Reader comments · Fox News TV Doctor: Marriage died in 2013 and the polygamists will be happy · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Current Affairs

Fox News TV Doctor: Marriage died in 2013 and the polygamists will be happy

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. The Kitty Channel 31 Dec 2013, 7:10pm

    All these “traditional marriage will become meaningless” arguments are rubbish. Marriage has been undergoing redefinition for many centuries. In spite of that, most heterosexual couples marry in the traditional way and thrive, or survive, making the best of it or quitting only when that stops being viable. It’s a fair guess that that will continue. Redefining marriage has meant, among other things, that women are no longer chattels, can earn and own property in their own right, and can divorce abusive husbands. During approximately the first three quarters of the Christian era marriage wasn’t even a sacrament. The heaviest and widest English king married Anne Boleyn *while still married* to Catharine of Aragon. A certain, and not very impressive or dangerous, proportion of people don’t want this gamy but want another gamy instead, and society isn’t going to be greatly harmed. If you really want to restrict damage to social cohesion, there are plenty of other places to start.

    1. Vino Veritas 2 Jan 2014, 11:43pm

      All of the “redefinitions” you speak of retained the basic understanding of marriage as a union of husband and wife. The status of the wife within the marriage was elevated, she wasn’t rendered interchangeable with her husband, nor expendable. Significant difference.

  2. John Clark 31 Dec 2013, 8:35pm

    Listen to:-
    Roy Zimmerman
    “I Want a Marriage Like They Had in the Bible”…

    Says it all……

  3. Bobbleobble 31 Dec 2013, 10:03pm

    Another right wing goon who doesn’t let facts get in the way of good old paranoid rant. The push for marriage equality didn’t begin a year ago but nearly 10 years ago and in none of the states where SSM is legal has polygamy followed nor is there any move towards it. Even in Utah the judge didn’t strike down the laws on polygamy, just on multiple partner cohabitation, something which already happens in other states.

    Polygamy is not a natural follow on from SSM as can be shown by the lack if polygamy in any of the worldwide jurisdictions that currently allow SSM but even if it was then so what? Nobody who cries that polygamy is next can explain why it would be so terrible.

    It is irrational to deny the right to marry to gay couples when infertile, elderly and wilfully childless couples are not prevented from marriage. However, polygamous relationship groupings are not analogous with straight couples in the way that gay couples are. Polygamy would be something new and different.

  4. Lion in Winter 31 Dec 2013, 11:25pm

    With over 50% of str8 marriages ending in divorce previous to any Equal Marriage legislation being passed anywhere, his logic is as abundant as his hair follicles.

  5. This man is sick.

  6. And his view is stuck in last year 2013… oh wait 1953, vile homophobe looking for an excuse to make vile homophobic radical off the wall statements.

  7. The Utah court didn’t even make a ruling on polygamy, it made a ruling on whether or not cohabitation was legal in the state. This ruling came before the ruling on gay marriage in the state, so unless Utah judges have access to time travel, gay marriage did nothing to inspire polygamists to make their case.

  8. bobbleobble 1 Jan 2014, 6:52pm

    Never let facts get in the way of a far right paranoid rant eh doc? He’s completely misrepresented what happened in Utah for his own agenda and then gone to spin a typical apocalyptic tale based on nothing. He’s suggested that the push for SSM began last year when in fact the first court case on the issue was back in the 1970s and he’s ignored the experience of places that have had SSM for a long time and in none of which have multiple marriages followed. Indeed the Utah ruling on cohabitation came before the ruling on SSM anyway. Scaremongering at its finest and all the more shocking and reprehensible since this guy is a medical professional.

  9. Paul (Canada) 1 Jan 2014, 8:48pm

    Gay marriage in existing countries has not lead to polygamous marriage in other countries.

    However, where polyamorous relationships exist, I believe they should be allowed to marry so long as all participants agree. I do not feel that polygamous marriage “devalues” any monogamous marriage I might partake, and reject such notions. For the purposes of tax, inheritance, benefits and parenthood, marriage should not be required – instead two people should be able to exclusively share their tax, inheritance and benefits given their lives are significantly intertwined (known as “common law”). Generally children don’t need more than two named parents, but should both parents fail their duties or die, polygamous marriages could help avoid children ending up in the orphan system. Marriage should still cost a lot, to prevent people from treating it like a joke, and men and WOMEN should be allowed to have multiple husbands/wives, should they choose to go the polygamous route.

    1. Paul (Canada) 1 Jan 2014, 8:50pm

      *Sorry, the first sentence I put should end with “in those countries@

      1. Paul (Canada) 1 Jan 2014, 8:51pm


  10. Yes, he is right. And why not? Many can form unions, “marriages” and should be able to do just that. It is a description of the why things should be. I applaud the vision.

    1. It’s a selfish vision. But, go forth and enjoy yourself.

  11. As usual Faux News is spin doctoring. The judge did NOT rule against Utah’s anit-polygamy law! What Utah had was an extremely prescriptive law prohibiting ANY unmarried opposite-sex couple from cohabiting. The stated purpose of the law was to prevent polygamous group marriages, since even though the state will not grant a marriage license to more than two people, some polygamists nonetheless live together religiously, but not legally, married. However, the law would apply equally to a boyfriend and girlfriend living together without being married. This may have also suited the Mormon Church, which has puritanical attitudes about such things. But the judge saw the law as rather excessively broad.

  12. It’s the ‘slippery slope’ argument – if you legalize same sex marriage then you’ll end up legalizing polygamy, incestuous marriage, people marrying their cat, etc. The more clever elements of the anti-marriage equality brigade like to invoke the threat of polygamy because they can point out that a polygamous relationship is theoretically one among consenting adults.

    However, there is no more logic to the polygamy argument than there is to the more extreme examples. To say that same sex marriage will lead to polygamy is analogous to saying that raising driving speed limits will lead to a relaxation of drink-driving laws – it’s just a non-sequitur.

    I doubt it would give any comfort to the doctor as his issue isn’t polygamy, it’s gay people, but if he stopped to consider, he’d find that there are numerous, cogent arguments against polygamy, based on public policy, equity and human rights.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.