04 July 2012

Perversion in the WH: What Does Obama's ‘Marriage Equality' Mean for Bisexuals?

Obama, we now know, believes homosexual men have a "right" to marry other men, and homosexual women have a "right" to marry other women. So, who does he believe bisexuals have a "right" to marry?
In Obama's world, does a bisexual man have a "right" to enter into a bigamous union with one other man and one woman? Or can the state force him to limit his marriage to the union of just two people?

By turning our law upside down, Obama would turn our society inside out. Racial discrimination is wrong for the same reason homosexual behavior — or, for that matter, bisexual behavior — is wrong. Racial discrimination violates the natural God-given law that is the only source of any legitimate law of the state.

By Terence P. Jeffrey

Excerpted from http://cnsnews.com/blog/terence-p-jeffrey/what-does-obamas-marriage-equality-mean-bisexuals

From the comments, an example of perverted left and reasonable right thinking:

Personally, I don't have a problem with bisexual or monosexual polyamory... so long as the parties are consenting adults. And I don't have a problem with legal recognition of the same... again given consenting ppl above the age of consent ( which I also think should havea federal minimum of 17- 18 yrs, to end the. Difference in consent ages between states)

To answer the beastiality and pedophile charge/ argument, neither animals or children can enter into legal contracts, period. And I don't forsee that ever changing, aand as for the racist beastiality claim by gommygooomy... all the beastiality charges I've ever heard of in this country are white men (and a few women)

Live and let live... if it works for them, why not?

I will admit that some of my opinion stems from the fact that I know more than afew bisexual and polyamorous people and couples, some of the relationships workwell, some not so much, but it isn't any worse than the monogamous straight relationships. I just don't think that the activities between consenting adults need to be regulated.

So, just to make sure. . . You're ok with an incest as long as the parties involved say OK. You have an arbitrary age of consent at 17-18. So as long as your children are over 17, by your standard, Father/Daughter, Mother/Son, Brother/Sister, Father/Son, etc. relationships are ok in your book.
No one "enters into a legal contract" for incest, polygamy, beastiality or for that matter casual sex anyway. So your age of consent barrier doesn't make a lot of sense. If it's really "live and let live", why not bring the age down to the ability to have an erection? That would only make sense right? Who's to say a 10 year old can't decide their own sexual desires at that time?
And on the same note, Prostitution is two (or more) consenting adults, (but generally leaving the spouse out of the decision making process). Is that ok?
By "casting aside the bigoted prejudices that we have carried over from superstitions of primitive desert tribes" such as Max, the poster below would have us do, we would have to elect a new moral authority. Which would be who? And from what country?

What credentials would qualify as the new moral authority?
The problem is, at what point is sexual conduct actually misconduct? What is natural or unnatural? There are those who choose to believe a moral authority already exists and those who don't. I will say as a society justifies and allows more and more behavior that is counter to the existing moral authority, the more problems and inconsistencies arise. Just look at the U.S.
I don't understand why states should invest in or accept anything other than a basic marriage between man and woman. Beyond that, There is no valid moral reason to reject any kind of sexual preference, no matter how disgusting or deviant. There is simply no other place this argument can go.
And "all the beastiality charges I've ever heard of in this country are white men (and a few women)". Where on Earth did you pull that from?

No comments: