Posted on 10/20/2015 8:04:25 AM PDT by Kaslin
We knew this was coming for some time now, and there are already “throuples” (meaning three men or three women in “committed” relationships) in America and other nations, but for the first time, one of these throuples has come up with an innovative way to be legally married – or at least almost legally “married.”
Two Canadian men, Adam Grant and Shayne Curran, were “married” in 2011. In 2012, they met Sebastian Tran in a nightclub and decided to turn their relationship into a threesome.
Now, the fact that they involved a third person in their sex lives is not that unusual with gay male couples, and gay activists like Dan Savage actually encourage gay couples to be “monogamish” rather than monogamous, claiming that this makes their relationships healthier and more stable.
Shayne was all for this, stating that, “Adam and I wanted to have a little more fun so we decided to experiment with multiple partners.”
Sounds like your typical, heterosexual couple, right? Getting married, going to bars, and experimenting with multiple partners. (Sarcasm intended.)
What makes things unique with this gay throuple is that Adam and Shane decided to get a divorce so Sebastian wouldn’t feel left out, and instead, they could make a commitment to each other as a threesome.
Said Shayne, “We’re the happiest we've ever been - all our dynamics and personalities work so well in a relationship. The three of us bring out the best in each other.”
As Sebastian explained, “It just seemed like the natural path for us, we just realised what we were. Together as a threesome, we were all complete.”
Well, what’s wrong with that? If they’re in love and they’re happy, why not? And why shouldn’t the law accommodate them? After all, love is love, right? Long live marriage equality for all!
In July, I wrote an article titled, “Why Two? The Question Gay Activists Cannot Answer.” The question behind that article was simple: If marriage is not the union of one and one woman, why limit it two people? Why, for that matter, require two people? Why can’t you marry yourself?
In response, a writer for the Huffington Post posted an article titled, “Polygamy Is Not the Next ‘Gay Marriage,” but it was easy to refute the arguments presented there, which I did in my subsequent article, “A Huffington Post Writer Takes My Challenge and Fails Badly.”
Now, with this new development in Canada, things have gone one step further, and this gay throuple wants to see a change in the law to recognize their relationship.
As Adam said, “Although being married to more than one person is not yet legal, we have spoken [to] lawyers who can draw up paperwork to make sure we are equally bound and obligated to each other in the eyes of the law.”
And note carefully those words: “not yet legal.”
Last week, I tweeted out, “Why is it when I say, ‘God intends marriage to be the union of a man & woman,’ I get flooded with death wishes, vulgarity, & profanity?”
A gay man responded, stating that I was bigoted to hold to this position. (That still doesn’t explain the death wishes, vulgarity, and profanity, but we’ll ignore that for the moment.)
When I probed him on his position on marriage, he made it clear that he believed in marriage equality for all, regardless of number or even family relationships (in other words, even adult incest was OK).
I then asked him if he was calling out gays who wanted to limit marriage to two people, accusing them of being bigots.
I never got a reply.
But what kind of reply could he give?
Would he say, “But marriage has always been about two people?”
How could he? First, it’s not true, since polygamy has been very common throughout history (up until today), and, second, the last thing he would want to do is to point to what marriage has “always” been, since it’s always been about the union of a male and female.
Now that gay throuples are asking for the right to “marry,” what will gay activists say?
This is not polygamy or even a polyamorous combination of males and females. This is gay all the way – three men in this case; three women in other cases.
Why not three?
And what objection can gay activists have to this throuple’s plan – which is as sickening as it is selfish – to have children together with the help of their sisters: “The threesome hope to conceive three children together with the help of Shayne's sisters as surrogates whilst Seb's sister will donate her eggs.”
Earlier this month, I demonstrated in a video how Stephen Colbert’s mockery of the slippery slope argument actually proved the point he was mocking.
This current, real-life development further underscores how gay activists are making marriage meaningless.
Our response to all these developments is simple: We refuse to redefine marriage, regardless of the Supreme Court’s recent decision (one that we must work to overturn), and we demonstrate God’s intent for marriage – a lifelong relationship between one man and woman, with the goal of producing children for the next generation and joining those children to their mother and father.
As for the gay activists, will they mount a vocal protest against this new call for “marriage equality” from Canada? Do they dare?
The real answer?
It was a contract about property rights. Going back to the beginning of property.
I know there are lots of people who cite the wedding in the bible. But weddings had been going on for a long time before THAT.
Protecting family assets, building alliances, and preserving wealth have always been the goal of marriages—whether they are between the rich or the poor.
Its tough to have a deal like that between three people.
