Helping the Media & Information-gatherers by providing
news, reports, and insights from the pro-polygamy view.

Click to order DVD
Order Your Pro-Polygamy Passport ™

No such thing as 'Gay Polygamy' - It’s Biologically Impossible

Date: Jun 01, 2006
Word Count: 1000 words
Cross-Reference: The Advocate, "gay polygamy", supposed-to-be conservatives, American Family Association,

As the homosexual magazine, The Advocate, published an article about “homosexual multiple partners,” supposed-to-be conservatives referenced the article to try to liberally re-define polygamy and marriage with an invented fiction called “homosexual polygamy.”

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,,   then   reported   on   May   31,   2006,   that   “Ford   Backs   Homosexual   Polygamy.”     The   teaser   line   declared,   “Pro-family   groups   protest   support   of   ‘gay’   magazine.”     Ironically,   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: 

Click to order DVD

Latest Headlines

From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles

2017 Aug 19
Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 17th Annual 'Polygamy Day'
On August 19, 2017, UCAPs (unrelated consenting adult polygamy supporters) are noting and celebrating "Polygamy Day 17" – the seventeenth year of annual Polygamy Day ® celebrations.  

2017 Aug 07
Finding Polygamists 'Guilty of Polygamy' Pushes Canada Backwards
After anti-polygamy law deemed "constitutional" to criminalize in Canada, one lone judge finds two leaders of Bountiful group "guilty of polygamy," even as case involved only adult women and no other real crimes.

2017 Jun 25
Pro-Polygamists Glad that Fugitive Lyle Jeffs was Caught
"It's like déjà vu all over again." Mark Henkel, National Polygamy Advocate and founder of the organization, responds to the news and is available to media for comment.

2017 Feb 01
Supreme Court Declined to Hear 'Sister Wives' Polygamy case
SCOTUS denied even hearing the Brown v. Buhman petition, letting the appeals court's reversal stand, not even hearing any of the pro-polygamy merits, and bringing the whole issue back to the status quo.

Read More
From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles


Media or Pro-Polygamists

© Copyright 2003 - 2018       ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
"" is an exclusive legal Trademark of ™.