In a somewhat strange interview on NPR, the host of Tell Me More spoke with an advocate of homosexual marriage (Jonathan Rauch) and an opponent of it (the ADF’s Austin Nimocks).  The point was to argue whether or not the acceptance of homosexual “marriage” necessarily leads down a path that will eventually accept plural marriage.

Many people criticized the logic of opposition to homosexual marriage, so it was almost comical to see Rauch’s reasoning for opposing plural marriage.  In short, it results in unattached, sexually frustrated males: 

The problem with it is that it almost invariably means one man, multiple wives, and when one man takes two wives, some other man gets no wife.

So a lot of people lose the opportunity to marry and you get societies where you’ve got a lot of unmarried young males who are very unhappy, a lot of social disruption, a lot of violence.

Ah, so the supporter of homosexual marriage says that polygamy should be banned because it results in violence when one man takes a potential wife away from another. This doesn’t apply to homosexual unions, presumably, because homosexuality is more prevalent among males than females — meaning a homosexual union between two men frees up two potential wives, which must logically result in less violence in society.

He summarizes his argument later by saying:

But very, very few serious people argue that the opportunity to marry multiple people is a fundamental right…

Seems like homosexual advocates took issue with their oppressed minority status — something Rauch now freely applies to them.

The ADF’s Nimocks position was far simpler.  If you say marriage should be unrestrained based on gender, you abandon the moral high ground to restrain it for other reasons.  If “love and commitment” are the standards for marriage,

why can’t three or more adults be just as loving and committed to each other?

He also accurately notes that the government’s interest in marriage has never been love.  The government has regulated marriage based on age and gender, for example, when it issues marriage licenses.  Nowhere on any license does it require or even inquire about the emotional relationship between the applicants.

The short version is that many people laughed off the criticisms of those who opposed homosexual “marriage” just in the last few years.  Now those same people are in the position of defending their own morally confused position of opposing marriage “equality” to those who just want the freedom to marry the person — er, people — they love.

Meanwhile, the moral standard of traditional marriage advocates remains the same:  one man, one woman — for life.