Posted on 01/13/2013 4:03:34 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I keep hearing same-sex marriage (SSM) activists assuring us that no one else will legally redefine the essence of marriage, after they enjoy the privilege of doing so. It's a red herring to distract us from the real issue: redefining it for them alone.
But if we redefine marriage for one group, there's no logical reason to deny other nonconformist advocates their right to do so, especially if they successfully argue their version of marriage on utilitarian grounds -- it benefits or does no harm to society.
I don't know who invented the slippery slope fallacy, but he or she shouldn't be decorated with a medal. Sometimes the slope exists, it really is slippery, and people actually slide down it. In the 1950s, Lucy and Ricky were shown in separate beds. In the late 1960s and early 1970s the Brady Bunch parents shared the same extra-wide king-size bed, but were far apart. Today? No need to describe primetime or daytime TV. The sex drive is powerful, and society has publically slid down that slippery, muddy slope long ago.
Here are two more nonconformist groups clamoring for their share of the marriage mud pie.
First, polygamy.
Islam allows polygamy for men. They can marry up to four women if the men can afford them (Quran 4:3). Of course religious scholars can't deny the clear teaching of the Quran. Allah wills it. So they inform us of the social benefits of polygamy....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Marx wanted the annihilation of the family unit and God-—biology is meaningless in Marxism’s utopia—so all people are interchangeable—radical egalitarianism. They want no special feelings (loyalty) to a mother and father or loyalty to God.
They want the natural instincts which are strong in people to be destroyed-—that maternal instinct (women) and protective one (men). Abortion was the start of removing mothers from their little children. Animals in nature NEVER allow strangers around their babies. They kill them.
We now have women calling it a right to kill their own biological offspring—their genetic connection to the past and future. Same with men and the destruction of the patriarchy—to destroy that which makes men connected to females and their genetic offspring. It is all psychological-—to remove the idea of God (Christianity) where we are responsible for our own offspring, etc.
Then the State has no trouble raising the children and being the mommy and forming their worldview—what and how they think-—so they will be perfect little drones.
To make slaves of the masses—the ideas of motherhood/fatherhood and Natural Rights from God—have got to be destroyed.
Religion and the Natural Family Unit have to be destroyed to make slaves. Children who have a loving mother and father—would be protected. Removing biology—making biology meaningless by promoting absurd, unnatural ideas where homosexuals can LEGALLY create an “artificial” idea of Natural-—removes God, removes Natural Laws and removes Reason from the children in the following generation who won’t “learn” or have any idea what “natural” is-—so State can determine Good and Evil. Slavery becomes Good. Vice (sodomy) becomes “good”.
” Actually, polygamy would be more humane vs. tossing the first wife out.”
Or the other way around...
The whole homosexual movement is a Communist movement. Our current Hollywood and Public Schools were Communist creations to corrupt children.
“These Leftist degenerates began to scheme over sixty years ago to secure public acceptance of their depravity. Havelock Ellis, a founder of the Fabian Society, compiled a massive erotic work entitled, Studies In The Psychology Of Sex. Ellis was a sexual pervert and drug user. He and a group of fellow Leftists even pioneered in the experimental use of hallucinogens in private orgies. Ellis was definitely a pathological case. He drove his wife into Lesbianism and drug addiction, securing additional erotic excitement by urging her to recite her Lesbian experiences. Mrs. Ellis eventually went insane and died in utmost misery after denouncing her husband as a sexual monster.”
http://bioleft.tripod.com/keynes.htm
This article assumes polygamy is further down the slippery slope than fudge packing. The case for polygamist marriage is actually much stronger
With some race groups here, marriage is rare. Maybe 80% are born out of wedlock with different spouses.
Havelock Ellis was one of Margaret Sanger’s many lovers.
Unfortunately, pedophilia has justification in Islam, as well.
I can imagine the liberal/libertarian argument already: “He’s not married to them and gets to be a TV star whereas he’d be in jail if he married them. How’s that fair?”
I, too, suspect this will be headed our way in the not too distant future. To play Devil’s Advocate, if we accept the idea that two people of the same gender can marry and have a normal relationship, why can we not then accept the notion that a guy (or woman) can love more than one person? That will be the basic argument, or something similar to it.
These are interesting times we live in...
I think it’s very hypocritical for “same-sex marriage” advocates to oppose polygamy. The one thing I will enjoy about this terrible moral devolution in this country will be throwing the “anti-polygamous bigot!” charge back in their faces.
A hippy-dippy type woman I know loves to use the “It is about love and we need more love in the world” argument. She has kids who are teens, so I wonder if she’ll be so “loving” when someone in their 30s or 40s wants to “share love” with her kids.
They were all degenerates that took over our institutions-—the Fabian Socialists. John Dewey was one of them-—the Father of American Education in US.
We have to get their corrupt ideology our of our school system and parents have got to turn off TV and what they are feeding our children to destroy Virtue and normalize evil behavior.
If we kill Virtue—we can not have Freedom. Machiavelli stated it is ESSENTIAL for all Republics to promote Public Virtue (Discourses on Livy).
Call ‘em “poly haters.” ;-)
If you would have told folks in 1980 that something called ‘gay marriage’ would be recognized by the state before polygamy, they would have thought you were wacked out of your gourd.
That’s the problem with the state’s involvement, at least in in the modern era. The definition they use to recognize the institution is simply whatever judges, pols, or 51% of the voting public want it to be it at any one time.
Freegards
No, officer, I can't imagine how a cat would have gotten into a bath tub and then dragged an electric heater in on herself (or himself - gay marriage is legal, you know - who are you to question my love?). Please leave me alone, officer - can't you see I'm grieving for my lost spouse? Murder? It was just a cat, for goodness sake.
now, as we've had difficulty conceiving, we'll prolly need a surrogate to start our family... but then we'll be off to a large happy family (we may also adopt)
here's a pic of my life's delight (she does have a child from a previous relationship):
since we'll be married... we'll be able to write off all our children... right?
(starve the beast using their own bs)
Bill Ayers is quite confident that he and all his pals will secure their “Worker’s Paradise” by the many years they have been desensitizing our children - like teaching about canabalism in the fifth grade.
Thanks for sharing that!
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.