Skip to comments.Marriage Equality Fight Pushes Country Down Slippery Slope of Polygamy, Incest
Posted on 08/25/2013 9:09:36 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The homosexual lobby claims the majority of Americans favor same-sex marriage and that marriage should be only about love. Even if that were true, favoring homosexual marriage by definition means being for anything outside what the Bible calls a sacred unionbetween one man and one woman.
According to a recent article on Prospect.com by Boston College School of Law professor Kent Greenfield, opponents of same-sex marriage have been right all along. Government approval of same-sex marriage will eventually erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages as well. As a matter of constitutional rationale, there is indeed a slippery slope between recognizing same-sex marriages and allowing marriages among more than two people and between consenting adults who are related.
The American Family Association (AFA) is pointing to Greenfields article in an effort to call the Republican Party and Christians around the country to act on the issue of same-sex marriage and the culturally poisonous problems that will undoubtedly result before they are the mainstream way of thinking in America.
We have reached a frightening impasse, says AFA President Tim Wildmon. I fear the day just years from now when marriage has absolutely no definition at all. After we water it down more and more until it is meaningless, marriage wont be anything but a free-will agreement between any two peopleor more than two people.
"Since marriage is ultimately about the optimal nurturing environment for vulnerable young children, destabilizing the institution of marriage is a terrible thing to do to Americas children. God gave us the responsibility to protect this sacred union, and we should resist any effort to destroy it. What God has defined, man must not redefine.
A Law Fund research scholar and author of The Myth of Choice: Personal Responsibility in a World of Limits, Greenfield writes, Marriage, weve said, is about defining ones own family and consecrating a union based on love. Weve voiced these arguments in constitutional terms, using claims arising from the doctrines of fundamental rights and equal protection. Fundamental-rights analysis says that marriage is for many a crucial element of human flourishing, or as the Court said almost fifty years ago essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness. Because its so important, government can restrict marriage only by showing a truly compelling justification. The equal protection argument is simply that the marriage right should not be taken away from groups unless the government has good reasons to exclude those groups.
One way politicians and citizens can act is to support the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment sponsored by Congressman Tim Huelskamp. H.J. RES. 51 is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would make marriage legal only between a man and a woman. The amendment states, Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
Protecting traditional marriage is nothing new. More than 150 years ago, the delegates in the 1856 Republican Party Convention made a point to protect the people of the United States from the woes that can result from same-sex marriage.
Documents from the convention state, This Convention of Delegates, assembled in pursuance of a call addressed to the people of the United States, without regard to past political differences or divisions ... do [resolve] that the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the Imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarismPolygamy, and Slavery.
This is what many FReepers predicted early on.
Then the divorce issue should be fixed.
Divorce lawyers will become multi-millionaires overnight.
Just remember, every law that is passed is a law that is meant to enrich lawyers.
More than 150 years ago, the delegates in the 1856 Republican Party Convention made a point to protect the people of the United States from the woes that can result from same-sex marriage.
no they didnt...
it was “from the woes that can result from” the evils of POLYGAMY which by 1862 or before was a jailable crime known as “unlawful habitation”
there was no lobby for “same-sex marriage” in 1856 and sex between men was a felonious crime thus the people were already “protected”....
polygamy is another piece in the puzzle towards America excepting islam as common place
i’ve been noticing the push to make beards on men a culture norm. another islamic piece
America has never been a ‘beard’ country
the only culture i’m aware of that is ‘beard oriented’ is islam
btw, you know what’s masculine?
being able to support your family without govt assistance.
funny how that’s never promoted
Marriage Equality: that which equates the vulva to an anus.
“America has never been a beard country”
Umm, yes, yes it has.
Look at the mugs of most Confederate generals, save Lee. Longstreet, Jackson, Hill. It wasn’t until women could vote that you had presidents without beards.
The homosexual same sex and the feminist movements are based on the premise that men and women are interchangeable. Such a false premise violates natural law.
They use civil rights arguments to pursue their agendas. Codification of perverted thinking is a sacrilege that will not go unnoticed.
I am profoundly disappointed that such twisted and warped thinking has gone this far! Satan loves chaos; that is where we are headed!
of the 44 US presidents over the passed 237 years, only 5 had beards and 4 others had mustaches.
Look At Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, William H. Taft, and I could name a few more. All of those had beards. The second half of the 19th century in America was a time where having a beard was the fashionable thing for an American grown man to have.
After gay marriage, they will push to lower age of consent. First to 16, then to 14.
Look at how Bradley Manning argues that his sexuality made him do it. That’s rediculous, and a rediculous excuse at that. Come on, so someone can commit treason, murder, or who knows what and then throw up the excuse that something in their head made them do it? That’s the problem with America, it all gets screwed because people throw out excuses for everything they do, including treason, murder, etc., and then wonder why America is so full of crime, and people dislike and distrust each other so much, or the military doesn’t seem so strong anymore. I feel sad and hope not to see the day when the %^&* hits the fan, but sadly enough, that’s just wishful thinking.
I can’t wait til they put Madonna, “Lady” GaGa, et al, in burqas.
The next push is for pedophile rights, so they can have sex with children of all ages.
Tell that to Presidents Abe Lincoln, US Grant, Rutheford B. Hayes, James Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, and the millions of other men both in and out of government that have proudly sported beards over the last 237 years in this country.
