Posted on 03/22/2006 8:01:47 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON — And now, polygamy.
With the sweetly titled HBO series “Big Love,” polygamy comes out of the closet. Under the headline “Polygamists, Unite!” Newsweek informs us of “polygamy activists emerging in the wake of the gay-marriage movement.” Says one evangelical Christian big lover: “Polygamy rights is the next civil-rights battle.”
Polygamy used to be stereotyped as the province of secretive Mormons, primitive Africans and profligate Arabs. With “Big Love” it moves to suburbia as a mere alternative lifestyle.
As Newsweek notes, these stirrings for the mainstreaming of polygamy (or, more accurately, polyamory) have their roots in the increasing legitimization of gay marriage. In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two persons of (2) opposite gender, and if, as gay marriage advocates insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one’s autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement — the number restriction (two and only two) — is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.
This line of argument makes gay activists furious. I can understand why they do not want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I’m not the one who put them there. Their argument does.
Blogger and author Andrew Sullivan, who had the courage to advocate gay marriage at a time when it was considered pretty crazy, has called this the “polygamy diversion,” arguing that homosexuality and polygamy are categorically different because polygamy is a mere “activity” while homosexuality is an intrinsic state that “occupies a deeper level of human consciousness.”
But this distinction between higher and lower orders of love is precisely what gay rights activists so...
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
Bump
There he goes tying to shove his opinion down our throats. How dare he! /sarc
Gay marriage -> polygamy -> child marriage -> incest -> bestiality -> Hillary Clinton
Not Charles Krauthammer at his best. He eviscerates the objections of gay marriage advocates, but his own position is no better.
These guys with all these kids and wives are not supporting them all, maybe a few are but if you look into the whole mess many are on welfare and theres lots of incest involved. I know many families that have a hard time supporting their one wife and family. They dont have the time to give their families that they want to. You tell me how one man can give his children if they number in the 10's 20'and 30's the time each child needs. These sects are known for taking young males out of their families and sending them out in the world at young ages like 14 yrs old with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Just so the bishops and older men can get the young cute girls. And these sister -wives are crazy. How one man can think he can do his best with countless wives and children is way beyond me. All I know is that if my man comes home with a sister-wife for me i plan to hit him hard with a cast iron frying pan and send her out the door with my boot.
And what company is going to cover health insurance for you, your three wives and 10 children? Oh wait, the Government will just MANDATE that they do it.
The big difference is the children {or lack thereof} that are produced from such unions.
"mere activity"?
Yes, there would be a lot of activity involved in in providing for a family of several dozen.
I'd be the first to lock those guys away forever, however I mainly blame the girls themselves. Tony Blair said the same thing recently - that most crime and social problems would be solved if only young women would stop choosing loser boyfriends. (Naturally, Tony got steamed for speaking this truth.)
"Take a look at some of the women these felons and drug dealers do their thing with. That should explain a few things."
Surely, however it starts out young. It's a tragic loss when they throw their lives away at 15 or whatever.
And slavery also had Biblical precedent.
Your point is?
There is a family in Ohio who have 31 children. One man and one woman.
10 sets of twins.
Let me get this right:
The gays steal the "equal rights" campaign from the black activists, and now the polygamists are trying to take the "equal rights" campaign away from the gays, so the gays DON'T LIKE IT???
Who's gonna take it away from the polygamists? Muslims?
Insurance companies will suddenly be required to cover ALL the "spouses". They'll go bankrupt or quit the business. The Government will say they HAVE to step in with national health insurance.
After that's settled, then they'll proceed to the "inter-generational" relationships and "inter-species" relationships, but it will be too late for civilization by then...
On the bright side, since Americans refuse to believe FDR's social security pyramid scheme needs some help, polygamy will certainly accomplish more than homosexuality to fix the system.</sarcasm Neither does anything for a sustainable moral society though.
You forgot gay polygamy
That polygamy is certainly no worse morally than homosexual marriage.
Polygamy upsets Gays. So does a missing buttplug.
Is it incest if two sisters share a husband?
Or a mother and daughter share one?
I've seen shows about those polygamist freaks in Utah and that actually happens.
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.