Like the mis-worded 19th Amendment, the slight-majority 5-to-4 Supreme Court allowing same-gender homosodomy-unions licensings nationwide is destined for eventual repeal.

First we consider the 19th Amendment essentially stating that the right to vote shall not be withheld on the grounds of "sex."

An INCORRECT word - semantically - for a wrong-headed Amendment....destined for abrogation like the already-understandably-repealed-by-FDR anti-liquor 18th Amendment, the latter abolished on the simple and obvious grounds of:

Psalm 104:14 You do cause the grass to grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the Earth,
Psalm 104:15 ...and WINE to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread to strengthen man's heart.

Proverbs 31:6 Give STRONG DRINK to him who is perishing, and WINE to those in bitter distress...

Song of Solomon 8:2 I would lead you and bring you into the house of my mother, and into the chamber of her that conceived me. I would give you spiced WINE to drink, the juice of my pomegranates.

The illogical excuse to not allow sale nor distribution of potentially-intoxicating beverages to the general public because "someone might overuse it to get drunk with" is the same type of irrational misreasoning as not allow any person under the age of 20 to have access to a sword or kitchen knife because they might decide to stab someone with it, or those age 20 or older have access to a gun to randomly shoot whoever dead with.

Stones do not bludgeon by themselves, nor ropes strangle or hang by themselves, nor knives or swords pierce by themselves, nor firearms shoot by themselves.

PEOPLE kill - not rocks nor ropes nor knives nor guns - supposedly to some having an aggressively-vicious mind of their own.

According to Luke 22:36, Jesus gave orders to possess and carry potentially-lethal self-defensive weapons in the spirit of the Second Amendment.

Of course, because of a long history of Hollywood media programming on TV and in movies where guns of the Old West and nowadays are THE weapon of choice in shoot-'em-up make-believe special-effects productions, the impressionistic are brainwashed to presume (not "assume") that such loud popping-noise firearms are, most often, employed by "the good guy(s)" to gun down "the bad guy(s)" dead (instead of them writhing in pain after being shot wherever, helplessly twitching uncontrollably and erratically with severely-injured nerve reflexes, and/or thereafter a permanently-paralyzed handicapped cripple) -- only to see "the bad guy(s)" reappear in the next show or movie......those majority on the broad and easy road to destruction should be adequately vetted by an impartial Spirit-of-Jesus-Christ-enlightened analyzer and discerner before being given or sold a firearm of any type - be they civilian or military.

Along those lines, alcohol does not force anyone to become addicted to it, nor marijuana plants strong-arm anyone to lose their mental and physical alertness with.

As the pro-aborts claim: "It's a matter of CHOICE."

The prohibitions against drunkenness are clear and non-mistakable in the Bible, and enforcement against violators should without exception be swift and decisive (instead of coddling drunkards as "helpless victims" who are "candidates for possible rehabilitation" in "correctional" [instead of PUNISHMENT] facilities).

Not only that, but the obvious and non-weaselworded understanding of the "wine" that Jesus Christ made at the marriage (and it does state: "marriage" instead of "wedding") at Cana, and the "wine" that Paul ordered Timothy (and by inference others of similar humanity) to drink was NOT diluted or weak grape juice nor grape-flavored water, but instead clearly and obviously potentially intoxicating:

John 2:9 When the steward of the feast tasted the WATER now become WINE [understand that the Greek-Text word here means EXACTLY WHAT the translated-into-English molecular-composition words mean, and the Greeks and their Greek alphabet language were by NO mean linguistically lacking or stupid, without screwy baptist and other cultic misinterpretations], and did not know where it came from....though the servants who had drawn the WATER [understand that the Greek-Text word here means exactly what the translated-into-English word means, without screwy baptist and other cultic misinterpretations] knew....the steward of the feast called the bridegroom
John 2:10 and said to him, "Every man serves the GOOD WINE first; and when men have drunk freely, then the POOR WINE; but you have kept the GOOD WINE until now."

Tell that to your liquor-store clerk! And the baptist and other "reformed" pseudo-"christian" kooks who blatter that wine was not really wine to go stick their head into a recently-deposited toilet and flush it.

First Timothy 5:23 No longer drink only WATER, but use A LITTLE WINE [and what part of "a little" do the prejudiced-against-liquor baptists and their ilk not understand?] for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.

