Marriage

Question (excerpt) posed by Dan Kimball at Vintage Faith

...

My question is this. If we aren't using the New Testament to define marriage as between one man and one woman (which I personally believe is the definition of marriage), then why wouldn't we also allow polygamy? If we don't use the New Testament as our grid for defining marriage, and we move beyond the definition of marriage being a man and woman to it also being a man and a man or woman and a woman - then why not a man and woman and woman? Or a woman and a man and a man? Or a man and a man and a man? As long as they are consenting adults, and they are of legal age and are not biologically related - then what basis of argument would there be not to also allow polygamy to also be acceptable as a definition of marriage as we would with same sex-marriage between two people?

Logically, wouldn't it make sense to argue that polygamy is just as justifiable to be considered "marriage" to consenting adults who love each other and desire that - based on the same arguments used for same sex marriage between two loving and consenting adults? To me, this is showing the need for a higher source of what defines marriage, then left to our own to determine it. But if we aren't using the New Testament as our basis for defining marriage then why not include polygamy as an acceptable definition of marriage in addition to same sex marriage? Wouldn't that make rationale sense using the same arguments for extending the definition of marriage between the same-sex? Could this possibly be a future discussion regarding the definition of marriage and future vote we will have vote on too one day?

...