July 12, 2011

A lawsuit challenging Utah's anti-polygamy law, premised on Lawrence v. Texas.

To be filed by Kody Brown, the husband of 4 wives (who starred in the reality show "Sister Wives"):
The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the “intimate conduct” of consenting adults. It will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own “intimate conduct” so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses.

Mr. Brown has a civil marriage with only one of his wives; the rest are “sister wives,” not formally wedded. The Browns are members of the Apostolic United Brethren Church, a fundamentalist offshoot of the Mormon Church, which gave up polygamy around 1890 as Utah was seeking statehood.

Making polygamous unions illegal, they argue, violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, as well as the free exercise, establishment, free speech and freedom of association clauses of the First Amendment.

“We only wish to live our private lives according to our beliefs,” Mr. Brown said in a statement provided by his lead attorney, Jonathan Turley, who is a law professor at George Washington University.

The connection with Lawrence v. Texas, a case that broadened legal rights for gay people, is sensitive for those who have sought the right of same-sex marriage. Opponents of such unions often refer to polygamy as one of the all-but-inevitable outcomes of allowing same-sex marriage. In his dissenting opinion in the Lawrence case, Justice Antonin Scalia cited a threat to state laws “based on moral choices” against “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”
I think the Lawrence-based argument for decriminalizing polygamy is much stronger than the Lawrence-based argument for requiring the government to give legal recognition to same-sex marriage. One is an argument demanding only that the government leave them alone as they pursue their "own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." The other is a demand that the government alter its treatment of its citizens, giving them access to to the benefits of having the official status as a married couple.

301 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 301 of 301
t-man said...

Mary,

There were always non-marital offspring, this is not a new phenomenon, nor does it require up-ending the law.

traditionalguy said...

Fr. Fox...There was one true hero in the Bible: General Nehemiah. He has his own book that reads like a Medal of Honor citation.

The most important Bible rule about marriage seemed to have been marrying your dead brother's widow and having kids with her.

That's one that Brigham Young must have liked...heck,he would throw in the widows of friends, neighbors, and his living friends wives.

You can't keep a good Mormon man down.

Fred4Pres said...

Mick, you really would make a good Supreme Court justice.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mary said:

...we now see that some homosexual families need the same recognition of their legal rights too, based on perhaps an "unnatural" way of babymaking (or not, if the children were conceived and born to an earlier heterosexual union, and adopted into a now-homosexual family).

If the fact that homosexual couples have adopted children is why we should deem their relationship "marriage," then by that argument, why can't any group of people, with one of them being an adoptive parent, otherwise living in way analogous to marriage, claim they, too, should be deemed married? Two siblings living together--one with an adopted child? A man or woman who has a parent living with him or her? Should society deem them "married" because of the adoption?

For that matter--and this point was not original with me--why is sexual congress important anymore to the definition of marriage? It was when it was about procreation, but no more with "same sex marriage." So why can't any two (or more) people be "married," even if they have zero interest in sex with each other? All they need to say is they "love" each other?

Oops, wait a minute--where did anyone get the idea that "love" was an essential component to a valid marriage. That's a very modern notion. Marriages have been validly contracted, and even happy, where there was no romance. In law, I believe they needed to give consent--not that they set each other's heart afire.

Fred4Pres said...

Keep those creepy justices away from marriage, let state legislatures and voters (in those states enlightened enough to have voter inititives) make the call.

PatCA said...

Whenever mankind...oops, humankind has monkeyed with traditional values to build an earthly paradise, they wreaked havoc instead.

I'm sure this time it will be different. ;)

WuzzaDem said...

Gosh, who coulda predicted this? But we'll Never see this legal strategy used to legalize zoophilia and incest and cousin marriage, etc. That would be *crazy*, right?

Cedarford said...

Justice Antonin Scalia cited a threat to state laws “based on moral choices” against “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”
====================
Scalia was right, and the vapid O'Connor had her head up her ass yet again. Transnationalists Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter knew what they were doing. Stevens had gone into his semi-senile "If Bush will be pissed, I vote for it" gadfly stage.

The problem is that the assumption is that Americans will maintain a reverence for the Holy Word of 5 lawyers dressed in robes - as the final and ultimate decision makers as America is transformed by their screed into butt-chaps parades, Mullahs and their 9 wives immigrating in and on welfare, prostitution legalized, Obama Sr's bigamist life legitimized, and many other forced social changes the masses are against.

All happening when America is decaying as an economic power and civilization. States and cities bankrupt and deteriorating. The population already has large segments that believe homo marriage, polygamy is all part of America's decline - no different than black flash mobs and unaccountable Ruling Elites that get trillions, and how American industry and jobs were allowed to be savaged by China with full connivance of those Ruling Elites.

A 2nd American Civil War may be looming. To reclaim the nation and again have ability to fix major parts of the Constitution made impossible to fix in peacetime, civilian democracy. (It is easy to pass a 13th, 14th, 15th Amendment if you have armed troops telling an occupied population who they must vote into office)

Mary said...

"I suppose in this decadent age, someone might actually use the term "marital acts" of sex acts between people of the same sex, but I doubt with a straight face, unless one is pretty naive. But I could be wrong."

I think you are. Plenty of legally married homosexuals in Massachusetts, say, are indeed having marital sex daily, being that they are legally married and are having sex. Get it?

tman said: "There were always non-marital offspring, this is not a new phenomenon."

Except... children born to married homosexuals in Massachusetts, say, are indeed marital offspring. The fact that technology may have been involved, paying in a commercial transaction for a surrogate, an egg or a vial of sperm, doesn't make the egg or sperm donor a party to the marraige. Ask any infertile heterosexual who has used these same "unnatural" commercial methods to create their own marital offspring.

You traditional fellas might not like it, but again, the rules are being re-written daily because of techology and science. Don't hide your heads in the sand and insist that these children are somehow... not there or nothings. They were created, and are very much a part of, their families. Not "adopted" either, but often, born into such marital unions.

Fr Martin Fox said...

I think the libertarians who are hailing the decision by New York to legalize "same sex marriage" may rue the day.

Because, to my mind, the action by the New York legislature is a usurpation. What gave the state of New York (or any other state or jurisdiction) the power to define what marriage is--as opposed to regulating it, but otherwise taking it as a pre-existing institution?

I am not prepared to concede that the power to regulate includes the power to change-in-essence. And I would hope those who are libertarian (as I tend to be) would think about that a little, and blanch at the implications.

I would argue--contrary to some posters here--that marriage is a natural right; although not an unqualified one. It is not the gift of government.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mary:

That you use the term "marital acts" and intend to include sex acts between two men or two women isn't terribly persuasive.

My point is, we know -- at least most of us know -- what that term has meant and still generally means.

Of course, that may change. It hasn't changed yet, no matter what you post here.

And, in any case, I'll admit that wasn't my strongest point. I was attempting to show that the persistence of a term shows an underlying intuition--and that's true, so far as it goes. But the corruption of language is fairly common, and it doesn't invalidate the the truths the language, thus corrupted, ceases to illuminate.

