When anything goes, then ANYTHING goes. When everything is right/ok, then nothing is wrong. Democrats have no conscience.
No doubt. Every legal argument in favor of gay marriage would apply equally to polygamy. Even incest in the case of same sex relatives or relatives who can't procreate.
I heard the answers this Obama lap[female]dog was giving...
She was being intentionally obtuse to avoid the obvious hypocrisy of what she will do under Obama.
“Should John Mitchell have been in charge of the Watergate investigation?”
“I thought that case was already settled.”
She’s already disqualified herself from the post with her statement in support of obola’s immigration actions. Why are we still talking with this socialist POS?
Lynch says Obama is not violating the Constitution with his sweeping executive orders that make new law or when he refuses to enforce the law, as his oath of office requires. Why are the Republicans even considering this Obama lackey for AG? Have they learned nothing from Eric The Red’s term as AG? Blacks will lie for Obama, period. It is dangerous to designate the office of AG as a Blacks Only post.
I think the only thing holding back widespread polygamy demands (at least as vocal as the gays that is) is the fact that it’s still not quite PC enough. One guy gets 10 women? How mysogynisitic is that! (That, I’m sure, is the “feminist” position)
Now if women start forming their own harems with willing men, then the issue will become something to demand, “for equal rights” don’tcha know.
Yes, it’s not a danger because the radical left has some kind of problem with other non-traditional “marriages”, no they have a problem with polygamy because it’s not the woman who gets 10 husbands. Yes it’s that simple.
"Ehhhhhhhhhhh.....shall we vote?"
Well, well. Not a fan of Lindsey Graham, but credit where credit is due. It is a legitimate question, and she didn’t answer it, because she has no answer.
> Gays... Mormons... Polygamy....
Realize that opening the marriage contract and license to polygamy opens it up for intentions other than the traditional motivations of marital love, family, children, etc.....
The marriage contract and license now becomes available to multiple parties having other motivations, such as financial, taxation, and entry to contracts with third parties.
For example, if my contract with Danny’s Donuts allows anybody in my family to get the Danny Donut Family Discount, I will happily become civilly married to 10,000 persons, at a $1 each fee for me, where these 10,000 persons do so because they now receive a $2 discount at Danny’s Donuts.
If my health insurance covers my spouse and also my spouses, I will glady marry my adult children, both male and female, and other person for whom I care, so that they also can receive coverage as my spouse.
And for a fee, I will marry 100,000 unknown neighbors. I get a few bucks from each. They get coverage as my spouse.
Marriage now becomes not a contract of love and family and child-rearing, but a business arrangement.
All from a misinterpretation of equal protection law and its application to state licensing.
see my tagline. I have been waiting for years for someone to get some guts and raise this issue.
Muslims can have 4 wives, Mormons can marry as many, why not? The whole marriage issue has been redefined now because of the homosexuals and the ignorant who keep saying Govt has no place in marriage and so what if they marry
GREAT Question.
Moral Absolutes Ping!
Freepmail Responsibility2nd or wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list. FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search [ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Now that they’re working on lowering the age of consent and also working to legitimize the acknowledgement of children’s sexuality no matter the age through means such as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, I predict that pedophile marriage will also one day be acceptable and legal. I’d say within 20 years. Anyone opposed will be deemed an anachronistic bigot.
Among Native American tribes, the corresponding number of participants rose to as high as 40%. And we weren't nearly as kind as the Mormons in taking care of the widows. Basically, if she was able to work and contribute to the tribe, someone might marry her or the tribe would allow her to stay on, but her status was very low. If not, then the typical matter of disposal was to take her to an isolated camp and abandon her, sometimes with other sickly or infirm members of the tribe.
It isn't something the multiculturalists like to publicize, but it is the sad truth.
Why not beastiality too? Incest? Moral relativism has no bounds.
Both are wrong and evil. Those that think otherwise have been brainwashed and fallen in line with political correctness. America has descended from a position of moral decency to the depths of moral bankruptcy. Sadly, not many seem to care.
Everybody seems to be missing the real question, what is the definition of marriage? It can’t mean anything, otherwise it means nothing. You should be able to write down a specific definition of what marriage is (and why).
Different forms of “marriage” have different consequences, so it just depends on what your standard is. It *used* to be a very high standard based on Judeo-Christian ethics. This is where the conflict really lies, our laws were always aligned with these ethics. As the atheists try to remove this traditional ethics basis from forming law we’ll continue to have chaos and contradictions in proposed changes.
I suppose my only hope is that the output of this experiment is the realization that the Judeo-Christian ethics model is the only one that works....although it’s going to be painful getting there.
Everybody seems to be missing the real question, what is the definition of marriage? It can’t mean anything, otherwise it means nothing. You should be able to write down a specific definition of what marriage is (and why).
Different forms of “marriage” have different consequences, so it just depends on what your standard is. It *used* to be a very high standard based on Judeo-Christian ethics. This is where the conflict really lies, our laws were always aligned with these ethics. As the atheists try to remove this traditional ethics basis from forming law we’ll continue to have chaos and contradictions in proposed changes.
I suppose my only hope is that the output of this experiment is the realization that the Judeo-Christian ethics model is the only one that works....although it’s going to be painful getting there.
