Mormon Fundamentalists vs. Connubial Queers!

[elfs]

I cannot help but wonder if it's frakking hilarious or deeply sad to read a group called "pro-polygamy.com" editorialize that "gay marriage cannot exist because marriage is defined as a union where the meeting of male and female genitalia is possible." But they do exist.

How strange!

Comments

[solarbird]

I am so gakking this for the next CWU.

[memegarden.livejournal.com]

Hmm...by their definition of adultery, couldn't a bonded pair of men commit adultery with women, and vice versa? And I presume that they consider any marriage that does not involve coitus to be invalid, including heterosexual couples that can't have coitus for medical reasons. I am curious about the case they describe, and expect that "adultery" was defined rather narrowly in the state law in question for such a decision to have been made. To me, this shows that the law is silly, not that there was no adultery. What a nutty lot.

[gromm.livejournal.com]

I especially enjoyed the google ad that (for me) came up with

"Marry legally in Canada
Same sex marriage made easy low cost, no contract, no hidden extras
www.ssmarriage.com"

I have to wonder if maybe they also reject heterosexual groupings with more than one male partnre, on the premise that "it just ain't the way it's done" or some other such nonsense.