Posted on 03/22/2013 7:55:04 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
There is nothing in our current legal system or national moral climate that will stop polygamy from becoming the next liberal cause:
“Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would jettison the rationale and logic behind prohibitions on polygamous marriages, according to several friend-of-the court briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.
“‘Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships,’ reads one of the briefs, filed by the Christian legal group Liberty Counsel. ‘In fact, every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for them as well.’”
The Netherlands is a microcosm of how the homosexual community hoodwinked this once-Christian nation into accepting a perversion. A former Dutch Member of Parliament “has admitted that polygamous marriage is the ‘next logical step’ following the introduction of same-sex marriages in the Netherlands.”
Serial polygamy is already accepted in America. People get married and divorced numerous times with little regard for marriage as a covenant bond. Hollywood types change wives like some people change shoes. Others don’t get married but live together, have children out of wedlock, and few people bat an eye........
(Excerpt) Read more at politicaloutcast.com ...
Link?
Recently? That part is not true. The early Roman Empire had religious ceremonies for same sex partners. Civil unions date back to China and the Zhou dynasty. I am not advocating at all just pointing out some facts.
Partial?
It won’t stop there .The sickos are already getting beyond disgusting.
Yale hosts workshop teaching sensitivity to bestiality
http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4646
Why not let the Mormon Cultists be legally married? That way the extra wives have some legal standing and the kids some link to the father. They will do it anyway—this way it can be controlled. Moslems too—the Koran gives em-—4 wives. but divorce is simple. Anwar Sadat the former president of Egypt, had two.
Yes, with the lowering of the age of consent to perhaps 12 .
Followed by man-boy term marriages where men are legally allowed to copulate with young boys under the age of twelve. Once the child reaches thirteen, the marriage term is ended allowing the older man to “marry” another prepubescent boy.
On the animal front, dogs and cats will be allowed to live together.
Except the feminist bugaboo about "patriarchy".
Er..., no. It started in earnest as a social philosophy with Rousseau in the 18th century - men should obey their natures. Then it became a mainstream liberal political doctrine with John Stuart Mill in the 19th century - true freedom is fredom from social norms and to achieve true freedom we need the government.
Well, so did the lifestyles of Ghengis Khan, Tarmalane, and a whole slew of other pagan rulers. (For some reason, people don't seem to get around citing them as living examples)
Also, so do fLds today.
And I don't think many deem them as any sort of "righteous" exemplaries others are to follow?
Most of the Biblical examples involved people who either weren't known for their whole-hearted trust in the Lord or involved special cases of deception (Jacob) or distrust in the Lord's promise (Sarai-Sarah).
Few men with positively reputations were polygamists (I can think of only Gideon, Caleb and David).
The rest didn't have stellar reps. (With Abraham, we have no confirmation that Hagar was any kind of ongoing wife after she was impregnated). Post-pregnancy, everybody -- including the Angel of the Lord -- referenced her as Sarah's servant -- not as Abraham's "wife."
Well, note this 2011 Indiana University article.
While I disagree with this study's evolutionary crap injected by this university that "sainted" pedophile champ Kinsey, indeed the simple math involved from this study is born out:
Polygamy practiced by some 19th century Mormon men had the curious effect of suppressing the overall offspring numbers of Mormon women in plural marriages, say scientists from Indiana University Bloomington and three other institutions...Simply put, the more sister-wives a Mormon woman had, the fewer children she was likely to produce...."the number each wife produced goes down by one child or so..."
What's so curious about that? Brigham Young had 55 wives & 57 children...figure the averages...Joseph Smith, Jr. had children in single-figures...27 wives...11 of them he stole from other men by marrying them when they were already married! (Not only was he a counterfeit "prophet," but a counterfeit husband as well!)
How interesting.
All of this is contrary to common myth: For actually, 19th and early 20th century Mormon polygamy resulted in less children per mom, not more!
So why would you conclude that it's more natural to have less kids???
Polygyny is the only logical form of polygamy. The rest are just nonsense. It’s always been man/woman monogamy or polygyny with the excess males used in warfare. That’s human sexual history.
The way they’ll argue around that point is to allow polyandry(one wife to two or more husbands) also.
It won’t stop there either. Animals at some point. Little kids too?
Btw, March 22, 1882 — 131 years ago yesterday — is when U.S. president Chester Arthur signed the antipolygamy Edmunds Bill into law. It defined polygamous living as “unlawful cohabitation”; it established contracted plural marriages as a punishable offense.
Given, 1010, that you're a rather covert Freeper Mormon, how do you defend Mormon polygamous history? (Especially since the Book of Jacob in the Book of Mormon outrights condemns it!)
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.