Yesterday on FOX roundtable format the questions discussed was perverted coupling.
Tony Perkins (taking the side of “no” to perverted coupling) questions Ted Olson
“What is the purpose of marriage?
Ted Olson (taking the side of “yes” to perverted coupling) responds,
“The purpose of marriage is what the Supreme Court has said Fourteen times. It is a fundamental right that involves privacy, association, liberty and being with the person that you love and forming a part of our community and being treated equally with the rest of society.”
By Olson’s and SCOTUS’s own definition two twin brothers could marry each other. Indeed, by Olson’s definition Incest no longer exists as a prohibition to marriage. By Olson’s and SCOTUS’s own definition a Pedophile should be allowed to marry his child little boy lover. Indeed, by Olson’s and SCOTUS’s own definition Pedophilia no longer exists as a prohibition to marriage.
We would also ask Olson, “By what standard or authority does Olson dare restrict marriage to just one person that someone might love”? By what standard or authority does Olson dare suggest that multiple marriage partners don’t likewise desire to be married in the context of privacy, association, liberty? Olson must answer the basis of authority by which he limits marriage the way that he does.
Upon Olson’s and SCOTUS’s definition what prohibits necrophilia or bestiality? After all, animals are persons too by the lights of many egalitarian Unitarians.
I hope that people, who still have a smidgen of rationality left, can see that Olson’s putative reasoning is stemming from a Worldview that denies the reality of distinctions. This “reasoning,” is John Lennon’s “Imagine” incarnated
“Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace..”
How different is that sentiment then,
“Imagine there’s no distinctions
It isn’t hard to do
No sex organs to worry about
And no gender too
Imagine all the people
Living Transgendered lives”
2.) Notice that Olson invokes three of the three French Revolution slogan markers. The French Revolution geared up madame guillotine to support “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.” Olson likewise invokes each one of these as the standard by which marriage must be allowed. The sodomite agenda is just the next extension of the French Revolution.
3.) Olson insists that perverted coupling is a “fundamental right.” Where does that right come from? Who has given that right? By what objective standard does one appeal to in order to find this right?