KenK said...

The way it's going we can just stop having elections and just have judges and courts run everything.

Revenant said...

Because, to my mind, the action by the New York legislature is a usurpation. What gave the state of New York (or any other state or jurisdiction) the power to define what marriage is--as opposed to regulating it, but otherwise taking it as a pre-existing institution?

The only power the state of New York has is the power to define the legal framework of marriage.

Gay marriage already existed. It wasn't "defined" by New York; it was defined by society over the past decades. All New York did was extend the legal framework governing marriage to cover gay marriages, too.

Mary said...

"I think the libertarians who are hailing the decision by New York to legalize "same sex marriage" may rue the day.

Because, to my mind, the action by the New York legislature is a usurpation."

Key words: to my mind. It's the same as pretending you get to define "marital sex" and exclude those whom you don't believe to be naturally married, despite what the law now says.

Personally,
I just think you are inconsistent in your arguments just because you have a pre-determined idea of how you think, in your mind, this should play out in society. You don't want to recogize New York's legislative actions anymore than you want to recognize Massachusett's judicial ones, or the end result of commercial technological transactions and contracts that see children being born into homosexual unions daily.

Luckily, your hindrance in accepting the changing nature of reality is not shared by all.

craig said...

Bryan C said... "...it does me no injury for my neighbor to have twenty wives or no wives. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

If not one of them is permitted to claim insurance, welfare, Social Security, survivor's benefits, etc., maybe. What are the odds of that?

Pretty much every financial instrument relying upon actuarial data to ensure solvency is thrown into uncharted waters by both homosexual and polygamous marriage. Your claim, like Obamacare, is founded on the insane notion that one can mandate coverage by fiat to millions of additional people and suffer no costs.

The Europeans are already feeling the bite of supporting all of Mohammed's wives on the public dole. The welfare state cannot survive multiculturalism. Judeo-Christian ethics, popular government, multiculturalism: you can have any two.

Mary said...

"That you use the term "marital acts" and intend to include sex acts between two men or two women isn't terribly persuasive.

My point is, we know -- at least most of us know -- what that term has meant and still generally means.

Of course, that may change. It hasn't changed yet, no matter what you post here. "



OK, I'll bite: what is it then? You don't accept the Massachusetts gay marraiges as legal marraiges recognized by the State (nevermind what your personal religion might tell you?)

If so, do you think those folk are not having any sex, and just cuddle and/or have no romance. ("--where did anyone get the idea that "love" was an essential component to a valid marriage.")

Well, let's just say, you can see those folks as legally married. And you do believe, not so naively, that sexual inimate relations are happening...

This isn't "marital sex" then? What dictionary are you using again?

Cedarford said...

"PatCA said...
Whenever mankind...oops, humankind has monkeyed with traditional values to build an earthly paradise, they wreaked havoc instead."

Much of the world is threatened with instability and bankruptcy. By forced cultural changes that have been shoved down the throats of highly resentful masses too long and too hard and too fast.

We may well be coming to a global crisis where many long-established systems of rule that betrayed their people and shoved change down their throats will have to be "recreated". By revolution, limiting the vote to only contributors to society, by Islamism, by authoritarian regimes.

It's not just the "Arab Spring". W Europe is in deep trouble..Growing signs the USA is in serious trouble as well.
And our democracy controlled by Ruling Elites from the Courts beholden to "social change activists", by Government employee union bosses, by Beltway lawyers, by Wall Street Globalists - no longer works.

The Tea Party freaks those Elites out. And the Tea Party might be mild compared to what is coming.

Robin said...

Those of us who criticized the Lawrence opinion with just this sort of hypothetical were all poo-poo'd by those defending Justice Kennedy's incoherent opinion.

Cedarford said...

KenK said...
The way it's going we can just stop having elections and just have judges and courts run everything
================
Until the State of Emergency and Civil War happens - Ending when victorious forces finally encircle and cut off blue cities. Courts suspended - community organizers, lawyers and Wall Streeters led off in handcuffs.

VanderDouchen said...

Goodness. You cock suckers sure get upset if people don't agree with your stance (and I'm sure it's wide) on these issues.

With that, I have to go. My german shepherd needs to go for a walk. A backwards walk! as I shove her hind legs into my boots and start pushing her towards the cliffs. mmmmmm. mmmmmm. mmmmm.

WV: mationes:

I like to mate with german shepherds. I call them the mationes.

B Dubya said...

The Mormon practice of polygamy had, at it's origin, humaitarian reasons. It was a practice sanctioned by the Mormon community, and officially renounced only when the Mormons were to be fully integrated into American society again (Utah Statehood). It has become, by most accounts I have seen, a perverted institution, primarily used to garner income for the male in the relationship through welfare payments to his indigent female spouses.

Be that as it may, government really has no role in defining the proper role or roles of persons who may engage in private, intimate relations, provided those relations are not intended to create a criminal enterprise or other vehicle under which to commit crimes.

There is no slippery slope. Liberty has no slope. Please don't confuse liberty with iscense.

t-man said...

Okay Mary, let's not get hung up on definitions. When I said, there have been non-marital offspring, I meant a child who was not the biologic product of a married, heterosexual couple. There have always been such children, and there always will be such children.

The fact that same-sex couples may be raising children (whether the natural offspring of one half of the couple, or neither) does not require rewriting the marriage laws, nor does the fact that same-sex couples in Massachusetts may be "married" mean that child the couple may be raising is a product of the marriage. Technology has not yet reached the ability to create a child from two women or to men.

Geoff Matthews said...

To all the commentors asking why polygamy is illegal in Utah.
It was a condition of statehood.

As far as the reasoning behind ending the practice of polygamy, Wilford Woodruff was rather up front about it. He claims that God gave him a vision of what would happen if the practice didn't stop, and what he saw was the church leadership being imprisoned, property confiscated, and a loss of freedom for the general membership.

http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

(this, BTW, is included in the scriptures that most members have)

Fr Martin Fox said...

I said:

"Because, to my mind, the action by the New York legislature is a usurpation."

Mary said:

Key words: to my mind. It's the same as pretending you get to define "marital sex" and exclude those whom you don't believe to be naturally married, despite what the law now says.

I didn't claim the right to define what any term means, and if I did I'd fail. You're being a little silly. The term "marital acts" had a pretty well established meaning long before I was a gleam in my father's eye. I didn't invent it.

And it's absolutely silly to concede the validity of natural law, and then claim that an action of the state of New York can amend it. You can argue that Natural Law is invalid, or outmoded, or whatever; but that, too, I didn't invent. It's a longstanding, recognized source for civil law. And that you think the state of New York, by legalizing them, also made them comport with Natural Law, is silly. Can you substantiate that, please? What precedent can you offer for the mere action of a state legislature changing what Natural Law never acknowledged?

That see children being born into homosexual unions daily.

