# Any atheists against same sex marriage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 7, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757 "2006-06-07T16:38:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/101 "2006-06-14T14:00:53Z")
> [@Happy Clam](#): > > Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that those who have said they “Don’t care” about polygamy in this thread have been speaking in the sense that they don’t care if gay marriage legitimises polygamy (some have presented that idea as though it were an argument against gay marriage). I’ll correct you, then . \*\* Miller \*\* clearly explained what he meant by “I didn’t care” : > [@Miller](#): > > I hope that this society will recognize homosexual relationships […] I do not particularly care how our society views polygamy. \*\* If it’s still illegal, fine \*\*. It’s not a subject that interests me Had he said “I don’t care” for the reasons you mention, I wouldn’t have had an issue with that, at the contrary. > [@](#): > > In any case, tha argument for polygamy is not quite so cut-and-dried as that for gay marriage. No mistake, I’m still in favour of it’s legalisation for those who want it, but it does present worries about exploitation of some groups by others that are not present in the issue of gay marriage. And homosexuality conjures im many people’s minds the sexual exploitation of altar’s boys by catholic priests. > [@](#): > > For example, I think that, given the history of polygamy being applied almost exclusively towards multiples wives, many women’s groups might oppose it as being intrinsically mysogynistic. And so what, if they oppose it? It doesn’t become anymore right or wrong because a particular group with its peculiar agenda opposes it. This in itself doesn’t make it intrisically different from the issue of SSM, at the contrary. > [@](#): > > In addition, the somewhat ignominious history of polygamy in the US, for example among the Mormons (I realise the the modern Church of Latter-Day Saints does not practise nor condone polygamy, I am speaking of the historical situation, which I think most would agree was not without coercive or exploitative elements) would work against its legalisation in the US. And so what if the Mormons were still supporting polygamy? The issue, objectively, isn’t polygamy, it’s exploitation. And you can perfectly exploit your only spouse. More importantly, you know àperfectly why people oppose polygamy. Not because it leads to exploitation. But because it’s just “not right”. Many times I’ve seen debates about polygamy, generally, more precisely, about polygamist immigrants (\*) Do people who discuss the issue even bother to mention _why_ polygamy is an issue? No, they take for the most part as granted that everybody agree that it’s a bad thing. And why? Because it doesn’t fit in our traditionnal view of marriage (exactly like for homosexuals). And they’re right. Mostly everybody agree without feeling the need to wonder why the concept shouldn’t be tolerated. The fact that people opposed to SSM use it as an argument so easily also shows that people expect any contradictor to accept the concept that polygamy is a bad thing. And the correct answer to such arguments, as you mentionned at the beginning of your post, should be “so what if it leads to the legalization of polygamous marriage too?” rather than “it’s not the same problem at all”, “slipery slope argument” , or even worse, as i’ve seen even here, by the pro-SSM debater declaring that of course he would never support the evil polygamous mariage. (\*) and yes, it’s an issue that can’t be wawed away by mentionning that traditionnal polygamy, in particular in Africa, is mysogynistic without condemning at the same time all marriages, including monogamous marriages, of people from these countries. The net result of not recognizing polygamist marriages, in these cases, is that some of the co-spouses end up with no rights at all, which certainly doesn’t better their lot, mysogyny or not. Actually, I’m more worried about the situation of “legally unexisting co-spouses” of immigrants than about non-mysogyne westerners wanting to marry a couple SOs, because the latter are in a much better situation anyway. The situation is basicallly: the issue shouldn’t exist at the first place because it’s not right/ polygamy is evil/these marriages are exploitative/it’s illegal here, so let’s pretend it doesn’t exist at all, and put our fingers in our ears singing “lalala” when confronted with the very real problems faced by very real co-spouses. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/102 "2006-06-14T14:10:45Z")
> [@randyjet](#): > > . As with gay marriage, if it can be shown that polygamy is a good thing for society, I would be in favor of it. I fail to see how society benefits from an heterosexual marriage. You don’t need to be married to beget children, and you don’t need the institution of marriage to protect the rights of said children, either. So, what makes the official stamp of approval on your heterosexual, monogamous marriage particularily beneficial for society? Why aren’t you happy with a symbolic ceremony with your friends and/or the blessing of your church? ---
**Author:** ![randyjet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ccd318/32.png) [@randyjet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randyjet)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/103 "2006-06-14T14:37:32Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I fail to see how society benefits from an heterosexual marriage. You don’t need to be married to beget children, and you don’t need the institution of marriage to protect the rights of said children, either. So, what makes the official stamp of approval on your heterosexual, monogamous marriage particularily beneficial for society? Why aren’t you happy with a symbolic ceremony with your friends and/or the blessing of your church? While it is true that state sanctioned heterosexual marriage for the people is relatively new in history’s long view, the benefits are that the tasks of child rearing and property settlement, and responsibilities of the parents are defined in law. For those who do not get legally married, the state has common law marriage which accomplishes the same thing. So in terms of law you don’t even need a marriage to be considered married for those purposes. Back in the days of serfdom, the common folk had no rights even