Posted on 02/25/2011 2:08:25 AM PST by Rummyfan
The trick in this biz is never to be right too early. Kathy Shaidle writes:
Remember during the gay ‘marriage’ debate, we were scolded: ‘Nobody’s talking about polygamy, you bigoted hicks’?
Why, yes. Yes, I do. Steyn in The Western Standard, September 2004. Headline:
It’s Closer Than They Think.
The activists roll their eyes and go into "Oh, come off it, you can't be serious" mode. Like the chichi gay couple from New York who've built their dream home in rural Vermont, they don't want any other incomers muscling in. Gay marriage, they assure us, is the merest amendment to traditional marriage, and once we've done that we'll pull up the drawbridge.
Sorry, but it's not going to work like that. If you can get 'em past the don't-be-so-ridiculous stage, the gays point out that there are no constituencies clamouring for polygamy and bestiality. That's true in the latter case... But there's a very obvious constituency for polygamy, and it says something about the monumental self-absorption of the gay marriage crowd that they seem unaware of it.
Steyn in Maclean's, April 2009:
Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, the former Supreme Court justice, remains confident the drawbridge is firmly up. “Marriage is a union of two people, period,” she said in Quebec the other day. But it used to be a union of one man and one woman, period. And, if that period got kicked down the page to accommodate a comma and a subordinate clause, why shouldn’t it get kicked again? If the sex of the participants is no longer relevant, why should the number be?
Ah, well, says Mme L’Heureux-Dubé, polygamists don’t enjoy the same societal acceptance as gays. “I don’t see a parade of polygamists on Ste-Catherine Street,” observes the great jurist, marshalling the same dazzling quality of argument she used back in her days as the Supreme Court’s most outspoken activist on gay issues.
CTV News, February 2011:
Polygamous Muslims Carefully Watching BC Case.
Fancy that! They might not be parading down Ste-Catherine Street (yet), but there will be many more takers for polygamy than there will ever be for gay marriage. Boutique markets pave the way for dominant brands: As the artful coinage of "Islamophobia" suggests, Islamic supremacists are happy to avail themselves of the opportunities opened up by gays, Jews and others they despise. Just as Islam has been the biggest beneficiary of Europe's post-war Holocaust guilt and its attendant embrace of "multiculturalism", so polygamous Muslim men will be be the biggest beneficiaries of the gay moment and its redefinition of social institutions.
One more - from Maclean's in 2008:
The folks who call my book "alarmist" accept that the Western world is growing more Muslim (Canada's Muslim population has doubled in the last 10 years), but they deny that this population trend has any significant societal consequences. Sharia mortgages? Sure. Polygamy? Whatever. Honour killings? Well, okay, but only a few. The assumption that you can hop on the Sharia Express and just ride a couple of stops is one almighty leap of faith. More to the point, who are you relying on to "hold the line"? Influential figures like the Archbishop of Canterbury? The bureaucrats at Ontario Social Services? The Western world is not run by fellows noted for their line-holding: look at what they're conceding now and then try to figure out what they'll be conceding in five years' time.
My wife would kill me, unless the third had a good-paying job and/or liked housework./s
You missed JLS’ ping, didn’t you?
THE MARRYING KIND
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2679324/posts#2
By Third, I am guessing you are already planning a Third wife.
What do you do with #2
Nevermind, I just answered my own question. What would any red-blooded guy do if he could have a #2?
I’ve heard stories about a Mormon with 13 wives-and most of them ,in public anyhow ,said it was wonderful. Back when the
APA decided to drop homosexuality from the DSM The Reprobates insisted they were not speaking of legalizing anything.— And they insisted they were not even going to discuss paedophilia-or any other form of sexual perversion.We know how that ended. When the merchants of death insisted we needed to legalize the clinical denial of /infringement upon the God given right to Life -to prevent back alley abortions— we were told they were not talking about infantacide. We know how that ended.We have chosen to die by suicide.For our elected despot favors all immorality.
bump
But without the guiding hand of morality, why should we forbid those things using the leftist guide to "rational" thought. Leftists want a world in which the guiding principle is, a relic of the sixties: if it feels good, do it. No one should judge you. Of course, if feeling good meant shooting people you don't like, then what is it if not morality that forbids those sorts of actions?
Uhm, no, you haven't. A Mormon is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A Mormon who married more than one wife would be excommunicated. There are six million Mormons in the US.
The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The FLDS does practice polygamy, and has about ten thousand members in the US. They are not "Mormons".
The FLDS will undoubtedly be overjoyed with Obummer's tricks. The LDS will not.
Once you’ve allowed one kind of other, you have no legal standing to deny ANY other.
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.