POLYGAMY. COMING SOON.
thirdEye @ Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:22 am
http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=23
Scroll down the page if this article is not at the top.
$1:
POLYGAMY. COMING SOON.
The better advocates of gay marriage are an ingenious crowd, full of artful arguments to support their claim. Initially, most of us on the other side found it hard to believe a countervailing argument was necessary, and by the time it became clear that neither “Oh, come off it, you can’t be serious” nor “Well, I dunno, it just don’t sound right” were going to suffice, the gays were already on their way to victory in the only arenas that matter – the media and the courts.
But the activists’ intellectual rigor only goes so far. If you suggest, as some defendants of “traditional marriage” do, that gay marriage is the slippery slope to polygamy and bestiality, the activists roll their eyes and go into “Oh, come off it, you can’t be serious” mode. Like the chichi gay couple from New York who’ve built their dream home in rural Vermont, they don’t want any other incomers muscling in. Gay marriage, they assure us, is the merest amendment to traditional marriage, and once we’ve done that we’ll pull up the drawbridge.
Sorry, but it’s not going to work like that. If you can get ‘em past the don’t-be-so-ridiculous stage, the gays point out that there are no constituencies clamoring for polygamy and bestiality. That’s true in the latter case. There aren’t many “zoo couples” (as they’re known) demanding their rights. Offhand, I can think only of Phillip Buble of Maine, who petitioned the Piscataquis County Superior Court a couple of years back to allow his spouse to attend a hearing with him. (“I’ve been informed your personal permission is needed given that my wife is not human, being a dog of about 36lbs weight and very well behaved.” The letter ended with his signature and a paw-print, and underneath them the words “Phillip and Lady Buble”.)
But there’s a very obvious constituency for polygamy and it says something about the monumental self-absorption of the gay marriage crowd that they seem unaware of it. Indeed, it’s already here. Earlier this summer, Le Monde leaked a government report revealing that polygamy was routinely practiced in Muslim ghettoes in France. Anecdotal evidence suggests things aren’t so very different in the Islamic communities of Ontario: as The Christian Science Monitor airily put it, polygamous unions “are being performed by the same religious figures adjudicating matters under sharia” – ie, under the province’s Muslim-friendly Arbitration Act.
Read more...
The better advocates of gay marriage are an ingenious crowd, full of artful arguments to support their claim. Initially, most of us on the other side found it hard to believe a countervailing argument was necessary, and by the time it became clear that neither “Oh, come off it, you can’t be serious” nor “Well, I dunno, it just don’t sound right” were going to suffice, the gays were already on their way to victory in the only arenas that matter – the media and the courts.
But the activists’ intellectual rigor only goes so far. If you suggest, as some defendants of “traditional marriage” do, that gay marriage is the slippery slope to polygamy and bestiality, the activists roll their eyes and go into “Oh, come off it, you can’t be serious” mode. Like the chichi gay couple from New York who’ve built their dream home in rural Vermont, they don’t want any other incomers muscling in. Gay marriage, they assure us, is the merest amendment to traditional marriage, and once we’ve done that we’ll pull up the drawbridge.
Sorry, but it’s not going to work like that. If you can get ‘em past the don’t-be-so-ridiculous stage, the gays point out that there are no constituencies clamoring for polygamy and bestiality. That’s true in the latter case. There aren’t many “zoo couples” (as they’re known) demanding their rights. Offhand, I can think only of Phillip Buble of Maine, who petitioned the Piscataquis County Superior Court a couple of years back to allow his spouse to attend a hearing with him. (“I’ve been informed your personal permission is needed given that my wife is not human, being a dog of about 36lbs weight and very well behaved.” The letter ended with his signature and a paw-print, and underneath them the words “Phillip and Lady Buble”.)
But there’s a very obvious constituency for polygamy and it says something about the monumental self-absorption of the gay marriage crowd that they seem unaware of it. Indeed, it’s already here. Earlier this summer, Le Monde leaked a government report revealing that polygamy was routinely practiced in Muslim ghettoes in France. Anecdotal evidence suggests things aren’t so very different in the Islamic communities of Ontario: as The Christian Science Monitor airily put it, polygamous unions “are being performed by the same religious figures adjudicating matters under sharia” – ie, under the province’s Muslim-friendly Arbitration Act.
Read more...
figfarmer @ Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:42 am
that one of those large fringy religious things in the US was right into group marriage. The Mormons, I think.
Why marry the cow when you can get the "milk" for free.(Sorry. Had to do it.)
figfarmer @ Fri Sep 17, 2004 11:06 am
the great Bible game the whole family can play.
Donny_Brasco @ Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:46 am
Polygamy....
What insane man would want to have more then one wife?
Twila @ Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:21 pm
$1:
Polygamy....
What insane man would want to have more then one wife?
What insane man would want to have more then one wife?
Maybe he's hoping that with more then 1 wife he may have a chance of at least pleasing 1 of them..........
Or else he thinks he needs lots of practice.....
thirdEye @ Fri Sep 24, 2004 3:09 pm
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
Polygamy....
What insane man would want to have more then one wife?
What insane man would want to have more then one wife?
One from a culture where it is legal to beat them into submission and where they have no rights of their own?
figfarmer @ Fri Sep 24, 2004 4:15 pm
One from a culture where it is legal to beat them into submission and where they have no rights of their own?
I think I know where that culture may be.
http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/stoptheviolence/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/stopthevio ... rview.html
thirdEye @ Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:26 pm
figfarmer figfarmer:
I think I know where that culture may be.
http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/stoptheviolence/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/stopthevio ... rview.html
http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/stoptheviolence/index.html http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/stopthevio ... rview.html
I said where it is "legal".
thirdEye @ Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:33 pm
Avro Avro:
Do you mean Mormons?
Sure, them too if that's the case, but of course you know who I really meant.
thirdEye @ Fri Sep 24, 2004 8:17 pm
Avro Avro:
Do they believe in incest and slavery too?
Yes.
Avro Avro:
This thread leans to the right by the way.
So, what's your point? It doesn't seem to bother you that the man you quote in your signature leaned to the right too.