SIP - and NOT guzzle - the TINY amount of communion WINE when kneeling! Betcha won't get so woozy that you stumble down the steps from the altar area. In fact, the Devil be damned if you don't get woozy at all. Just betcha.

The medicinal characteristics of wine are VASTLY different than the molecular characteristics of plain or not-so-plain water. We're euphemistically talking apples and oranges.

Indeed, it is difficult [actually impossible] to associate the following unique liquid and its marked effects:

Proverbs 23:30 Those who delay long over wine, those who go to try mixed wine.
31 Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly.
32 At the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like an adder.
33 Your eyes will see strange things, and your mind utter perverse things.

and:

Job 12:25 They grope in the dark without light; and he makes them stagger like a drunken man.

Isaiah 19:14 The LORD has mingled within her a spirit of confusion; and they have made Egypt stagger in all her doings as a drunken man staggers in his vomit.
Isaiah 28:7 These also reel with wine and stagger with strong drink; the priest and the prophet reel with strong drink, they are confused with wine, they stagger with strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in giving judgment.
Isaiah 29:9 Stupefy yourselves and be in a stupor, blind yourselves and be blind! Be drunk, but not with wine; stagger, but not with strong drink!

....with mere "water."

Bottom line: WINE = WINE [NOT "water" nor "diluted grape juice" nor "the water was bad back in those ancient days" nor anything else the apostate deviant can heretically demented errantly presume and blurtle].

On to another subject.

The ONE word that qualifies the feminist sexist 19th Amendment for repeal is, quite simply: "sex."

There are MANY types of "sex" (e.g. heterosexuality, homosexuality, sodomy, self-sodomizingly masturbation, bestiality, etc.) and NONE of them are GENDER-specific!

The word that SHOULD have been used in the deplorably-sexist chauvinistically-intentioned 19th Amendment is instead: "gender."

Besides, the 19th Amendment errantly incites and encourages the inferior gender to not simply vote, but became irritating, harassing, confusion-causing, physically-inadequate, gullibly-susceptible, "creatively"-disruptive female police officers, FBI agents, lawyers, judges, city council persons, governors, senators, representatives, politicians, pulpit clergy, and more, clearly violating the obvious intentions and essence of:

Isaiah 3:12 My people: children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. Oh my people, your leaders mislead you, and confuse the course of your paths.

Nahum 3:12 All your fortresses are like fig trees with first-ripe figs -- if shaken they fall into the mouth of the eater.
Nahum 3:13 Hey, your troops are women in your midst. The gates of your land are wide open to your foes; fire has devoured your fortresses.

First Corinthians 14:33 As in all the churches of the saints,
34 women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
36 What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?
37 If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.
38 If any one does not recognize this, he/she is not recognized.

Clearly, pulpit-and-lectern-orating femmie pastorettes and bishopettes and professorettes in the "evangelical lutheran church in America, the united presbyterian church, the united methodist church, the unitarian church, the episcopalian church," even in some synagogues (interestingly, muslim female imams and clerics are practically non-existent!) have not taken such orders from Headquarters to heart!

Sharia law encroaches to overpower such feminist and feminists-supportive infidels.

First Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.
12 I allow no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
15 Yet woman will be saved by bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with sensibility.

And that leads us to one of the reasons why the relatively-recent slight-majority-of-the-High-Court decision to allow same-gender homosodomy-unions licensings throughout America was not simply invalid as misworded, but in vital ways starkly unconstitutional against not only a plethora of American historical-documents precedence from the founding-fathers early inception of America but also overwhelming public First Amendment interpretation and applications of such throughout the 1800s, but also against current American majority opinion of the overwhelming masses of Christians (both Protestant and Catholic) and Jews and Islamic relating to their respected and time-tested Religious-Texts-based interpretation and application of the Non-Establishment/Non-Prohibition Religion Clauses of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

To wit, there is (and this I know for sure) absolutely NOT ONE INSTANCE WHATSOEVER in Jewish Canonical Scripture of the Old Testament [comprised of the Pentateuch-containing Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings] of there EVER being two named persons of the same gender recorded as having been married.

I also know (for sure) that there is absolutely NOT ONE INSTANCE WHATSOEVER in New Testament Scripture [from the Gospel of Matthew to the Book of Revelation] of there EVER being two named persons of the same gender recorded as having been married.