to their own wives. The nobleman had the first right of sex with the bride over the husband. Since they didn’t even own themselves, they sure as hell didn’t have any property to worry about either. The state also has the right and the interest to promote marriage for a number of reasons as well, mostly along those lines I have indicated. It is not soley confined to child rearing though. It has to do with ease of setting up property settlements, authorization for medical care in case of incapacitation, etc… To promote families it also has established survivors benefits through SS and pensions which will all be negatively affected by gay marriage. The other problems will be with increased case loads in family courts for divorces of same sex couples. The gay lifestyle has not been one of chaste behavior and not characterized by monogamous relationships, so I would not be surprised to see an inordinate number of divorce cases for this one segment of the population out of proportion to their numbers in society. I have no objection to having gays get married symbolically or doing whatever they wish to do. I do have a problem with them wanting preferential treatment in law and even more so when it will cost me and society more money and problems than it solves for no benefit to us. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/104 "2006-06-14T14:49:12Z")
> [@randyjet](#): > > The nobleman had the first right of sex with the bride over the husband. By now it’s clear that your understanding of sociology is just as poor as your [grasp on history](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_181.html). ---
**Author:** ![Erik\_the\_Viking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ce73a5/32.png) [@Erik\_the\_Viking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erik_the_Viking)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/105 "2006-06-14T14:56:26Z")
> [@randyjet](#): > > Gays are not discriminated against in the laws on marriage, They may marry any person they wish of the opposite sex as can all citizens of majority age. You are asking for special treatment, not equal treatment and a redefining of the laws on marriage that overturn all the history of civilizations. I take it from the above that you don’t consider anti-miscegenation laws to be discriminatory, then. After all, everyone has the right to marry any person they wish of the same race. Is it special treatment for someone to be allowed to marry the person they love who is a different race? How about a different social status? Hair color? As far as overturning the history of civilizations, if we had been worried about that we never would have outlawed slavery. ---
**Author:** ![randyjet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ccd318/32.png) [@randyjet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randyjet)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/106 "2006-06-14T14:59:02Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You were going to expand upon that and explain \*how \* barring gays from marrying is “in the interest of the good of society”, right? We do not bar gays from marriage. They are perfectly free to engage in marriage as defined in law to marry a person of the opposite sex who is not a close blood relative and are of the age of consent. What is being asked for is a preferential law to allow a new definition of marriage. Absent any demonstrated benefit to society as a whole, I can see no reason to enact such legislation. Just wanting something because it will benefit you personally in not sufficient reason for it. I too would like a great pension for my military service of four years in wartime. I don’t see how that would benefit society or the armed forces if it were to be given. So I would not expect others to support it or argue that it is my right despite the fact that I was deprived of my freedom by majority vote. The fact is that 52000 young men were deprived of their lives by majority vote for the greater good of society. All their families got was $10,000 for that life. So not allowing gays to marry the same sex is of little consequence compared to that sacrifice. Also since what gays are asking for is an affirmative, preferential law, it must have some demonstrated benefit to us all before I or any other person can support it. Now if you will be part of a movement to grant me a great pension, I can be persuaded to do the same for gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![randyjet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ccd318/32.png) [@randyjet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randyjet)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/107 "2006-06-14T15:06:10Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > By now it’s clear that your understanding of sociology is just as poor as your [grasp on history](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_181.html). Well I am in VERY good company then with Voltaire. The Marriage of Figaro is one of my favorite operas as well. I love Mozart. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/108 "2006-06-14T15:09:56Z")
> [@randyjet](#): > > We do not bar gays from marriage. They are perfectly free to engage in marriage as defined in law to marry a person of the opposite sex who is not a close blood relative and are of the age of consent. Just not to the persons they love and want to share their lives with. You don’t think that matters? > [@](#): > > What is being asked for is a preferential law No. Only the \*same \* rights that everyone else enjoys. Where do you see preference \*created \* rather than eliminated? Straights would continue to have the same right they have now, to marry people they don’t love and don’t want to share their lives with, which is the full extent of the “right” gays now enjoy. ---
