I would think polygamist Mormons' and Muslims' recoil from polyamorists would be snakelike in viciousness.
Here's the next level, next family member, for their respective nuptials:
J. Roberts, Obergefell v. Hodges, (Dissent) "Although the majority rendomly inserts the adjective 'two' in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not."
The prevalence of polygamy throughout history makes it less of a radical leap than same-sex marriage. J. Roberts, (Dissent) HELLO!
Hypothetical: 'Although the majority rendomly inserts the adjective 'two' in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element should exclude chimp-humans from the core definition of marriage, or why the man-woman element should not include chimp-humans of either sex or number.'
My own view is that human rights and polyamorist activists are now in a solid legal posture to remove chimps from the definition of bestiality in all US sex crime statutes.
To an objection that marriage is about a man woman relationship for procreation, Obergefell v. Hodges threw that over already, thus opening the door to chimp/human-human relations either heterosexual, homosexual, and to both polygamist and polyamorist groups.
Think: Tarzan and the Jewels of Opar, where modern human descendants of lost Atlantis mated in prehistory with Apes, in Africa.
Sodomy laws have gone by the board, opening the door to legal sodomy between chimp-humans and humans. See: Sodomy laws in the United States, Wikipedia.
Nothing much now, legally, stands in the way of multi-partner marital bestial sodomy.
it is really something out of Hieronymous Bosch, The Garden of Earthly Delights.
No comments:
Post a Comment