Posted on 06/29/2015 10:07:28 AM PDT by Fay
There’s no slippery slope but we are being told to legalize polyamory now.
Politico.com featured this article the very day the Supreme Court declared that same-sex marriage exists and that it is a fundamental right: “It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy: Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.” Obviously it was ready to go as soon as the Supreme Court released their verdict, which everyone knew it would.
The writer attacks Liberals for not being willing to provide marriage for polyamory:
They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.
In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?
Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.
The only reason the pansexual left did not embrace poly, we are told, was because of Conservatives and their completely accurate accusations:
Many conservative opponents of marriage equality have made the slippery slope argument, insisting that same-sex marriages would lead inevitably to further redefinition of what marriage is and means. See, for example, Rick Santorum’s infamous “man on dog” comments, in which he equated the desire of two adult men or women to be married with bestiality. Polygamy has frequently been a part of these slippery slope arguments.
Let’s divert to bestiality since the writer brings it up. It wasn’t Rick Santorum who promoted sexual openness by producing a play about an affair with a goat (that threw in same-sex incest on the side). That was done by Liberals. And it wasn’t Rick Santorum who legalized homosexuality and bestiality together. That was done in Germany where bestiality is still legal.
So what was so over the top about Rick Santorum’s comment? The connection he made exists in real life, in Liberal culture.
Come to think of it, will the writer condemn bestiality and marriage to an animal (or more than one, being poly)?
After all, bestiality is a fact. People are living in relationships with animals today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.
If people who are attracted to others of the same sex have a right to marriage, and people who are attracted to several people have a right to marriage, then why not people who have a sexual relationship with their pets.
And what about sibling incest between consenting adults? What about intergenerational incest? After all, incest is a fact. Fathers and daughters (both consenting adults) are living in sexual relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.
These stupid Liberals have no idea what they are unleashing. They condemn anyone who has a religiously-based objection to homosexuality and then reveal they have no moral standards at all.
Love Will Win
Hey, why not...
Harems of wives is Sharia-compliant, right?
Wouldn’t want to upset the Muzzies, doncha know. That would be politically-incorrect!
There is NO moral justification in the eyes of the law to stop anything anymore!
No case that can come to the court can be turned down. Polygamy, bigamy, incest marriage, and pedophilia are no different than homosexuality. If everyone involved “consent” then what can you say? That those forms of “love” are too disgusting, but two guys bending each other over is ok??
Yeah, so what if most men wind up marrying their right hands in the future. Polyamory is a human right!
The Government’s definition of marriage is meaningless now, so it’s a great way for families to avoid estate taxes.
Therefore, it will never happen.
After a group marriages quits working out so well.... who pays alimony and to whom ?
Any number, any gender, any orientation; just mix it up and have a good time.
Ah, but that will be determined on a case by case basis in a courtroom. Lawyers' job security matters!
I agree with the reasoning but experience to this point in other legal gay marriage jurisdictions indicates polyamory demands have not been an issue.
I look forward to the day when polyarmory is legal.
There are so many guns I want to marry!
Not to mention Cleveland Amory.
bi-sexual, trans-sexual, and we will soon see “Pan-sexual” if we haven’t already.
Biblical, there is more support for polygamy than homosexuality.
Here’s a thought: With the muzzies being so politically correct and you can’t say or do anything to offend them. And the gays being so politically correct you can’t say or do anything to offend them. Which group is going to win when a couple of gay guys walk into a mosque and say the want to get married there?
They have polygamy in Cleveland? I’m not surprised.
“I didn’t pay her for sex, your honor, I paid her to be another wife for an hour.”
“Polyamory is a human right!”
Would that be the same as ambidexterity?
Would that be the same as ambidexterity?
Perhaps you're thinking of polyfingery.
NAMBLA lurks in the shadows eager to get their filthy hands on America’s youth.
Nothing prideful in sodomy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.