I Want to Marry my Dog

In the carnival of San Francisco, the land of gay pride, you will now have the distinct pleasure of driving with your family down a city street, and the car in front of you will be playing homosexual sex acts right in front of your face for all your children to see on one of those contraptions that play movies in a moving automobile.

We are going to be told that we have to accept this, just like we are already now told that we have to accept loud, extremely loud, RAP music blasting from a moving vehicle, blasting the “F” word from “artists” who bark out about putting a gun into our face, killing police officers, raping and murdering people, and so on.

In fact, there is one about murdering a teenage girl. So why not one about murdering a child as well?

There is a monster lurking in our country, and food is being fed to the monster. This monster is the ugly arrogance of unelected judges, who think they are smarter than me, smarter than you, smarter than the citizens.

But they are not smarter than any of us. These unelected toilet people in black robes have no right, no right whatsoever, to take our decisions, our votes, to take away our democracy, the laws we made as a collective society of free people, and then tell us what the law is in their own making.

This ruling is despotic, arrogant, and it isn’t about just one ruling today and not tomorrow. It is a way the monster is measuring us. To see what we will do.

Because what this ruling is about, is what the monster is going to do to us next.

This is about doing injury to our children. The monster is measuring us, to see what we will do if they harm our children in this manner with this ruling.

Once the monster sees that it can do this harm to our children, then it will do the next, and the next. Rights will be for everyone else, but not for us. For example, if we do nothing, then we will be told that illegal aliens have a constitutional right to citizenship. Very soon, we will be told that not only do illegal aliens have a constitutional right to citizenship, but that we as citizens do not necessarily have a constitutional right to our own existing citizenship.

You think this sounds crazy? No. That is exactly how this works, because it is already insane. Next it will be our property. For example, we will be told that private property is unconstitutional. In so many words.

This is about seeing what they can do to us, to measure and then to do much more to us. There will soon be no end to it. Understand? It has nothing to do with “gay marriage”, it has to do with putting us into a box, and telling us what it’s going to be.

They are playing, literally, with fire. You see, nature has a welding torch. There is a natural law, an engine to this. For example, the true creators in this world is the male and the female. That is the law that will always, in the end, burn them all down. Nature’s welding torch is going to burn them all down. In the end, there is a map to the universe which they do not understand. Because, they are not smarter than us. The very fact that this monster would dare to poke at our children revels just how stupid they really are.

Because this is exactly what this ruling is. It is like some stranger, who comes into your neighborhood, and for no reason at all, shoves your daughter off her bike.

That is what they have done. For thousands of years, the purpose of marriage, of society regulating marriage as between a man and a woman, is to protect the children. Love isn’t the reason for the institution of marriage – it is about protecting the children. There are benefits to marriage. Because these benefits are also about protecting the children.

Love really has nothing to do with it. It is part of it, but not the reason for it.

They say, if Fred loves John, they they should be allowed to marry. Because of love.

So Fred loves John. They should marry. And, if one month later, John loves Bill, then the same would apply. John should be allowed to marry Bill. And so John is now married to both Fred and Bill, but Fred is only married to John, and Bill is also only married to John but not to Fred.

In fact, consensual love should not necessarily predicate a marriage if it is about love.

For example, let’s say John also loves the unelected judge who made this ruling.

Then John should be able to get a marriage license stating his marriage to the unelected judge. A consensual agreement from this judge really has no context here, John has every right to marry the unelected judge and the judge should have no say in the matter. This does not mean the judge needs to sleep with John for example, it doesn’t even mean the unelected judge is married to John. No. It just means John has a right to hold an official document that says he is married to the unelected judge. But the judge does not have to be married to John.

Get it? One way marriage. It’s a constitutional right. Because John loves the unelected judge.

And since things do not, should not have to be, consensual, it is perfectly logical that if you love your dog, you should be able to marry your dog. This does not mean your dog is married to you, it just means you are married to your dog.

Why are they arresting anyone who has more than one "spouse"? Or for that matter, five men married to each other? For thousands of years, the institution of marriage has been about protecting children. But now, the unelected judges are telling us this is no longer so. That is it simply about preference, and about love.

Well, then a fifty year old man should be allowed to marry a twelve year old boy. Right? If that's the preference. If that's the love. It's a constitutional right.

A family is about creation. There is a natural law. That creates a celestial tapestry. Children are important, because they travel farther to the next place from which our forefathers were. With us, into the future, will travel the dog. The dog has been with us from long ago, and as we travel deep into space, into the universe, the dog will come with us. And for a reason - which some do not fully understand yet.

But that does not mean I should marry my dog. I love the dog, and indeed dog is our copilot. Because of this love, I respect nature which created this dog. I respect the laws of nature. I do not marry my dog.

Those who do not respect natural law, will die. Nature has a welding torch. It is creating something. And it will burn all of those down who do not follow the law. They will die wrapped in an enigma. We just have to stand up, to make sure they don’t kill our children in the process.