I would strongly suspect that the entire contents of the Qur'an [i.e. Koran] has NOT ONE EXAMPLE recorded of two named persons of the same gender ever having been married.

We are talking a LOT of people in this country with long-standing and yet-standing MAJORITY opinion, and certainly ones who obviously are high-powered significant-funding-influential leaders and spokespersons for their vast flocks of congregants.

The reader should be cognizant that sex with a prostitute does not constitute automatic marriage to or with her, but merely that the non-married fornicator or already-married adulterer who joins himself in any type of erotic sexual connection with a harlot simply becomes "one flesh, or one body, with her" -- as temporary as that is, and/or is intended to be by the fornicator or adulterer, and the harlot. The sexual conjugation [of whatever types and to whatever extents] of non-married-to-each-other male and/or female fornicators or adulterers is not what God, but instead Satan, has joined together....without Divine requirement that anyone not separate them. Indeed, without repentance, either or both will, by default, be separated from each other by death and forever being consigned to Outer Darkness within the airless-and-invisibly-flaming Lake of Fire.

Married couples should make it known, by the bride at least having a purity-ring-equivalent on the 4th finger of her left hand, that she is married if she is married to a man...whether or not the groom and bride have had a wedding ceremony....although in America and current government regulations of the United States, legal declaration of being married (or lack of such) should be discreet to avoid confusion and entanglement with government programs relating to court-involved marriage and inheritance settlements.

Second, the slight-majority High Court decision to allow licensed homosexual unions for obvious intentions to homosodomize ["homosodomy" being ANY type of erotic or sexual connection between at least two persons of the SAME gender - whether kissing, hand-holding, sucking, genital insertions, etc.] clearly violates the dogma writings of the Religious Texts of the Three Major American Religions [e.g. Christianity, Judaism, Islam....namely the Sacred-66-books Holy Bible of Christians, the Tanakh/Mikra of Judaism, and the Koran of Islam]....and those nearly-innumerable who fervently or even casually espouse those Texts, are (by default) anti-homosexual concordant (in their unified Constitutional Interpretation of the Non-Establishment/Non-Prohibition Religion Clauses of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution) with the dogma and theology of their respective Texts.

Thirdly, the High Court decision was NOT unanimous. On such a VERY BASIS human right with massive far-reaching immediate and long-term sociological consequences, unanimity was a MANDATORY but MISSING requirement.

Fourthly, three of the persons on the High Court were of the inferior gender [i.e. women] who made their peculiar homosodomy-allowing decision, thus - again - violating the basic Religious Texts of at least those who call themselves "Christians" and "Jews" and "Islamic" in America by virtue of them embracing their Christian Old-and-New-Testaments Holy Bible (even parts of the Tanakh/Mikra of jews and Qur'an of muslims), the contents of which Religious Text rather explicitly in fact FORBID women being in authority over men, as plainly already indicated by the Scripture verses of Isaiah 3:12, Nahum 3:13, First Corinthians 14:33-38 and First Timothy 2:11-15 quoted above.

Fifthly, judge Ginsburg voted, when she was not legally allowed to in this case, and should instead of recused herself, being that she had previously functioned to unite in a previous licensed homosodomy union, two persons of the same gender. And Kagan, as Solicitor General, had previously (and anti-Constitutionally) squelched legal pursuit of investigation into Barack Obama's Kenyan-birthplace credentials, contrary to documented evidence at http://layleftlayrite.tripod.com and http://confrontation.faithweb.com and many other locations on the Web, so she was already disqualified to vote at all on the homosodomy case.

Sixth, pro-homosexual extortion, bullying, and threats of all kinds occurred which adversely influenced the judges, attorneys, and clerks of the Supreme Court, the details of which can be obtained and disclosed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency at their discretion.

Seventh, the craving to legalize homosexual sodomy-unions licensings by a vocal and aggressive activist pervert minority within America and internationally is clearly characterized as satanic, propagandizing the imposed and deceptive media buzzphrase of "Freedom to Marry" and "Marriage Equality" [whatever that is supposed to mean], with the added imposition of deviously replacing the word "lust" with "love."