Well, I'll grant that children are being born by lesbians. But I'm unaware of any being born by gay men.

But again, so what?

A woman who lives with her mother can adopt a child. She can also conceive one, and give birth to, and raise the child, in the household with her mother. She and her mother love each other, and wish to live together forever. Are they married? Should the state deem their arrangement to be married? What bearing does the conception and birth and living arrangements of the said child have on this question?

Your argument boils down to, any (two? or more?) people who want to be married, can be married, and there's no particular reason the state shouldn't choose to recognize it as such.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mary said:

"...nevermind what your personal religion might tell you?..."

Why are you bringing religion into it? I haven't.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mary said:

OK, I'll bite: what is it then?

If you sincerely don't know what the term "marital acts" means, culturally and historically, I suggest you open a new window on your browser and do some research. I don't know much about researching terms common in, and pertinent to the law, and there may not be free sites, but I am confident you can find your way around the Internet.

craig said...

Mary said...

"...The fact that technology may have been involved, paying in a commercial transaction for a surrogate, an egg or a vial of sperm, doesn't make the egg or sperm donor a party to the marraige."

Regardless of the state of lab technology, still exactly one male and one female are required to produce a human child. Whenever the law tries to ignore this reality, it produces irrational and incoherent results.

Is the donor's lack of parental rights and duties a result of the commercial transaction? If so, would the donor still be liable if no money were exchanged? Why?

Is the donor's lack of parental rights and duties a result of the lack of physical contact between biological father and mother? If so, would the donor be liable if reproductive material were exchanged in the traditional manner? Why?

The truth is, case law is filled with mutually contradictory rulings on exactly these points, because current law here has no basis but irrational appeals to sentimentalism. Gay "marriage" arguments require the same irrational sentimentalism; polygamy at least has for its basis the idea that all women should be supported by some man somewhere (the point at which feminists and Islamists agree, although they disagree on the corresponding rights accruing to men).

andinista said...

Hi Mick.
1. Not a Commerce Clause. A Full Faith and Credit clause, intersecting with the Equal Protection clause (ymmv, I hain't no conlaw dweeb). This area is in flux in recent years, used to be States were free to recognize or not marriages from other States.

2. Been recognized as a right for a long time: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.". And this: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". Securing: no droit de seigneur, no white slavery, no polygamy, alimony and child support, divorce only for cause, vice squad, all are powers we have granted to our government (and sometimes revoked), that have been used to secure our marriages. To allow and help wife and husband to live their lives in wedded bliss, secure from the depredations of nature and man, and provide protection for the innocent children.

I find it useful to stay close to the language of the Constitution. We the People have rights. We grant limited enumerated powers to our governments to secure some of these rights. Other rights are left for the People to secure for themselves. Securing the right of marriage to some or all of us is currently under debate as to how much powers to grant to the governments.

mariner said...

Fr Martin Fox,
Moreover, while the heterosexuality of marriage can be justified on natural-law basis, monogamy clearly comes from Christianity.

No, it doesn't; Jews were monogamous before the life of Jesus Christ.

george said...

I didn't wade through all of the comments so this might have been mentioned but the problem with polygamy is the surplus of young, testosterone filled males it produces who have no hope of ever mating. I think that this is one of the principle reasons for how much violence there is in the Middle East. Typically this excess is burned off in wars or put into some sort of bondage.

On a personal level I have no problem with whatever arrangement anyone wants to make. But if it becomes the predominant type of relationship in a society then there are significant downsides that must at least be acknowledged. Often young men are chased out of polygamous societies. The older, more established males have first choice of all of the fresh brides. It is sort of like how a lion pride only has one male until he is displaced.

Mohammed had a lot of pathologies that still afflict the ME since he committed nearly every depravity a person can imagine. Mormons are free of those sorts of beliefs but they still produced "lost boys" and made deals for wives when they practiced polygamy.

Frankly I think it is an inherently unappealing enough lifestyle that the problem would be self-limiting in a secular society like the US. I am not sure I have ever heard of anyone practicing it who did not believe it was part of their religion.

sonicfrog said...

"King Solomon had hundreds of wives."

Indeed, and was the last king of a united Israel. The country dissolved into two parts after his reign.


Holy Crap... I knew it!!!! Slavery didn't cause the American civil war, Lincoln's stance on polygamy did!!!

Mick said...

@ Mary,

Of course when the Burger court was affirming the "right to marry" (I still believe that the Burger, Stevens, Stewart court used the 14th A to vastly expand "rights" where there are none), they were not contemplating "same sex" marriage. They were affirming a right to procreation as suported in the framework of statutory Marriage, as evidenced by these quotes from that case:

"Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place. 11 "

They were basing their decision on a "right" to procreate and produce children (I still say there is no such "right".

Further they say that the production of children, and the framework of marriage is of utmost importance to the survival of our society:

""Marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." Id., at 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). [434 U.S. 374, 384] "

Certainly the minute percentage of "gay marriages" that would happn if they were legalized Federally, and the smaller number of children produced in roundabout ways by some of those marriages would not constitute something "fundemental to our very exhistence and survival".

These decisions you bring up are based on HETEROSEXUAL marriage, and the use of the word "all" refers to ALL men and women to marry member of the opposite sex.

sonicfrog said...

Fr Martin Fox,
Moreover, while the heterosexuality of marriage can be justified on natural-law basis, monogamy clearly comes from Christianity.

No, it doesn't; Jews were monogamous before the life of Jesus Christ.


And, after Christ died, and "Christianity" emerged, you saw the emergence of polygamy! Looks pretty cut and dried to me!!! :-)

Kim said...

That sound you hear in the background is Antonin Scalia roaring with laughter. As I recall, he predicted this in his dissent on the Lawrence case.

Fr Martin Fox said...

I said:

Moreover, while the heterosexuality of marriage can be justified on natural-law basis, monogamy clearly comes from Christianity.

Mariner said:

No, it doesn't; Jews were monogamous before the life of Jesus Christ.

True, I was too hasty. It would be better to say that you can find polygamy practiced and (apparently) tolerated legally in early Judaism, while it seems to have gone by the wayside later on. Also, I'd be curious to know if Roman or Greek law allowed for polygamy; I just don't know.

But the point I was trying to make remains valid, I think: we have laws outlawing polygamy, and deeming marriage essentially monogamous, because the spread of Christianity and the western culture that this produced.

jdkchem said...

While I can't understand why a man would want more than one woman to nag him

Stereo nagging, Dolby surround nagging, nagging 2.1, nagging 5.1, nagging 7.1.

I'm holding out for high definition nagging.

Mick said...

andinista said,

"I find it useful to stay close to the language of the Constitution. We the People have rights. We grant limited enumerated powers to our governments to secure some of these rights. Other rights are left for the People to secure for themselves. Securing the right of marriage to some or all of us is currently under debate as to how much powers to grant to the governments."


