http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Evolution-Behavior-Martin-Daly/dp/0871507676
A: ZERO.
Posted on 10/02/2011 8:56:54 AM PDT by IbJensen
Proponents of same-sex marriage are quick to claim that all they want is “marriage equality.” Nothing more. They’ll be content if they can just have “equality.” But we all know that reality doesn’t end there. In recent weeks, same-sex advocates have finally begun to admit it themselves.
Published just days ago in a The New York Times piece, Stanford law professor Ralph Banks, asks, “What now of the two remaining criminal prohibitions of intimate relationships: incest and polygamy? Even as same sex … relationships are accepted, Americans are now imprisoned for incest and polygamy … Over time, our moral assessments of these practices will shift … Should a state be permitted to imprison two cousins because they have sex or attempt to marry? Should a man and two wives be permitted to live together as a family when they assert that their religious convictions lead them to do so?” » If you like this article, please subscribe to our daily newsletter
Just the rantings of a left-wing professor? No, Professor Banks’ words have actually proven to be prophetic. Just days after the Governor of New York signed its same-sex marriage bill into law, a man in Utah along with his four wives were inspired to file a lawsuit challenging Utah’s polygamy ban stating “We only wish to live our private lives according to our beliefs.”
Just equality, right?
Homosexual rights advocate Dan Savage goes even further and continues the marriage muddling, arguing, “We aren’t wired for monogamy.” He tells the New York Times magazine that America needs a more “realistic” view of marriage and that it’s the LGBT community’s responsibility to bring “open relationships” to the definition of marriage – to create an environment that’s “more forgiving of the occasional affair.” Savage’s “It Gets Better” homosexuality campaign targets children and teenagers and is being promoted by homosexual groups as an “anti-bullying” project to be used by public schools.
John Corvine, professor at Wayne State University, is heading in the same direction as Professor Banks and Mr. Savage. Reflecting on the same-sex marriage debate in New York, Professor Corvine writes, “It’s worth remembering that polygamy is quite ‘traditional,’ even biblical. It is no more logically connected to one side of this debate than the other. The truth is that New York granted same-sex couples marriage rights not because of a radical idea, but because of an old-fashioned one: when two individuals commit to a lifetime of mutual love and care, it’s good to support them – or at least get out of their way.”
When you stray from the God-given confines of marriage, where do you draw the line? How is it fair to term one meandering relationship “recognized” without validating the other variations? Where does it end?
Same-sex advocates have no intention of declaring victory in New York and calling it quits. The goal is not to advance “equality,” the goal is to redefine marriage until existing sexual norms are no longer in existence. Counterfeit forms of marriage cheapen and undermine real marriage. The union of a man and a woman in a committed marriage is the foundation of a stable society. Traditional marriage and family are too important for society to experiment with to advance a political agenda.
Social science and history concur: men, women, and children are more likely to succeed emotionally, financially, and educationally within a two-parent, mother-father, married family. Marriage, properly defined, matters. Regardless of the agenda of left-wing advocates, The Family Foundation will continue to fight to protect the definitions and institutions of marriage and family in our Commonwealth.
victoria_cobb_100_100
I bet it is punishing faiths that refuse to buy into the statist and homoxexualist take on marriage long before polygamy and incest are seriously persued.
Loss of tax exempt status, refusial to issue marriage licenses to those who won’t play ball with the state’s take on marriage, opening up civil lawsuits to those who cry discrimination.
They already have many convinced that marriage comes from the state, probably about 40% think that “gay marriage” is a civil rights issue, polygamy and incest are really far away, probably around the 1970 levels for “gay marriage.”
Freegards
Family means a father can safely take his daughter into the restroom or a mother can take her son in. Couches inside of restrooms are for women who need to attend to nursing their baby. These types of facilities are everywhere.
Whatever serves to further wreck the country....
Family restrooms are for moms with small boys or dads with small girls. Chillax...