“As Sebastian explained, “It just seemed like the natural path for us, we just realized what we were.”
I’m afraid that path might not be leading where you think it is my friend.
I’m pretty sure it was Judge Scalia who said (paraphrasing) once homosuxual marriage is deemed a Constitutional right, nothing else can logically be forbidden in the eyes of the law.
He’s right, I’m sure.
It’s inevitable. There was a lawsuit filed in Montana after the Supreme Court decision on homosexual marriage, with multiple people seeking legalization of their polygamous “marriage”.
I don’t know what happened with the Montana suit, but, even if turned down, more are sure to follow.
The very first lawsuit over homosexual marriage in this country happened in the early 1970s. Then a lawsuit in Hawaii in the early 1990s led to the Defense of Marriage Act being passed. Homosexual marriage didn’t just happen. The activists laid the ground work for that to happen over a period of many years.
I suspect that polygamy or polyamory activists are doing the same thing right now, under the radar, just as homosexual marriage activists worked under the radar for years, waiting to spring homosexual marriage on all of us.
Without God, everything is permissible. (Dostoevsky). That is why our Natural Rights come from God and not the State in the USA. There is no “natural right” to sodomize others——it is evil and vile and defies biology. you can never promote Vice in a Just Law. It denies the Natural Right to biological parents-—which is pure Marxism—to destroy all biological connections in humans (complete dehumanization).
The sodomite satanists know to groom and train children you have to have the promotion of their “lifestyles” on TV and law-—24/7evil and unnatural promotion- which normalizes their behaviors in little children since they are incapable of Reason. Toxic cultures create evil adults (Worldview)-—it is why Amish remove themselves from the culture.
It is like having the harem boys in Afghanistan. The boys learn to lust after males, boys and goats and hate and mutilate women. The desires and attitudes are embedded in children and you will be UNABLE to change them once they are “adults”. What they see and how they are treated determines “Worldview”.
SCOTUS is flipping Good and Evil in the Minds of children and they CAN’T legally do that——but our evil, sodomite, satanic Congressmen have allowed this-—on purpose-—to groom all our little boys and erase the Christian Worldview. (Individualism for Collective Minds/Fichte 1810)
It embeds behaviors-—it is why toxic cultures always collapse-—all the children in such evil cultures emulate what they see.
Without Virtue, (Justice), civil society collapses (Aristotle/Socrates/Founding Fathers).
That is why it is ESSENTIAL to return VIRTUE to our Justice System. Justice is the Queen of Virtue and the sodomite satanists on the SCOTUS are promoting Vice in a “Just Law”——can’t do it in America-—Any “Just Law” that promotes evil and vile behaviors are “null and void”.
“I know there are lots of people who cite the wedding in the bible. But weddings had been going on for a long time before THAT.”
Actually, it goes back to THIS part of the Bible, and there were no weddings before this:
“23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
Genesis 2:23-24
Well, I would have to disagree, agreeably.
By disagreeing I simply feel that the old testament and other old books of the time set up a lot of different scenarios. I choose to look at things that old as apocryphal.
I am not disrespecting your views. I understand them and I was raised on them. As I’ve grown, my views have changed.
All of this will be sorted out right after Canada adopts Sharia Law.
Making all marriage meaningless is the true (but usually unspoken) goal of the "gay marriage" project. In unguarded moments several prominent gay leaders have gone on record saying just that. They want a world without any sexual limitations whatsoever.
BI “rights” are next. That will include “marriage”.
A man and a woman get married and become one before God.
This is not marriage.
This is sexual fetish, plain and simple.
At that point homosexual marriage, and homosexuality itself will be illegal and punishable by death.
I think the sweet, peaceloving muzlums prefer throwing them off a building as sentence.
On the one hand, homosexuality is illegal and punishable by death, yet on the other hand they really, really like little boys.
Once they get "group" marriages in the homosexual realm, what is to stop heterosexual "group" marriages. Nothing.
Once you re-define something, it is open to redefinition over and over again.
I’ve not heard a single good reason why if I can marry another man it’s not ok for me to marry 5 of my female first cousins.
I guess fundamentalist Mormons and cousin ****ers just don’t have enough money for lobbyists.
But libs love Muslims, the Holy Koran says a man can have 4 wives (or infinity if you’re a prophet). How can you justify denying Muslim men their right to do whatever they want if you give that right to faggots?
Here’s the thing, IMO:
The courts can rule it legal; however, that does not mean every one has to accept it. And it doesn’t make it right.
Bingo
Or, as Elton John once sang, it can ne one of four or five...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyi9AbfUa1E
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.