Canada's parliament extended full marriage rights to same sex couples in 2005. And today I heard in the news that a man named Winston Blackmore is being charged in Canada for several counts of polygamy. Blackmore happens to have an independent sect of about 400 followers in Bountiful, and he once ran the Canadian arm of the Utah-based Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but he was ejected in 2003 by that group's leader, Warren Jeffs. Jeffs himself is in jail awaiting trial in Arizona on four counts of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor. There you go!
What is interesting in this case is that Blackmore's lawyer who is trying to get his client off the hook from these charges, is advancing the argument that marriage standards in Canada have changed. Thus, "If (homosexuals) in Canada can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can't marry more than one person?" If marriage is defined by public perception or acceptance then why not accept also polygamy, after all if a man has the "right" to be joined to another man (man applies to male and female), then why not marry several other men or women or any combination and number whatsoever. As many homosexuals have claimed in California, that their rights are being violated, would not polygamists have the same claim? After all, they also fell in love with each other, and who is going to stop two or more adults from loving each other? Once you opened the door to homosexual marriage, you have opened the possibility indeed to accept polygamy, and any other type of marriage arrangement that fits the whims of the fallen human mind dominated by the passions and the sensual appetites. No surprise here, and indeed this lawyer has a good chance of winning his case!! Sad though!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
It seems to me, as you have made pretty clear, that once you remove right reason, or "God's wisdom," it is only logical that what is UNreasonable and UNholy will follow. This article is scary enough; it is positively frigh-
ReplyDeletetening to project what will come out of that Pandora's box next. May God open our hearts to the truth and beauty in embracing HIS wisdom.
What is insidious about the homosexual "situation" is that it plays on the emotions of intelligent, well-intentioned persons. Most everyone knows someone who is "gay." I'd venture to say that most of those persons who identify as "gay" are good people. Intelligent, friendly, good citizens ... just regular persons who want to love and be loved. That's only human, right? And that is what is so insidious, because it *does* seem only fair to allow well-meaning persons to love. Consequently, conservative (read: faithful) religious are cast as those naughty persons who are trying to deprive others from loving. Consequently, those baddies must be full of hate. How intolerant. Right?
ReplyDeleteThe gay lobby got something right: their campaign to get gay persons to "come out of the closet." Because once you come out and let your friends and family know who you truly are, then the whole gay thing really isn't that scary. Heterosexual persons of good will then begin to question the "wrongness" of the gay issue, because after all, their son, daughter, niece, nephew, friend, co-worker, all good persons, just happen to be gay and they're not axe murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc. Approving of the gay lifestyle has become not only fashionable, it's become a sign of an "enlightened mind." Insidious! There is no more talk in the secular world of true virtue. Everything is upside down, and what IS wrong is now considered virtuous.
In my opinion, part of the Church's work needs to not only combat error and stand for the Truth, but also to give emotional support to homosexual persons who choose to follow the Magisterium's teachings on this issue. Because most every SSA (same-sex attracted) person I know who is faithful to the Church is afraid to discuss this issue, for fear they will be branded with a scarlet letter in the Church. They will be one of "those people," and are effectively cast aside. I'm not suggesting that persons with SSA need to live in that identity any more than active gay persons do, but if Church-going conservatives weren't so scared and reactive to this issue, they might be seen as truly loving, and offering the alternative of true freedom to gay persons vs. prohibitions.
Good point doughboy
ReplyDelete