting March 12, 2006. The storyline was premised around a very heterosexual, quasi-secularized, Mormon Polygamous family of a husband and three wives. Being the very first television show of its kind to address polygamy, it brought extensive media attention to the debate about that historic form of marriage. Yet, because the show was created by two homosexual “partners,” the national polygamy rights movement made it clear that neither homosexuals nor anti-polygamists could use the show to re-define the polygamy cause.
Even so, because “Big Love” was indeed created by two homosexual “partners,” The Advocate chose to use it anyway as a springboard for a new angle: “homosexual multiple partners.” In the online excerpt-page of the June 6, 2006, issue, the article was titled, “Big Gay Love.”
The article, however, did not point to polygamy at all. Instead, it presented examples of polyamory. One of the listed relationships involved three homosexual men and a woman. Two other examples both involved three homosexual men each. The language used in the online excerpts of the article only identified those situations as polyamory - which is the accurate term for such cases.
The American Family Association (AFA), however, reported on May 25, 2006, that the print edition of the article used a title, “Does Gay Polygamy Work?” The AFA was pointing that title out as part of their call for a boycott of Ford Motor Company - because of Ford’s subsidiary company’s Volvo advertisement on the back cover of that issue of The Advocate.
Using AFA’s report, the supposed-to-be conservative online news service, WorldNetDaily.com, then reported on May 31, 2006, that “Ford Backs Homosexual Polygamy.” The teaser line declared, “Pro-family groups protest support of ‘gay’ magazine.” Ironically, WorldNetDaily.com placed the word “gay” in quotes but chose not to do so with the biologically impossible concept of “homosexual polygamy.”
While homosexuals and anti-polygamists would thereby imply a liberal re-definition of the meaning of polygamy, the actual meaning of the word disproves otherwise. Namely, “polygamy” is comprised of two parts: “poly-“ and “-gamy.” “Poly-“ means multiple and “-gamy” means marriage. Hence, the word, “polygamy,” means multiple marriage. Anthropologically, polygamy is either polygyny (one man is married to each of his wives; Biblical) or polyandry (one woman is married to each of her husbands; unbiblical). Polygamy means marriage, multiple marriage.
And marriage only occurs by consummation - i.e., initial coitus.
Indeed, real marriage is not actually defined by any big socialist government or legalized license. If marriage can only be defined by the licensing from some false god of big socialist government, then that hyper-liberal position says that every married person in the Bible was a fornicator. God forbid – but that’s what that Marxist position says because not one married person in the Bible was ever married “by government.”
Moreover, on November 7, 2003, the New Hampshire State Supreme Court further proved this point regarding coitus.
David Blanchflower had divorced his wife, Sian, on the grounds that she had committed “adultery” by having a homosexual affair with another woman. The “other woman” countersued, saying it was not possible for them to commit “adultery.” The case went all the way up to the State Supreme Court. Their final Decision affirmed the “other woman’s” argument. Namely, the Court determined that the act of adultery - as it is actually defined - requires the act of coitus. The actual definition of coitus is defined exclusively as the conjoining of opposite-gender genitalia. Hence, it is biologically impossible for two women together to have coitus. Since no coitus could possibly occur, adultery is impossible for homosexuals together, as the Court concluded.
Without the possibility of adultery occurring, then real marriage is impossible.
Indeed, the impossibility of committing adultery between homosexuals fundamentally demonstrates the biological impossibility for homosexuals to marry in the first place. The determining issue, of course, goes back to coitus as being the real definer for both events: adultery and marriage.
Historically, even as far back as Genesis in the very Bible itself, marriage was always defined as beginning at consummation – i.e., initial coitus. For example, even though Jacob – later known as Israel – had a wedding celebration to be married to Rachel, the Bible says that, the next morning, he was, instead, married to Leah because of the consummation. It was the initial coitus that had determined the definition of marriage. And a week later, the Bible shows that polygamous Jacob eventually married Rachel too - with a separate consummation.
Marriage was never Biblically determined by the modern notion of licensing “government marriage.” Recalling another Biblical example that is so frequently mis-used by supposed-to-be conservatives seeking to justify their liberal use of the false god of big socialist government to define marriage, Adam and Eve were never married “by government” either.
Definitively, real marriage is only defined at coitus, not “by government.”
For these reasons, the established national polygamy rights movement has frequently referred to so-called “gay marriage” as the “biological impossibility of same sex marriage.” While “homosexual multiple partners" can be called polyamory, it is not polygamy - regardless of homosexual or anti-polygamist re-definition attempts.
Indisputably, it is biologically impossible for homosexuals to have a conjoining of opposite-gender genitalia. With zero capability of coitus together, it is biologically impossible for homosexuals to marry. Since polygamy only means multiple marriage, then the “biological impossibility of same sex marriage” equally applies to polygamy.
Hence, there is no such thing as “gay polygamy.” Such fiction is biologically impossible.
###
Bibliographic URLs:
http://www.advocate.com/currentstory1_w_ektid31132.asp
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0040
http://www.afa.net/ford052506.asp
http://www.afa.net/petitions/ford/advocate/ads.html
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50442
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0011
