Apparently, back in October ’22 some judge in NY decided that the laws relating to … ahem … “homosexual marriage” must also apply to … wait for it … polyamory as well.

What is “polyamory,” you (Other Person, You) ask? 

Well, simply stated, it is the fully-disclosed, consensually-agreed sharing of genitals with multiple people and calling the arrangement a relationship, as opposed to indiscriminate unlicensed whoobanging.

Jesus Lord, methinks mankind is ready BUT YOU SAID IT {Matthew 24:36}

Matt Walsh (don’t agree with everything but methinks he gets a lottabit right) had a conversation with Joe Rogan (and how do you lose an argument to a pothead digress) during which he (Walsh) didn’t have a good answer to Rogan’s question re homosexual (i.e., gay/lesbian) “marriage” and its impact on traditional (i.e., man/woman no not trans but the actual, real, genuine, biological, genetically-affirmed type of woman) marriage.

That one’s easy.  I’m a little embarrassed Mr. Walsh (of Johnny the Walrus fame) got so tripped up.

Ready?

Because it changes the definition of marriage.  Just like trans persons want to change the definition of “woman.”

A woman is a biological female who has matured to adulthood.  See how easy that is?

Marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman recognized by the state, historically for purposes of paternity, inheritance, and the enforcement of contracts. 

I get it.  Homosexual relationships would like the same protections. 

And they had that.  Civil unions.  Elton John even said (before he was shouted down) civil unions were for gays/lesbians, marriage was for straights. 

The problem?  Civil unions only had the rights conferred by the states that recognized them, but lacked similar protections offered for marriage (á la, the straights) at the federal level.

The solution?  Extend federal protections to civil unions.  There.  Done.  Welcome.

Every gets happy— well, no, because both are institutions and who wants to be institutionalized? but this entire issue could have been dealt with in a manner to respect religious liberty (á la traditional marriage) while affording the secular protections of traditional marriage to civil unions.

Why is this hard?

Because, like the trans argument, there is a strong desire among the Alphabet People to legitimize the illegitimate, to rationalize the irrational, and normalize the abnormal.

Yes other mammals exhibit homosexual behavior in the wild but it is not normal.

Yes two men/women can raise children together as a family but it is not normal, no more so than the bastardization of black children born in the US at the rate of 80 percent.  It is not normal for children to be raised without fathers but it is becoming normalized due to the poor decision-making of a certain a-hem class of women. 

Yes a 7-year-old boy can dress up as a drag qeen (‘cuz that ain’t “U” boo) but it is not normal.

Yes teens can experience gender dysfunction but modern society is hyper-sexualized so no wonder kids are confused.  It is not normal.

What happened to the debt owed to basic human biology?  Yeh, some straight couples are infertile but it is not normal.  For those intents and purposes, allllllllllll homosexual couples are infertile …
I don’t think you have the facilities for that.

Disney — that corrupted bastion of kid-friendly entertainment — is mouse turned rat, with its box-office busted wokeism tropes.  No parent (at least, no father) knowingly pays money for their kid to witness homosexual love in a cartoon. 

And what’s with the fat ballerina?  Ain’t enough leg strength to get 250 on pointe

Lastdayslastdayslastdayslastdayslastdayslastdayslastdayslastdayslastdayslastdayslastdayslastdayslastday

Get right with HIM. 

The writing’s on the wall, then we’ll all be wailing.