No state has decided the rights of gays to marry by popular vote, only by edict of the courts and state legisaltures. That is not the people "securing" a right. That is activist courts and legislatures imposing it on we the people. Further, in states where that "right" was imposed, popular votes have many times taken it away. No state has the right to impose it's will on the other states. If a gay couple from a state that allows gay marriage moves to one that doesn't, there is no law that says that they must be acquiesed, much like those from states that allow legal medical marijuana would still be breaking the law in states that don't, (full faith and credit does not refer to those situations, it refers to debts and legal documents-- (and I'll head you off at the pass, property liens and driver licenses are accepted everywhere, "gay marraige" certificates are not)).

Further , your biblical quote:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.". refers to heterosexual marriage, so what's your point?

elmo iscariot said...

Am I the only one bored to tears by the endless arguments about "redefining" an institution that's been redefined so many times already? There are some real, fascinating, complex questions of law to be asked regarding plural marriages, and the comments in a law blog are all tied up in social warfare?

If we allow people to marry multiple spouses, we're inherently allowing Heinleinian line-marriages (where younger members join periodically, making the marriage itself potentially eternal). What does that do to inheritance law?

What happens if a corporation has all its members marry into such a line-marriage to game the family and business law systems? Are there simple answers, or is this the kind of thought experiment that gives law students the shakes?

[Disclosure: I'm a polyamorist who's "married" to two people, so I may be more tired of this posturing war than somebody whose interest is more casual.]

Mary said...

"Okay Mary, let's not get hung up on definitions."

Except, defining "marraige" and the attending responsibilities, privileges and benefits that accompany it, really is what this whole issue is all about.

"The fact that same-sex couples may be raising children (whether the natural offspring of one half of the couple, or neither) does not require rewriting the marriage laws, nor does the fact that same-sex couples in Massachusetts may be "married" mean that child the couple may be raising is a product of the marriage. "

But, if the child is conceived because of actions taken by the two people in the marraige -- who undertake the medical procedures and pay for the necessary commercial transactions and contracting that such fertility help entails -- it may mean that the child indeed is a product of such a marital union, whether it be straight couples getting the fertility help, or homosexual ones doing the same.

You're not saying that a child conceived from the egg/sperm of one person in such a relationship, say, with contracted techological help stepping up to provide for the other, makes that child any less legitimate a product of the marraige, are you? Plenty of infertile people who used techology to create their families, straight and gay, might call your thinking not only naive, but denying simple reality.

You may not like that science has changed the game, but facts are facts.

Mary said...

"If you sincerely don't know what the term "marital acts" means, culturally and historically, I suggest you open a new window on your browser and do some research."

Oh, you're just arguing from tradition. And denying the reality that you don't like, or choose to accept.

But remember, I asked you, if a gay couple is legally married in Massachusetts and their marraige includes intimate sexual acts, aren't those "marital acts" too? (or do you just think it's all an ... "act", that really no intimate sexual relations are occuring?)

" The term "marital acts" had a pretty well established meaning long before I was a gleam in my father's eye. I didn't invent it."

Again, update your dictionary. Gay marital acts are occuring daily in this country. Sorry, but do a web search if you don't believe, or understand, how such things could be happening.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Good. I hope she succeeds. To paraphrase TJ, it does me no injury for my neighbor to have twenty wives or no wives. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. It's none of my business.

Of course it affects you financially.

You need to consider the results of your neighbor putting all of his wives and children on his health insurance policy. What do you think that will do to yours.

Consider that if he can use all the deductions for dependents, he will pay no income tax. Guess where Uncle Sugar will come to make up the difference.

Because one or even 4 incomes isn't enough to cover the wives and the brood....when he needs to collect food stamps to feed all those hungry children or collect medicaid to pay for their terminal diaper rash, do you think that money comes from a big money tree in the government's back yard

Better get a hold of your wallet. I would also suggest not bending over in the shower to pick up the soap either.

What your neighbor does will affect us all economically.

Mary said...

"That see children being born into homosexual unions daily.

Well, I'll grant that children are being born by lesbians. But I'm unaware of any being born by gay men."

Plenty of gay men use their sperm and contract with a surrogate and indeed, their "children are being born into homosexual unions daily."

You might not like it, but it's a happenin'. Daily.

"Why are you bringing religion into it? I haven't."

Because you don't seem to recognize the secular marraige definitions already on the books in a few states.

Those homosexuals in Massachusetts are indeed married civily, if not in the eyes of some religions. Thus their sex is "marital sex".

You seem to be stuck in the traditional/religious definitions though, as if your way of thinking influences who society deems married or not.

caplight said...

"The Mormon practice of polygamy had, at it's origin, humaitarian reasons. It was a practice sanctioned by the Mormon community,"

Joseph Smith liked young tail. His was wife knew it and never approved of it. She would have said, "Humanitarian my ass!"

Mary said...

"You need to consider the results of your neighbor putting all of his wives and children on his health insurance policy. What do you think that will do to yours."

That's another argument for another day though, DBQ. The story here isn't asking for those legal protections/recognitions. See the distinction between the civil marraige wife, and the 'sister wives' who are not legally recognized as such.

Mary said...

"Regardless of the state of lab technology, still exactly one male and one female are required to produce a human child. Whenever the law tries to ignore this reality, it produces irrational and incoherent results."

The law "ignores" this definition (you're speaking biology, not law) every time a straight couple adopts or uses fertility help to create their family.

It's not "ignorance" so much, just accepting there are different ways of getting the same end result. You might not like it, but those children indeed are recognized as products of the marital union, same as the children of a homosexual marital union are legally recognized as such in the growing number of states where gays are permitted to marry.

Mary said...

"And that you think the state of New York, by legalizing them, also made them comport with Natural Law, is silly. Can you substantiate that, please? "

Sure, I think homosexuality is natural. That gays can legally marry. And that their gay intimate sex, if they're legally married, naturally counts as marital acts. When two people actively work to conceive, using the 21st technology available to their marriages, I think natural law is implicated too.

We all know where babies come from, btw. Some of us perhaps just understand nuance a bit better than others, and are less afraid of clinging so tightly to definititions that have worked in the past and have naturally evolved to incorporate the scientific world we now find ourselves in.

Does that help you out any?

chickenlittle said...

Mary wrote You may not like that science has changed the game, but facts are facts.

Science may have changed the game but it hasn't changed the gametes. Yet. Until we have cloned a person or otherwise asexually reproduced a person, we are perfectly within our rights to define, with words, what certain things like sexual reproduction mean, within the law. This is why I utterally reject conceding that a transexual man is a woman. Like a woman, yes.

There is no reason to abolish the first adjective in "gay martial act" other than a need to corrupt language for nefarious purposes.

Ideas and concepts can become inclusive without willfully destroying a language but it takes time and cannot be imposed. What you're really saying is that you wish "martial act" to be construed to comprise "gay sex act." That's still no argument for eliminating the more specific terminology.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"You need to consider the results of your neighbor putting all of his wives and children on his health insurance policy. What do you think that will do to yours."

