• The Met
  • The Art Renewal Center
  • William Bouguereau

  • My Favorite Art
  • Jeune Fille se Defendant Contre L'amour
    by William Bouguereau

  • Le_ravissement de Psyche
    by William Bouguereau

  • Flagellation de Notre Seigneur Jésus Christ
    by William Bouguereau
My Photo
Location: Liverpool, NY

"In my house, I'm a big deal. That's all that matters."


About The Ultra Rev


Free Hit Counters

Powered by Blogger

Monday, December 12, 2005

Washington Times: The Marriage of Many

I knew it was coming. I predicted it several years ago when I saw the support rising for homosexual marriage. Polygamy rights are next. If as some civil rights lawyeres have suggested, that marriage ought to be the ability to marry a person of your choice, not just of the opposite sex, then why not multiple persons of your choice?

Now I almost said, and why not frogs, toads, gorillas and stuffed animals of your choice but I suppose that is a little far fetched. Then again, not that long ago we would have said that the current rights fights would have been unthinkable.

One group mentioned in the article is TruthBearer.org, a Christian Polygamy Organization. They're evangelical too, with a gospel presentation using the bridge illustration. But they believe that polygamy is taught in the Scriptures.

And why not? There are at least some seemingly God ordained polygamous stories in the Bible. How about the Levitical law that says that if a man dies, his brother is supposed to marry the widow for her protection? That was the story of Ruth and Boaz. Seems like God endorsed polygamy — compassionate polygamy. I like how that sounds.

What about Jacob who got tricked into marrying the wrong woman, Leah. That Laban sure was sneaky. Leah was homely and whiny, and he knew he'd never be able to get rid of her so he tricked Jacob. Jacob just had to have Rachel, so he married her too. Was Jacob just consumed with lust/love for Rachel and lost all sense of right and wrong so he married her? Was God displeased with Jacob? Should he have just settled for Leah?

OK. Now I know this seems far fetched, but I'll go out on a limb and predict it's coming. I predict, someone out there will want to do a study on the brain chemistry of animals during intercourse with a human. They'll come up with some result that says it isn't harmful, it's pleasurable, it's similar to what happens when they have intercourse with another animal, yada, yada, yada.

Then there will be animal lover groups that will advocate for conjugal rights with their pets. Everyone will think they're wierd. Europe and Canada will move ahead with civil rights for pet owners desiring relations with their animals. The Internet will be deluged with pictures and videos of owners "making love" to their pets. There will be underground online organizations offering sex farm tours. Some "news" show like 20/20 or 60 Minutes will show rare documentary footage of animals and their owners in action but the pet's face will be blurred out to protect the innocent. Paris Hilton will make a new movie with a Chocolate Lab. New Hampshire will ordain a Bishop who has been in a long term monogamous relationship with a Hamster. And Jake Gyllenhall will appear in a new movie about Cowboys who loved their horses starring one of the Clydesdales from the old Budweiser commercials. The horse will be nominated for an Oscar.

I know what you're thinking ... "that'll never happen" ... "you're sick for thinking about it and saying it." Yep. And that's what our grandparents said years ago when someone predicted the same thing would happen with homosexual rights.

Comments on "Washington Times: The Marriage of Many"


Blogger Nate said ... (7:06 AM, December 14, 2005) : 

The problem with this being that nothing exists in a vacuum. Your grandparents (my great-grandparents?) would have said the same thing about black rights, multi-linguilism, and maybe even public schooling.

The demand support for homosexual marriage has risen because good arguments are not being made against it--instead, in general, people here arguments of cause, like yours. Your argument seems to be that homosexual marriage is bad because polygymy is bad and sex with animals is bad, and one leads to the other.

But something "leading" to something else is never really an argument about the original thing. Is the first thing--in and of itself--bad or good? With homosexuality, especially, you may find the argument is a lot trickier than you imagine.


Blogger theultrarev said ... (10:36 AM, December 14, 2005) : 

Thank you for your comments Nate. Good point about nothing existing in a vacuum.

Actually I'm really not putting forth any argument but more of a prediction. Your point is well taken about arguments of cause, but I'm not offering any argument.

I am observing that many if not most of the arguments I have heard attempting to legitimize homosexuality in the church could also be applied to polygamy and ultimately to realations wtih animals.

BTW, your pictures of Cameron were magnificent.


post a comment