Indiana Family Institute policy director Ryan McCann wrote a post on their blog advocating for passage of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the "traditional marriage supporter" who blames his fondness for discriminating against gays denounce the Biblical history of polyamorous marriage? Or does he castigate the current practice of only having one marriage partner at a time when he condemns, "changing the definition of marriage legally"?
Clip from the logically unbalanced post after the jump - plus a free sneak peek of the IFI's new traditional marriage bumpersticker.
This recent article in the Boston Globe strikes at the heart of what traditional marriage supporters have been arguing for years. Changing the definition of marriage legally (and religiously, as a few denominations have done) to include same-sex relationships ultimately will make marriage meaningless within our culture.
The Boston Globe article takes a look at the hundreds of couples in and around Boston practicing a polyamorous lifestyle. After approving a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples in the spirit of "tolerance, inclusivity, fairness and love" what consistent argument is there for denying marriage and it's legal benefits to these groups of people who are practicing their various and sundry relationships in the same alleged spirit? If marriage must be redefined for homosexual couples, why not groups of people? Isn't that the "tolerant" thing to do? Mustn't we recognize the "love" these groups have for one another as the GLBT PC police has tried to strong arm state governments around the nation into doing?
Coming soon to the bumpersticker of a traditional marriage supporter near you: "If it was good enough for King David and Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, Abigail the Carmelitess, Maachah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, Michal, and Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel, it's good enough for me!"