Lyndon LaRouche wrote:
Kenny Knisley wrote:Polygamy is next. At this point, what valid argument can be used against it?
as long as they are consenting adults, what *is* wrong w/ ploygamy? Who cares? Why do you care?
If a guy wants to marry his lawn furniture, he should be able to. Who really cares?
exactly! and if a guy wants to be officially declared a Rhodes Scholar despite his highest attained ed level being a GED, who are you to object? Anyone should be able to change the definition of anything to suit whatever they want, right? What's the harm in changing the def in marriage? Why deny anyone who thinks they should be officially classified as 'married', based on the criteria of their own choosing?
Next we'll have to make it illegal, of course, for any individual or organization (like a church) to speak ill of the 'right' of butt-pirates to 'marry'. The hate speech po-po will have a field day.
Think of all those self-righteous do-gooders about to get their come uppance, huh? No more tax exempt status, either!
Our society is truly evolving. comrades. Orwell was a damn fine prophet..