Posted on 05/16/2008 11:38:25 AM PDT by Brilliant
Think the polygamists are feeling left out of this wildly widening definition of marriage?
Aren’t marriages supposed to be happy?
Oh, he meant homosexual. Why didn’t he say so?
Yes, and the ban on marriage of fathers to daughters, men to 8 year old boys, and women to dogs is also unconstitutional according to the Obamacrats.
If it is a "states rights" issue, then WHAT is Barack going to be "fighting for" as President? The President has no say in matters of state.
Scenario:
2 arsenokoits get married and then adopt a young child (male).
At the age of 18, they divorce with one of the “parents” entering into marriage with the adopted child. They adopt a child.
“What about those who wish to enjoy bestiality?”
Don’t even go there. That’s next on Obama’s list of Constitutional rights.
And who are we to judge such an arrangement? /sarc
“Yes, and the ban on marriage of fathers to daughters, men to 8 year old boys, and women to dogs is also unconstitutional according to the Obamacrats.”
On another board, I said the very same thing to an idiot liberal who responded, “Well that’s asinine. No one’s going to marry their dog.”
To which I responded:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311079,00.html
No, children are next.
This is the next goal post. The APA has already paved the way with some study declaring “adult-child sex” can be beneficial to the child.
THAT’S WHAT i’M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. SINCE WHEN CAN A JUDGE MAKE LAW.
Not surprising since there’s a rumor that he’s been pole vaulting with Rev. Wrong.
Maybe the Larry Sinclair story did happen, and BO is keeping his options open?
Intermediate goal, Federal Age of Consent.
Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg wrote a paper on just such a thing. Her conclusion was 11 years old.
At least you didn’t send him the story about the man forced to marry the goat.
Libs try to dismiss your argument as a false “slippery slope” argument.
It is in no way a slope, or a continuum, of acceptable arrangements.
There is traditional marriage, defined by God from the very beginning of the human race, then there is everything else.
Once THE definition is compromised, no logical argument can be made for another definition that excludes ANYTHING.
He’ll marry Edwards so they can become the Presidential couple.
Since Roosevelt... That’s the fundamental philosophy behind the Dem judicial appointees. They’ve got to be willing to reinterpret the law in order to shift it to the left in order to eliminate the need for the liberals to push their agenda thru the legislature.
“Once THE definition is compromised, no logical argument can be made for another definition that excludes ANYTHING.”
Exactly. 100 years ago no one in their right mind would EVER consider redefining marriage to include same sexes...whose to say years from now that marriage includes every freak show circumstance.
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.