Already banned per LDS
Once you change the definition of marriage, you lose the right to say no one else can redefine it. So what form will it take next? Will I one day be able to marry my house plant and my TV for the government benefits? It’s no less legitimate than men marrying other men for the supposed big brother benefits.
I’ve actually been wondering when the big push for polygamy will come. If one were to play devil’s advocate, it would probably be easier to “justify” polygamy than it would be gay marriage. Certainly there’s more historical precedent for it, and not just in the Muslim world.
Of course, I’m don’t actually agree with the idea. I’m just saying that if one can make the argument that two guys or two women can be defined as a marriage, then it couldn’t be that hard to also fit in the concept of a guy and two women (or whatever combination the group comes up with) into that now ever-expanding definition of a once-sacred tradition.
Hey, for that matter, why are we opposing gay cousins from marrying? I mean, the reason we prohibit intermarrying is because of the consequences of inbreeding, right? But if it’s two guys or two gals, how could there be any risk of that? After all, love is love, right? (I’m itching to use that one on some of my sillier leftist friends, LOL).
The “polls” are rigged.
The one thing I see in the gay marriage law changes is a back door attempt by government to regulate religion by making those churches that won’t marry gays look criminal.
Its an alternate route to a Soviet-Nazi system of the state controlling religion.
Well, with polygamy or plural marriage, they’ve at least got the “plumbing” right. Ps: this brings to mind the historic appearance of the Deseret or Utah delegate in Congress seeking admission to statehood. After a particularly pointed critique or attack on LDS plural marriage by a Senator (who was widely known for whoring around WashDC’s brothels, the ones just outside the Capitol building I mean), the Utah delegate noted rather pithily that when he wished to bed more women he at least had the decency to marry them. I believe everybody orobably understood the reference, at least that’s how I recall reading the history of the debate. Happy day, and why should the -slamicists have to wait until the next life for their 72 virgins, anyway!? Maybe if we let them have them now, they’d be too busy, or just too dammed tired to keep bombing us? Just thinking...
someone posted early this week - the Gay Movement wants to destroy the institution of marriage — they want it eradicated - once that is done - if ever (praying it won’t) - then it’s anyone’s game...number of wives won’t matter...total destruction of traditional norms and values based on Christianity are being targeted!....of course - we all know this - which is why we come here to read and post...& the Democratic Underground comes here to see how many informed people aren’t buying their Kool-Aid!
Nobody would have thought that something called ‘gay marriage’ would be recognized by the state before polygamy. If you would have told someone that in 1983 they would have thought you were nuts.
I wonder if ‘multiple partner gay marriage’ will be recognized by the state before traditional hetero polygamy.
Freegards
Oh, come on, all you polygaphobes! Why do you oppose progress? sarc/