**Author:** ![randyjet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ccd318/32.png) [@randyjet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randyjet)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/109 "2006-06-14T15:27:07Z")
> [@Erik the Viking](#): > > I take it from the above that you don’t consider anti-miscegenation laws to be discriminatory, then. After all, everyone has the right to marry any person they wish of the same race. Is it special treatment for someone to be allowed to marry the person they love who is a different race? How about a different social status? Hair color? > > Such laws were indeed discriminatory since they forbid equality of the law to persons of the same class to marry others who were similarly eligible. It required not only that marriage be defined, but that it be circumscribed by race as the determining factor. For example, a law on marriage is applied to all citizens, but it is then denied to some citizens based soley on race factors. That violates the fourteenth amendment and is what the court ruled. Marriage is defined in law as a legal union between a man and a woman. The miscegenation laws had to then say that marriage cannot be done unless the partners are of the same race. That is an illegal distinction and is more restrictive of rights that are granted to all persons despite race. > > There are no laws prohibiting the marriage of gays within the laws of marriage as defined now. The law applies to all citizens equally. Gays may marry any person of the opposite sex. The request is for a redefinition of marriage to benefit one small class of citizens with no reason or benefit to society. > > As far as overturning the history of civilizations, if we had been worried about that we never would have outlawed slavery. I don’t think that there is any debate as to the benefits of society of getting rid of slavery. It could be demonstrated at the time and even in the founding of the USA it was acknowledged that it was not something that the folks were proud of. You have not stated any reason for overtuning that history which is what I asked for. I think even you could come up with the reasons for getting rid of slavery. So if you wish to have the state legalize gay marriage you should be able to do the same for those benefits to society. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/110 "2006-06-14T15:48:14Z")
> [@randyjet](#): > > the benefits are that the tasks of child rearing and property settlement, and responsibilities of the parents are defined in law. The responsabilities of the parents are defined by law even when they aren’t married. So, once again, what’s the benefit for society of this marriage thing? I’m not sure what you mean by “the task of property settlement” but if you’re refering to inheritance, then it’s a benefit for the surviving spouse, not for society. > [@](#): > > The state also has the right and the interest to promote marriage for a number of reasons as well, mostly along those lines I have indicated. It is not soley confined to child rearing though. I hope so, because the state doesn’t need to promote marriage in order to protect children or to define the responsabilities of parents. > [@](#): > > It has to do with ease of setting up property settlements, authorization for medical care in case of incapacitation, etc… These aren’t benefits for society, these are benefits for the _spouses_. I still fail to see how it benefits society at large to grant these priviledges to spouses, and even less why it would benefit society in the case of an heterosexual marriage and not in the case of an homosexual one. > [@](#): > > To promote families it also has established survivors benefits through SS and pensions which will all be negatively affected by gay marriage. In other words, the issue you have with SSM is that homosexual couples will have the same priviledges as heterosexual couples, and this will cost money? I still don’t know what’s the benefit for society of handing money to the surviving spouse, ad if there is one, why it doesn’t apply to homosexual couples. > [@](#): > > The other problems will be with increased case loads in family courts for divorces of same sex couples. So, basically, the problem is that if there are more marriage there will be more divorces to settle. If it’s a problem, why don’t you think the state should _discourage_ marriage rather than to promote it? If this is a problem, why don’t you propose to bar divorced people (who have a proven history of unstability) from marrying again, exactly? > [@](#): > > I have no objection to having gays get married symbolically or doing whatever they wish to do. I do have a problem with them wanting preferential treatment in law and even more so when it will cost me and society more money and problems than it solves for no benefit to us. And as a single man, I can say the same about heterosexual marriages : the priviledges enjoyed by married couples cost me money and problems without any advantage that I can perceive either for society at large or for me personnally (at least you were unable to point to any such advantage). So, why can’t you be satisfied with some sort of symbolic heterosexual union? I don’t have any objection to that, either. You can even have sex with your partner if you so wish, I don’t mind. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/111 "2006-06-14T15:55:19Z")
> [@randyjet](#): > > Well I am in VERY good company then with Voltaire. Voltaire would hardly pause to wipe you off his shoe. ---
**Author:** ![randyjet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ccd318/32.png) [@randyjet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randyjet)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/112 "2006-06-14T16:12:35Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Voltaire would hardly pause to wipe you off his shoe. I think Voltaire had a much better view of the rights of man than you do. At least my error is the same as his and he was closer to the time and place of such things than I. So I think that you will have to wipe Voltaire off of YOUR shoes since that is where you seem to think those who disagree with you belong. