We have to discriminate against gay people now or we won’t be able to discriminate against other people in the future!!!!!!!
I have two thoughts. 1. Why doesn’t David Fowler support the efforts of people to bring back true Biblical marriage? Does David Fowler think he knows better than God how to organize a family? 2. Conservatives always have much better imaginations than I do. I have always thought of polygamy as a person taking multiple spouses who just sleep with that person. I had never considered the “every night is an orgy of blind passions in which all combinations of body parts come together in writhing ecstasy–man with woman, woman with woman, man with man, woman with man with woman with man, etc.”, but now, as I try to imagine what Fowler sees in polygamy that resembles gay marriage?
Whew, that’s a little much for a girl to bring to mind so soon to lunch. I think I’m blushing.
Pingback: David Fowler Doesn’t Find Pologamy Funny : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee
I went to the fine, upstanding citizen’s website and looked up his organization’s policy issues. There was nothing about health care coverage. Isn’t that something families need? Or will bashing homos and controlling women’s wombs make everyone healthy?
Ha, Sam, speak of the devil! I was just writing about you in the post above this.
The point Fowler makes has merit. If you can argue that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is discriminatory, what logic prevents it from being redefined in other ways? If three gay men want to be married, is that okay?
Nothing prevents it from being redefined in other ways. One man and one woman is already a redefinition from polygamy, which is how marriage has been and is done throughout history and around the world.
If a society can redefine marriage to just mean one man and one woman, it seems entirely plausible that it might redefine it again into something else.
Give the guy break. I’d be grumpy too if I never got any blowjobs, cuz ya know, sodomy’s a sin.
“every night is an orgy of blind passions in which all combinations of body parts come together in writhing ecstasy–man with woman, woman with woman, man with man, woman with man with woman with man, etc.”, but now, as I try to imagine what Fowler sees in polygamy that resembles gay marriage?
He may be unable to type similar speculation on gay marriage because he hyperventilates and passes out.
Good Lord. That excerpt above doesn’t even need audio accompanying it to hear the “heeh heeh heeh heeh hissss heeh heeh heeh heeh” noises that were made while he wrote it. So much of this foolishness continues to remind me of the folks who were so distraught about the old peep shows down on Lower Broad in the 70s: “We had to go back several times to determine how awful they were,” they’d say, with straight (har, no pun intended) faces.
Um, why not allow plural marriage as long as they aren’t marrying their 13-year old niece? Seriously, see to thine own house. Freedom should mean freedom.
Actually there is a good reason (sorta, see my clarification at the end). Civil marriage, which can be looked at (in part) as a bundle of legal contracts, is self-limiting to two parties. Certainly not every contract involved in marriage but quite a few. Take divorce for instance, in a marriage of three can two team up to divorce the third? What if Partner A and Partner B want to divorce eachother but both stay married to Partner C? What about power of attorney. If Partner A is lying on life support and Partners B & C can’t agree one what decision should be made, who gets to make the call in the absence of a living will. The list goes on.
I’m not anti-polyamory. I’ve been in a polyamorous relationship before myself. But it’s important when discussing these kinds of things to acknowledge that the current gender requirement on marriage is completely arbitrary while the number requirement is a defacto result of the way marriages function legally in our society.
There may well come a time when society decides to change marriage to allow for polyamorous relationships (indeed as B. pointed out, it’s already changed from polygamist to monogamous in the past), but a comparison between the “redefinition” of marriage to allow gay couples and the “redefinition” of marriage to allow polyamorous relationships is fundamentally flawed.