For some reason this phrase made me snort into my coffee. :)
Um, I was a janitor once. There is no "Women's" restroom in the store.
There is no "Women's" room in the store. And, yes, there is a changing table in the "Men's" room.
What is next? The goal of course is a Sup Court imposition of gay marriage on the entire nation. They may be somewhat reluctant to push this all the way to the Sup Court now with traitor Ted Olson’s case because of the fear that Anthony Kennedy will have a good day and rule against them. But who knows how Kennedy will come down on this? And even if Kennedy were to rule correctly that there is no Constitutional right to have the state recognize same sex unions, then it wouldn’t be all that long until they try again with another Sup Court. And if Obama is reelected, then he’ll probably get to replace Kennedy and/or Scalia, and maybe Breyer as well. And even if Obama is defeated, then there is no guarantee a Republican president will choose wisely in replacing those guys based on history.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Kennedy tried to impose a ‘compromise’ by voting to impose recognition of same-sex unions, but giving us rubes the option of what we call it; gay marriage, or civil unions, or domestic partnerships, or whatever. This would please noone but ‘moderate’ Republicans, and again a later Sup Court would probably change it so that it must be ‘marriage.’
It’s sad but true, but really the most conservatives can hope for now is a lasting Sup Court decision that says if the State recognizes traditional marriage, there is nothing in the Constitution that compels it to do the same for same sex unions. This would likely mean that Kennedy gets it right sometime in the next few years whenever the issue finally gets there, and then the election of a Republican president and Senate next year and the replacement of good and bad judges now with new conservative judges.
This would mean that the matter rightly stays with the states where it belongs. In those states where the people have got to vote, it means traditional marriage will continue to be the only recognized union. Despite changing polling data, there is almost no chance the people will actually vote down state marriage amendments they passed in the last 10 years or so. At least, I don’t think it will happen anytime soon.
My guess is that if it comes to be that the Sup Court will not impose gay marriage, then the Left will try economic coercion. I could easily see them pressuring Google, Ford, GM, et al not to open new facilities in states that ‘hate.’
But if the Left prevails in the Sup Court then it is over. We’ve failed miserably in doing away with Roe, and it would be no different with a Roe-like decision on gay marriage. With changing views, I don’t think a federal Amendment could pass that defines marriage traditionally. I use to think that at a minimum an Amendment could pass that stops short of banning gay marriage, and instead explicitly empowers the states to handle the matter and strips the courts, but now I doubt that would pass either.
Here is something which confuses me. We are hearing a lot about the Mormons and their polygamy in conjunction with the homosexual movement. But are not Mormons vehemently opposed to homosexuality? Mormons, even though I disagree with their religion, are some of the most socially upright people I have ever met. They are law-abiding, patriotic, traditionally moral people. The only exception is the question of polygamy. Yet, I do not see how the Mormons will benefit from the whole marriage equality business, since they are opposed as a religious body to all forms of sexual perversion and inchastity.
I think that the homosexuals are using the Mormons' view of polygamy as a tool in this debate and nothing else. As soon as polygamy gets past you can bet that the homosexuals will turn viciously on the Mormons. A socially moral upright group like the Mormons is already likely to be accused of hate speech. Any Mormons out there in freepland who would like to weigh in on this thought? I am really curious. (Also, I know not all Mormons support polygamy, so I would really enjoy seeing a Mormon's view on this question.)
“Abolishing the age of consent has been on their list for a very long time.”
Yea, they’ve started re-activating the shrink world to ‘normalize’ pedophilia. No big surprise here.
You hit the nail on the head. And their tools include complete and absolute domination of education which first makes available millions of vulnerable victims (pederasty, teacher rape) subject to their authority and their appetites. A human buffet set by the nanny state. But most important for their future machinations is the control over 'science' by peer review. Having taken over the major research institutions and most academic peer review committees within them, they can cite wildly biased, self-serving studies on whatever they set their sights on to destroy that 'prove conclusively' that for example, 'humans are not wired for monogamy'.Wired. Because in their simplistic view of science humans are mechanical automatons driven by chemistry not reason and incapable of having a change of heart.
