If you believe that defining marriage as between one man and one woman is bigoted and that 2 men or 2 woman should be allowed to marry, then you’re still discriminating.
Expanding the culture to include so-called “gay marriage” is only redefining the issue and you’re still a bigot, because after all – why shouldn’t everyone be able to marry whomever or whomevers? Why discriminate against polygamists?
With gay marriage potentially about to be legalized by the Supreme Court, the next marriage battle is already in it’s early stages. One of the leading criticisms by conservative opponents of gay marriage was that it could create a ‘slippery slope’ that would lead to marriage being redefined in other ways, including allowing more than two people to enter into a union.
Duh. Polygamy? Three-way relationships? Who knows what else? Because if you’re going to have no discrimination, no rules – guess what? You think there’s not lawyers lined up around the block ready to sue on behalf of their non-traditional marriage clients?
And I wonder who saw this coming? Right now, in the UK, The Green Party has announced that they are open to legalizing three-way marriages.
“As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights,” reporter Jon Barrett asked Natalie Bennett of the Green Party during an open interview. “Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or marriages.”
“We have led the way on many issues related to the liberalization of legal status in adult consenting relationships, and we are open to further conversation and consultation,” Bennett replied.
Now I’m not being facietious when I ask where does it end? We’re not talking about procreating necessarily – so why couldn’t someone marry their uncle? Their mother? Why can’t four people marry? You going to tell me I can’t marry my pet goat? What are you, a bigot? Think I’m joking? Earlier this year, a British woman married her pet dog.
Don’t kid yourself – if there’s no definition of marriage, there is no marriage – just a circus. Good luck with those kids growing up in the three rings, too..
Indeed – three lesbian women in Massachusetts recently “married” each other after exchanging vows in a wedding-style ceremony last year. They claim they are the world’s first “throuple.”
Although Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriages, the state does not recognize polygamous ones. Nevertheless, the three women named Brynn, Doll, and Kitten still entered into the three-way relationship. Brynn told The Sun newspaper: “In our eyes we are married. We had specialist lawyers draw up paperwork so our assets are equally divided.”
Massachusetts officials are allowing the “throuple” arrangement to stand.
Doll says, “As far as we know, there aren’t any three women married like us.” Doll has considered herself polygamous since high school. She said, “I had always dated girls, who—although they had boyfriends or girlfriends—were also allowed to date me. I never thought that much about it and I had never really come out as poly to my friends and family. To me, it was just how I was.”
Brynn insists that, despite their novel lifestyle arrangement, that they are “very traditional people” and “perfectly normal.” The three women would also like to raise three children using anonymous sperm donors-one for each them.
Experts have long warned of the societal consequences of non-Biblical “marriage” models. In an article published last December, Ken Klukowski of the Center for Religious Liberty explains that the legalization of homosexuality opens the door to polygamy.
“If government cannot forbid homosexual conduct, this argument goes, then neither can it deny those who define themselves by homosexual behavior to officially recognize any such relationship as a marriage,” Klukowski wrote. “It began a religious and philosophical debate in America between two different definitions of marriage and family.”
“The new conception of marriage, rooted in the proliferation of no-fault divorce laws in the 1970s and the sexual revolution, is that marriage is about personal happiness and fulfillment,” he continued. “People should be free to form whatever relationships they find personally satisfying and to follow whatever their personal sexual inclinations are to engage in whatever form of sexual behavior they find gratifying.”
“If, therefore, you have a right to officially recognize those homosexual relationships through redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, then there is no reason to say it cannot include more than two people, so long as everyone is a consenting adult,” Klukowski proposed. “The exact legal arguments for same-sex marriage equally apply to multiple-person marriages.”
David Norris, Hero of Gay Marriage Vote: At 71, With a Liver Transplant, I’m Too Old to Wed?
After helping to win a globally unique battle for gay marriage equality last weekend, Senator David Norris was basking in glory after being hailed as a key architect of Ireland?s momentous referendum vote to allow same-sex marriages under the constitution. Just days later, he is rueful as he reflects that he is too old and a little bit too choosy to tie the knot at his age.