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/113 "2006-06-14T16:21:21Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Voltaire would hardly pause to wipe you off his shoe. **Moderator’s Note:** **Cervaise** , tone it down or take it to the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![randyjet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ccd318/32.png) [@randyjet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randyjet)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/114 "2006-06-14T16:31:43Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > The responsabilities of the parents are defined by law even when they aren’t married. So, once again, what’s the benefit for society of this marriage thing? > > I’m not sure what you mean by “the task of property settlement” but if you’re refering to inheritance, then it’s a benefit for the surviving spouse, not for society. The benefit is in not throwing a family of the surviving spouse out on the street if the partner that owns the property dies. > [@](#): > > I hope so, because the state doesn’t need to promote marriage in order to protect children or to define the responsabilities of parents. The state will define any relationship that results in children as a common law marriage if the partners are not married to one another legally. > [@](#): > > These aren’t benefits for society, these are benefits for the _spouses_. I still fail to see how it benefits society at large to grant these priviledges to spouses, and even less why it would benefit society in the case of an heterosexual marriage and not in the case of an homosexual one. The reason is that the overwhelming majority of hetreosexual marriages have children as a result. That is why society needs and has a real interest in promoting marriage and granting privileges. > [@](#): > > So, basically, the problem is that if there are more marriage there will be more divorces to settle. If it’s a problem, why don’t you think the state should _discourage_ marriage rather than to promote it? If this is a problem, why don’t you propose to bar divorced people (who have a proven history of unstability) from marrying again, exactly? IT used to be very difficult to get a divorce too, by the way. If you feel that there are too many, then you should urge your lawmakers to make it difficult once again. ---
**Author:** ![borschevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@borschevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/borschevsky)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/115 "2006-06-14T16:34:33Z")
> [@randyjet](#): > > We do not bar gays from marriage. They are perfectly free to engage in marriage as defined in law to marry a person of the opposite sex who is not a close blood relative and are of the age of consent. Are you seriously making this argument? Maybe next they can pass an “it’s ok to punch out Phil Mickelson”\* law. Phil shouldn’t have a problem with this law, as it grants him the same rights as everyone else; he is certainly free to punch himself out. > [@randyjet](#): > > Also since what gays are asking for is an affirmative, preferential law, it must have some demonstrated benefit to us all before I or any other person can support it. Nobody is asking for a preferential law. People are asking for the government to stop discriminating based on gender. - Phil Mickelson used here just because I was reading about him on espn. Please do not punch out Phil Mickelson. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/116 "2006-06-14T16:38:21Z")
“The laws of France are majestic in their equality. They forbid the poor and the rich alike from sleeping under bridges.” ---
**Author:** ![Dung\_Beetle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dung_beetle/32/7945_2.png) [@Dung\_Beetle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dung_Beetle)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/117 "2006-06-14T16:38:43Z")
**randyjet** , you are doing an impressive job of holding up your end of the argument, although I don’t think you’ve got a leg to stand on. However, it’s difficult to follow you when you don’t close your quote tags. If you want to quote someone please put in [/quote] after what they said. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/118 "2006-06-14T16:41:01Z")
> [@randyjet](#): > > You forget that we have passed laws that have a detrimental effect on large segments of our society in the interest of the good of society. It is called the military draft which took away my life for a number of years. It also permanently took away many of my friends lives. If we can do that, I think that such a piddling thing such as gay marriage is a slight issue. Just making one part of the population happy isn’t a reason to pass such a law with no defined benefit to us and an increased cost. So… because we have other laws that discriminate, we shouldn’t bother getting rid of any discriminatory laws? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![randyjet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ccd318/32.png) [@randyjet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randyjet)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/119 "2006-06-14T16:48:26Z")
> [@borschevsky](#): > > Are you seriously making this argument? Maybe next they can pass an “it’s ok to punch out Phil Mickelson”\* law. Phil shouldn’t have a problem with this law, as it grants him the same rights as everyone else; he is certainly free to punch himself out. > > You forget that the courts have held that it is OK to take a person’s life away by governmental law for the interest of the state. It is called the military draft. > > Nobody is asking for a preferential law. People are asking for the government to stop discriminating based on gender. > > A discriminatory law is one like the Virginia law against people of different races marrying each other. The law provided for it to be a felony and a five year prison term if found to be cohabiting even with legal marriage from another state. Now THAT is indeed discrimination. > What you are proposing is to grant a legal preference to gays against the traditional view of marriage in law. My point is that you have to have some very great compelling state interest to make such a grant. Absent that, there is no good reason to do it. > > - Phil Mickelson used here just because I was reading about him on espn. Please do not punch out Phil Mickelson. YOu woud have to be my size to even contemplate such a thing and I doubt any took it seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757/120 "2006-06-14T16:51:18Z")
**clairobscur** , I also do not care if SSM legitimizes polygamy. If polygamists organize to legalize their relationships, I’m not going to stand in their way. If they don’t, I’m not going to make the effort for them. I don’t view the illegalization of polygamy as nearly as great an injustice as the illegalization of SSM. In the abstract, sure, it probably should be legal, but I don’t see an overwhelming need for it. If you want to convinve me different, I’m open to your argument, but this thread isn’t the place for it. This isn’t a thread about polygamy, it’s a thread about SSM, and bringing up polygamy is a strawman. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-atheists-against-same-sex-marriage/359757.md?page=7)