That's another argument for another day though, DBQ. The story here isn't asking for those legal protections/recognitions. See the distinction between the civil marraige wife, and the 'sister wives' who are not legally recognized as such.

Possibly, but it is part of the slippery slope concept.

To defend polygamy for a moment.

When the Mormons and other practiced it had a rational economic purposes. The ability of ONE woman to run a household in our pre industrial era what constrained. Constrained by how many children/in house serfs that she could pump out. Children didn't just sit around whining and playing video games in those days. They were expected to WORK.

Consider the benefits of having helper wives, more helper children to do the chores and to work outside of the home to bring in more money.

Many hands make light work. Many people have various talents to bring to the group.

As I stated before, by the age of 35 most women were worn out from child birth and hard work. Having a subservient wife doesn't sound like such a bad idea.

Although I have pointed out the economic burden on society, being in a polygamous group could still be an economic advantage, even in our current society.

The sex stuff is just a side benefit....or maybe a big freaking jealousy inducing distraction.

chickenlittle said...

The law "ignores" this definition (you're speaking biology, not law) every time a straight couple adopts or uses fertility help to create their family.

The law recognizes a concept called paternity and chooses different terms to define things like father, dad, uncle, etc. (if at all for some. These are all good and useful and discriminating terms. You are focused only on some particular "bad" aspect of their usage becaue you, personally do not like them.

Mary said...

"There is no reason to abolish the first adjective in "gay martial act" other than a need to corrupt language for nefarious purposes."

Do you know your Gertrude Stein? "A rose is a rose is a rose" ?

In Massachusetts, homosexuals can marry. Legally.

A marital act is a marital act is a marital act. You might prefer to call it "gay sex acts", but when married people are intimate sexually, they are indeed engaging in marital acts.

A rose is a rose is a rose.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

After pitting about 25 pounds of cherries today, that we picked yesterday....canning jam, making pie fillings and freezing the rest, doing the dishes, while doing laundry, mowing the acreage, watering the vegetable garden, cleaning out the pump house to make room for more canning next week, mopping the kitchen floor, doing all the daily billing and banking for my husband's business and now getting ready to figure what to cook for dinner...

Sometimes I think I would like to have a wife of my very own. (Only sometimes and only if I am the QUEEN wife!)

Maybe my new wife would bring me a cocktail while I'm cruising the net.

LOL.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mary said:

Some of us perhaps just understand nuance a bit better than others, and are less afraid of clinging so tightly to definititions that have worked in the past and have naturally evolved to incorporate the scientific world we now find ourselves in.

Does that help you out any?


Ok, that's just condescending.

Mary said...

"The law recognizes a concept called paternity and chooses different terms to define things like father, dad, uncle, etc. (if at all for some. These are all good and useful and discriminating terms. You are focused only on some particular "bad" aspect of their usage becaue you, personally do not like them."


I'm going for accuracy in the language, actually.

Do you think a sperm donor is legally considered a "father, dad, uncle" when a man uses techological help in his marraige to produce legal offspring in creating his family?

If not, then you are perhaps focusing on the "bad" uses of technology in creating familes because you personally do not like them. (Remember, not every legal family has a Daddy present either, or a man.)

Mary said...

"Ok, that's just condescending."



Right back atcha, Father, right back atcha:

"If you sincerely don't know what the term "marital acts" means, culturally and historically, I suggest you open a new window on your browser and do some research. I don't know much about researching terms common in, and pertinent to the law, and there may not be free sites, but I am confident you can find your way around the Internet."

Mary said...

"Maybe my new wife would bring me a cocktail while I'm cruising the net."


Lol @ DBQ.
Yeah, say what you will, but you can't train a DOG to do that. (Bring a beer, maybe. Mix a cocktail? Forget it. Techologically, we're just not there yet...)

wv: ungly

chickenlittle said...

"A rose is a rose is a rose." A red rose is not a white rose. Gertrude Stein did not invent Genus species relationships. What you're saying is that the law needs to become more generic when it comes to marriage. But the law rarely becomes more generic, only more specific. Law scribes are paid by the word these days.

Mark O said...

"The Mormon practice of polygamy had, at it's origin, humaitarian reasons. It was a practice sanctioned by the Mormon community,"

Right. Those 13 year-old girls hated living at home. You can defend polygamy, but not on those facts. Even the Mormon Church won't go that far.

Nevertheless, if there can be gay unions, there is no rational defense to polygamy. "I don't like it" doesn't work.

chickenlittle said...

@Mary: You remind me of somebody. A lot. Just saying.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mary, you were the one playing cutesy games with the term "marital acts." I have no idea who you are; your own comments called into question your understanding of what "marital acts" denotes and connotes.

I am happy to treat you like an adult, but you choose to condescend to me, then why don't you just say you want to call it a day?

Paddy O said...

"a rose is a rose is a rose"

Day is not night and night is not day, even if that's what you say.

Mary said...

"A red rose is not a white rose. Gertrude Stein did not invent Genus species relationships. "

Nope. But even red roses can be bred with white roses, you knowses.

And they can even produce, naturally, offspring. (Didja know?)

"What you're saying is that the law needs to become more generic when it comes to marriage."

Nope again. The law needs to, and always does an admirable job though the wheels grind slowly, of addressing specific situations before it.

You want to carve out a "gay marriage" definition, and a "straight marraige" definition, much the way some want to have "civil unions" for X people, and "marraiges" for other X people.

Better I say, to keep the instituion the same, and recognize, as we slowing are coming to do, that the laws can grow to be more inclusive over time. See, oh Loving perhaps, for how societal changes like that happen. (We call them "marraiges" that happen to legally permit a black and a white to marry. Not carve out a special "interracial marraige" special privilege where participants perform "interracial sex acts", the way some here want to do with legal homosexual marraiges and marital acts.)

Special rights for some, not others, and more and more subsets of legal definitions are not the way to go legally. Trust me on that.

Mary said...

"Mary, you were the one playing cutesy games with the term "marital acts." "

Ah, I'm beginning to catch on to you...

Your special dictionary says when someone honestly disagrees with you, and calls you on your special definitions of what consitutes marital acts in a legal marraige, ... that passes as "cutesy games."

Sorry, you're the only one playing by those rules here. Not me.

Perhaps if you hadn't resorted to condescending to me earlier as you now acknowledge when I pointed it out, I might have been more respectful.

But it's very common for adults to respond in a likeminded way to others, if only so they can indeed "see" the flaws in their own style of argumentation.

Is that clear to you now? Think of it like the Golden Rule: if you don't want to be talked down to in adult conversation, don't do it to others in the first place.

wv: freven.

Mary said...

"@Mary: You remind me of somebody. A lot. Just saying."


For the record, I'm posting here only as "Mary". If you're insinuating, as the professor has done on other occasions, that some of the regular commenters here are me trolling, you're wrong.

mariner said...

Fr Martin Fox,
But the point I was trying to make remains valid, I think: we have laws outlawing polygamy, and deeming marriage essentially monogamous, because the spread of Christianity and the western culture that this produced.

