http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/18/nros-prager-incest-polygamy-are-logical-consequ/198086
Nationally syndicated columnist and National Review Online (NRO) contributor Dennis Prager declared that the "radical and extreme" notion of marriage equality leaves "no plausible argument" against polygamy or marriages between brothers and sisters or parents and children.
In his February 18 syndicated column, Prager assailed a spate of recent judicial decisions opposing state bans on same-sex marriage or, in the case of Kentucky, calling on state officials to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states.
Challenging the court rulings, Prager cited the margins by which state voters have approved bans on marriage equality - a standard by which bans on interracial marriage would also have been valid; in 1958, 94 percent of Americans opposed such unions. But Prager assured readers that same-sex and interracial unions are in no ways analogous (emphasis added):
For [marriage equality supporters], it is identical to ruling that laws that banned interracial marriages were unconstitutional. But that argument is utterly flawed. First, the analogy is false because there is no difference between black people and white people, while there are enormous differences between males and females.Second, no great moral tradition or thinking ever forbade interracial marriages (inter-religious marriages were sometimes forbidden). Moses, for example, married a black woman, and neither the Bible nor God hinted that it was wrong.
this article leaves me confused, i see some logic then that is snatched away and replaced by i don't know what to call it. i know this guy is radically oppose to same sex anything.
In other words: God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. And because gay people have been historically disenfranchised, there's no reason to start granting them equal rights.Prager proceeded to predict the consequences of allowing marriage equality to take root (emphasis added):Proponents of same-sex marriage regularly label opponents "radical" and "extremist." However, given that no society in thousands of years has allowed same-sex marriage, it is, by definition, the proponents of same-sex marriage whose position is radical and extreme. You cannot re-define marriage in a more radical way than allowing members of the same sex to marry. You can argue that is the moral thing to do. But you cannot argue that is it not radical.[...]This is another example of the lack of serious thought -- as opposed to serious passion -- that underlies the movement to redefine marriage. If American society has [in the words of Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled against California's Proposition 8] a "constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis," then there is no plausible argument for denying polygamous relationships, or brothers and sisters, or parents and adult children, the right to marry.
i have read this a few times a though it intrigues me it's just another homophobic IMO afraid of his one feelings like J. Edgar Hoover and those closeted high profile people, he was leading the fight against himself that is a no win situation his self hate allow him to persecute but his reality won't let him expose himself don't know if this fits this guy but definitely food for thought.. "DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH"?