Like The Tempter in the Garden of Eden, the homoqueers and homofaggots have deceitfully and dishonestly been overbroad by telling Eve, in equivalent paraphrase: "Did God say that you shall not marry any human being in the Garden?" to which the Spirit-enlightened inferior gender replied: "We may marry anyone we like, except that God told us to not have sex with same-gender homosexuals and thus commit homosodomy."

The Devil persisted in dishonesty by informing her that if she withheld what she presumed was good [for sex], and to be educationally savvy, that God was lying and that she "would not die." Like the many corrupt English Bible translations discrepant against the King James Version wording, which revisionist misrenditions truncate the totality of God's intended and inspired Word, the Tempter should instead of added: "You will not die - completely and in every way right away."

"Freedom to Marry" WHO? Homosexuals? For WHAT? Disgusting and sickening homosodomy? You cannot tell by the incomplete media-promoted buzzphrases of homosexuals. Who would want to be against marriage itself, or having the equality of marrying whoever one wants? The homosexist media has fraudulently misled, and continues to mislead, in that they do not go on to say it all -- until after the fact.....like the massive Obamascare package which few read - until after it was passed by previous demoncrat extortion threat.

If lawsuits for pro-homosodomy religious discrimination are instigated and imposed by arrogant and belligerent homosexuals desiring to impudently defend homosodomy unions licensings wherever and whenever, those imposing such are strongly advised that countersuits will happen from and among zealous members of any one or all of The Three Major Religion groups previously mentioned, which countersuits will be costly for both sides, perhaps pursued "to the death" with fervent and relentless ISIS-like persistence and perseverance, and probably again end up in the U.S. Supreme Court - likely with anti-homosexual reversed outcome. Those who are constantly renewed and invigorated with strength and wisdom from the natural-environmental-entities Creator will eventually win by attrition.

The following was posted somewhere on the internet. Can you tell the errors contained therein?

Q. I am intending to marry in the near future. Trouble is, my fiancée used to live with a boyfriend and is regarded by the state as a "common law wife" with all the rights of a married woman. Does this mean that as far as the Gospel is concerned she was "married"? And does that mean that I would be committing adultery by marrying her? (Matt. 5:32)

If your fiancée's relationship to her previous boyfriend was casual without any sense of mutual responsibility or covenant, and was engaged in for purely sexual reasons, then it was fornication. If there was commitment that transcended a physical relationship then in the eyes of God it is a marriage. If, in this instance, your fiancée broke off the relationship because her common law husband committed adultery with another woman, then she would be justified in leaving him. If he remained true then she would not.

This is not a simple matter even though, alas, it is an all too common situation these days. If there are children from a common law marriage then their needs must be taken into consideration.

Remember, that God's law states that if a couple has a sexual relationship then they are technically married in His eyes, because the act of intercourse belongs solely to the marriage estate.

[ ANALYSIS:

The financee would not necessarily be justified to divorce her common-law husband even if he committed adultery because of her non-submissive feminist frigidity or insubordination or her own adultery, and certainly would not be justified in then remarrying, then automatically becoming a Biblically-defined adulteress. [Read Matthew 19:3-12, Romans 7:2-3, First Corinthians 7:10-40, First Timoty 5:11-12]. If the previous consenting-adult cohabitational heterosexual was indeed legal (in writing) and therefore regarded by The State as Common-Law Marriage, that couple was truly lawfully married - regardless of "the Gospel." If the woman who was legally Common-Law Married and documented as such by The State craved become married to a new man, attempts to LEGALLY marry that new man without them FIRST becoming legally certified as Common-Law Divorced, the State would have grounds for bringing charges of both adultery and bigamy against her.

The ridiculous and vague phrase: "any sense of mutual responsibility or covenant" above is NO substitute for the word: MARRIED [common-law or other].

It is FALSE to declare the non-qualified statement above that: "if a couple has a sexual relationship then they are technically married in His eyes." Why THAT is, for example, is that non-married or other-married individuals who are engaging in heterosexual massage or escort fornication not their State-registered or Common-Law spouse or doing same-gender homosodomy [lust, NOT "love"] are NOT "married" either in God's determination nor the legal definition of The State (except if the heterosexual couple previously agreed, before having sex, to consider each other permanent spouses with each other).

Another subject.

Kenyan-not-Hawaiian-born Barack Hussein Obama apparently uttered the following 2015 Christmas message. What is wrong with it?

