So much for Nobody’s saying anything about legalizing Gay Marriage Polygamy

Sheldon: Amy Farrah Fowler has asked me to meet her mother.

Leonard: Yeah, so.

Sheldon: What does that mean?

Leonard: Well, you know how you’re always saying Amy is a girl who is your friend but not your girlfriend.

Sheldon: Uh huh.

Leonard: Well, you can’t say that anymore.

The Big Bang Theory The Desperation Emanation 2010

Although my Breitbart “Bring it On” video remains the single most popular video I ever shot in terms of total hits (even making MSNBC) the video that constantly gets comments on a weekly basis is Rick Santorum’s answer to a college student during the New Hampshire Primary on the subject of Gay Marriage:

The full nine minutes is a spectacular reasoned argument by Santorum simply knocking it out of the park. The most interesting point was when he posed the following question to the crowd of liberal college students:

“Everyone has the right to be happy so if you’re not happy unless your married to five other people is it OK?”

The college kids were not happy with the question claiming it was “irrelevant”

Well it’s less than 9 months later and guess what? It’s not irrelevant anymore as per this article in the Guardian:

Why shouldn’t three people get married?

As three Brazilians are legally joined as a ‘thruple’ it starts to look illiberal to insist that marriage must be between two people

Note the appeal to “feelings” it doesn’t matter what Marriage actually IS it matters how something feels. Notice also the arguments that sound so familiar:

Without reverting to religious arguments, or logistical ones (does Ikea manufacture a big enough bed to accommodate this union?), it begins to feel a bit illiberal.

Is it possible that if we allowed more people to marry simultaneously that more marriages might be successful? Fewer breakups over infidelity might occur, for example, if those who found themselves in love with more than one person didn’t have to choose or conceal their feelings. And relaxing the expectation that one partner should fulfil all of one’s needs – good sex, complementary taste in television and shared preference for dogs over cats may just be too much to ask for – might mean that people who opt for a portfolio of other halves (or thirds) could outdo the rest of us in happiness.

Yes and if we re-defined the word deficit to mean only amounts over 500 Trillion then we would no longer have one.

That this is advanced in the Guardian is interesting, even more interesting is the comments, tons of people agreeing after all one does not want to be “Judgmental.”

I submit and suggest anyone who claims they didn’t see this coming was either delusional, ignorant or a liar and I further submit and suggest that the basic goal of this debate from the start has been for many of those involved the destruction of marriage as an institution.

But I will concede this in terms of logic, ignoring the religious argument she is quite correct, if you redefine marriage to include gay marriage there is absolutely no logical case to forbid any other different combination ick-factor not withstanding.