Posted on 10/17/2014 8:51:20 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected gay-marriage appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin, in essence allowing lower courts to legalize same-sex couples. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, an institution that has vigorously opposed gay marriage for some time now, conceded that the political battle over marriage is over. “As far as the civil law is concerned,” the Mormon church admitted, “the courts have spoken.”
Actually, nothing is over until God says it’s over. At least, this is my understanding of how religion operates. So though I don’t want to accuse Mormons of being a bunch of serial quitters, let’s just say this isn’t the first time they’ve folded in the face of adversity. Luckily, every time a door closes…
Obviously, polygamy, once practiced by early church members, has long since been renounced by the Latter-day Saints. In the late 19th century, after decades of religious persecution and pressure from the U.S. government, Mormons dropped the practice (although some obstinate fundamentalist groups persist). The LDS church is probably the last group willing to bring up plural marriage, but now would be the time to right some historical wrongs....
(Excerpt) Read more at dispatch.com ...
Unless you are willing to eat s**t, you are not for food equality.
I can’t see the kind of people that support homosexual marriage as being against polygamy, and for regular Americans, it’s hard to see the type of person that would support polygamy, being against gay marriage.
To be intellectually honest, we have to agree that “marriage equality” which limits marriage to 2 people, does not allow “equality” for those who wish to live in polygamy or group marriage.
The term “marriage equality” adopted by those pushing homosexual marriage, is a misnomer.
And if you are in favor of homosexual marriage, on what grounds can you oppose polygamy? We have been told that homosexuals want to be married and have legal status, and that consenting adults should be able to live their lives as they see fit, and have legal status for that.
The same legal arguments for homosexual marriage can be used for polygamy or group marriage.
And if anyone favors homosexual marriage but opposes polygamy, such people should be called out as being bigoted and hateful and all that against the polygamous community. It is as discriminatory to limit marriage to two people as it is to limit it to people of opposite sexes.
It’s pretty obvious — marriage is either the traditional union of 1 man and 1 union or else it’s Anything Goes. You can’t add in a few new options and then just say “That’s it! We’re done! No more redefinitions!” Nope. Polygamy is a sure thing. The courts have absolutely no grounds on which to deny it.
We have a bunch of idiots running every institution on the planet.
“And if you are in favor of homosexual marriage, on what grounds can you oppose polygamy?”
They’ll cite some study that says it’s sexist or something and that’ll be the end of the debate.
Pedophiles have a better chance.
The only goal is to make marriage meaningless.
“Personally, I don’t have any misgivings about same-sex marriage, mostly because I don’t believe that it destabilizes society or family”
Sure it doesn’t until you refuse to be part of it, then
you are sued and forced to accept it by the courts. Like
bakers who refuse to bake gay cakes or assembly hall
owners who refuse to allow gay weddings on their own
private property.
Harsanyi says this just to keep the homos off his a$$. He
cant be that ignorant or can he?
I’ve said this before.
Once you allow the one to be legal, you cannot win a legal argument against the other.
If two men can get married, how would you ever argue against 3 men getting married?
Bttt
Anybody warped enough to be OK with homosexual “marriage” is probably ok with any other perversion of marriage as well.
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
But also consider how an equal-protection based assault on heterosexual marriage at least partially takes out the basis for prohibitions on incest. Take the example of an 87 yo great grandfather who is a widower and elects to marry his 19 yo grandson, on his deathbed. Two males, even if within typically proscribed consanguinity cannot procreate. So the public policy rationale for avoiding incest is not applicable here.Normally when a grandfather devises to grandchildren or great-grandchildren a generation skipping tax may come into play. So what if grandfather or great grandfather brings the beneficiary into, in effect, his generation by marrying him? I hope, but I doubt that the IRS has seen this coming.
This is a natural progression based on the undefining of marriage. The homosexual activists think they redefined marriage(or they don’t really care what happens next), but they have been successful in undefining marriage. It will be whatever you want it to be.
Coming soon...
Unless you’re for incest, you’re not for marriage equality.
Unless you’re for child brides, you’re not for marriage equality.
Unless you’re for pedophilia, you’re not for marriage equality.
By making marriage meaningless, they destroy the family. By destroying the family, the supposed backbone of Western civilization, they destroy Judeo-Christian society. THAT is the goal, so the breakdown of the family is what they try for.
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.