Posted on 03/07/2013 5:09:54 PM PST by ReformationFan
Australian activists for same-sex marriage have always insisted, that it will not lead to polygamy or polyamory. Never, ever, ever. Gay marriage is just like traditional marriage, except for the sex of the spouse. Activist Rodney Croome wrote last year that “studies show most LGBTI people want to be part of a two-person marriage, while partners in polyamorist relationships (most of which begin as heterosexual unions) say they don’t want their relationships recognised as marriages.” Former Greens leader Bob Brown described a push for polyamory as “nonsense”.
This is a crucial point for supporters. If they were to concede that same-sex marriage would ultimately lead to polygamy and more imaginative forms of marriage, they would prove that there is a slippery slope. So they are forced into vehement denials.
How odd, then, that a Polyamory Action Lobby (PAL) has been founded in Australia “to combat the image of poly people as relationship bogeymen”.
PAL is testing the waters by spruiking a public petition on Change.org, an internet site for activists. “For too long has Australia denied people the right to marry the ones they care about. We find this abhorrent. We believe that everyone should be allowed to marry their partners, and that the law should never be a barrier to love. And that's why we demand nothing less than the full recognition of polyamorous families.”
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
I’M SHOCKED! Shocked, I say!
(Do I really need a sarcasm tag?)
Ping.
Indeed. I dislike any “marriage” that doesn’t Christ’s teachings about what actually constitutes it in Matthew 19:4-6. However, the polygamists can make a better argument for their cause than the homosexualists can for theirs.
Yeah, they said it would never lead to acceptance of bestiality. Now, Yale teaches it as normal. These people are evil, plain and simple. They must be stopped.
so they want to re define marriage but only how thye want marriage whilst taking so called rights away from other groups.
You can;t even make this up.
Here is a thought, keep marriage as one man and one woman like it has for hundreds of years, .
Keep it like thagt because chuildren are better off wiht a mother and a father.
Keep it like that because family is the back bone of this country and I’;m sure Australia.
I would not trust a word from these turd pokers, .
they said their private business but then have parades and shirts and flags.
They said they want civil unions and not marriage and thye got that and right as they got civil unions which in itself was discrimination to norma couples not married they said they wanted marriage.
They now want and get special laws, bully, boycott and attack people who oppose their twisted agenda
They have sex in public, bathroms, dog parks truck stops the sick lot.
They now say they should have access to kids and play family
They then want themselves in the military and yet don;t ask gave them privacy
They now want people charged for speaking up in England.
They should be told to seek mental help and quick
got that right, a man with two wives is more normal than two men who get turned on pushing feces witht heir penis
This is silly, Polygamy is a given once marriage is destroyed.
Name one good reason why it won’t lead to polygamy. Every single argument for homosexual marriage can be used to justify polygamy. On top of that, there is historical precedent for polygamy, not for homosexual marriage.
If you would have told anyone in 1980 that something called ‘gay marriage’ would actually be recognized by western states before polygamy they would have thought you were nutso. I mean, at least polygamy was an actual thing, some places had or still have it in the world. Now statists and homosexualists call anyone nuts who think that polygamy might be coming after something impossible like ‘gay marriage’ has been put over in many places.
Freegards
Or to put it in a G-rated manner, the simple fact remains in polygamy there’s at least a chance a child will be created and that child will have the benefit of his or her biological parents(a father and a mother. Imagine that!) being married to each another in the eyes of the law. No matter how they try, two members of the same sex cannot produce human life without going outside of their relationship and if they do so, they’re robbing that child of either his or her father or mother.
and if you are at a Yale conference, maybe leads to pedophila, incest, beastiality etc
The same arguments can be used for pretty much any union that people may fancy.
They want to punish people, students in schools included, for failing to affirm their “identity”. If you refuse to call a tranny boy “she” “her” and call him a “He” and “His” instead, they will want you punished for a hate crime.
That's why marriage needs to be defined as one man one woman. If marriage is simply 2 people who love each other and nothing else, anything goes.
That’s the true aim. The homosexualists, polyamorists, etc. are what the Communists call “useful idiots”. The ultimate goal is to legally abolish the special status of the natural family and replace it with the state.
I wonder if those folks consider it a “hate crime” if you call one of them “it”?
Indeed. The “you should be allowed to marry who you love” argument is what is being pushed. I saw an advert on TV this evening that used that argument (”My brother should be allowed to marry the person he loves”). Why not allow people to marry their favourite cartoon character? How can you “judge their love?”
Curiously, when advocates of gay marriage are asked if their policy also would allow polygamy or polyandry, they recoil in horror and insist that it does not. However, logic demands that it does. I would ask how same-sex parents are going to react in the future when, for example, Utah public schools officials require that teachers instruct the children that LDS-related polygamy is just as “normal” as same-sex “marriage”. The fact that this will be an issue will show yet again that gay “marriage” is not about marriage at all it is about forcing the rest of us to approve of repugnant sexual immorality, something that LDS polygamists never demanded.
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.