Posted on 04/17/2013 5:28:12 AM PDT by ReformationFan
A columnist at Slate made waves on Tuesday after bucking the party line of same-sex “marriage” advocates by penning a column calling for “marriage equality” to extend to legalized polygamy.
After opening her column by lamenting the “tired refrain” from social conservatives that same-sex “marriage” opens the door to recognizing multiple-partner unions, Jillian Keenan quickly shows that she has adopted their logic herself.
Kody Brown and his four 'wives' from the TLC show Sister Wives “While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too,” she writes.
“The definition of marriage is plastic,” she continues. “Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less ‘correct’ than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults.”
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Just keep talking, liberals... please do keep it up. You’re making the best case against your own cause.
this will happen eventually. polygamy has been a part of cultures around the world since the beginning of recorded time. it’s homosexual marriage that is a new concept.
Absolutely! “Marriage Equality” means anything goes!
And, yes, the target is the family. Satan hates the family, and his minions (leftists) follow his lead.
What's the word for interspecies marriage?
zooamory?
Its radical, anarchic individualism. There should be no social unit, other than the government And its been going on for decades, starting with “no fault” divorce and then moving on to living together and “palimony” to gay marriage to “any” marriage.
The thing a lot of people don’t understand is that you can’t have easy divorce laws and quickie, Las Vegas-style marriage laws and then draw the line at gay marriage or polygamous marriage. They all undermine the family social unit. We either take marriage seriously as a life-long male/female social unit that can only be broken in the most serious of situations or we don’t.
Would one differentiate between monozooamory and polyzooamory? I mean...some people could be in a committed monozooamorous relationship...I suppose...whereas others might choose to play the field.
On the other hand, to differentiate might be discriminatory.
And while we're at it--what about marriage for the autoamorous? And the phytoamorous? Certainly unjust to leave them out.
The SCOTUS has been really good at surgically creating new rights such that the general principles cited as a basis are not applied to any other case.
Simply ststed :They make it up as they go along, then cover it with legal sounding terms that are meaningless.
Two examples :
Bush v. Gore(2003) created a right to same sex sodomy under guise of bedroom privacy that does not apply to say drug or even gun possession.
Much more popular here: Bush v. Gore(2000) the SCOTUS stopped the Texas recount of votes but doesnt apply to any other elections.
If the SCOTUS (and King Obama) wants it then Lo and Behold it is done.
Anyone who didn’t see this coming needs to put on their dunce cap.
When you abandon THE definition, then there is NO definition.
The left/liberals try to say the definition, now, is “two adults”. Why? That’s arbitrary?
Of course, a discussion of epistemology is far beyond where a sheeperal wants to go, intellectually. I’ve found that when you show them that their belief system is baseless, they tend to get lost, because they STRONGLY believe what they believe, even if they can’t say what the basis of it is.
This country is slowly getting away from the ideals of the founding fathers, the Constitution and the Bible. Because of this at a certain tipping point all will be lost................never forget that.
And the day after tomorrow? Achmed, his three wives, and their 27 children file for welfare payments...
I remember the liberals in Lawrence v. Texas writing that legalizing sodomy would not lead to same sex marriage. That was a lie, and they knew it.
When I think of polygamy, I am reminded of the “Unintended Consequences” of that sort of marriage.
#1 Affluent males can attract more females than less affluent males. The reasons for that are well studied.
#2 Women no longer will be looked upon as “individuals” they will be or are looked upon as status symbols and property. This does take time but history shows that this is the end result of polygamy.
#3 Less Affluent males, may find themselves without a mate for most of their lives or until they have earned enough to “buy” one.
#4 Families will try to concentrate Family or Clan wealth by intermarriage to cousins. Wealth is also construed as keeping the “Dowries” within the family or clan structure.
#5 Those males unable to find a wife through economic affluence or Family connections will turn to Homosexuality for relief of “pressures”.
In other words Polygamy will also lead to increases in the Homosexual community.
There is a slippery slope here. Or-more accurately-a yawning chasm. It is strange and wonderful to see a publication as blind as Slate take notice of it.
Re #2 - in “Soylent Green” they were “furniture”.
The way I see it, once we get gay marriage, might as well let anything go. Why not, it’s a moot point anyway.
True.
And it's always involved at least one man and at least one woman.
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.