“Despite changing polling data, there is almost no chance the people will actually vote down state marriage amendments they passed in the last 10 years or so. At least, I don’t think it will happen anytime soon.”
If I recall, the average of the pro-marriage amendments passed by 67%, and most of them passing in the middle of the last decade. Some came from very liberal states like Hawaii that decided the issue very early on in the wave of state amendments, and passed it by 68% in’98. By how much would it pass now? Or would it even pass? Of course in most states it will be a very long time if the trend continues as it has for the last several decades before the homosexualists can even hope to come close to challenging the pro-marriage amendments.
Prop. 8 only passed by 52% in 2008. If it is upheld by our black robed masters, look to see some sort of popular repeal process started. Same thing with the other states that passed amendments in the 50-60% ranges: as soon as the homosexualists think they have the numbers they will be screaming for a popular vote.
The time to pass a national pro-marriage amendment was the 90’s in my opinion, of course it wasn’t much of an issue then. A polygamy or incest amendment would pass now, but it would have to be specific to those issues, if it included gay marriage I don’t think it would get very far at all. But again, it isn’t an issue right now and so it can’t get a movement behind it. But that means it is the time to pass it. It’s a catch 22.
Freegards
Pedophilia, Bestiality, Mutilation, and every type of sexual perversion.
The ink wasn't dry on the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, before the "advocates" started pushing for the military to allow "transgendered" sickos (read: men who have a fetish to dress up in women's underwear and dykes who want to dress up like men) to be fully "accepted."
When sin in not only tolerated, but applauded, evil escalates exponentially.
Polygamy will be tough. On the one hand Mormons like it so it is bad and must be discouraged, on the other hand muslims like it therefore it is good and must be encouraged in the name of diversity. Maybe there will be a compromise, and polygamy will be allowed only for muslims
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Evolution-Behavior-Martin-Daly/dp/0871507676
A: ZERO.
>>”Homophobia” is not an unreasonable fear.
Nope. It’s as reasonable as not eating rotten food because it smells bad.
And ignoring either protective instinct is repeatedly observed throughout history to have negative consequences for the individuals and cultures who do so.
[When sin in not only tolerated, but applauded, evil escalates exponentially.]
Observe the order of precedence in Romans 1:25-26
Rom 1:25-26
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections...
KJV
“I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY”
—Thomas Jefferson
Got socio/biological fitness? Those who abominate nature don’t.
Heterosexual parents - fathers and mothers - should prepare their children to beware of unmarried pregnancies lest their offspring are adopted into a same sex household.
That has to be the most terrifying thought for a grandparent.
However, the cost of sperm & egg donations and rental wombs for IVF will see a huge increase in demand. Diabolical.
Homosexual’s dream is the recreation of Ancient Greece where all people celebrated the grooming of young attractive boys into the life of sodomy with gifts and flattering attention. APA as well as UN bodies are removing all restrictions to man/boy sex. They have been reducing the age for children to have legal sex with adults for decades.
They need to corrupt young children with the normalizing of homosexuality which has been going on for decades, but intensely since Madsen and Kirk in the 1990’s. They control schools and curricula to corrupt and destroy Christian ethics and morality in children. Gay Pride Days and Day of Silence in the schools was the beginning of this normalization of perversions and destroying morality. Sexual immorality destroys people faster than all other types of immoral practices.
Using the term “marriage” in connection with homosexual was the beginning of undermining the concept of man and woman and the adoption of Karl Marx’s Hierarchy of Gender-—in which his silly notion that there is no difference between a woman and a man—so they are interchangeable—is throwing off all philosophy of our Founders-—that of Natural Law Theory.
Special Rights for “homosexual” perversion is irrational, nihilism, silly, and unconstitutional. There is no Right Reason according to Nature—the fundamental principles of our legal system.
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.