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