Catholic Church | News | Pope Benedict | Religion | Vatican

More From The Vatican On Gay Marriage: 'Why Not Polyandry?'

PopebenThe Washington Post followed up with the Vatican about their panicked, quixotic crusade against marriage equality both here and abroad.

Here's what they came up with: the Vatican is sticking by that old-timey "Why not polygamy?" argument.

Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi, for his part, said gays can have their rights protected by means other than through legal marital recognition. He stressed that children should have a right to say they have a father and a mother.

“If not, then why not contemplate freely chosen polygamy, and naturally so as to not discriminate, polyandry?” he asked sarcastically. Polyandry is when a woman has two or more husbands.

“As a result, don’t expect the church to stop insisting that society recognizes a specific place for marriage between a man and woman,” he said.

Who would expect anything more?

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. More from the Vatican: Why not pedophelia? Please?

    Posted by: Winston | Nov 11, 2012 9:05:21 AM


  2. Are they too stupid to realize that polyandry is a form of polygamy? I think they are confusing polygamy and polygyny.

    Posted by: Me | Nov 11, 2012 9:27:44 AM


  3. The real polyamory community doesn't want to actually legally marry several partners. They want social acceptance and just live together without being bothered. In some states it's illegal to just live together and act like you're married.

    Posted by: Steve | Nov 11, 2012 9:34:17 AM


  4. As far as the pope goes, this is essentially the same logic that brings us people marrying their dogs or household appliances, though there's far more justification for polygamy, if it involves consenting adults.

    What they are essentially claiming is that there can only be one right way to do things, and once you allow any variation, you have to allow all variations, and that's ridiculous.

    If the only reason polygamy is illegal is because same-sex marriage is standing in its way, then there can't be much wrong with it. On the other hand, if there are valid reasons against it now, allowing two-person same-sex marriage shouldn't invalidate them.

    Let the advocates of polygamy make the case for it independent of same-sex marriage equality, and let it stand or fall on its own.

    The civil opposition to it should not be about the morality or immorality of it, but rather about the civil complexity of things like insurance, social security, divorce, custody of children, and so on. All those things can be sorted out, but they have nothing to do with the genders of those involved.

    Posted by: Lymis | Nov 11, 2012 9:35:52 AM


  5. Lymis, you are wrong. End of discussion.
    Polygamy promoting societies ALWAYS end up with the attendant abuses and problems. Many of the problems of the Middle East today are a lingering effect of the 1000+ years that they have been polygamous. Among other things, the inbreeding it causes.
    I don't know this blog so it could be a dubious source, but their post on this issue is accurate:
    http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2011/09/reasons-to-prefer-monogamy-in-prior.html

    I'd go so far as to say enforced monogamy is one of the reasons the West advanced so quickly over other cultures in the past 1000 years. Bertrand Russell believed this too, so I'm hardly in bad company even though it sounds like a somewhat right-wing idea. Even today there are modern day studies which for all intents and purposes support this interpretation.

    Posted by: EchtKultig | Nov 11, 2012 9:36:42 AM


  6. And btw I have no doubt that if Bertrand Russell were around today, he'd be pro-gay marriage. In fact he was very unusual in his time, for being a person of his class background who was pro-gay rights.

    There's every reason to believe accepting gays and gay marriage will have societal benefits. I know families that grew up with closeted parents who were later forced out. It's usually not a pretty picture.

    Posted by: EchtKultig | Nov 11, 2012 9:46:14 AM


  7. Women priests, bishops and whatever, Mr. Pope?

    Posted by: Cycledoc | Nov 11, 2012 9:49:08 AM


  8. For thousands of years now the Catholic Church has been dealing out evil and abuse and destruction and lies all hidden under the false pretense of religion. As a result countless millions have been murdered as a result of the Catholic Church and their endless quest for power and world domination over the lives of others by evil men pretending to be men of God.

    Posted by: Bob | Nov 11, 2012 11:06:12 AM


  9. Polyandry and Polygamy are HETEROSEXUAL issues, leave Gay folk out of that debate.

    Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | Nov 11, 2012 11:14:39 AM


  10. are we seriously expected to take moral advice from people who rape children?

    Posted by: Brian | Nov 11, 2012 1:15:35 PM


  11. "children deserve a mother and a father" has been offered up as a "reason" for the anti-Equality side for so long that people have been confused into thinking it makes any sense.

    it doesn't.

    the issue is marriage. they bring up some bogus issue of PARENTING.

    that's like me saying "i don't believe that Koreans should be allowed to marry because I ate a grapefruit for breakfast"


    gay couples will have children. they're allowed to have children. many DO have children.

    not all gay couples that marry will have children. same with straight couples.

    when this pathetic non-argument comes up, it needs to be shot down ASAP - with factual on-point reminders that stopping gay couples from marrying in no way "ensures a child a mother and a father"

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Nov 11, 2012 1:23:10 PM


  12. So gay people should have their "rights protected", but all children should be raised by straight couples.

    I guess the right to raise a child isn't part of having our "rights protected". What a messed up sentiment.

    If the Vatican believes this so strongly, they should be pushing for constitutional amendments that ban divorce, and forceable remove children from homes where there is not a mother and father present every day. Let's see how well that goes over with the voters.

