Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Muslim Rights Will Polygamy Be the Next Gay Marriage? (Wait at least an hour after eating to read)
Common Sense Conspiracy ^ | March 21, 2013

Posted on 04/25/2013 11:32:52 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

With the Supreme Court set to start hearing arguments on the constitutionality of bans on gay marriage next week, polls across the nation are showing that for the first time in history, more Americans support same-sex marriage than oppose it. The reasons for this dramatic shift in the American point of view are many.

For starters, President Barack Obama flipped the script when he announced his support of gay marriage in an election year. A gutsy move and one that made it okay to be pro-gay. Since then, people have been coming out of the woodwork to support gay marriage, Republicans and Democrats alike. However, a more potent reason is the changing of the guard. More old people are dying off, and more younger people are passing the age required to be able to vote. Since younger people are much more likely to be open to the concept of same-sex marriage, the numbers are changing fast.

There is another group of people in the United States that are watching the Supreme Court closely this next week. Muslim Americans have been quietly watching the gay movement over the last decade, especially as they became subject to American suspicion and persecution after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001. This set Muslim Americans back big time in equality in the nation, but America still has religious freedom, and Islam is still welcome to be practiced there. Only one problem: Islam allows polygamy.

So, American law has caused many Muslim Americans to have to single out just one wife because there full array of wives could not be legally recognized. So, as the gay marriage lobby seems poised to succeed at last, there are other Americans ready to make their own play for equal rights. If the Supreme Court strikes down bans on gay marriage and opens the door for it to be legalized nationally, will this be the moment that our persecuted and discriminated against Muslim brothers are waiting for?

And what would be the battle cry against polygamy being legalized? Some sort of moral ground. Could it be that a nation that still has a few Christians feel that polygamy is wrong, in accordance with their religious beliefs? Could it have something to do with the Bible? Surely, we won’t use any of these guidelines in discriminating against these Americans. They are Americans, after all, no matter where they originated or what religious persuasion they hail from. They deserve all the equal rights and protections under the law, just as homosexuals do.

So, let Common Sense Conspiracy be the first to kick off this next civil rights movement. You heard it here first. When will polygamy be legalized, because to not allow and legally recognize these extra wives of Muslim Americans is a clear act of discrimination.

We need to change now. Now that we are putting petty things like this behind us, why just extend the discrimination to another group? It’s time to stop the hate and realize that every person has the right to do anything the hell they want to do at any given time, and there is absolutely no reason that any law should come between them.

So, let’s see the poll on polygamy and where America stands. When Obama “evolves” on this issue, then the public can gravitate in the righteous direction. Until then, I guess the Muslim Americans will continue to suffer this abomination.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; islam; muslims; polygamy

1 posted on 04/25/2013 11:32:52 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Already banned per LDS


2 posted on 04/25/2013 11:59:16 PM PDT by DownInFlames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Once you change the definition of marriage, you lose the right to say no one else can redefine it. So what form will it take next? Will I one day be able to marry my house plant and my TV for the government benefits? It’s no less legitimate than men marrying other men for the supposed big brother benefits.


3 posted on 04/26/2013 12:16:41 AM PDT by Telepathic Intruder (The only thing the Left has learned from the failures of socialism is not to call it that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DownInFlames

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3012521/posts?page=18


4 posted on 04/26/2013 12:19:59 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder
It’s no less legitimate than men marrying other men for the supposed big brother benefits.

And lawyers. Can you imagine how many more divorces they will benefit from.

5 posted on 04/26/2013 12:22:55 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

I imagine divorse will be much more common once marriage is trivialized to the extent that there is no real definition for it.


6 posted on 04/26/2013 12:27:31 AM PDT by Telepathic Intruder (The only thing the Left has learned from the failures of socialism is not to call it that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DownInFlames
Banned per LDS doesn't mean anything. Bans can be lifted. Laws can be changed. Even the constitution can be sidelined or "worked around". In the final analysis all these things, even the constitution, are just words on a page. Without the public will to support, uphold and defend them, they WILL fall by the wayside.

And the logic of the argument is absolutely sound, as Conservatives have indeed recognised for a long time. If there can be no moral objection to same-sex "marriage"; if our laws are just the products of bias and bigotry (as is alleged); if practical objections (disease etc) can be overcome or carry no weight, then there can be no objection to it taking place. And by implication, if same-sex "marriage" is valid, then why not polygamy? If the institution of marriage is made more "elastic" by removing the requirement for different genders, then what objection can be made to polygamy? The people involved are consenting adults, they enter into the estate of their own free will - without the moral underpinning there can be no objection.

The next stage will be necrophilia perhaps, or bestiality. Maybe eventually paedophilia, possibly brought in by lowering the age of consent. There are already fears that children are "growing up too quickly" and becoming sexualised at ever earlier ages - condoms being handed out at age eleven and so on. By the end of this century (assuming the US is still around) people will probably have the "right" to "marry" their own wallpaper.

7 posted on 04/26/2013 12:29:23 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder

Oh yes, absolutely right. If the requirements for marriage decline, then it stops being special, and people no longer work hard to maintain it. As you say, it becomes trivialized


8 posted on 04/26/2013 12:30:57 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

9 posted on 04/26/2013 12:41:44 AM PDT by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet - Mater tua caligas exercitus gerit ;-{)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder

That sounds about right. An uncharted territory, we don’t know what to expect but it will not be good.


