Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Here comes polyamory, just as we predicted: if the winning mantras of the same-sex “marriage” movement have been “Love is love” , why limit that number to two?
Christian Post ^ | 07/03/2020 | Michael Brown

Posted on 07/04/2020 10:56:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Let me be totally clear at the outset. One of the purposes of this article is to say, “I told you so!” Or, more precisely, many of us have been predicting this moment for years. As reported in the New York Times, “A Massachusetts City Decides to Recognize Polyamorous Relationships. The city of Somerville has broadened the definition of domestic partnership to include relationships between three or more adults, expanding access to health care.” Is anyone really surprised?

After all, if the winning mantras of the same-sex “marriage” movement have been “Love is love” and “Love wins” and “I have the right to marry the one I love,” why limit that number to two? Isn’t that discriminating against love? Isn’t that simply carrying over the outdated, outmoded, limiting ways of the past?

To this day, in all my dialogue and debate with LGBTQ activists and their allies, I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of why marriage should be limited to two people if any two people can marry. Why limit the union to two people? Based on what? All the solid arguments for limiting marriage to two people are, ultimately, arguments for marriage being the union of a male and a female. All other arguments fall short. Very short. (For a glaring illustration, see here.)

When it comes to polyamory, which can include virtually any combination or number of men and women, on what basis should the government not recognize such relationships? Is not love still love? Does not love still win? And is not love the only thing that matters? So the argument goes.

As I asked in 2015, “If Love Is Love, Why Not Three Men 'Marrying'?” Why not?

Today, we’re talking about just one city in Massachusetts extending health benefits to polyamorous families. But one city is all that is needed to begin a trend. That’s also why this is national news, even in the midst of an unrelenting, tumultuous news cycle.

As for warning about this for years, polyamory was mentioned frequently in my book A Queer Thing Happened to America, published in 2011, but with research for the book dating back to 2005.

In fact, in the book I drew attention to a polyamory seminar hosted by the Metropolitan Community Churches – obviously, pro-LGBT churches – back in 2005: “Yes, ‘polyamory’ – in other words, having multiple sexual partners (loving, of course!) – was also a topic of discussion at the MCC conference, and church members were encouraged to come out of the closets with their ongoing, multiple sexual relationships.”

Again, this was at a church conference in 2005. And even then, this trend had been building for years. We told you so!

In the book I also quoted polyamorous advocates who marched prominently in gay pride parades, stating, “We’re 30 years behind the gay activist movement.” They probably underestimated the timeline. (On a different but related front, I could point to articles like, “Here Come the Polygamists,” dating back to 2012.)

In my 2015 book, Outlasting the Gay Revolution, I wrote, “Perhaps we should change the wedding vows to sound more like this (with the man speaking here): ‘I take you as my wife, but probably not for life. I take you as my own, but not just you alone. I pledge myself to you, and perhaps to others too. I take you as my bride, although your name is Clyde.’

“Is this really so farfetched? If you can have a bride and a broom, if ‘husbands’ can be women and ‘wives’ can be men, if you can be married and dating and swinging and swapping, if you live together before marriage and end the marriage whenever it suits you best, then what does ‘marriage’ mean?”

Back in 2015, Stephen Colbert mocked the idea of a slippery moral slope when it came to redefining marriage. The reality of the matter, as he likely knew, was that the mocking predictions he made had already come to pass. I illustrated all that in this video. You can mock, but you can’t deny reality. (Take a minute to watch. You’ll be shocked.)

In saying all this, I am not saying that gay couples do not love each other or that gay couples will inevitably become polyamorous throuples and beyond. I’m simply stating the obvious: if two men or two women can “marry,” then there is nothing sacrosanct about the number two. Any potential number will do, as long as the relationships are based on “love.”

Already in March, 2016, Oliver Bateman wrote on Mic.com, “When it comes to marriage, three is still a crowd. But that might be changing sooner than we think. According to a 2015 Gallup poll, a small-yet-growing percentage of Americans report that they find the concept of plural marriage ‘morally acceptable,’ while polyamorous relationships are increasingly receiving mainstream media coverage. A 2014 Newsweek article even estimates that there are more than 500,000 openly polyamorous families living in the United States today.”

Did I say we told you so? Need I say more?


Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test?



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; perverts; polyamory; romney2decide; romneymarriage; romneypolygamy; slipperyslope
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

1 posted on 07/04/2020 10:56:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

2 posted on 07/04/2020 10:58:03 AM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

We are all Solomon now.


