Not only do the Australian Greens political party want to legalize homosexual and lesbian marriages, they now want to legalize polygamous marriages as well. It appears that the Greens, a minority political party, are using these issues to secure the votes of minority groups that live on the fringes of society. And, let us not forget, it was the Australian Labor party that lifted the blankets and invited the Greens into their bed in order to cling on to power. If not for this union, these issues may never have seen the light of day.
Polygamy has been around for as long as we have. Zoologist Desmond Morris, author of ‘The Naked Ape’ is of the opinion that polygamy may have been used from time to time as a temporary measure when there was a surplus of breeding women due to the high morality rate of man the hunter. Rather than waste the breeding potential of these woman, polygamous relationships may have been used to ensure the survival and growth of the group. Such an arrangement would have required a group effort to feed and nurture the polygamous group because the work load for one hunter would have been impossible to manage.
There is however another possibility. We may have inherited the polygamous instinct from our primate ancestors. Some groups of primates practice polygyny where a dominant male has exclusive relationships with two or more females. If modern man did inherit this instinct from primates, it may account for man’s propensity to compete in trials of strength, endurance and skill, to be the champion, the gold medalist, the dominant male. For modern man, polygamy will be nothing more than an ego trip.
In order to prevent discrimination, women will also be entitled to practice polyandry, that is, marry more than one husband. Again, to avoid discrimination, one homosexual will be entitled to marry more than one homosexual and the same will apply to lesbians. Personally I cannot think of anything more grotesquely burlesque than that. In order to avoid discriminating between different groups of consenting adults, why not legalize marriage between siblings in incestuous relationships? What about heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles? Do we keep on locking them up or do we simply abolish the age of consent to cater for their particular ‘sexual orientation.’
For hundreds of thousands of years, long-term monogamous relationships that we call love and marriage has been the keystone of human survival, growth, development and success. Weaken or remove that keystone will bring the building blocks of western society tumbling down. People will lose their sense of family, sense of belonging, sense purpose and sense of direction. The stage will then be set for the introduction of a new world order that, in my view, will be far more repressive than the religious, communist and fascist regimes of our history.
aquarianmist
aquarianmist 
So is it worth anyone’s while to comment on this, or will their comments end up in the moderation queue for eternity, or simply be deleted after a few days, as happened to mine ?
Look, it is your right, as I said before, to ventilate any opinion you may have, but to just delete or ignore comments you asked for yourself, and justify it all by making patently false accusations, is not a very honest way to communicate.
If you want to screen your comments for dissenting opinions, it would be more honest to advertise that fact in your posts. That way people will not be tricked into wasting their time, as I was.
As I said in my last post, I am perfectly happy to let this all go, if you can simply ask me in a manner that doesn’t add even more accusations you have no proof of.
Btw, I’ve tried to google confirmation for your claim about the green party, but so far, no result.
Could you maybe direct me to some online article that confirms their commitment to legalizing polygamy ?
I’m looking at their site right now, and there’s no mention of polygamy.
*sigh* okay, this really is a parody site, isn’t it ? Ha ha. Very funny.
snowylocks
The last time I responded to your comments about my posts I advised you that, because of your attitude, we had nothing further to discuss. However your latest comments cannot be ignored because, yet again you cast doubts on my integrity and intelligence. So against my better judgement I decided to respond to your accusations that my posts are a parody rather than a serious debate on the most contentious and divisive issues ever faced by civilized human societies.
I ask two things of you. The first is for you to read Andrew Bolt’s column entitled ‘Leave the Horseplay Nonsense Out of It’ on page 13 of the Sydney Daily Telegraph dated Thursday September 20 2012.This outlines the Greens intention to legalize polygamy. The second thing I ask of you is to Google ‘poisonous ideas’ where you will find an article written by J R Nyquist. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article reveals the truth about what is happening to western society today. There is no doubt in my mind that the Green’s policies are designed to divide and bring down our culture and install a repressive new world order. If you cannot recognize this then you are obviously blinkered by your own small world view.
As far as I am concerned, one man allowing another man to insert his penis into his anus for sexual gratification has absolutely nothing to do with human rights and is a private matter between the men concerned. The same goes for lesbian sex. If these people are so sure of their ground for discrimination, why are they not lobbying the United Nations to determine if Article 16 (the right to marry) of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to homosexual and lesbian relationships.
aquarianmist
(This comment was posted yesterday, and now I find it was moved to the moderation queue. If you don’t want people to comment, you should be honest about it and disable comments)
What “attitude” ? I asked you for even a single example for all those accusations (“abuse”, “ridicule”, “emotive rather than factual arguments”, etc) from the posts you deleted, and you continuously failed to do so.
In other word, you made an assertion that you couldn’t back up with facts. In even more simple words : You lied. You disagree ? Then find me just one example for every one of your accusations from the posts you deleted, or simply take it back.
How is that not reasonable ? Why do you think that simply making claims without the facts to back them up is okay ?
And now you’re doing it AGAIN ! Those two articles you speak of are OPINION pieces. They don’t report facts, they simply ask hypothetical questions and ignore their own lack of evidence. Do you even care about the difference between facts and opinion, or is it all the same to you ?
Let’s try a simple example to illustrate the difference between fact and opinion : Let’s say someone accused you of being gay. There would be no evidence for this claim. None whatsoever. If I came across this claim, I would look for evidence, find none, and then simply dismiss it as untrue. Is that simple enough ?
Now here’s an idea : Why don’t we judge ALL claims in the same way ? Let’s try that from now on, shall we ? Starting with that claim about the green party. Any evidence ? Nope, just unfounded assertions. Then does it deserve credence ? NO.
Do you get it now ? I really hope so, cause I can’t make it any simpler.
And now here you go again with the anal sex. Could you please stop bringing that up ? I already told you many times : This is about MARRIAGE, not about SEX. Okay now ?
And since I have your attention now, could you maybe approve my posts in your moderation queue ? (yes, they’re all screencapped)
I like this post, enjoyed this one thanks for posting .
That’s very kind of you.
(this comment was already posted, but you moved it to the moderation queue for some reason. What is it about this question that frightens you ?)
I will, once again, in yet another effort to make this even easier for you, paraphrase the question I have all but begged you to answer numerous times before :
If a claim has no facts to support it, does it deserve to be believed ? Yes or no ?
Please answer this simple question. Thank you.
(This comment was also posted already, and moved to the moderation queue. I have no idea why you keep doing this)
Two more things : I notice you brought up a question I already answered (the thing about the UN). Could you either stop doing that, or simply start reading the answers you ask for ? It would be much appreciated, and it would make sense.
Also, you might want to fix those typos in the title of your article. Everyone makes typos, but if you really don’t want to be mistaken for a parody site, you might not want to do it in the title.
Interesting article : http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/10/09/opponents-of-marriage-equality-are-pretending-to-be-proponents-of-it-and-are-lying-to-voters/
Interesting tactics.
For pete’s sake, you just deleted them again ? Why ? I keep telling you : I take screencaps of all the posts I make here ! Deleting them, or lying about their content is a waste of time !
Jeez, this is unbelievable. I can’t be bothered with this today. I’ll repost them another time.
If you ever feel like explaining why you keep doing this, please do.
Actually, let’s try this right now. Might as well find out if this is going straight into the moderation queue again.
Anyway, here are, yet AGAIN, two of my posts. One before you spotted it, and one after.
Once again, I really don’t get this. Explanation ?