Replies

The Democrats are going to find themselves in deep sh*t once their stooges on the Mass. Supreme Court do the gay lobby's bidding. This won't fly in flyover country at all. Hell, it would seriously alienate them from even the black community ...

This is a major slippery slope. In all cultures around the world, three laws govern marriage; (1) Only two people share a marriage bond i.e. even in polygynous/polyandrous marriages, the man/woman is married to each woman/man individually and the wives/husbands are NOT married to each other.

(2) Only a man and woman can get married. Even the Igbos, who have a form of woman-woman marriage make it clear that it's a strictly non-sexual/economic arrangement. The woman who is the "husband" gets men to get her "wife" pregnant so she can have "children" who would work her farm. The woman-husband generally is married herself ... to a man.

(3) Only two people of sufficient distance in blood can get married. Of course, this "distance" differs from culture to culture but it's quite clear that people from within the same nuclear family can't get married. It happened in ancient Egypt among the Pharoahs because "gods" could not marry mere mortals but ...

Now if Rule (2) can be thrown away in favor of PC, why not Rule (3)? What if Jack and his sister Jill (consenting adults) want to get married? Why should their marriage not be recognized? Their children would be deformed?

What if Jack decides to be sterilized? What if it's Jack and Jim? What if it's Jack, his brother Jim, his uncle Joe and Jim's daughter Jill who want to get married in a four-way pan-sexual marriage? Why not? Because it's disgusting? Wasn't that what was said about homosexuality just a few decades ago?

This is one major can of worms the Left is opening. Most people recognize this. That's why this is really gonna hurt them in 2004 ...

These threads are notorious for their slippery slope examples. You put up the challenge for relative-marraige, but that does not apply to unrelated adults. So you have established a classic straw man. Why not pitch to your own team and hit one out of the park.

Soon Kevin Curry will come along and ask what's wrong with marrying animals and someone already mentioned marrying kids. Kevin and others do this because they are disrupters who ignore rational responses over and over. None of these equate to two unrelated adults being married. No one can justify how children would be allowed to enter into this type of contract. As for animals, baaaaaaaaaaad example.

To use your can of worms analogy, not all worms are able to climb out of the can.