Holy Moley. I realize these apocalyptic times have Stephen Harper's SoCons in a frenzy...walking around in their pyjamas waiting for their Raptor Messiah to land.
But who knew the religious polygamists at Bountiful would have this old dinosaur vomiting up this fossilized argument.
If two men living together can be called a marriage, why not one man and three women? If two women can be married, why not the members of a commune? When you substitute a definition of marriage based not on reproductive potential but on ideology, then marriage means any arrangement with ideological acceptability.
Lordy. Throw in the bit about marrying your dog and I think I can safely say I've heard it ALL before.
And it's STILL bullshit....or dinosaur dung.
Now look I realize that religious extremism is a form of mental illness, but why do these friggin homophobes have to be so dumb?
Why can't they even COUNT?
One man and one man. Or one woman and one man. Or one woman and one woman leads in each case to a maximum of TWO. Not sixteen young girls and one dirty old patriarch.
And in every case legally or romantically it's about the LOVE of one human being for another.
But what would decrepit old dinosaur homophobes like Ian Hunter know about that?
Homophobia is a disease. Polygamy is a religious problem.
They're waiting for their Raptor Messiah.
I'm waiting for the asteroid....
So quick to judge. The problem is not polygamy, it's kooky religious beliefs about the "place" of women...
ReplyDeleteTo judge so broadly is a mistake....
Hi Peter....I'm not judging polygamy. Who cares what I think about it? I'm just saying that in this case since they are using the freedom of religion defence it's a religious problem. And they are free to do that. All I ask is that they don't make it my problem by comparing it to gay marriage...
ReplyDelete