Bingo! Another of those "The more things change, the more they stay the same." moments??
Commune portrait circa 60's
~GCR~
Posted on 08/02/2006 9:56:24 AM PDT by madprof98
For years, critics of the idea of same-sex “marriage” have made the point that accepting the proposition that two persons of the same sex can marry each other entails abandoning any principled basis for understanding marriage as the union of two and only two persons. So far as I am aware, our opponents have made no serious effort to answer or rebut this point. Their strategy has been to dismiss it as a mere slippery-slope argument (although the truth is that it is a more fundamental type of argument than that) and to accuse us of engaging in “scare tactics.” Some have even denounced us as “bigots” for suggesting that same-sex relations are on a par with polygamy and “polyamory”—the union of three or more persons in a sexual partnership.
That was then; this is now.
A group of self-identified “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers” has released a statement explicitly endorsing “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.” Got that? More than one conjugal partner.
The people putting out this statement are not fringe figures. The more than 300 signatories include feminist icon Gloria Steinem, NYU sociologist Judith Stacey, Columbia University anthropologist Elizabeth Povinelli, Georgetown law professors Robin West and Chai Feldblum, the Rev. Cecil Charles Prescod of Love Makes a Family Inc., Yale law professor Kenji Yoshino, Princeton religion professor Cornel West, writer Barbara Ehrenreich, and Pat Clark, former executive director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation.
The statement—titled “Beyond Gay Marriage”—lays out with remarkable candor and clarity the agenda of their movement. They have said what very few “gay marriage” advocates have heretofore been willing to reveal for fear that it would alienate people who might otherwise be persuaded to support same-sex “marriage” on the theory that “love makes a family.” These are people who do not want to change the meaning of marriage or undermine the institution, but who might be open to the idea of “extending” marriage to “committed, loving same-sex couples.”
In acknowledging that under the doctrine of “love makes a family,” what applies to “committed, loving same-sex couples” must apply to “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner,” the signatories to “Beyond Gay Marriage” exhibit the virtues of intellectual honesty and logical consistency.
And they let the cat out of the bag. What lies “beyond gay marriage” are multiple sex partners.
The choice facing us as a nation is this: Either we retain as legally normative the traditional conjugal understanding of marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman, or we give legal standing and public approbation to every form of consensual sexual partnering and child rearing, including polygamy and polyamory. Just ask those notable “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and allied activists, scholars educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers.” They’ll tell you exactly what lies “beyond gay marriage.” They already have.
The Devil will try every angle to destroy Marriage.
Many people have been saying this for a number of years. Scalia has always talked about the opening of Pandora's Box. Gay marriage activists talk about getting the state to publicly recognize "their love", as if love was the rationale that the state is involved in marriage. If you are going to use love as a sole criteria for allowing marriage beyond one man/one woman, then heck why can't I marry Bobby, Betty, Wilma & Fred--I love all of them. why can't I marry my chihuahua Geronimo, or my iguana Aristotle--I love them too. Although, I think Scalia made the Pandora's Box comment in reference to the sodomy case in Tx (Lawrence)---which, in the strict sense the court ruled rightly, he could see where all this was heading. I think Charles Krauthammer had an article not too long ago about "Big Love"--polyamory.
On average from stats from European countries, gay marriages last less than 2 years and includes having 8 outside sex partners during that time.
This is not really surprising.... After all part of destroying a people is to destroy its foundations and roots. Marriage between man and woman is one of the fundamental building blocks of both Jewish and Christian society.
And the gutless and aimless will go on making excuses for them.
I think it wouild take more than a bag to get the average housecat to go along with such a notion.
Wonder what Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch have to say about this since they argue that same-sex marriage will not lead to multiple-person marriages. Looks like they've been blind-sided.
It's been done before.It was called Haight-Ashbury.
Bingo! Another of those "The more things change, the more they stay the same." moments??
Commune portrait circa 60's
~GCR~
Current tactic: when everything is marriage, nothing is.
I have heard many many gay community spokesmen say that the slippery slope argument is false. They said that there is no movement to legalize polygamy or alternate family forms. They make a joke out of it when discussing gay marriage..
But now we see that they really do want to get to polygamy and group marriage. They want to use the legalization of monogamous homosexual marriage as a stepping stone to their goals.
I think that the gay community has a responsibility to reveal ALL aspects of their agenda. People in state after state are being asked to vote on this, and are told that it's bigotry to affirm traditional marriage. The gay community should communicate where they want to go so people know what to expect.
It's disingenous(sp?) for them to say the goal is recogniztion of same sex marriage, equal justice, etc. when the real goal is to radically change marriage and family once they establish the concept of homosexual marriage.
You are absolutely right. I haven't seen anything about this paper in any newspaper or other forum. People need to know about this.
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.