"Today, like millions of Americans and Christians around the world, our family celebrates the birth of Jesus and the values He lived in his own life. Treating one another with love and compassion. Caring for those on society’s margins: the sick and the hungry, the poor and the persecuted, the stranger in need of shelter - or simply an act of kindness.

That’s the spirit that binds us together - not just as Christians, but as Americans of all faiths. It’s what the holidays are about: coming together as one American family to celebrate our blessings and the values we hold dear.

For one thing, he seems to separate "Americans" from "Christians."
Then, celebrates the birth of "Jesus?" How about rather "Jesus CHRIST?"
Are "his" (NOT "His?") values [merely?] an inference to accepting illegal aliens for the sake of getting their votes, giving welfare to irresponsible hungry and poor to blame and at fault for their own pre-existing conditions who do not have the power to fight Obama militarily, welcoming in a piss-with-pop and poop-with-puddling horde of Syrian refugees, interspersed with radical-muslim-ideology ISIS types?
Are Christ's ADDITIONAL values which He both lived and taught ALSO anti-feminist, anti-homosexuality, anti-abortionist, pro-creationist/anti-evolutionist, pro-Israel ones?

One apologist for homosexuality (I think it was on fee.org but I could be wrong) stated that "Adam and Eve were not married because no state had issued a marriage license to them."

Oh, come on. Such ignorance and stupidity exists?

There were NO any marriage licenses issued by the Government before 1910 in America. Parsons and preachers performed marriages in many cases for the pilgrim pioneers, except in common-law situations (in and of which it was publicly obvious the marital unions among members of the community and towns in such cases).

Even more important than that, the Declaration that Adam publicly stated about Eve:

Genesis 2:23 Then the man said: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.

...is followed by a Biblical declaration (thus Proof) that Adam and Eve were a [probably-non-certified-by-any-other-human-present] common-law married couple.

The same thing would occur if an opposite-gender man and woman on a deserted island (with no reasonable rescue expected) agreed to be and remain permanent spouses to and with each other.

Scripture declares and certifies:

Genesis 2:25 And the man and HIS WIFE wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

Finally, the following misinformational article by Jonathan Rauch (found in Politico):

Title = NO, POLYGAMY ISN"T THE NEXT GAY MARRIAGE

Group marriage is the past - not the future - of matrimony.

I am a gay marriage advocate. So why do I spend so much of my time arguing about polygamy? Opposing the legalization of plural marriage should not be my burden, because gay marriage and polygamy are opposites, not equivalents. By allowing high-status men to hoard wives at the expense of lower-status men, polygamy withdraws the opportunity to marry from people who now have it; same-sex marriage, by contrast, extends the opportunity to marry to people who now lack it....

Yet this non sequitur just won't go away: "Once we stop limiting marriage to male-plus-female, we'll have to stop limiting it at all! Why only two? Why not three or four? Why not marriage to your brother? Or your dog? Or a toaster?"

The shortest answer is in some ways the best: Please stop changing the subject! When you straights give yourselves the right to marry two people or your brother or your dog or a toaster, we gay people should get that right, too. Until then, kindly be serious.

If I sound exasperated, it's because the polygamy argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. That doesn't stop it from popping up everywhere...

The assumptions here seem to be two:

Point 1: If there’s no good reason to oppose same-sex marriage, then there’s no good reason to oppose polygamy. Point 2: The Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that gay marriage is a fundamental right, so polygamy must also be a fundamental right.

[EDITOR's NOTE: The Biblically-defined SIN of HOMOSEXUALITY is a "right?" No, it INSTEAD is a WRONG and WICKED EVIL according to Scripture!]

Unlike gay marriage, polygamy is not a new idea. It's a standard form of marriage, dating back, of course, to Biblical times and before, and anthropologists say that 85 percent of human societies have permitted it. This means we know a thing or two about it.

[EDITOR's NOTE: If polygamy is a "standard" form of "marriage," WHY oppose it then?]

Here's the problem with it: when a high-status man takes two wives (and one man taking many wives, or polygyny, is almost invariably the real-world pattern), a lower-status man gets no wife. If the high-status man takes three wives, two lower-status men get no wives. And so on.

