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.
Already banned per LDS
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.
And lawyers. Can you imagine how many more divorces they will benefit from.
I imagine divorse will be much more common once marriage is trivialized to the extent that there is no real definition for it.
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.
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
That sounds about right. An uncharted territory, we don’t know what to expect but it will not be good.
And the wedding planners, florists, cake bakers, Episcopal, Unitarian, UCC & UMC ministers, limo companies, jewelers, “gay-friendly” honeymoon destinations, etc., etc.
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).
The “polls” are rigged.
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.
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!
One drop of evil has rippling effects so about the gov controlled religion - I agree.
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.
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.
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...
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.