Why not allow polygamy and incestuous marriage?

Indeed: why not? Isn’t that the true libertarian position?

Left-wing politics and moral degeneracy — you don’t get one without the other:

Judge Takes the Next Step, Attempts to Normalize Incest

Malaysia Polygamy Club

‘Jewish Dog’ scares allahu akbaring attackers

Obama Regime Suppresses Talk of Muslim Persecutions

Obama’s approval ratings are in the dumps with most everyone — but there is one notable exception:

CAIR promotes “permissible wife-beating”

Page 195 of Hooper’s book states: “As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them [first], [next], refuse to share their beds, [and last] spank them [lightly].”

In other news:

Over 130 Sunni “militants” killed in Iraq, no riots…

The clashes with the Sunni militants, claiming to be from the Islamic State (IS), took place in al-Qadsiyah district in Tikrit.

2 thoughts on “Why not allow polygamy and incestuous marriage?”

  1. It is always puzzling how proponents of same sex so-called marriage argue that society needs to recognize and publicize what they claim are private relationships. If it is private then the state has no business being involved. Countries where the state sees that it has a stake in registering private relationships were those like East Germany and other dictatorships. This is a pointer to how things are developing in the west, that countries are becoming dictatorships, where government dictates that people have to defer to nominally private interests held by particular groups. This new senator has applied this upside down logic to Tony Abbott: Tony, your sister walked out on her family and marriage to the father of her children, to live with a woman therefore surely you should change the law so that the state recognizes that relationship as being one which the state has a stake in. It is an absurdity and the fact that such absurd reasoning is used to argue for so-called marriage between two people of the same sex points to the absurdity of the notion.

    1. For former supreme court judge Michael Kirby, mere tolerance for homosexuals is “not enough”.

      “Toleration is a very condescending emotion and toleration’s over as far as I’m concerned.”

      Its not about ‘equality’ or ‘equal rights’- it never is and it never was. Militant homosexuals demand minority rights, homo rights, that would place them above criticism, in a position we must never allow them to be in.

      Former supreme court judge Michael Kirby said that much when he declared ‘acceptance is not enough’. Homosexuals want society to promote the homo agenda above all else. They are relentless. But I say: no can do.

      They stop at nothing, but they must be stopped.

Comments are closed.