The world has gone absolutely crazy…
The New York Post reports:
A gay, polyamorous California throuple made history in 2017 when they became the first family in the state to list three dads on a birth certificate.
Their reproductive journey and legal battle to become fathers to Piper, now 3, is detailed in “Three Dads and a Baby” (out March 9, Cleis Press), written by one of her dads, Dr. Ian Jenkins.
Jenkins and his partners, Jeremy Hodges and Dr. Alan Mayfield, don’t see their family — which now also includes their son, Parker, 1 — as unusual.
It is very interesting to note that the only forms of family that are fiercely opposed by the West are nuclear marriage and polygyny. It truly is decency that they are at war with, above any “human rights infractions” or patriarchy.
These extremists permit the existence of almost any kind of union, regardless of number, type, species, etc., as long as it is in the name of love. For them, everybody who opposes any such union is actually against love. Children and the society at large may suffer because of these degenerates but that’s not a problem at all, as long as we’re out here defending “love.”
How convenient it is that an abstract word such as “love” is employed towards trying to make all kinds of degenerate filth not only tolerable but also things to be “celebrated.”
I find it quite ironic how they call for love when their very own hearts have become so hardened that are simply incapable of comprehending or manifesting “love” in its truest and fullest meaning. What they feel is probably closer to affection, infatuation, lust or dependency, rather than love with a capital L.
In any case, such people cannot fathom what true love ultimately is.
The truest love that anyone can have is their love for Allah.
RELATED: The Believer’s Love for Allah
To make the matter even more confusing, how do they explain why two women that both wish to marry the same man, say out of their love for him, aren’t both allowed to marry him in the West? Isn’t this the worst kind of enmity against love? If one man is the “true love” of more than one woman, why can’t they both be afforded the opportunity to marry him and live happily ever after? Just consider all the women who are in love with a man that is already married but are by law unable to marry him.
The liberal world is clearly oppressing these poor women by depriving them of their fundamental “right” to marry the one they love.
At this point, they are left with two options:
- either they accept that this logic is sound and therefore they must rise up in protest and pressure their governments into legalizing polygyny; or
- they reject their own slogans of “love is love,” etc.
This is a simple dilemma that they cannot solve.
The first option would oppose contemporary feminist sensibilities, and as we know all too well, they are absolutely terrified of offending women.
RELATED: Divorce: How Feminism Wasted a Whole Generation in Morocco
The second option would force them to reconsider the entire LGBTQ+ movement, along with the marital law reforms of the past decade.
Unfortunately though, no amount of clear, evidence-based argumentation will be sufficient to change their minds. They aren’t, and they never have been, rational or consistent to begin with. As long as the Muslims remain weak—and add to the equation all the feminism-peddling, liberalism-enabling, “compassionate,” simp Imams—their evil and unjust laws will prevail.
In the meantime however, polygynous households are forced to hide their love under the oppression of liberalism. They must they live in constant fear of being discovered and persecuted for their love; and the horror of being torn away from their beloved.
RELATED: France Demonizes Senegalese-Muslim Footballer for Refusing to Promote LGBTQ
This was just to have names on a birth certificate, and as the except notes there was a long legal battle even for that to be allowed. And the practical reason for polygamy to be not allowed ( and even a woman is not allowed to marry multiple men which you conveniently left out) is that married couples get a lot of government and employer benefits. an employer would have to pay insurance for multiple spouses in some cases.
Wayne, my gut tells me you might be that guy who wouldn’t mind sharing his wife with multiple husbands. But my gut also tells me you live in your mother’s basement with no wife.
deniying polygamy because of “practical” reasons contradicts the very stance of the liberal campaign of Love is Love, no matter how much the social or financial reconstruction is required or even forced, if it’s love it should be allowed, even if it takes couple decades and thousands of TV shows to achieve the same or couple of legal battles. The distinction is hypocritical with respect to liberalism itself.
I am saying from the government’s standpoint, but if there was a big demand for polygamy I don’t think most liberals would object, I know I wouldn’t.
and I am saying, the government being what they are would absolutely give it in when it comes from liberals, in contrast to when it comes from other “wings” for being supposed “anti-progressives” and “orthodox”, thus the distinction.
I am not so sure about that, most governments are not really liberal but centrist and even a bit right or centre. I am a true Liberal and the Obama/Biden governments don’t really align with my views on the environment/military spending/etc. They seem liberal on some issues, but that’s only because the population has become more liberal on social issues, and for these issues the government doesn’t see a benefit to fight it
You are deluded if you believe govts are centric/leftist/rightist. They are not even your real rulers.
Man just shut the hell up.
Wayne bot never stops.
One the purposes of marriage is to have children, and allowing multiple men to marry a woman would not work from a practical standpoint. A women is pregnant for 9 months and then breast feeds for nearly 2 years. It is possible for the turn around time for getting pregnant again is almost 3 years, since most women cannot conceive while breast feeding. If a women is married to 4 men, the 4th man may have to wait almost 9 years before his “turn.” No man would agree to such a relationship.
…and what if four women are “married” to four men in a group marriage/partnership?
There’s also the instance of a man (or woman) with a hereditary defect which means they cannot have “normal” children or there is a high risk of their children dying young but who want to help bring up children.
The individual with the hereditary defect should try to have kids. It’s up to Allah whether the child has a defect. If the child has a defect, it’s still from Allah. If life was perfect, there wouldn’t be a need for Jannah.
I know a couple who were told before getting married that the woman could not have kids, but, mashallah, they have 2 kids conceived naturally. Valery Spiridonov against all odds had a child mashallah.
You present great arguments. Call in and debate with brother Daniel.
I wasn’t thinking of an individual with a hereditary defect, but rather of a healthy individual with a gene that makes it likely their children will die young and – often – painfully.
People may have a psychological need or wish for a Jannah. That isn’t evidence that there is a Jannah.
It’s flattering you suggest I debate with brother Daniel – unless you think I’d be a good loser! – but I’m partly deaf, which makes discussions I take part in rather unusual.
May Allah provide ease in your life.
I’m sure Muslim Skeptic team will accommodate you if call in.
Where does it say these men are married to each other? I’ve argued before that marriage should be abolished legally and formal partnerships establshed instead. Even now, there’s nothing to stop a polygynous (or polyandrous or – as here – polyamorous) partnership of any kind registering their existence legally and making whatever arrangements they wish with whatever gods they wish and their supposed representatives on earth.
Of course these sex perverts have dogs. I wonder though, if homosexuality is really the only sexual degeneracy these fgts do, It wouldn’t surprise me if they do crap with their dogs, enabling one sexual degeneracy leads to more degeneracy, and atheists like Cosmic Skeptic and Lars Gule have said that bestiality is either less worse than eating animals, or straight up said bestiality is fine.
And next thing you know they add their dogs to offspring or their spouses.
Cosmic skeptic: exist
Muslim skeptic: you clone