In the top ten things I hate about liberals is how condescending they are when they lie.
Stupid homos. Just because YOU don’t want polygamy doesn’t mean that someone doesn’t want it. They can make up euphemisms like “marriage equality” and #lovewins and #loveislove and all the same crap.
Since there is a biological reason for polygamy (as opposed to gay marriage), it makes sense that it should be legalized because it has more reasons to exist than gay marriage.
He’s right. Pedophilia is next.
The author of this article is obviously someone in no position to lecture others about logical fallacies.
Actually, Keith, the slippery slope is implicit both in the argument that marriage is anything anyone wants it to be and in the failure to recognize the biological basis of the legal framework surrounding marriage.
Gays have wanted to share in what they perceive as the financial benefits of marriage (also, without recognizing that those financial benefits are meant to offset the costs of raising the offspring that marriages are supposed to produce). As a vehicle for gaining financial benefits, why shouldn’t any two people be allowed to marry? Why shouldn’t someone with terminal cancer be allowed to “marry” his business partner to avoid death taxes his business partner would otherwise have to pay upon his death? Why not polygamy? Why not have a big huge marriage of all of the board of directors of a large corporation so they can all share the tax benefits?
As long as the Supreme Court has decreed that marriage is no more than a vehicle for legally avoiding or decreasing certain taxes, then what *are* the limits on who can get “married”?
>> If that is the only objection they can muster, it fails basic logic and they have no case.
So now the people who have butt sex are going to teach us logic??
Polygamy is VASTLY more natural than homosexuality. Also accepted in the Bible.
He's probably not old enough to remember communes or various cults like the Mansons.
The liberals said, “Accepting of homosexuals does not mean gay marriage!”
Charlie Brown, meet Lucie and her football.
Yep,and gaze just wanted to be left alone.
Liberals first lie to themselves. They give themselves permission and a list of excuses to allow that which the emotions desire. Being human, when they fail to meet their own expectations, they create another layer of lies and excuses so they don’t have to take responsibility.
A liberal then lies to their loved ones, their family, their friends, their business associates, their co-workers, everyone they interact with. The “truth” is only an alternative reality to a liberal, one reality among many possible. Truth itself is malleable and plastic. What is “true” in the morning might not be “true” at noon.
A liberal, in his own mind, cannot commit sin. Every action is excusable, at least after the fact. Thus, they cannot do what God requires of every human in order to have a relationship with Him: because a liberal never committed any sin, he does not have anything to repent of.
Liberals, of all humans, have cut themselves off from God. Now of course God has a plan to deal with liberals, but that is why he gives so many warnings, and why in the end, He promises to shock the world, so as to shock as many liberals as possible into the real world.
No person who declines to fully participate in reality can be granted the free gift of salvation. Such a person could not successfully have eternal life. They would fail in the same way that Lucifer failed.
That is the hard truth of the human condition, and why God is not playing games.
Keith needs to talk to Frederick at Politico:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3305319/posts
Pure idiocracy, preached to an army of violent hypocrites.
The anti-polygamy laws? What argument can be made to uphold those laws now? If three, four, or more people want to marry, don't they deserve their "dignity" as well?
Once the sanctity of the words themselves have been distorted or damaged beyond rectification, then the gates ARE wide open and can mean anything the speaker wants them to mean. Gay “marriage” is in and of itself just a chock to hold the doors open, while every other formerly persecuted and often prosecuted deviation comes streaming through. Sodom and Gomorrah did not happen overnight, though it was perhaps only a short span of time from the first rationalizations until the complete dissolution of inhibitions overtook the whole district.
The decadence that was the Roman Empire was also noted for its rather loose interpretation of what constituted moral righteousness and acceptable behavior. But then, life in the Roman Empire tended to be rather brutish and short anyway, scarcely better than the Germanic tribes to the north.
Polygamy is NOT next.
I don’t know a single woman who would agree to it.
Polyamorous is next.
Its already very active in the NW with older men/women and among the Millennials.
Usually in this type of relationship, the woman is the controller, gets most of the benefits but the men don’t have to worry about the divorce $$$ or paying all the bills.
The end result is the woman finds someone she wants, dumps the rest of the guys and moves on.
Think of it as an extended FWB relationship but with much more drama.
Like Kennedy says, with gays want dignity - Muslims and Mormons only want dignity too
Why are we privileging sexual relationships when it comes to conferring legal benefits?
Why not let everyone have ONE primary relationship regardless of its basis, when it comes to tax benefits, inheritance, medical decision making, etc.?
The relationship could be sexual, familial, friendship or convenience.
We can call it LNOK, legal next of kin, pronounced ellnock. And then we can stop worrying who is screwing who, and what people have done to marriage, and demanding that other people recognize and validate ellnock ceremonies.
We can require it to be a mutual, two-way relationship, to prevent abuse, as might occur when a cult leader became the beneficiary of all his followers. That also prevents polygamy.
You’re welcome.