They have now come into your neighborhood, and just pushed your child off the bicycle. They want to see your reaction. Will you do anything? If not, they are going to come right onto your yard. Then into your house.

Well no. We can draw the line at informed consent. To enter into a contract both parties must be able to understand what they are agreeing to - animals as smart as many of them are just not capable of performing informed consent.

And increasing the number of people performing in a marriage contract can’t be changed because some things really can’t be split, for example, if we look some guy with three wives, winds up in the hospital in a coma - who makes the decision about his care? What if one of those wives disagree about the treatment?

Me, I’m an agnostic on Gay Marriage, it’s not going to make any difference in my life, and as a Conservative, I really don’t care what two people decide to do with their lives.

But you are defining the post gay marriage unions in terms of present day contract definitions.

These go out the window once you redefine what marriage is.

The limit of two in a contract will not be absolute in marriage, and “contracts” can be entered by any number of people now, but marriage is accepted and defined as one man and one woman. Nor will it legally be possible to not allow bestiality, because it is all about love, man, and besides, who are you to judge and to impose your morality?

We had a social compact regarding marriage that worked for 5,000 years that defined mutual responsibilities and benefits. Like breathing, what further change is needed to something so basic?

A change to that basic definition will open the floodgates to all kinds of intended and unintended consequences to society. And these consequences will invade your town and society eventually, whether you agree or not, and it will change your life and how you live.

If all we need are judges to determine how we should live, talk, and interact in the social contract, let’s get rid of all the politicians—they are unnecessary.

We’ve been redefining marriage from the day society first coined the term marriage.

Up until 70 years ago, marriage has been more about economic unions than love. There were no rights for married women, they were nothing more than property for 4,900 of those 5000 years.

50 years ago, one couldn’t legally marry a person of a different race, they were making the same arguments against interracial marriage that you are making today about gay marriage.

Once again, we have to see what are the true principles of a society, it will be legally possible to enforce a ban on bestiality because informed consent has been a cornerstone of western civilization for 1000 years. And an animal just can’t give informed consent.

Same thing with polygamy, contract law states you can’t promise the same thing to two different people. Polygamy violates this. This is more physical law than anything else.

But Gay marriage doesn’t violate any of these principles of western civilization. If you want to ban gay marriage, you will have to show how adam and steve getting married in San Francisco is going to cause you to leave your spouse and take up residence with an animal.

We have not redefined marriage—it has always been between one man and one woman.Acceptance of interracial marriage did not change the basic concept of one man one woman.

Legal contracts are made everyday where one person promises things to more than one person.

Women from the time of Moses in Jewish society, and later, in Western civilizations, had the right of inheritance of property.

You say that informed consent cannot be overturned due to 1,000 years of precedence. We are about to overturn 5,000 years of precedence. And since when, in a legal free for all that describes modern jurisprudence, would this even be a criteria once the gay lobby starts their wialing and gnashing of teeth over the “injustice” of it all.

All of us will have our society changed when the Pandora’s box is opened. We can disagree on that point, but events will overtake us whether we agree or not.

No. you are factually wrong, it used to be between one man and several women. Moses had a few concubines.

Those contracts are invalid, you can’t promise one car to two different people.

Look if you honestly cared about marriage, you’d be spending your time trying to rid America of “No-fault” divorce.

When you are on the same side of the Islamic terrorists, you really should rethink your position.

“I believe we should be able to marry anyone and anything -
Historical figures, strangers, trees, rocks, cities ...”

The marriages are counterfiet, I don’t care if a corrupt judicial branch legalized it, in the eyes of God it is not recognized. Unfortunately all the marriages will do is to cause behavior and anger problems in children as they will become further confused by a sick culture. But that’s okay, they can just put the kids on prozac! And then we can scream about gun control as more children continue to go postal at the local high school. Think of all the employement opportunities that will be created trying to “cure” the angry kids with behavior problems.

No, you are incorrect.

Moses had ONE wife—Sara. No concubines, but had a kid through Hagar his handmaiden.God gave hiom the commandment—about not wanting your neighbor’s WIFE, not wives.

Solomon, on the other hand had many wives and many concubines. David had many wives.

This was not uncommon for royalty fue to political and military alliances.

However the norm was one man and one wife.That was what God proclaimed in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament.

As far as contracts, everyday there are contracts with multiple parties—real estate, partnerships etc, with more than one person.

The marriage model God proscribes is the one that works best—for man, for woman, for children and for society.

The Muzzies don’t like homosexuality—so I agree with them there. They believe in polygamy—don’t agree with them there.

You see how women are treated in Jewish and Western societies—compare and contrast to Moslem societies—no contest.

And as far as I know, Islamic terrorists haven’t taken a position on marriage, so your hyperbole is overblown.

History is history, with all its flaws. I didn’t say it was OK.

As for Moses,I mixed him up with Abraham in my previous post to you. Abraham’s wife was Sara and his handmaiden was Hagar. And the results of his lack of faith was Ismael, from whom today’s Muslims are descended.

AFAIK, Moses didn’t have any illegitimate children.

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.