Posted on 05/08/2009 10:13:24 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
“Why don’t we just split in two? “
How would you feel sleeping with a vampire in the next room?
“Where does it stop?”
It doesn’t, which is precisely why conservatives adamantly defend traditional marriage.
Once you condone, legalize abhorrent behavior you can expect a fast track to debauchery.
Full-speed ahead. I also believe that cousins should be allowed to marry...
****************
First cousins are allowed to marry in the following states (and DC) with no restrictions. There are a few other states that permit it, but only under certain circumstances.
Second cousins may marry in every state.
I don’t think cousin marriage is in any way comparable to the various perversions that the left are attempting to force us to accept.
Alabama
Alaska
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Left unsaid in the article (and in nearly all discussions of “polyamory”) is that the people who will most eagerly embrace this particular change in the marriage laws are the Muslims.
In the cold, hard world of reality, plural marriage will mean, almost exclusively, Islamic harems. Christian and nonreligious girls from the lower economic classes will be “offered” the “opportunity” to join marriages with wealthy Muslims.
Aside from the demographic implications, plural marriage will mean, ironically, the end of women’s rights.
The moslems will be ala over this.
This is not the slippery slope your looking for, move along............
Cheer up everybody, for the worst is yet to come!!
>>>these unions are not about sex with multiple outside partners. Nor are they relationships where one person is involved with two others<<<
Why not? Once you make the argument that any relationship between consenting adults that they call marriage is, indeed, a marriage, what’s to stop it? Why not a brother and a sister, or a mother and a son, or a father and a granddaughter? Why not a hive? It works for the mole rats. Why not a lease - you can marry me for a certain period of time, then bring it back to the showroom and trade it in for a newer model. How about marriage for a night - get the benefits now, then forego the benefits at the end of the contractural period.
And I haven’t even gotten into the science-fiction scenarios - how about a woman and her dead husband’s collection of frozen sperm? They can still make a family together - and maybe his will indicates that as long as his sperm is viable, so is the marriage. How about a man and his Japanese newscaster robot? Are you married if you agree to donate sperm for conception of a child but agree not to be involved in the raising of the child? Whose decision will be paramount in the custody case - the court or the people involved?
In any case, a society that allows gay marriage has no choice but accept shari’a law and allow an Islamic man his multiple wives.
To put in the delicate words of Bender: “Yep, we’re boned.”
Jesus is about to give us all one.
It is TIME TO GET READY!!
Thats a DAMN good idea! Particularly when AI comes out! WOO HOO! LMAO Gives the whole term... “keep BOTH hands on the keyboard” a whole new meaning now doesn’t it? LMAO
A reboot will be inevitable.
I guess to be really outre these days, you'd have to secretly marry your own grandmother.
Them democRATS think of everything, don’t they.
Eliminate all marriage benefits. Institute the Fair Tax and there wouldn’t be any deductions for marriage anyway. No government subsidies or entitlements based on marriage. Also eliminate all inheritance taxes whether willed to a family member or not. It’s immoral anyway.
Consider:
Traditional marriage, is based on the union of dissimilar units, namely, gender. That is the qualitative property of marriage, and since there are only two genders, male and female, then the qualitative infers the quantitative, which in this case is two.
Homosexual marriage is not based on dissimilarity, but rather, similarity, therefore the qualitative property of this type of marriage necessarily infers a variable quantity.
You can't alter the qualitative property of marriage without also altering the quantitative.
Traditional marriage was destroyed when divorces were allowed, everything else has been a slippery slope since.
When “conservatives” defend marriage not just against same sex marriage, but against divorces, then I will know they’re serious about protecting traditional marriage.
In France you are able to marry your cousin. The reasons like an increase in the appearance of handicapped/disabled children are so small a risk in the first generation as to be inconsequential- I am usure though how this changes if there are generations of cousin-cousin marriage.
Mel
I disagree, to some extent.
The institution of marriage has been subject to great challenge since Adam and Eve. To suggest that divorce is the reason for our societies moral decline is over-simplifying the root of the problem.
Furthermore, to accuse conservatives of paying lip service in defense of traditional marriage while apparently ignoring the detrimental impact of wide spread divorce in our society is painting with a broad brush and narrow mindedness.
As is pointed out in Moses Law, there are times when divorce is necessary. If a spouse is married to a habitual adulterer, he/she is justified in obtaining a divorce. If an individual enters into a marriage and is subject to continuous physical and psychological abuse, though a period of separation may lead to reconciliation, sometimes a divorce is necessary.
Unlike divorce, gay marriage, polygamy, and other forms of abhorrent behavior are NEVER acceptable.
I don't see why not.
Guns are better than women, anyway. With guns, you can trade an old 44 for a couple of new 22s.
puroresu: “All that matters is cutting taxes and reducing spending, as Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe said.”
Don’t you know that all the moderates say the same thing. Forget that social conservatism stuff and focus on small government. Strange thing is, they never ever actually seem to reduce government either.
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.