[EDITOR's NOTE: If there are fewer women than men, the unfairness of harem polygamy cheating or depriving other men of spouses must be considered]

This competitive, zero-sum dynamic sets off a competition among high-status men to hoard marriage opportunities, which leaves lower-status men out in the cold. Those men, denied access to life's most stabilizing and civilizing institution, are unfairly disadvantaged and often turn to behaviors like crime and violence. The situation is not good for women, either, because it places them in competition with other wives and can reduce them all to satellites of the man.

[EDITOR's NOTE: Competition among porno glamour models and prostitutes is worse!]

Significantly higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. Monogamy's main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygyny is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems.

Monogamous marriage results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict. And by shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, institutionalized monogamy increases long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment.

[EDITOR's NOTE: There were NO planning or economic inheritance-apportionment problems with Jacob and his twelve Jewish kids!]

By abolishing polygamy as a ["standard?"] legal form of marriage, western societies took a step without which modern liberal democracy and egalitarian social structures might have been impossible: they democratized the opportunity to marry. It's no coincidence that almost no liberal democracy allows ["standard"-form?] polygamy.

Now, people who want to take issue with the theoretical and empirical literature on polygamy should feel free to do so.

[EDITOR's NOTE: WHY, IF it is counterproductive?]

Blandly asserting that there's no good reason to oppose polygamy once gay couples can marry makes no more sense than saying there's no reason to oppose date rape or securities fraud [or toaster sodomy?] once gay couples can marry. It doesn't follow, and it isn't true, and the intellectual laziness implicit in asserting it is epic.

The trouble that gay-marriage opponents kept running into was that they could not show any plausible harm from gay marriage. [like deprive sexually-starved opposite-sex person of straight spouses, like becoming fatally infected with homosexual-contact AIDS?]

Anthony Kennedy's opinion for the majority in Obergefell makes this point explicitly: "With respect to this asserted basis for excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry, it is appropriate to observe these cases involve only the rights of two consenting adults whose marriages would pose no risk of harm to themselves or third parties."

Jonathan Rauch is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.

[ANALYSIS:

First off, homosodomy of male-with-males or female-with-female is, of course, not at all the same nor identical with men-with-women polygamy, because homosodomy is a SAME-gender thing, and men-with-women polygamy is an OPPOSITE-gender thing. Incidentally, despite the ignorant or misled or misrepresentative declarations of some, "sodomy" is IMPOSSIBLE between OPPOSITE-gender persons - no matter WHERE nor HOW nor with WHAT they erotically connect to and with each other, nor what AGE they happen to be.

"SODOMY" is defined ONLY when a person erotically connects with either an ANIMATE object [like trees, dogs or lower-lifeform mammals, which cannot be "murdered" but only be "killed"], or with an INANIMATE object [like a rubber mannequins, pillow, etc.]....COMMITTED (and NOT "performed") -- but HOMOSODOMY is defined as erotically connecting with a HUMAN PERSON of the SAME (NOT opposite) gender.

Sensible ANTI-homosodomy-unions-licensing proponents obviously are not concerned with deceitfully-diversionary nutcases who suggest marrying-a-dog or marrying-a-toaster tangents.

Stick to the issue - which is two HUMAN BEINGS of the SAME gender pseudo-erotically sodomizing each other with the excuse of being licensed by the government to do such sickening and disgusting sexual perversion. And that IS being serious - not facetious.

Bruce Jenner, though pretending gender change with loose long hair and silicone-pumped breasts, probably yet has a penis to urinate and ejaculate with, as does the Chicago transgender invading the girls locker room.

The pro-homosexuals statement:

"Unlike gay marriage, polygamy is not a new idea. It's a standard form of marriage, dating back, of course, to Biblical times..." is of course quite true. Indeed, the entire Twelve-Tribes surviving nation of Israel (and surviving quite well, I might add, without completely destroying itself with alleged-by-Rauch rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery, fraud, child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide, overwhelming intra-household conflict, lack of long-term planning, lack of economic productivity, lack of savings and child investment) was based upon God-allowed polygamy of God-blessed Abraham with God-blessed Sarah and Hagar and Keturah and Abe's concubines, Jacob and his God-blessed two wives and two God-blessed concubines who were maids to his two wives, the at-least five wives of David and his ten concubines, the wives and concubines of Solomon, etc.