And I would agree. I would further add that we had such laws because they reflected the beliefs and preferences of Judeo-Christian societies.

My only point, and it's a small one, is to remind Christians that without Judaism there would have been no Jesus Christ and no Christianity.

andinista said...

Mick, I'm having some dissonance here, that makes it hard for me to grok your gestalt.
1. Rights aren't imposed. They are either secured, or not secured. (Perhaps BarryO's and FDR's positive "rights" are impositions, in that they take from the rich, and give to the politician's friends. There is no God-given right to free health care and free housing. You had to find a cave, evict the saber-toothed tiger, heal yourself, and defend it against Thag's more numerous tribe.

2. When the Legislature votes on something, that's We the People deciding. It's only an imposition if you think the Legislature is captured by a bunch of rabid corrupt gerrymandered partisan hacks who don't give a rat's ass what you think, they just want your money so they can give to their partisan friends ... oh wait, never mind.

wv: matielut: a list of your honeys' names and addresses so you don't commit an unforced amorous error.

Tom DeGisi said...

> Regardless of the state of lab technology, still exactly one male and one female are required to produce a human child. Whenever the law tries to ignore this reality, it produces irrational and incoherent results.

This is true now. But soon a women will go to a technologist and say "Take my stem cells and make lots of sperm." And the technologist will. And the woman will take the sperm and give them to her female partner. She will get pregnant and the baby will be beautiful. Two women and their beautiful biological child. People will see the picture of the baby. They will say, "Aww, she's so cute!" Society will deal with this remarkably well.

For two men, the process will involve a surrogate, at least at first. Two men and their beautiful biological child, with some help. Society will deal with this remarkably well, except when the surrogate can't take being separated from the baby.

At some point, probably well before this time, there will be a genetic test for predisposition to homosexuality. All over the world, but especially in China and India, babies with the genes predisposing them towards homosexuality will be aborted.

Technology giveth and technology taketh away.

Yours,
Tom

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mary:

I did not acknowledge condescending to you. I acknowledge you took it that way and I'm glad you told me that. Had you simply said that--as I did to you (without insult), you'd have found out I have no problem restating my point or backing up.

I am sure you knew all along exactly what I meant when I used the term "marital acts," while giving the pretense that it was unclear. That's cutesy; or perhaps a better term is tendentious? Deliberately obtuse? Perhaps there's another word that aptly describes that sort of rhetorical pose.

I'll let you have the last word. Given this turn, I'm not interested in pursuing this with you.

chickenlittle said...

This is true now. But soon a women will go to a technologist and say "Take my stem cells and make lots of sperm." And the technologist will.

All within the realm of possibility. You'd just better hope that looming changes in BHO's healthcare reform won't limit this to all but the affluent. Foisting these costs onto the general public (who can reproduce much more cheaply and while adoption options remain open) seems a bit unfair to me. Survival of the fittest vs hope and change.

Mike K said...

THis was inevitable and it will be interesting to see the lefties tie themselves on knots over it.

Revenant said...

You need to consider the results of your neighbor putting all of his wives and children on his health insurance policy. What do you think that will do to yours.

You can't just add anyone you feel like to your health insurance policy. It is up to the insurance company what they will and won't cover.

They aren't obligated to cover *a* wife, let alone two or more.

Mary said...

Re: "I did not acknowledge condescending to you. I acknowledge you took it that way and I'm glad you told me that. Had you simply said that--as I did to you (without insult), you'd have found out I have no problem restating my point or backing up."
and
"I'll let you have the last word. Given this turn, I'm not interested in pursuing this with you."


I'm sorry that you need another person to point out when you are indeed being rude and condescending, and that when called on it, you play dumb essentially in not being able to understand why another adult objects to being talked down to.

I have no interest discussing this further with you, because it seems you are indeed stuck in the rut of your own deliberate ways of thinking, and even when challenged, choose to respond in ways where you continue to see yourself as a (the?) logical minded adult, and those who disagree with your are somehow employing underhanded/objectional/childish qualities.

Either way, I hope my continuing dialogue with you, particularly regarding other, very legitimate, ways of defining "marital acts", have perhaps opened your eyes that you might do better with an updated dictionary that takes other definitions of families into account.

You, of course, don't have to choose to recognize what even some states now recognize in civil definitions, but you have no cause to demand that others re-define those terms to your own personal liking.

Sorry if this sounds harsh to your ears, but your personal demands to have everyone think the way you do end where they interfere with the thoughts of other, equally legitimate thoughts of others.

I understand your need to drop out of the conversation at this time. You can't accept that I sincerely reject your definition of what now constitutes a "marital act". So you can agree to disagree honestly, and walk away with your pride still intact, nevermind any "cutesy" (is there pie with that, btw?) excuses.

"I am sure you knew all along exactly what I meant when I used the term "marital acts," while giving the pretense that it was unclear. That's cutesy; or perhaps a better term is tendentious? Deliberately obtuse? Perhaps there's another word that aptly describes that sort of rhetorical pose."

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Marital acts.

Taking out the garbage without being asked.

Bringing coffee in the morning with just the right amount of sugar and cream.

Giving your spouse a pedicure or back rub.

Folding the underwear and socks instead of wadding them up.

Sharing the last bit of ice cream, even though you REALLY wanted it all for yourself.

Standing up in public for your spouse.

Giving up that last corner of the blanket and ignoring the snoring.

Oh.....you guys meant something else?

Mary said...

And thank you very much for the needed humor, DBQ.

PatCA said...

"Bryan C said... "...it does me no injury for my neighbor to have twenty wives or no wives. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

But it does. In societies where polygamy is the norm, women become property, in the sense that the richest, roughest Top Guy gets the most women. That leaves lots of men without wives. No good comes of that--even Reason thinks so.

PatCA said...

One last thought: the only reason I can see for gay marriage is that it may make gay people more accepted, loathe themselves less and enable them to have happier lives. At least 3 sets of anguished parents of gays I know believe this. Is it so?

At a recent gay festival here, a speaker gave a rousing speech about gay marriage. Applause all around. Then she asked, Who wants to get married?? Not one person raised a hand.

Is it so? I pray that it is.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mary said:

I'm sorry that you need another person to point out when you are indeed being rude and condescending, and that when called on it, you play dumb essentially in not being able to understand why another adult objects to being talked down to.

Congrats Mary, your dishonesty convinced me to change my mind.

You. Did. Not. "Call" me "on it." That's precisely what you did NOT do. Hence what I said. No, you chose to be childish, and respond with your own condescension--which continues unabated.

Nor did I "play dumb." I denied that I condescended to you. That implies intention. Unless you have superhuman gifts, you cannot know my intentions. But you could ask. You didn't.

I'm a fair person. Someone takes offense at what I say, and says so, I will--as I said before--either explain it, or back up. You could have found that out if you had chosen to take the adult way, which is to say, "what's up with that?"

