PHM: THE NEXT INSANITY

My friend Tony Perkins, who capably runs the Family Research Council, has been issuing dire warnings in the wake of Massachusetts’ outlaw Supreme Court creating an alleged right for homosexuals to marry out of constitutional thin air.

“Senator (Rick) Santorum (R-PA) was right when he predicted that demands to legalize polygamy would come in the wake of homosexual marriage,” Tony says. “What argument could the Massachusetts Supreme Court offer today against legalizing polygamy?”

Tony is right, but more right than he knows. For the loudest demands to legalize polygamy will not come from heterosexuals — it will come from homosexuals. Get ready for it, folks.

The next cultural insanity will be a movement to legalize Polygamous Homosexual Marriage: PHM.

The entire enterprise of foisting homosexual marriage upon our society is, of course, a con. Many societies in man’s history have tolerated homosexuality in varying degrees, but there is no historical record of any society on earth ever granting legal recognition of a homosexual union on a par with the marriage of a man and a woman.

Homosexual marriage is just another way of conning society into accepting homosexuality as legitimate and normal. The problem with it is that marriage is based on a commitment to monogamy.

That husbands and wives have been known to cheat on each other is not news, and is not relevant. Monogamy remains the basis for marriage — which is why we, along with most every culture this side of (now renegade) Mormons and Moslems, illegalize polygamy.

Monogamous homosexuality, on the other hand, especially for men, is an oxymoron.

The average male homosexual is pathologically promiscuous. (This is why AIDS is primarily a male homosexual disease in the US, while pathological heterosexual promiscuity is the primary cause of AIDS in Africa.) A monogamous commitment between female homosexuals is not unusual, but it is rare among male homosexuals.

Thus pointing out cases of such commitment is beside the point. The great majority of male homosexual partnerships are of short duration, and so will be the duration of their legal anointment as “marriage.”

Further, it is ludicrous to maintain that the partners of such “marriages” will be faithful exclusively to one another. The great majority will not be, for they have no intention of using the institution of marriage to consecrate a commitment to monogamy, but of using it as a means of social acceptance.

Sexually frustrated married men and women get around monogamy by committing adultery and having covert affairs — very occasionally. Pathologically promiscuous homosexuals will consider their “marriage” a legalism that will in no way prevent them from adultery en masse.

To maintain the pretense of “marriage” however, they will have to quickly begin agitating for the legalization of group sodomization as “just another form of the married life-style.”

So we have yet another reason for the urgency to pass a US Constitutional Amendment restricting any form of marriage or civil union to one man and one woman, for the issue is not simply "marriage" between one man and another man.

The issue will soon morph into the demand for marriage between whole groups of men — Polygamous Homosexual Marriage — because the sexual pathology of male homosexuals will have it no other way.