Redefining Marriage: Polyamory
In the quest to legalize homosexual marriage, there are groups of practicing homosexuals who are in polyamorous relationships: those with two or more partners. In his revealing article, Kelly Boggs notes correctly that if and when homosexuals gain license to legally marry, other advocates of alternative forms of relationships will start to cry "what about us?" and politicians, fearful of being labled a 'bigot' will cave in to their demands.
posted by Charlie Wallace at
10:40 PM
2 Comments:
Wanna keep going?
"If the current state of our elected leadership does not change, few will rise to offer credible persuasive arguments against those who would de-construct and destroy marriage as we have always known it."
Half of people that are married today de-construct and destroy marriage every year. Not to mention the numerous acts of adultery cammoied daily.
This guy is using the same argument that anti drug activists use. "If you smoke pot you'll immideatly become addicted and wind up giving blowjobs for heroin money." While it's a pretty funny position to take the fact of the matter is that it just isn't true. So if gay people are allowed to marry, then immideatly groups of men, women, children, cats, and dogs will all want to get married. Just like the drug argument, it's not true. Would there be some crazy people who want to marry their cows? Probably, but they wont have the time to push for rights in between Jerry Springer apperances.
Of course there must be some "rules" included in the definition of something, it's what makes it a definition. And since marriage is a legal contract there certianly must be rules. The question is what are the rules, what is the definition of the word marriage? The immideate thought I have at this point in the thinking process is, "Should the supreme law of the land be amended in order to define a word?" I think the obvious answer is no. So that's where I stop caring. Gay people marrying barely affects me personally, and it only does positivly.
If the Baptist church wants to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman that is fine with me. I will stand up in their defense if any one tries to attack the rights of the Baptist church to do as they please.
I just don't see how the issue has any major effect on the majority of people. So why care?
Sorry, McF, I had to delete your second post. This is a family-friendly blog. For those who do not know, McF, Michael and I have had a long discussion on another blog about this issue already. I have nothing more to say about the issue. But anybody else is welcome to discuss.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home