Wacky hijinx ensue when Wilber becomes jealous over sleeping arrangements.
Hillarity is the rule when Wilber takes a week-long business trip. Close bonds showing the true meaning of "loving family" follow in episode #8 : "Hanging like a Horse".
Posted on 03/22/2006 8:01:47 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON — And now, polygamy.
With the sweetly titled HBO series “Big Love,” polygamy comes out of the closet. Under the headline “Polygamists, Unite!” Newsweek informs us of “polygamy activists emerging in the wake of the gay-marriage movement.” Says one evangelical Christian big lover: “Polygamy rights is the next civil-rights battle.”
Polygamy used to be stereotyped as the province of secretive Mormons, primitive Africans and profligate Arabs. With “Big Love” it moves to suburbia as a mere alternative lifestyle.
As Newsweek notes, these stirrings for the mainstreaming of polygamy (or, more accurately, polyamory) have their roots in the increasing legitimization of gay marriage. In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two persons of (2) opposite gender, and if, as gay marriage advocates insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one’s autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement — the number restriction (two and only two) — is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.
This line of argument makes gay activists furious. I can understand why they do not want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I’m not the one who put them there. Their argument does.
Blogger and author Andrew Sullivan, who had the courage to advocate gay marriage at a time when it was considered pretty crazy, has called this the “polygamy diversion,” arguing that homosexuality and polygamy are categorically different because polygamy is a mere “activity” while homosexuality is an intrinsic state that “occupies a deeper level of human consciousness.”
But this distinction between higher and lower orders of love is precisely what gay rights activists so...
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
Thanks for the ping!
Thanks for the link!
You're absolutely right. The problem is they have to hide their intentions, and polygamy exposes it.
I was about to grab a snack, but I seem to have lost my appetite.
But the important question is, can you have two sheep?
I understand that the Mormon church disavowed polygamy in the late 19th century.
I fail to see how having gay marriage in only one state, and there by judicial fiat, constitutes something that "worked."
>>Gay marriage -> polygamy -> child marriage -> incest -> bestiality -> Hillary Clinton
ROTFLOL!
No, but you can have two cows. I recommend that you sell one and buy a bull.
Very good. Meditate on Ronald Reagan's autobiography and look at pictures of Michelle Malkin for half an hour, and you will be absolved.
Nom RReagun Malkin Je Ko.. ;)
>>Polygamy does have considerably more Biblical precedent
>>than homosexuality does. Not that I'm advocating it, but
>>it's probably less repulsive than gay marriage.
Be very careful, I posted this on another thread about this and was just about badgered to death.
That said, I agree, this was my whole point on the other thread, and I think there were over 100 posts arguing over what I had said. I hope you have better luck.
Sorry, although the title suggests that this is a humorous piece, it is not. Someday, there will be a demand by someone that the state officially recognize a marriage between he and his livestock.
In California voters will decide on March 7 whether the institution of marriage has meaning in the traditional sense. They will be voting on an initiative which is Proposition 22 on the ballot. This initiative statute would provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriages performed in other states and countries would not be legal in California if they did not meet this criterion.
I suspect that as we grow older we tend to hold onto or honor those traditions that have had meaning in our lives. And we would hope that such traditions would have meaning and importance to others.
A man and woman marrying and raising their children has been proven for generation after generation after generation to be the best possible family structure for society. Twenty years ago, never could I have imagined that a proposition such as Proposition 22 would be necessary. It was just assumed that men would marry women, have children and carry on in the traditions that have proven best.
What is behind the proposition, of course, is more than just a question of whether homosexuals may marry and be officially recognized by the state. It is clearly an issue of states rights. Since California does not sanction marriage between other than a man and woman, should it be forced to do so if a couple marries in another state and comes to California?
Homosexuals may live with whom they wish. They may work where they wish although there certainly exists some discrimination in certain job areas. I personally would not want my son to be supervised by a gay scout leader. Homosexuals may own property together. Homosexuals may visit each other in the hospital. And homosexuals may will their property, real or personal, to their partner.
So what is it that they want? If homosexuals are officially recognized by the state as married couples, their union will be recognized as equal to that of heterosexual couples. The next step is clear. Homosexual couples would demand equality in the adoption of children. If their marriage was officially sanctioned and determined to be equal to any others' marriages, how could the argument be refuted?
Now back to my originial suggestion which at first looks preposterous. If two homosexuals can marry, why can't a brother and sister marry, particularly if one is sterile and no deformed children would result? Or, how about two men and a woman or two women and a man? How about a father and his daughter? Or, a father and his son? How about a man and his goat? If a man is in love with his goat, who is to say that such should not be sanctioned? It won't affect you and it won't affect me. If they are happy together, why not? It is not animal abuse. After all, you can kill a goat and eat it. Can someone stop you from having sex with it?
The attempted devaluation of marriage needs to stop now. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That does not need to be fixed. Gays may do what they like behind closed doors and spend their lives with their partners. If a man cannot legally marry another man, that is just too damned bad. If a man cannot marry his goat, that is just too damned bad.
Another liberal step back into barbarism. Polygamous societies are failed societies.
Bestiality is already legal in WA.
I dont know. 1 Wife is a LOT of work. But 8?
Maybe they could talk to each other and let me play the X-Box in peace! (Or maybe they would all want to talk.. to ME!! horrors!)
Wacky hijinx ensue when Wilber becomes jealous over sleeping arrangements.
Hillarity is the rule when Wilber takes a week-long business trip. Close bonds showing the true meaning of "loving family" follow in episode #8 : "Hanging like a Horse".
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.