MICHAEL KNOWLES (HOST): Remember when the conservatives, those crazy fuddy duddy, neurotic conservatives, they said when the libs were trying to redefine marriage, that if we redefine marriage to include two men and two women, then pretty soon we're going to redefine marriage to include polygamy and polyamory, and it's going to be not just one man and another man, but one man and three women and two billy goats and a sheep. And guess what happened? That's exactly what happened.
From the New York Times, quote, interested in polyamory? Check out these places. Subheader -- laws granting rights to people in polyamorous relationships are being recognized in more cities. Now, to be clear, this isn't polygamy yet. This isn't redefining marriage yet. This is the first step. This is the civil unions of orgies. Okay? The first step is we're just going to give some rights. Oh, what does it matter? Love is love. Who cares? Why are you such a fuddy duddy? We're not redefining marriage to include polygamy, okay? You crazy person. And then, within a matter of years at most, we're going to start seeing these new rights that we're extending to some people who were just a little bit different, that's going to be extended to redefining marriage, if it hasn't been totally abolished already.
It's always the same script. We just want to visit people in the hospital. You know, you can change hospital rules, right? You don't need to fundamentally redefine marriage and man and woman. You can -- you can just change visitation rules within the hospitals themselves. Well, and we want certain nondiscrimination rights. I don't know. If you're a complete degenerate who has orgies all the time and is living in this bizarre arrangement where no one knows anybody's sex and you're all doing weird stuff all the time with multiple people, I feel I should be able to discriminate against you. Discriminate meaning distinguish from one thing to another.
If I got two candidates for a job -- thank goodness I'm not in the position to hire anybody or the NLRB would probably be on my back -- it -- already before the end of this show. But if I were -- I'm just saying this hypothetically, in principle. If I were going to hire somebody and I wanted to hire, I don't know, a guy to look after my house, someone to look after my kids, let's say, especially, but let's say just someone to look after my property, and I had two choices - I had a guy who was an upright family man, married, took care of his responsibilities, you know, went to church on Sunday, just a good -- a good guy all-around. And then I've got this other guy who doesn't know that he's a guy and who's constantly engaging in weird bacchanals and orgies and is just so hyper-focused on sex and porn and obscenity that it's the only thing that goes between one ear and the other that's basically melted his brain. Which person do you think is going to be more responsible to do the job? Which person is going to have a better grasp on reality and morality and the way that people are supposed to behave? But according to Somerville, Massachusetts, you're not allowed to even perceive that distinction.
Haven't we gone a little bit far? Wouldn't you say there's a little bit of drift here from, hey, don't unjustly discriminate against the El Salvadoran over the Italian or something, versus, hey, don't discriminate between people who can't even understand the difference between men and women, to say nothing of the fundamental political structure. If you can not discriminate on the basis of what people think a family is, then what you're saying is you can't discriminate on the fundamental political structure, because that's the basic political unit. But the libs are discriminating. Of course the Libs are discriminating. If you think that marriage is and family is what it always has been, you're out, man. Your views are not accepted anymore. You will be discriminated against in the culture and through the law.