Posted on 06/30/2012 5:40:06 AM PDT by scottjewell
That’s just the inconsistency that will eventually be argued.
OK, this could get real weird. A bisexual should only get to marry other bisexuals. If he marries a homosexual, it should be monogamous. But if he marries a bisexual man, that man needs a bisexual wife. And if he marries a bisexual woman, she needs a bisexual woman to complete her triangle. Now, we are up to 5 people. But what about the woman and man that the 1st husband and wife have? Don't they need bisexuals of the other sex, too. And it just grows and grows and grows.
Liberalism/social marxism is just another word for insanity. It's just a method to destroy society, and after the collapse, when people are living hand to mouth and they need to worry about things like how to survive, a natural order is eventually restored. Unfortunately, the new order is likely to be a tyrannical one. Free societies of just men don't come around very often, and require some very specific circumstances to institute--strong family values, cultural cohesion, religious fidelity. We don't have that, so when the collapse comes, it will lead to an ugly, brutal dictatorship. This homosexual agenda is just one small part of the effort to bring about the collapse.
Homosexuals conceitedly believe there is no distinction, that a bisexual is just someone unwilling to accept their own homosexuality but those who identify as bisexuals argue they are attracted to individuals without regard to gender.
The Prop 8 federal court ruling that invalidated CA's traditional marriage constitutional amendment did not address number at all but described gender restriction in marriage as arbitrary.
For me, number seems at least as arbitrary as gender so it'll be interesting to see how "marriage" avoids being opened to polyamory/polygamy.
“More foolishness. The bisexual would select a single spouse without regard to gender.
Homosexuals conceitedly believe there is no distinction, that a bisexual is just someone unwilling to accept their own homosexuality but those who identify as bisexuals argue they are attracted to individuals without regard to gender.”
I understand what you are saying here, but this assumes that the bisexual simply picks a beloved irrespective of gender. That is a nice theory, but those of us who have known bisexual people know that they like to, and need to, sleep with both men and women. Many psychological profiles have been written about the man who loves his wife but likes to indulge in occasional sex with men, etc. I am not buying into “we pick the person, not the gender.” mantra of the bisexual movement. This, from experience.
“If homos can get married, I don’t see how they can justify making polygamy illegal.”
Or incest, consenting adult are consenting adults. Dogs and horses, pigs, and goats, too.
Homosexuality is a behavioral problem. It is a choice, not a natural mandate.
In the case of marriage, it doesn’t even matter if gays were “born that way”. Marriage is civilization’s method, under natural and eternal law, of bringing the 2 genders together for chaste sexuality for the purpose of building families and protecting children until they are adults. Even if it is NOT a choice, in the realm of marriage , it’s simply excess and burden to add homosexuals into the equation. They know this. And it makes them even more determined to push their way in.
As Mark Steyn once pointed out, polygamy has a larger constituency than "gay marriage".
“Bisexual” - there’s really no such thing. It’s the politically correct word for being a slut.
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.