I appreciate this dialogue nonetheless--because I didn't know, when I began talking with you, how insufferably arrogant you are.

Mary said...

"You. Did. Not. "Call" me "on it." That's precisely what you did NOT do."

Um... Yes. I. Did. (who's acting childish now?)

I just adopted your tactic, and employed sarcasm in "calling you on it." Turned the tables on you, so to speak, and questioned why your definition of "marital acts" is the only one to be considered, despite the fact that legally married homosexuals who have sex are committing "marital acts" now too.

Obviously, it was effective. You seem to have gotten the message, though you are loathe to admit it.

You see, "Father", I have no obligation to respond to you as you desire. (ie/ Unless you have superhuman gifts, you cannot know my intentions. But you could ask. You didn't.) Instead, I chose to respond in kind, just as ... you didn't respectfully question me when I respectfully disagreed with your own personal definition of "marital acts."

Instead, you used your "superhuman gift" it seems, and ASSUMED I was playing coy, or being childish or whatever the heck you attributed to my my honest disagreement in defining the term. Then, when I explained to you that no, I'm not daft, just disagree -- honestly disagree -- you still refused to accept my point of view. Remember writing this?

"I am sure you knew all along exactly what I meant when I used the term "marital acts," while giving the pretense that it was unclear. That's cutesy; or perhaps a better term is tendentious? Deliberately obtuse? Perhaps there's another word that aptly describes that sort of rhetorical pose."

If you were a respectful man, you'd have apologized comments ago for the "cutesty" remarks. You choose not to, and that's fine, I'm not an apology collector. But please, enought with you're "I'm right and you're playing games" logic of discussion. Might work that way in your circles, which again is fine, but you don't get to label and namecall and then pretend to walk away so cleanly. Sorry. The. Truth. Sometimes. Hurts. Eh?

wv: hersa

Mary said...

"I appreciate this dialogue nonetheless--because I didn't know, when I began talking with you, how insufferably arrogant you are."

Oh wow. Just reading this backhanded insult now.

Personally, I doubt you are a "real" Catholic priest at all, despite the blog you've set up. I think ... perhaps you just play one on the Internet.

Which, naturally, is fine too... no law against that.

Mary said...

"I appreciate this dialogue nonetheless--because I didn't know, when I began talking with you, how insufferably arrogant you are."

Oh wow. Just reading this backhanded insult now.

Personally, I doubt you are a "real" Catholic priest at all, despite the blog you've set up. I think ... perhaps you just play one on the Internet.

Which, naturally, is fine too... no law against that.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mary:

You see, "Father", I have no obligation to respond to you as you desire.

You have no obligation to show any class. Quite right.

Mary said...

"You have no obligation to show any class. Quite right."

Remember what I said upthread? About the Golden Rule?

You just don't like when people treat you the way you treat them. You've namecalled, condescended, been given an opportunity to apologize/correct yourself, yet you choose to continue on labeling me. Why is that do you suppose?

Frankly,
your reactions, and the words your write here, lead me to believe you are not a priest, just playing one on the 'Nets. Not saying I'm 100 percent certain, but the more you write, the more confident I become...

I have priests/clergy in the extended family. They might be arrogant, at times, but they wouldn't continue on like you have here with the namecalling and finger-pointing, instead of treating what other people honestly say in good faith.

You might think you are convincing others with such behavior, and that it might be more valuable if you self identify as a priest, but it raises my suspicions. Sets off the internal "bullshit detector" so to speak.

I wonder, do you know that you're coming off like this, or do you need someone (other than myself perhaps?) to point it out further to you?

*Turning the other cheek myself*

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mary:

You've namecalled, condescended, been given an opportunity to apologize/correct yourself, yet you choose to continue on labeling me.

Mary, you're a piece of work. I don't want to think you're deliberately dishonest, but it's getting hard to conclude otherwise.

I went back and reviewed my interactions with you.

You began condescending to me at 3:19: "Get it?" "Don't hide your heads in the sand and insist that these children are somehow... not there or nothings."

Now, I admit I didn't catch it at first. By itself, not a biggie.

But when I called you on being condescending later, you defended it by saying you chose to be condescending because you were responding in kind--to my comment at 3:54.

So, your condescension at 3:19 pm was a response to mine 35 minutes later?

Or how about this: "do you think those folk are not having any sex" (yeah, that's exactly what I think). That nice bit of condescension was at 3:30; was that, too, a tit-for-tat to a comment I posted 24 minutes later?

I'd forgotten that my answer, which you deem so terrible, in which I suggested to look up the conventional meaning of "marital acts" -- came in answer to your question: "OK, I'll bite--what is it then?" You asked me what I meant my "marital relations" and I answered you.

...treating what other people honestly say in good faith.

I started that way. I treated you with respect. It was not reciprocated. At some point the presumption is exhausted.

I comment here a lot. I may lose my temper or hang onto a point too long, but I think folks who've seen me around would say I'm pretty fair and courteous.

Mary said...

"I started that way. I treated you with respect. It was not reciprocated. At some point the presumption is exhausted."

I believe you became "exhausted" when I continued to respond in a manner not to your liking. Sorry, but I just plain do not accept that you get to define the words "marrige" and "marital acts" in places where homosexuals are in civil marriages. You want the words only to mean what you want them to mean. I disagree, and you want to namecall ("cutesy, childish") thinking that will perhaps persuade/intimidate me.

Sorry, it did not work. My ways of communicating to you were at least effective: you know see what you did not before. Yes Father, others honestly disagree -- not some rhetorical trick -- with the traditional definitions as you see fit to continue to define them. Sorry society no longer accepts that. But do keep those sacramental distinctions within your alleged Church. That's clearly your right, but when in mixed company, that ship has sailed. The definitions of "marraige" has now expanded to include same-sex people in our country. You don't have to like it, you can continue to work to change it, but you can't fall back on your preferred definitions, and accuse others who disagree of being "cutesy" and playing rhetorical games.

Sorry if that means you are being disrespected. You were intellectually challenged by my (respectful) words, when I used the exact same tone in responding to you as you did to me throughout the thread.

Perhaps you ought to undergo counseling, because patience is a big part of your job, if you need to call names, or make false accusations when you "lose my temper or hang onto a point too long."


You see, I don't think homosexuals are going to let people like you continue to dominate the discussions, and then stomp your feet and act dissed, when your religion doesn't hold for all others.

Btw, it doesn't matter what "others say". Anyone who can read can see how "pretty fair and courteous" you responded here, even after being called on it.

Might work, this bullying and hierarchical attitude, in church circles, but this is secularland where you're having the discussion.

I say, you are arrogant and not used to an "uppity female" like myself challenging your assumptions. Hence the "cutesy" words that show zero respect to others who simply disagree.

ps. This overreaching form of argument doesn't much work for me either.

"why can't any group of people, with one of them being an adoptive parent, otherwise living in way analogous to marriage, claim they, too, should be deemed married? Two siblings living together--one with an adopted child? A man or woman who has a parent living with him or her? Should society deem them "married" because of the adoption?

