Skip to comments.A Gay-Wedding Crasher [Homosexual Rights=Rights of Polygamists!]
Posted on 07/31/2011 2:47:45 PM PDT by SteelfishEdited on 07/31/2011 5:23:27 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
EDITORIAL A Gay-Wedding Crasher A law professor attempts to use a homosexual rights ruling to defend a polygamous family in Utah.
In this file photo, (pic in URL) Kody Brown poses with his wives Janelle, Christine, Meri, and Robyn for TLC's reality TV show, "Sister Wives." The Browns' attorney, Jonathan Turley, filed a lawsuit challenging the Utah bigamy law that makes their lifestyle illegal.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Jonathan Turley is probably not the most popular man right now with supporters of same-sex marriage.
Sure he is
The same sex crowd are lovin it..
Each group scratches the back of the other...
The atheist homosexuals and the Mormon polygamists..
Together they gang up on monogamous marriage Christians...
Here’s a concept... let’s get the government out of the marriage business altogether!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
And what do you think will be the outcome in that "Brave New World"?
Of course, polygamy is next on the agenda. That is why Romney, the Mormon, was for gay marriage, to put his foot in the door for polygamy! We have at least two Mormons running for president. Romney and Huntsman. They are heavily supported by the Mormon church and members. Read Walter Martin’s “Kingdom of the Cults” to better understand Mormonism, which is very similar to Islam.
Probably like it is in the countries that don’t have such intrusive government—it works well.
The churches made a pact with the devil in opening the door for government to control sacraments.
And what countries would that be?
I should clarify. I mean where it’s possible to have one without the other. For example, in Germany, you can have a church wedding without a civil marriage.
It would, of course, be far better if government were out of the business altogether.
So why is that so great for Germany?
It’s great for the people of Germany.
I don’t think they’ll think it’s great in a few generations when the Muzzies will outbreed them and they become a minority in their own country.
dfwgator: And what do you think will be the outcome in that “Brave New World”?
I've written the same thing as Gondring, so I'll answer, but briefly.
If the government gets out of the marriage business, a lot of laws that apply to people who are married will have to be eliminated or revised. Marriage will become a private matter in that if anyone wants to get “married” they can do so according to whatever custom/tradition/condition they choose, and no one else has to recognize said marriage if they choose not to. There will be no government sanction to the marriage itself.
That may be more effort than people want to go to.
Contrariwise, an effort to get the government out of the marriage business would drive discussion/evaluation to justify why the government should be in the marriage business to start with. I expect such justification would not make happy those who want something other than one male/one female marriage, at least if done honestly. And doing it honestly is the rub.
It would be a somewhat dangerous path to take, but less so than the one we are on now.
The US government is supposed to be supportive of a system which upholds social contracts which never trample on Human Rights and treat everyone as equal and use logic and reason with Natural Law Theory (which presupposes a Creator and a standard of right and wrong) to determine “Just Law”.
The fundamental purpose of a government based on Natural Law Theory such as the US is to ensure the best way to protect the fundamental duty and teleological design of human beings in a way in which they are able to best flourish and pursue a “happy” life. The biological connections of human beings is proven to be the most basic unit of all human societies by all anthropological studies (minus the fraud of Margaret Meade).
It was understood by the Founders—their philosophy which was adopted and built into the Constitution—that of Natural Law Theory—the understanding that we have Natural Rights also means that all human beings have duties—and human beings most important duty is to raise and care for their biological offspring which is why we have private property rights. Because of that we have devised a system of laws that enhance Natural Law. Just Law is that—Right Reason according to Nature.
What we have here is a deliberate destruction of Rule of Law—devolving into Rule of Man—where laws are arbitrarily made up based on “urges” and “needs” no matter how demeaning or dysfunctional which can never be “Just Law”.
Standards and rights (Supra Positive Law) is derived from God and it is His standards that have been used since the Founding of our country which are trying to be switched to man made up rules that actually defy human nature.
Which means that the most logical way and equal way to set up society which guarantees the Natural Right of children — to be raised by biological parents (proven as best and safest and happiest method by studies of Piaget, Erikson, Freud) — is the Marriage of a woman and man who do their God-given duty of raising their biological offspring so that they have a chance of growing into loving, responsible adults.
Dalrymple, the psychiatrist in England, documents the destruction of children when the biological parents never marry. If the kids do survive to adulthood, they are drug addicts, gang members and/or on well fare or in prison or mental hospitals. Suicide rates soar.
Nuclear families are a necessity for economic stability, if we denormalize families, that will only lead to a further expansion of the welfare state.
In any case the goal is to try and avoid the plural wives and their kids from swelling the already swollen welfare rolls. Polygamy can only work among a farming or pastoral people. It will not work in an urban environment.
It is precisely this sort of breezy, relativist idealism that has allowed the redefinition of the word "marriage" to even be considered in the first place.
Do you not see that?
“Kody Brown poses with his wives Janelle, Christine, Meri, and Robyn”
Take out the garbage, Take out the garbage, Take out the garbage, Take out the garbage..
You never take me anywhere, You never take me anywhere, You never take me anywhere, You never take me anywhere...
She’s my mother and she will stay this weekend, She’s my mother and she will stay this weekend, She’s my mother and she will stay this weekend, She’s my mother and she will stay this weekend...
You get the idea
1. Can you substantiate the assertion that “Nuclear families are a necessity for economic stability”?
2. What is there in that position that precludes same sex or polygamous marriage?
“Do you not see that?”
For the sake of argument if nothing else: No.