They get laughed out of the room. That'll never happen. The ole "I laugh, so it is defacto untrue" argument.
Update: (and bump)
You know, I've been thinking more about this. My wife was just asking why "Sister Wives" is on TV? It's illegal. Why are they not being prosecuted?
Answer? Nobody's going to press charges. Because it's going to go down to religious prefrence, probably. And if you can say polygamy is wrong, then you can say gay marriage is wrong. Which goes against the progressive activist narrative (judicial and otherwise). There is no right or wrong. Just personal preferences. Right?
So... again, what's next?
[waynesworlddreamsequence]
Why can't I marry my sister? We love each other, and man, she's hot! Inbreeding? Don't worry. Ok, we won't have kids. Any time she gets pregnant, we'll just have an abortion. Or maybe we will. We'll adopt kids. And so what if we do have kids? Birth defect? Who are you to judge? They wouldn't be handicapped... they'd be handicapable.[/waynesworddreamsequence]
Crazy, right? Really? Is it?
2 comments:
Not long ago, I scoffed at the idea that the "redefinition of marriage" stuff would end with the granting of licenses to gay couples.
Polygamy? Marriage to animals or inanimate objects? Nah, said the gay marriage advocates. The gravy train stops with us, they said.
No, I said...the present situation would have been unthinkable even twenty years ago. Polygamy at least has precedent if you reach far enough back into human history and/or look at enough human cultures.
Gay marriage does not. So far as I know, the gay marriage question that Western cultures are now struggling with is also a first in human history - to my knowledge, not even cultures known for sexual depravity (the Romans, for instance) did this.
So...the idea that it ends with gay couples? No. I'm not buying it, I said.
And here we are, sure enough. The only surprise is that it took such a brief period of time.
Updated and bumped.
Post a Comment