For that matter--and this point was not original with me--why is sexual congress important anymore to the definition of marriage? It was when it was about procreation, but no more with "same sex marriage." So why can't any two (or more) people be "married," even if they have zero interest in sex with each other? All they need to say is they "love" each other?

Oops, wait a minute--where did anyone get the idea that "love" was an essential component to a valid marriage."


Ooops. Wait a minute, or two perhaps, and maybe you'll see how your choice of words boomeranged back on you.

Mary said...

"do you think those folk are not having any sex" (yeah, that's exactly what I think).

Btw, if you are indeed being serious here, and not just employing condescending humor because it excites you, then you need to get out and meet some married homosexuals. I'm pretty sure you are wrong,and indeed, they do have sex.

Mary said...

See, if I'd have written, "Father Martin Fox secretly sucks cocks", then clearly, that's using the language to disrespect you.

But you choose to pretend your feelings are hurt when others simply disagree with your definitions and ways of defining this very important societal issue. If that's disrespect to you, best stay cloistered.

Mary said...

Speaking of rhetorical gamesmanship, you were condescending way back at 3:02.

"I suppose in this decadent age, someone might actually use the term "marital acts" of sex acts between people of the same sex, but I doubt with a straight face, unless one is pretty naive. But I could be wrong."

Btw, what's so "decadent" about married people having sexual relations with their spouse anyone? One might say you wrote this because you are pretty naive, but I think that's wrong. You are just using every "language tool" at your disposal to try and persuade others.

No harm in that. But no getting to cry foul later either.

The Crack Emcee said...

Bryan C,

To paraphrase TJ, it does me no injury for my neighbor to have twenty wives or no wives. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. It's none of my business.

That is so naive as to be unworthy of comment, but I will say the first flaw is a wife ain't a belief - and since even beliefs are dangerous to others, it certainly wouldn't take me long to figure out a myriad of ways that having flesh and blood polygamists next door could prove detrimental to others. I've seen how gays can prove themselves detrimental to others. But no one wants to talk about that. Everyone would rather ignore the various elephants in the room, but that never makes them go away. If anything, they just get bigger - and angrier - through neglect.

Mark my words:

The backlash from our misguided ways will be enormous.

GreatHairGuy said...

A man wanting multiple wives would be considered insane in my book. Thus, he would have a good defense.

SoCalCMH said...

is it now at least clear to those who support redefining marriage to accomodate same-sex couples why the one-man, one-woman definition, aside from it's traditional and historical norms, is the only logical way to prevent the legal gymnastics which are now really going to take place in order to apply marriage to any and all lifestyle arrangements??

there is a happy medium and it's called civil unions open to all consenting adults who want to enter it, be they same-sex couples, traditional heterosexual couples who are non-committal on marriage, co-habiting couples and now to be sure plural couples. you can legally accomadate the diversity of lifestyles that can and does exist while at the same time preserving the uniqueness of one-man and one-woman as the definition and the only definition regarding marriage.

Mary said...

"...preserving the uniqueness of one-man and one-woman as the definition and the only definition regarding marriage."

That ship has sailed, son.
Teh gays are already "married" in 6 states, including ... Iowa. Why settle for your lesser definition, when indeed, the new one is more encompassing, and ... accurate.

Languages change, as do circumstances. You don't have to be on board of course, but don't expect the language to accomodate your personal beliefs. Legally married. Preserve that.

Mick said...

Mary said...
"...preserving the uniqueness of one-man and one-woman as the definition and the only definition regarding marriage."

That ship has sailed, son.
Teh gays are already "married" in 6 states, including ... Iowa. Why settle for your lesser definition, when indeed, the new one is more encompassing, and ... accurate.

Languages change, as do circumstances. You don't have to be on board of course, but don't expect the language to accomodate your personal beliefs. Legally married. Preserve that."


It has never been approved by popular vote, only by imposition of Activist Courts and State Legislatures (since "professional politicians know better), and it is still ILLEGAL in 44 states... son.

Mary said...

"It has never been approved by popular vote, only by imposition of Activist Courts and State Legislatures (since "professional politicians know better), and it is still ILLEGAL in 44 states... son."


Matters not a tidge...
It's legal, and now the language has changed, evolved, expanded, encompassed, etc.

Marraiges now include homosexual persons too. You can deny it, you can keep your own personal definitions and recognitions, but the ship has indeed sailed.

You're just quibbling over the details now.

Mike Yocom said...

@YoungHegelian

"PS: Yes I know animals can't consent, but if you can legally kill and eat a pig without its consent, I guess you can marry without consent, too."

You can't legally kill and eat a human (with or without consent), nor can you legally marry a human without consent.

Mike Yocom said...

"The Declaration of Independence cautioned against any law against the law of nature, and I think "gay marraige is the perfect example of that, as YY equals nothing."

The problem with the argument that same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry on reproduction grounds is that the logical conclusion is that fertility tests should be administered to heterosexual couples before they be allowed to marry. After all, one or the other being sterile also "equals nothing."

Richard Maffeo said...

Sheesh. I saw this one coming YEARS ago. Frankly, I wonder why it has taken so long for polygamists (and those so minded) to use the same legal, emotional and appeal to "fairness" tactics as those of the homosexual community. Really, what is good for one ought to be good for the other in a free, pluralistic, anti-God environment.

sammycatfan said...

you are comparing the right to be burned alive with the right to give my husband another wife and enrich our lives?

Jim from pa said...

I see all the comments that are here and some have made me laugh. One could easily use the argument that prosecuting a a polygamous relationship as discrimination as well. When is the last time that you heard of a man or woman being arrested for having a long term affair? Would this not be much the same? how about the female that has multiple children with different men?

These couples are not all religious, and don't believe that they will be saved by having more then one spouse. They are simply in love with more then one person. It is like marrying dog.

If the laws stand on the books to prosecute polygamists then the courts should also file charges on all parties listed above. So if you have had an affair or know someone that has you could be next.

I can see the prison system is going to get very full with cases that has no real crime. As immoral as some think it is, there are other issues that you have in your life that might seem the same way to others.

Ruby lane wives said...

It is their religion they should have the RIGHT to Practice it plain and simple. This shows hypocrisy of our constitutional rights. They are grown consenting adults they should have the right to live their lives the way they like.

simon said...

Polygamy not withstanding, it is critical, as citizens and keepers of justice, that we familiarize ourselves with the spousal sexual assault laws. "We are not only responsible for what we do, but also, for that what we don't do."
Thanks
personal injury attorney lakeland

wersgold said...

I am player of games,I like play GW2 games,I need gw2 gold!If you have cheap Guild Wars 2 Gold,I can to buy it.

wersgold said...

I am player of games,I like play GW2 games,I need gw2 gold!If you have cheap Guild Wars 2 Gold,I can to buy it.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 301 of 301   Newer› Newest»