Beware of Liberal Values: Polygamy for “Marriage Equality’s” Sake

0
Share

Polygamy is possibly on its way to becoming acceptable as are all blatantly amoral unions if the Supreme Court redefines marriage in a way that eliminates the long-accepted one man-one woman relationship.

Gateway Pundit and New York Observer report that a Muslim entrepreneur, a Mr. Khan, has a website called SecondWife.com for those Islamic men or women who want a polygamous relationship. It’s U.K. based. In only three months, Khan has acquired 3,000 users.

About 50,000 to 100,000 American Muslim men engage in polygamy here in the states and another roughly 50,000 non-Muslims. The Koran permits up to four wives.

We have some sects of Mormons in this country who engage in the practice. Many keep their women uneducated, barefoot and pregnant.

Many collect welfare on the second, third, fourth wives.

They often live in huge homes with their 20-50 or more children.

Well, you should know that it’s not only them.

Go to Polygamy Personals (also good for polyandrists) whose website claims it is “the fastest growing co-operative of online-dating sites in the world. This growth is driven by the totally unique partner concept and range of services that we provide, that are unmatched in the industry.”

I did a quick search as a 35-year old (which I’m not) and near or in my little town of 4,000, they claimed there were 1,626 men waiting to consider me for the role of a spare wife.

One claim used to make polygamy palatable is that there are very few who want it. Obviously there are more than a few.

They say further that “When you sign up for any service within this site (the “Site”), all of which services are hereinafter referred to collectively as the ‘Service.’” Cagey, huh? That could be because polygamy is illegal in the United States and for good reason. It destroys the family unit and allows for abuses.

I have friends who can’t use google ads because google doesn’t like their conservative politics but this site gets to use google ads according to their privacy policy.

There are people they don’t want:

Export Control

The Site and Service must not be viewed or used in, or exported or re-exported to, any jurisdiction in which the access, viewing, downloading, or other use of the Site or Service would or could reasonably constitute a violation of any law, regulation, rule, or custom. The Site and Service must not be accessed by (i) anyone located in Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, or any other country under U.S. embargo; or (ii) any person or entity on the U.S. Treasury Department’s list of Specially Designated Nationals or the U.S. Commerce Department’s Table of Deny Orders.. The foregoing groups are not exhaustive, and you are solely responsible for complying with the laws, regulations, rules, and customs in your own jurisdiction.

But they also make no inquiries and do no background checks.

How many of these participants are Muslim is hard to say. It’s not a clear invite to them and the photo on front page is of white Americans.

The company is based in the U.K. but has an office in Cooper City, Florida. It is owned by Online Connections Inc. – FBM Online Connections LTD and formally Infinite Connections LTD.

The British have found a way to conquer the colonies – by sending their trash values to us.

We have the liberals in the States who also want to be so open as to ignore the moral and societal implications of destroying monogamy, an institution which lasted for thousands of years until the liberals went to the far left.

In 2007, Oprah posted an article on her site by a polygamist who talks about her very normal Polygamy union. It’s okay, the article suggests, because men take mistresses so why shouldn’t a nice normal marriage like this be accepted?

One wife says she does not feel jealous when “her husband picks to sleep with another wife instead of her. I get plenty of time. I get whatever I want. My relationship with him is very special, and I get as much time as I want with him,” she says.

Sounds lascivious to me.

When people can do whatever they want, it’s called anarchy and a nation without values will not survive. Look what happened to the Romans.

Apparently some Native Americans engage in the practice as well but that’s cultural. Will it become our culture also?

Are we going back to a more primitive time.

The United States Supreme Court is about to legally redefine the term ‘Marriage’. Instead of the traditional “one man and one woman”, they seem likely to re-define the word Marriage to include ‘one man and one man’. All the people involved seem to have had too shallow a thinking regarding this! It turns out that there is essentially NO legal difference betweeen THAT re-definition of Marriage and a definition which might include ‘one man and eleven women’. So, the moment that the Supreme Court authorizes homosexual marriages, they will obviously initiate countless lawsuits by Mormons regarding Polygamy becoming also legal.

The extremely far-left Slate magazine (in April 2013) stated that we must accept Polygamy for “marriage equality’s” sake, a term we frequently hear in relation to gay marriage.

They rationalize:

“While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.”

The last thing it does is empower women. It enslaves them to a man and numerous other women. It often makes sex slaves and baby-producing machines out of them.

Slate says: “It’s also hard to argue with the constitutional freedom of religious expression that legalized polygamy would preserve.”

They must be referring to the Satanic Temple.

Again, they go off the charts of rational thought “…prohibiting polygamy on “feminist” grounds—that these marriages are inherently degrading to the women involved—is misguided. The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve.”

Don’t dismiss or marginalize these people, the Slate writer demands. “The definition of marriage is plastic…freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us.”

It’s only plastic if you don’t value it’s true meaning. Insofar as marginalizing anyone. Destroying the Judeo-Christian belief in monogamy marginalizes the majority of Americans.

Slate wants us to abandon morals, religious teachings, and any sense of decency. Certainly, if they want any union to be a marriage, pedophilia won’t be far behind.

It’s simply greed, gluttony, and unnecessary. The same liberals who want us to abort our children so we don’t overpopulate the earth, also want us to agree to marriages where 20 to 50 or more children are born.

These types of “marriages” are often backed by perverted porn merchants, are severely destructive of society, and are meant to put an end to religious beliefs.

These are the Americans who demand harems be permitted and can make an irrational case for it sound rational as long as you buy into their amoral and confused perspective.

This is what one liberal thinks:

Share