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 ...
Applause.
We have sawn off the branch we were sitting on, because it was convenient for us.
Now we’re bitching because the fall of the branch is accelerating.
I see no way, however, to reverse this process, short of perhaps total societal collapse and rebuilding, painful lessons learned.
A traditional way of relieving the societal pressures of “excess” males is war.
You CAN limit marriage to mean whatever you want it to mean.
The problem comes when you allow homosexual marriage. THEN you have “no rational basis” to deny any other type of relationship one chooses to be involved in.
It becomes a meaningless instutition. The government then has no interest anymore. Now, IMHO, we get rid of divorce courts, alimony, and the myriad things people choose to fight over, except as civil cases.
And those pesky children...
Does any of this sound like what homosexuals are demanding, or else?
Of course NOT! To them. marriage is all about legalizing sodomy and dressing it up, giving it society's "stamp of approval!"
Exactly. As a conservative, I value the institution of traditional marriage and the state's right to promote/regulate it to perpetuate society. However, as a Libertarian, I abhor the state meddling into people's personal business.
The issue IMHO is that marriage is not a civil right but a contractual agreement. This has always been the basis of marriage and the state's right to regulate it. For example, I can not enter into a contract with you that makes me your slave. I can not enter into a loan contract that I pay loan shark interest rate. In these cases that state has a compelling right to outlaw or regulate.
The first mistake our progressive society made on marriage was the no-fault divorce. By having no-fault, you basically threw out the contract by allowing anyone to exist at anytime. This means Marriage is a hand shake deal. Now that marriage is not a contract, then it can be redefined as a civil right.... As a civil right, the state has a much higher threshold to prove to regulate.
Same sex marriage is not marriage, it is a mirrage, as in mirage.
Mirrage!
It can be anything you imagine but not a marriage.
The libertarian side of me thinks “meh.”. Freedom means we have to accept stuff we find repugnant.
Most sheeperals don’t have a clue about that “no rational basis”...
There is no “basis” for their beliefs that isn’t arbitrary and temporal.
No, the ultimate goal is to legalize pedophilia. Sex with anyone, at any age, at any time including incest.
Animal Husbandry ;-)
At least the writer is honest.
And Mohammed wants to marry Aisha while she’s six years old. He promkses to wait to deflower her.... a whopping three years.
Why just conscious animals? Why not trees? “Arbolamory”, anyone?
Next thing on their agenda is to make it legal to marry your pet dog or cat.
That’s as good as any.
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.
What about xenopolyamourous????
Thanks for the ping.
Fine. Let us just say we are all married to one another, sort of a “commune”. Now we can move on to the divorcing stage.
During deliberation, can the Supreme Court Justices consider news and events subsequent to the cases being presented during the hearing? Can’t the push for polygamous “marriages” based on legalizing same-sex “marriage” be NOW considered in evaluating the case? It would be insane to ignore this.
#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.
Mormon prophet Heber C Kimball -
“I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow.” - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, The Twenty Seventh Wife, Irving Wallace, p. 101.
“Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake.” - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, The Lion of the Lord, New York, 1969, pp.129-30.
Polygamy is also a solution for the women who cannot find good guys (they went gay), so they share a great one.
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.