3 posted on 07/04/2020 10:58:41 AM PDT by crusty old prospector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector

4 posted on 07/04/2020 10:59:54 AM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Pedophilia is what they really want to legalize.
5 posted on 07/04/2020 11:00:12 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ([CTRL]-[GALT]-[DELETE])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

Yes and incest


6 posted on 07/04/2020 11:01:44 AM PDT by cnsmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

My husband and I were just talking about that the other day. Pedophilia will be the gay marriage issue of our children’s generation. Turns my stomach.


7 posted on 07/04/2020 11:11:01 AM PDT by workerbee (==)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

When we are declared “one big happy family” by the new Marxist regime, will the Christianity Today types and the suburban anti-Trump women have second thoughts about Trump not being so bad in retrospect? We told them so.

They even slandered Trump for trying to save little kids from the often pedophile criminals taking them illegally across the border. Terrified to tell what happened the kids stayed silent and allowed the phony unrelated “Uncle Miguel” or “Papa” to get the right to stay longer.

And Trump was vilified for not “keeping the families together”. AOC even shed tears over the children allegedly held in (Obama’s leftover cages) captivity.


8 posted on 07/04/2020 11:13:26 AM PDT by frank ballenger (End vote fraud,harvesting,non-citizen voting & leftist media news censorship or we are finished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

Yup. Between two consenting adul...
Never mind.


9 posted on 07/04/2020 11:16:34 AM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

yes I agree, all this “gay marriage” crap is a gateway to say pedos are normal, too.
NONE of this crap is normal.
Now when I see 2 guys and a kid anywhere, I figure they are a queer couple and the kid is their plaything.
I know that’s not right, but sorry, that’s where my mind goes now.


10 posted on 07/04/2020 11:20:47 AM PDT by ronniesgal (so I wonder what his FR handle is???? and let's get back to living!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/15/why-child-abuse-is-more-likely-in-polyamorous-homes-like-the-woman-with-four-boyfriends/

Check out the leading picture. It says it all.
Polyamory is for women to sleep around within “marriage.”


11 posted on 07/04/2020 11:23:59 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change with out notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Not one man/one woman
Now, not even two, but any number/any age/any gender
So why does it even have to be humans?
12 posted on 07/04/2020 11:28:51 AM PDT by ZOOKER (Until further notice the /s is implied...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Interesting quandary here. In Utah, liberals and Democrats are generally opposed to polyamory because it is associated with traditional conservative Mormonism.

I asked a liberal in Salt Lake City, "If a man can marry a man, why can't a man marry two women?"

Their answer, as it always is, "That's different!"
13 posted on 07/04/2020 11:28:55 AM PDT by Calvin Cooledge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Include your dog too; why limit yourself to humans? (Coming soon - bet on it.)


14 posted on 07/04/2020 11:29:27 AM PDT by beethovenfan (Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ronniesgal

I have been saying for years, that’s the end game. Raping little boys.


15 posted on 07/04/2020 11:30:03 AM PDT by Calvin Cooledge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“Love is love"

Love is where you find it, even if it's in a pig's a$$.

Hello STD's!!

16 posted on 07/04/2020 11:45:13 AM PDT by mass55th ("Courage is being scared to death, but saddling up anyway." ~~ John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beethovenfan

RE: Include your dog too; why limit yourself to humans?

Haven’t we learned any lessons from viruses jumping from animals to humans in this pandemic?


17 posted on 07/04/2020 11:46:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
why limit that number to two?

I think historically and throughout civilization, it's been about property rights and inheritance through matriarchal or patriarchal societies.

-PJ

18 posted on 07/04/2020 11:47:37 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Freedom of the press is the People's right to publish, not CNN's right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Rick Santorum is definitely owed a lot of apologies...but I doubt that he will be getting even one. He fought the good fight when most people who were supposedly on the right were conscientious objectors in the Culture War.


19 posted on 07/04/2020 12:05:39 PM PDT by Engraved-on-His-hands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Good post. Modern day Sodomists are no different than biblical Sodomists - to deny natural law is to deny the Creator.

Hedonists and atheists don’t limit themselves in the depths of their depravity, everything is acceptable to unrepentant, and Godless, sinners.

They speak of their ‘pride’ and rage against all who question it. I believe this is a manifestation of suppressed guilt, because they must understand ( on some level ) that they are really sick, so they insist on normalizing their deviancy...


20 posted on 07/04/2020 12:06:03 PM PDT by heterosupremacist (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. (Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson