Posted on 08/15/2006 6:34:27 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
The American Spectator reports that a group of "sexual pioneers" and gay rights advocates have released a statement admitting they want to move beyond homosexual marriage rights into what appears to be polygamy:
Released last month, the statement specifically endorses "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner," among many other sexual alternatives.****
In their statement, they advocate a "new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families." This new vision, they hope, will move the nation "beyond the narrow confines of marriage politics" as they exist today. Naturally, they want a "flexible set of economic benefits," regardless of the nature of the association, "conjugal" or otherwise.
By focusing extensively on "economic benefits" and "social justice" in their statement, these advocates appear to be saying that their primary goal is not just sexual equality, but yet-another attempt at traditional socialism:
... their larger drive for social justice [attacks] "corporate greed, draconian tax cuts and breaks for the wealthy, and the increasing shift of public funds from human needs into militarism, policing, and prison construction."****
The "push to privatize Social Security and many other human needs benefits" also is "at the center of this attack," the statement asserts.
This admission, assuming the public hears about it, could prove to be a roadblock to the gay rights movement.
Many of the movement's gains have been made by appealing to "libertarian" streaks in the conservative movement, republicans and independents who may not agree with homosexuality but who try to avoid government intrusion into personal lives.
Socialism and wealth redistribution, however, are direct intrusions into our lives, and reveal a certain hypocrisy in the gay rights movement.
By advocating for these intrusions now, when many Americans are still undecided about the gay rights issues, the movement may have overreached and may find themselves coming up short.
Well, it's excellent advice to have a wife that cooks, cleans and is good in the bedroom...and heaven help they should ever meet each other.
The hell it's not.
It just a tactic. Demand more and then "settle" for just gay marriage.
Hi, troll.
Welcome to FR, newbie.
Ironically I would support polygamy before gay marriage as we (our culture) at least have some historical reference point unlike gay marriage which has never been supported.
Explain to us how a man having sex with another man is any more natural than a man having sex with a horse.
Perhaps, but I am not sure how out of the mainstream those views are. In places like the Netherlands that have legalized gay marriage, those marriages last on average 1.5 years and include having 8 outside partners during that time. The idea of gay marriage, besides being just wrong, is a joke.
They sure have overplayed it in MA. That's one reason they keep wanting the Referendum put off. They know that the citizens of MA might likely DEFEAT homosexual marriage simply because of the bullying tactics of the homosexual activist groups, especially in the schools! Folks had this notion of 'whatever they want to do with each other is not my business', That was all well and good, but when they started wanting to push the 'normalcy' of the homosexual lifestyle into the elementary schools, folks started thinking twice about it. They realized that along with the legality of 'homosexual marriage' went the notion that the whole lifestyle was the same as everyone else so it couldn't be discriminated against in any way, and that meant teaching it in the schools. I don't think folks were ready for that.
If I was, I wouldn't have bothered to try to put together a cogent argument.
Well, since you brought it up, why do you "unabashedly" support gay marriage? That's a fairly provocative statement out of the gate.
Thirty five years ago marriage was considered old fashioned. The shack up was ok. If you loved someone marriage was not necessary. It was just a piece of paper anyway.
Today marriage is the most important thing in the world. People MUST get married.
But ONLY if you are gay.
Legalising abnormal behaviour is irresponsible. But then so is labeling yourself according to your choice of sex partners. By doing that, "gays" define themselves by what they do with their sex organs. That is NOT normal behaviour.
Hello, PETA. Welcome to the GOP.
Then again, as soon as they scientifically prove that homosexuality is genetic, and therefore, subject to genetic testing, the gay lobby will join the pro-life crowd.
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.