The Torah certainly allows for harem polygamy for males:

Deuteronomy 21:15 If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other disliked, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the disliked, and if the first-born son is hers that is disliked,
16 then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the first-born in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the first-born,
17 but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the disliked, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first issue of his strength; the right of the first-born is his.

and:

Ecclesiastes 2:8 [RSV] I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings and provinces; I got singers, both men and women, and MANY CONCUBINES, MAN's DELIGHT.

Even the apostle St Paul, inspired by The Holy Spirit, mandated monogamy for ONLY bishops and deacons:

First Timothy 3:2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher...
First Timothy 3:12 Let deacons be the husband of one wife, and let them manage their children and their households well...

Consistent, and SEASONAL, public modesty of women and girls in general (regarding tied-back or tied-up hairstyles, long-sleeved armwear, full-length legwear, and socks worn with shoes) goes a LONG way in assuring that even bishops and deacons do not get so titillated and overwhelmed with non-solicited non-asked-for public porno immodesty of lewd and pseudo-innocent irresponsible exhibitionists sadistically tantalizing whoever they do not really want to have sex with anyway, to resort to a degrading and defiling polygamy substitute of searching for, acquiring, and retaining on thumbdrive or hard disk, a bevy of galleries of completely-nude porn model photos quickly and secretly found by typing pertinent explicit keywords into the search box of Google.

NO where, in Scripture, did the LORD SPECIFICALLY state that the reproductively-capable live-human/real-person/actual-body polygamy of Abraham, Jacob/Israel, Gideon, Elkanah, David, Solomon, and many more patriarchs was "sin." Obviously, plural-wives/concubines harem polygamy was admissible for responsible (and admittedly for wealthy-enough) men who did not instead resort to God-displeasing consort with harlots they were not at least common-law married to at the time.

Obviously, in ancient societies in which a godless Egyptian pharaoh decimated male population by murdering Hebrew baby boys and not girls, Joshua sparing only virgin women (not men) during Israel's Canaanite conquest the LORD ordered them to do, benjamite men (not women) siding in with concubine rapists and being annihilated, 186,000 male syrian soldiers executed in one night by an angel of the Lord, and a jealous troops of Herod murdering Hebrew boys (not girls) up to two years old to try to destroy He who was born King of the Jews in Bethlehem....there was a surplus of women for men to take as additional (not replacement) wives and concubines.

Indeed, the women who were taken as such certainly found it preferable to at least be somewhat-satisfied concubines to a single man rather than remain desolate spinsters and thus have sex with no one, or become rape-or-abuse-victim diseased prostitutes to numerous men:

Isaiah 4:1 And seven women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying: "We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by your name; take away our reproach."
2 In that day the branch of the LORD shall be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land shall be the pride and glory of the survivors of Israel.
3 And he who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy, every one who has been recorded for life in Jerusalem,
4 when the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning.
5 Then the LORD will create over the whole site of Mount Zion and over her assemblies a cloud by day, and smoke and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory there will be a canopy and a pavilion.
6 It will be for a shade by day from the heat, and for a refuge and a shelter from the storm and rain.

Clearly, present-day concubines (for impoverished males) should have their own job and their own apartment or condo or whatever - and, unless they live in some Middle Eastern country like Africa with tribal chiefs, or Saudi Arabia with sheiks - have to regard themselves as discreet common-law spouses.

Proverbs 3:29 Do not plan evil against your neighbor who dwells trustingly beside you.
Proverbs 3:30 Do not contend with a man for no reason, when he has done you no harm.
Proverbs 12:16 The vexation of a fool is known at once, but the prudent man ignores an insult.
Proverbs 17:14 The beginning of strife is like letting out water; so quit before the quarrel breaks out.

Proverbs 26:18 Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death,
Proverbs 26:19 is the man who deceives his neighbor and says: "I am only joking!"

Proverbs 26:20 For lack of wood the fire goes out; and where there is no whisperer, quarreling ceases.
Proverbs 26:21 As charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, so is a quarrelsome man for kindling strife.

Proverbs 30:33 For pressing milk produces curds, pressing the nose produces blood, and pressing anger produces strife.

Romans 14:15 [paraphrased] If your brother is being apprehensively frightened or psychologically injured by you pointing a toy gun at him, or letting your household dog leap at a nervous trigger-finger-ready policeman knocking at your door for some probably-legitimate cause, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let your irresponsible liberty cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died.

Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another.

First Peter 2:16 Live as free persons, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God.

Ephesians 5:17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.