France finally got around to banning incest a few years ago
“ive been noticing the push to make beards on men a culture norm. another islamic piece”
And in other news pulled out of thin air...
“I fear the day just years from now when marriage has absolutely no definition at all.”
I don’t believe the definition of marriage is determined by whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority happens to believe it is at any one time. That’s how the state determines the definition of marriage, at least in the modern era, thus the problems with ‘gay marriage.’
“More than 150 years ago, the delegates in the 1856 Republican Party Convention made a point to protect the people of the United States from the woes that can result from same-sex marriage.”
Maybe 150 years from now the delegates in the 2163 Republican Party Convention will make a point to protect the people of the United States from the woes that can result from hetero-marriage.
Allowing homosexual “marriage” makes polygamy absolutely inevitable...from a natural law/common sense standard.
Polygamy historically, actually in the form of polygyny (a man with more than one wife), has been morally allowable in certain times and circumstances. In the Bible, in ancient subsistance-agricultural societies, where due to war, slavery and disease, they always had an excess of females, polygyny was the most straightforward way of caring for these extra women.
Its been said in the ancient world, a woman could be a wife, or a desperately poor-and-vulnerable single-beggar, or a prostitute .these were the only 3 options. (This is why traditionally widows and orphans are seen as the most vulnerable of the poorneeding support. ) However, in the explicit cases of polygyny in the bible....family life is shown to be very dysfunctional, with severe jealousy and rivalry between wives—and their children. Clearly not an idealbut a sin overlooked by God, since it was so deeply engrained in ancient culture.
The New Testament clearly frowns on polygyny—making monogamy (or celibacy) an absolute requirement for any kind of Church leadership (but not, interestingly—absolutely binding on laymen). (Since early Mormonism reversed & perverted this—making polygyny required for it’s leadership...this tells us Mormonism’s relationship to Christianity).
Pagan Romans, at various different times, banned polygyny from the empire—for purely practical/legal/cultural reasons—as in law, polygyny is a headache. Who inherits what, where do the wives live, what about the multitude of kids under the care of one man All these things to law-and-order Romans, made them see polygyny as something to get rid of.
Christianityin elevating marriage between one man and one woman, put the final nail in the polygyny coffin in the West, as it provided the moral basis which the Romans had been lacking, for doing away with polygyny entirely. (It is interesting that in the most Romanized of European countries (those with the Romance languages) the ancient pagan Roman practice of a married man with one, or several, mistresses on the side never quite went away.)
Neither the pagan Romans, and of course not the later Christians, ever imagined elevating homosexual relationships to be considered sacred matrimony. Remember in the USA itself sodomy has only been struck down as being a crime by the Supremes for ten years now. Calling a couple dedicated to a life of disgusting perverted acts married would have horrified even pagans in the ancient world.
Therefore, since the USA is very fast in blessing sodomy, and sodomy-”marriages” as good and wonderful, it will certainly bless the much-less harmful and sinful relationships of polygamy as acceptable. Pressures of multi-culturalism from Muslims, I think, will be key—though perhaps lawsuits from fundamentalist-Mormons will also drag us into this.
Im certain tooit will become a huge burden on our legal system, as we will find, like the pagan Romans did, polygamy is an affront to civil life and law.
I suspect this is much of the real whisper behind accomodating sexual fetishists.
History is repleat with aristocracy’s incestuous marriages. How many of europe’s current royal cluster is interrelated and hemopheliac. Their relaxing to allow for “commoner” marriages is probably more an issue of eugenic gene diversity.
eventually marriage will be a mere ecconomic manuver. Mother, Father, and Love will be four letter words. (see brave new world)
Ummm, the beard discussion is stupid, on both sides, but that's a particularly ignorant remark.
I'm pretty sure Washington, Adams, Jefferson, et al. were presidents....and in fact, until Lincoln, ALL US presidents were clean shaven.
Blurgh. Like I said, look at the fashion around the time of the civil war to around the time of Wilson.
These men would probably disagree with you:
The Society of Bearded Gentlemen:
The Beard Advocate:
and ... they’d be wrong
do 66% of American men sport a beard? no. 50%? no.
more likely well under 20%, which is a small minority.
therefore... the US is not a ‘beard’ country
Okay, so now that weve established that 20% of American men sport facial hair, two conclusions follow: (1) theres no huge sweep toward Islamic fashion in the US, and (2) since beards were more prevalent in the past (e.g. 19th Century), were further from Islamic fashion than in the past.
we didn’t establish 20% wear a beard... just that less then 20%, which could be 5% but I wasn’t bothering to push lower. 1 in 10? 1 in 20? prolly
my point being that there has benn an increase in the ‘buzz’ around beards in the last month or so.
this would be similar to the increase of homosexual content in tv shows and comedian monologues all geared to ‘normalize’ homosexuality back in the 90s (I’m aware they started sooner, but the big push for homos came in the 90s)
That's interesting. You've noticed more talk about it in the media as of late? As someone suggested to me, could there be more talk about it because maybe we are seeing more beards in the news...like the Duck Dynasty guys?
I can't flat out state your premise is not valid, even if only in a slight way, I just don't have enough information to draw that conclusion yet. But good food for thought.