    Posted by: Matt N | Nov 11, 2012 2:49:33 PM


  13. Spare me the bull$hit about a mother and a father being necessary to properly raise a kid.
    Just ask Terence from Holland :

    http://youtu.be/_qf0puHJ-KM

    What the phuck has the "equality of marriage civil right" got to do with whether a mother or father is necessary to raise children ?

    What a non sequitor !

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Nov 11, 2012 3:49:16 PM


  14. What a tired argument. In the area of *civil marriage* (which the church should have exactly zero interest in anyways) the legal question is whether a constitutional violation of equal protection has occurred. The pope should perhaps acquaint himself with our constitutional law to better understand why a monogamous gay relationship is quite legally different from a polygamous or polyandrous arrangement.

    Posted by: Stefan | Nov 11, 2012 9:29:28 PM


  15. Jason, are you instigating here, or are you serious? Either way, you are wrong. My three children have two fathers, and no mothers. They do each have birthmothers, but none of those women are raising, caring for, nurturing, protecting, and loving my children. In fact, they abused and neglected them. My husband and I are their only REAL PARENTS. So the Pope advocates for - insists on - children being required to acknowledge their sperm donor and egg donor - for many children in foster-adoption, the people who beat them, burned them, raped them, tied them up, left them alone, locked them in closets - by calling them Mommy and Daddy? Sorry, nothing could be more disgusting or more wrong.

    Posted by: Rich | Nov 11, 2012 9:49:12 PM


  16. The hypocrites that head up the Catholic Church is have become as irrelevant as the those that represent the Republican Party. Good riddance to all of you.

    Posted by: John | Nov 11, 2012 10:54:01 PM


  17. The hypocrites that head up the Catholic Church have become as irrelevant as those that represent the Republican Party. Good riddance to all of you.

    Posted by: John | Nov 11, 2012 10:55:21 PM


  18. I'm offended every time that anyone asserts that an aged unworldly ghoul in a dress has any right whatsoever to tell me or anyone else what they should do or not do.

    Posted by: darkmoonman | Nov 11, 2012 11:34:12 PM


  19. How sickening. All that money spent on hate and defense of pedophiles, and look where it had gotten them. They backed a known heretic and lost. The lost on the issue of gay marriage, and if they don't soon change their tune, they will lose their tax-exempt status. That last one is sure to hurt...

    Posted by: millerbeach | Nov 12, 2012 12:17:17 AM


  20. Grew up fundamentalist Catholic until 14 years old when my non-religious aunty saved my life. I told her it seemed impossible that God could be so hateful against women, people of color, and gays. I was a gay. She said God was an excuse for hate. She said I could except and embrace how loving Americans viewed life and family and friends and neighbors, or be part of the brutal backwards culture of bullies and warmongers installed in Washington and American churches. That was in the late 1960s. I chose freedom and glad I did. Now Americans are coming around to love and except and celebrate those who do good and reject those who do harm and hurt others. There is hope for America. I am very optimistic. The majority of young people embrace a bright future. The old ones that embody so much hate and prejudice are dying. The next generations will end prejudice and evil. This is wonderful. Goodbye old mean hateful people. RIP bigots!

    Posted by: Marcel Hatch | Nov 12, 2012 1:50:18 AM


  21. It used to be called "sequential monogamy". Perhaps it should be better called "sequential polygamy". These are also called "blended families". The reality of some of the problems of a restricted form of polygamy are already upon us. The Pope is partially blinded by his views of divorce which clearly do not match reality.

    Posted by: Diogenes Arktos | Nov 12, 2012 8:17:10 AM


  22. So... Priests who are not allowed to marry because of their beliefs (which, BTW, is a change from earlier beliefs) are telling people what IS marriage?

    Yeah, STFU and shove your changing beliefs somewhere. Your priests allowed child molesters run free for centuries and you people have no right to say what is good vs bad.

    Posted by: mmike1969 | Nov 12, 2012 2:21:32 PM


  23. Polygamy and polyandry are like LGBT and gay. One is not the opposite of the other. The Vatican, as usual, have no idea what they are talking about.

    Posted by: Randy | Nov 12, 2012 4:37:20 PM


  24. The Catholic Church must be so proud. What a worthwhile cause from the defenders and protectors of institutional pedophilia. They are on an international mission to make life Hell for gay people.

    Sorry, but why are we bestowing any credibility on the people who perpetrated the Inquisition....who were silent in the face of the Holocaust....who to this day in Africa, help to kill countless more 'heterosexuals' from AIDS, because they discourage the distribution of condoms? The Church has no moral authority on anything.

    I will take it one step further. The Roman Catholic church, and their leader, the Hitler youth Pope, are all about maintaining power and influence, controlling others, and the acquisition of money. End of story.

    They are the last people that should be holding forth on what is moral.

    @leliorisen

    Posted by: Lelio Risen | Nov 13, 2012 11:18:15 AM


  25. Let's see - Two Men Marry. They find a woman who is willing to mate with one of the men and bears him a child. The women remains associated with the men and the child. The child knows she is its biologic mother. What is the bigot's problem?

    Posted by: Jerry6 | Nov 13, 2012 5:48:56 PM


  26. « 1 2 3

Post a comment







Trending


« «News: Romney's Credit, Paula Broadwell, Lego Movie, Liberia« «