10 posted on 04/26/2013 12:47:31 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

And the wedding planners, florists, cake bakers, Episcopal, Unitarian, UCC & UMC ministers, limo companies, jewelers, “gay-friendly” honeymoon destinations, etc., etc.


11 posted on 04/26/2013 1:00:11 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I’ve actually been wondering when the big push for polygamy will come. If one were to play devil’s advocate, it would probably be easier to “justify” polygamy than it would be gay marriage. Certainly there’s more historical precedent for it, and not just in the Muslim world.

Of course, I’m don’t actually agree with the idea. I’m just saying that if one can make the argument that two guys or two women can be defined as a marriage, then it couldn’t be that hard to also fit in the concept of a guy and two women (or whatever combination the group comes up with) into that now ever-expanding definition of a once-sacred tradition.

Hey, for that matter, why are we opposing gay cousins from marrying? I mean, the reason we prohibit intermarrying is because of the consequences of inbreeding, right? But if it’s two guys or two gals, how could there be any risk of that? After all, love is love, right? (I’m itching to use that one on some of my sillier leftist friends, LOL).


12 posted on 04/26/2013 1:01:19 AM PDT by DemforBush (Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
A Catholic perspective.

'Gay' New Zealand

13 posted on 04/26/2013 1:08:04 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (You Must be Hated by Evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The “polls” are rigged.


14 posted on 04/26/2013 1:08:05 AM PDT by exnavy (Fish or cut bait ...Got ammo, Godspeed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The one thing I see in the gay marriage law changes is a back door attempt by government to regulate religion by making those churches that won’t marry gays look criminal.

Its an alternate route to a Soviet-Nazi system of the state controlling religion.


15 posted on 04/26/2013 1:10:13 AM PDT by Nextrush (A BALANCED BUDGET NOW AND PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN ARE MY DREAMS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

And knocking over each other to get business for the gay affair. Who will be the first one to come up with a rainbow limo!


16 posted on 04/26/2013 1:43:18 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush

One drop of evil has rippling effects so about the gov controlled religion - I agree.


17 posted on 04/26/2013 1:47:53 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

The cancer of what is an admonition to God has grown fast. Evil is on a rampage as it’s time is in the final stages because ‘SOMEONE’ stronger than ‘it’ is coming back! But it is only going to get much worse first so remember these good old days.


18 posted on 04/26/2013 2:02:12 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder
Once you change the definition of marriage, you lose the right to say no one else can redefine it. So what form will it take next? Will I one day be able to marry my house plant and my TV for the government benefits? It’s no less legitimate than men marrying other men for the supposed big brother benefits.

One equally valid and peaceful culture already has "marriages" for prostitution. I imagine we'll have marriages for gun transfers if private sales are regulated, for tax purposes (a New Year's Eve marriage for a day to transfer paper losses to someone with high taxable income), to avoid inheritance taxes (marry your father on his death bed), and similar trivial abuses of what used to be a sacred covenant.

19 posted on 04/26/2013 2:02:32 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Well, with polygamy or plural marriage, they’ve at least got the “plumbing” right. Ps: this brings to mind the historic appearance of the Deseret or Utah delegate in Congress seeking admission to statehood. After a particularly pointed critique or attack on LDS plural marriage by a Senator (who was widely known for whoring around WashDC’s brothels, the ones just outside the Capitol building I mean), the Utah delegate noted rather pithily that when he wished to bed more women he at least had the decency to marry them. I believe everybody orobably understood the reference, at least that’s how I recall reading the history of the debate. Happy day, and why should the -slamicists have to wait until the next life for their 72 virgins, anyway!? Maybe if we let them have them now, they’d be too busy, or just too dammed tired to keep bombing us? Just thinking...


20 posted on 04/26/2013 2:08:43 AM PDT by faithhopecharity (()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

someone posted early this week - the Gay Movement wants to destroy the institution of marriage — they want it eradicated - once that is done - if ever (praying it won’t) - then it’s anyone’s game...number of wives won’t matter...total destruction of traditional norms and values based on Christianity are being targeted!....of course - we all know this - which is why we come here to read and post...& the Democratic Underground comes here to see how many informed people aren’t buying their Kool-Aid!


21 posted on 04/26/2013 3:13:30 AM PDT by BCW (OIF - a book by a combat veteran - http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DemforBush

I could accept polygamy a lot easier than I will accept Same sex marriage.

Polygamy is at least sex among natural partners.
Today many people practice polygamy by having mistress’s anyway. How many people are there who haven’t screwed around? Most divorces come from one or the other screwing around.


22 posted on 04/26/2013 4:26:40 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

23 posted on 04/26/2013 5:46:54 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

That sums it up nicely.


24 posted on 04/26/2013 5:52:31 AM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Nobody would have thought that something called ‘gay marriage’ would be recognized by the state before polygamy. If you would have told someone that in 1983 they would have thought you were nuts.

I wonder if ‘multiple partner gay marriage’ will be recognized by the state before traditional hetero polygamy.

Freegards


25 posted on 04/26/2013 6:02:31 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Oh, come on, all you polygaphobes! Why do you oppose progress? sarc/


26 posted on 04/27/2013 9:38:26 AM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson