W
WilT
Guest
Married brother and sisters? Married father and daughter? Married man with his pet? Old man with child? Polygamy? 1 man with 1women and a man? Don’t laugh too much. Our society is heading that way already.
- Status
A
Avocadomom
Guest
I don’t know if it’s up next, but legal sex between adults and minors is on queue.
S
ServusHumilis
Guest
I suppose any disordered combination that the human mind can imagine is potentially possible at this point.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Plural marriage is most likely next step, as it has an historical basis, exists legally in other countries, is practiced on a clandestine basis in the US, and involves adults capable of exchanging legal consent.
Oh, and the arrangement has a cable TV reality show: Sister Wives. Four seasons. Season 5 premiers next week. When the idea gets on House Hunters, the writing will be on the wall in black Sharpie.
Oh, and the arrangement has a cable TV reality show: Sister Wives. Four seasons. Season 5 premiers next week. When the idea gets on House Hunters, the writing will be on the wall in black Sharpie.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
Nah, I doubt it. I think that it will be decriminalized, as the laws aren’t really enforced anyway, but I don’t think that it will be legally recognized for purposes of inheritance, insurance, immigration, taxes, etc.
But in the US, polygamy laws would have to be implemented without regard to gender, unlike in the countries where polygamy is legal. As in, women and men would both have to be allowed to have multiple spouses. And of course, in many states those spouses could be of either gender. Legally recognized marriage between two people provides a demonstrable value to society-it is a valuable safety net for individuals and provides a solid familial foundation. However, legally recognized polygamy would be a logistical nightmare of a situation. Person A would be married to persons, B, C, and X. Person B would be married to A, C, Y, and Z. Person C could be married to A, B, and F. Person F is married to A, M, and Q and on and on and on is just too expensive and too complicated to justify.
I mean, don’t get me wrong-as a future attorney facing bleak job prospects and a mountain of debt, a small part of me would LOVE this situation. But overall it would be expensive and impossible to regulate, and I don’t even think that there are enough people who are willing to try to make it work. The push for gay marriage stems from the desire to allow gay couples to have the same social safety net as straight couples. Because polyamory is a lifestyle, not an inherent orientation and because there is no need for a 20-person wide social safety net, I just don’t see the movement catching steam.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
Yep. I think that’s the most likely. Let’s face it, no one, conservative, liberal, gay, or straight wants pedophilia legalized. Polygamy would be all but impossible. But the push for gay adoption is the natural progression of the gay rights movement-which is gaining steam and spreading faster every day.
G
Gordon_Sims
Guest
I think you’re wrong about that. One of the main reasons NAMBLA exists is to try to gain acceptance for pedophilia and child rape. The ACLU has defended NAMBLA. Harry Hay, who for years was one of the most prominent leaders of the LGBT community, supported them and their inclusion in gay pride parades. Countless Democrats (including Nancy Pelosi) supported Hay, and not one of them ever condemned Hay or the ACLU for their support of NAMBLA. If they’re not vocally supporting the group, I’d say they’re at least condoning it by their silence.
As far as marriage goes, I’m sure polygamy will be next. However, I’ve been saying for decades that the acceptance of pedophilia is part of both the gay and liberal agendas. While you don’t see a lot of overt support for it, it doesn’t take much to find countless examples of the sexualization of children in mainstream media. I think it’s a big enough taboo that we’re still a good way off from open, vocal support of it but I also feel that every little thing that corrodes our basic morality gets us a step closer.
I
Isca
Guest
I can’t really believe that any right-minded person would think that gay and/or liberal people “accept” child abuse.
G
Gordon_Sims
Guest
They don’t “accept” it; they glorify and praise it. If you don’t believe that, find me a liberal in Hollywood who condemns Roman Polanski for his rape of a 13-year-old.
C
Cackles
Guest
Actually I know the answer to this. It’s called mixed living or something. Dateline NBC or one of those shows alredy tried to promote this. Basically the goal is to break down the marriage, gender, and family unit.Married brother and sisters? Married father and daughter? Married man with his pet? Old man with child? Polygamy? 1 man with 1women and a man? Don’t laugh too much. Our society is heading that way already.
A gay couple lives with woman. Or a couple swaps with another, but in a gay, lesbian sort of manner. Totally disgusting and vile. The kids are treated like everyone elses kids. All lines are blurred.
That’s the Humanists (Satans) goal after all… Its to amputate your soul by erasing shame. To blur all lines. There is no right or wrong. Just whatever him or her thinks is right or wrong.
When you erase God, you erase the term ‘sin’. It no longer exists. When you erase sin, there is no right or wrong. You become like an animal. You can kill and sleep with who you want and it’s neither good nor bad because you are now and animal… Thats just what you do. That is Satans main goal.
Polygamy and specifically lesbianism has a shred of biblical backing to it, But Sodomy and the rest does not.
J
John_Lazarus
Guest
Book, chapter and verse, please? This I gotta see.
C
Cat
Guest
I agree. Plural marriage is next.
Plural marriage has been featured in a positive light on many of the popular talk shows, too. I’m sure to a lot of people, it looks kind of appealing!
I personally believe that homosexual marriage will become less and less common, at least among males, after the initial flurry of legal marriages. I believe that the homosexual lifestyle is inconsistent with the practice of marriage.
Lesbians, at least the non-celeb lesbians, tend to stick together once they find someone to love, because of the female need for financial security here in the U.S. I believe many of these “marriages” will last.
But the male homosexual lifestyle is one of promiscuity and constant switching of partners. That’s fine when ending a relationahips means merely walking out the door with a suitcase full of belongings. But ending a marriage means getting a divorce, which costs $$. Lawyers will be standing in line to collect the divorce fees. And homosexuals will discover that they can’t just “get married” to someone new unless they first end the marriage to the former partner–ouch! And to most people, being divorced multiple times is not an admirable trait. Of course, this may change in our culture, and multiple divorces may become the norm.
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
I’d agree with this also. In addition to the historical precedent, the are two religious precedents, being both the Old Testament and the LDS. There are already a number of “community property” states where assets are neatly divided by 2; that wold just have to be changed to 3, or 4, or whatever. Plural heterosexual marriages would also arguably be more “natural” than same-sex “marriage.” Keep your eyes on the Massachusetts legislature, for starters.
A
AliR14
Guest
Free “health” coverage for transgender services is next.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Yep, agree as well. In addition it’s in Islam as well. It will be argued on the grounds of “religious freedom”.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out… it will pit feminism against religion.
F
frobert
Guest
I don’t know your motives but many moderates view, at best, these arguments illogical, ignorant, and in many cases outright bigotry that conjures up hatred of gays that can lead to violence. The church teaches respect for gays but is utterly quiet on the bigotry that underlay these arguments and stretches the truth to associate them with gay rights. Let’s take the obvious, incest, bestiality, pederasty and polygamy, are all illegal in all states and except for polygamy illegal in all countries. Arguing that such illegal acts will become the norm because of SS marriage and gay civil rights goes beyond all credibility. Unfortunately, these arguments appeal to the worse instincts in many people. We can trace back the gay rights movement to 1950 with the Mattachine society with a small minority that became the majority it is today. Where is the history of incest rights, bestiality rights and polygamy rights and their backers, where are court cases for recognition. I am sure that the vast majority of gay right activists would join forces with Christian activist should any of these despicable practices turn into a rights movement.Married brother and sisters? Married father and daughter? Married man with his pet? Old man with child? Polygamy? 1 man with 1women and a man? Don’t laugh too much. Our society is heading that way already.
For those who are arguing that polygamy is next, are you saying that SS marriage includes polygamist marriages or that gay right activists are for polygamist marriages, or that SS marriage successes will be cause the adoption of polygamist marriages?
I believe organizations like NAMBLA are evil as to vast majority of gays and straights do. The ACLU represented NAMBLA in a case pertaining to free speech. As much as we may hate particular speech we live in democracy whose foundation is based on free speech and freedom of religion. NABULA is a extreme fringe minority and is likely to stay that way. Putting things into perspective I believe there is more cause to be worried about our democracy from the NSA and far right neo-Nazi movements in the US and in Europe.
I agree, and as I’ve said before, these arguments do more harm than good.
Child marriage and animal marriage are things that over 99 percent of Americans strongly oppose, and I have seen on at least two occasions same-sex marriage advocates refer to opponents as “stupid” or “idiots” for bringing it up, accusing opponents of not understanding the major difference, that these relationships don’t involve adult consent.
K
Kamaduck
Guest
I was going to say polygamy/polyamory, but BEL had some good points about how that would be very difficult and expensive to legally recognize. I think polyamory will become more socially accepted over time, but it may not be legalized (or it might take a long, long time if it is). Gay adoption was another good suggestion, but I take that as pretty much a given once same-sex marriage gains more widespread acceptance.Married brother and sisters? Married father and daughter? Married man with his pet? Old man with child? Polygamy? 1 man with 1women and a man? Don’t laugh too much. Our society is heading that way already.
The other things aren’t really comparable. Bestiality and incest don’t have any sort of formal backing- and while pedophilia does have a few organizations, the vast majority of Americans hate those organizations with a burning passion. So no, I think we’re safe on that front. The main justification for legalized same-sex marriage is that consenting adults should be allowed to form a contract to formalize their commitment. Therefore, any comparison to situations that don’t involve only consenting adult humans is both insulting and less than honest- it goes against everything that movements like sex-positivity and feminism stand for. They would have to completely reverse their current beliefs in order for something like pedophilia to become legal.
That has nothing to do with marriage. The church doesn’t even have much of a stance on transgenderism, so why bring it up?
"frobert:
Not necessarily, it just follows the same principles. If three consenting adults want to all form a marriage with each other, then following the line of reasoning that got us to same-sex marriage, there shouldn’t be a problem. They are all consenting adults doing what they want to do, and the government ought not interfere. Any objections I might raise would either be religious or based on concerns about family structure and children, and people are becoming less and less concerned with that aspect of marriage.
From what I’ve seen, polyamory seems to be a separate movement than the LGBT+ community. But it is related, and you will find support for it in similar circles, because the focus there is mostly on consent, not on forming stable family units.
I concur.
F
frobert
Guest
We are in 99.9% agreement but I have a minor quibble, SS marriage became reality because civil marriage was rightly framed as a fairness issue which can not be made for polamony. In many states and countries the legal definition of marriage is between 2 adults. Polygamy does not meet the legal definition and can not mare fairness the issue. I must say it is much better to be discussing the issue in a sane manner rather than the illogical attempts to conflate SS marriage with nearly universally despised illegal acts.
- Status