A NYT op-ed from Jonathan Turley, who is the lawyer for Kody Brown, the "Sister Wives" guy who has 4 wives and is suing for the right to be left alone. Note that he's not asking for the state to recognize plural marriage as marriage. He just wants to be rid of the threat of criminal prosecution.
One might expect the civil liberties community to defend those cases as a natural extension of its campaign for greater privacy and personal choice. But too many have either been silent or outright hostile to demands from polygamists for the same protections provided to other groups under [the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas].In his last paragraph Turley says don't be like Justice Scalia. I suspect Turley is reaching out to liberal readers, who presumably would be horrified by sounding like Justice Scalia. That's a good rhetorical move if what's really going on is that liberals resist showing favor to polygamy because it's done by people they don't like: Christianity-motivated traditionalists.
The reason might be strategic: some view the effort to decriminalize polygamy as a threat to the recognition of same-sex marriages or gay rights generally. After all, many who opposed the decriminalization of homosexual relations used polygamy as the culmination of a parade of horribles. In his dissent in Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia said the case would mean the legalization of “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”
Turley isn't trying to talk to conservatives, who generally don't mind sounding like Justice Scalia. Indeed, they get ideas about how to think from Justice Scalia. Conservatives aren't supporting the constitutional right of privacy in other contexts, so there's no hypocrisy to point out.
Turley also isn't talking to libertarians, who should find this issue so easy that no argument is needed. He does say "Civil libertarians should not be scared away by the arguments of people like Justice Scalia," but that usage of the word "libertarian" is different. It means something like liberals who take pride in thinking of themselves as supporting the kind of legal rights that good people are supposed to believe in. That's why — in a NYT op-ed — ugh, you sound like Scalia! is a good argument
Posts
270 comments:
1 – 200 of 270 Newer› Newest»"Slippery slope" is such a cliche . . . until things start slipping like they always do.
If you want to get a good view of the choir to whom he's preaching, read Krugman's blog comments section.
The next generation of Liberal Arts freshmen aren't going to get Sophocles at all, are they?
Pluraphobes!
Anyone who didn't see this after Lawrence is an idiot. Of course all my idiot liberal acquaintances said that it would never happen and I was being ridiculous to think that Lawrence would lead to legalizing polygamy, even when I pointed out that unlike "gay marriage", polygamy is a family structure with thousands of years of history and tradition behind it.
I repeat, plural marriage is it's own punishment.
As a libertarian, I support Gay Marriage.
I also support polygamy, polyandry, group marriage and adult incest.
Any structure that helps adults to be happy and supports the rearing of healthy and productive children... sign me up.
Sister Wives!
What a fantastic name for a reality TV show!
A reality TV show spawned from the opinions of the Supreme Court!
....it's a great tag line!!
I warned everyone. Don't say I didn't. Frankly, "warn" might be to strong. Cautioned is probably better. I don't care who marries who as it matter not a whip to my marriage to my wife. What I do have a problem with, though, is SSM activist somehow thinking they deserve special consideration while slamming the door right behind them in the face of the "pluralists".
Just because the who and how of consenting adults who rub their naughty bits together eeks you out, is not a reason to get the State involved.
I don't understand how gay marriage supporters can be against plural marriage and be consistent.
Sister Wives! What a fantastic name for a reality TV show!
Well, it'd be less inflammatory than The Osbournes.
Scott M - either you meant "whit" not "whip", or else "SSM" should be "S&M". NTTAWWT...
This is a society that will say "Yup, go ahead and fuck your daughter", but then fine you a hundred beans if you put plastic in the wrong trash bin. Nice standards we're developing.
I don't understand how gay marriage supporters can be against plural marriage and be consistent.
Royce hasn't been paying attention these last fifty years, has he?
The two obstacles for liberals:
1) polygamy is a diversion, a ploy, by social conservative critics of same sex marriage.
2) polygamy is inherently sexist/anti-woman.
So which adult sexual relationships should government proscribe AND which shall government support (i.e. tax benefits, survivor benefits)?
This is a society that will say "Yup, go ahead and fuck your daughter"
Not putting people in jail for stuff is NOT the same as saying it is "fine."
I think adultery and divorce are highly immoral. But I don't think the government needs to prosecute anyone for either.
So if we're asking
What's the NEW normal?
we do understand that "new normal" is an oxymoron, right?
Will someone please let me know when we've finally "gotten there", that glorious state of societal enlightenment and the right amount of freedom and rights.
(PS When we get there please also send me the correct jargon so I will call these new relationship the right names. Is it life partner, significant other, partner, spouse or other?
I'm not talking about sending anyone to jail, I'm talking about society. I wonder how many people really have a moral system that is more accepting of incest than failure to recycle. Certainly millions.
Oh, I understand. And it's a question I ask of gay marriage supporters who cringe and shiver at the very mention of group marriage.
I usually follow up with something like: "At least the pluming matches up."
The two obstacles for liberals:
1) polygamy is a diversion, a ploy, by social conservative critics of same sex marriage.
2) polygamy is inherently sexist/anti-woman.
So, you are good to go with Polyandry then?
I am.
I hear that California will require teaching the history of polygamy in schools next year.
I hear that California will require teaching the history of polygamy in schools next year.
But only if everyone involved is also homosexual and lesbian or transgendered.
It's none of my business.
But, conservatives do support a right to privacy in other contexts, just generally not where one human gets to murder another under the cloak of privacy.
The "Constitutional Right to Privacy" exists only because some blackrobes said so.
Just like blackrobes ruled in Plessy.
Uh huh.
"Not putting people in jail for stuff is NOT the same as saying it is "fine.""
Well, clearly there is no "shame" in our society any longer so without some legal restriction anything goes.
Which is the same thing as saying it is fine.
NAMBLA is no doubt watching this case with great interest.
And don't say it could never happen, because shit that we say will never happen often does when we, you know, start down a slippery slope.
I mean, didn't some 50-something actor just marry a 16 year old girl with her parent's permission? The law says she could at that age, so what stops the law restricting it to that age being declared unconstitutional.
The key term here is "consenting adults".
Children and animals don't fit that condition.
As far as bestiality goes, I find it disgusting. But as long as you own the animal or have the owner's permission and it doesn't cause harm to the beast...
Tolerance people, tolerance.
Not to be confused with acceptance, love or subsidy.
"... the right to live your life according to your own values and faith."
Obamacare says otherwise. The government's policies say otherwise.
Why should he get special consideration?
The other question is, how does this work tax-wise & for SSI, and those other gov't programs?
WHy should I support someone's 3 or more wives & their gaggle of kids?
But, conservatives do support a right to privacy in other contexts
Not sure this is entirely true. I, for one, don't see ANY right to privacy in the Constitution. What I do see is power not so mentioned reserved to the various states or the people. I'm not sure this is quite the same as a "right" to privacy.
Read Katherine Graham to find out how much "consent" goes into "consensual" incest. I can't imagine a crueler form of psychological torture.
WHy should I support someone's 3 or more wives & their gaggle of kids?
Why do you now support someone's four or five babymommas and their gaggle?
That's a good rhetorical move if what's really going on is that liberals resist showing favor to polygamy because it's done by people they don't like: Christianity-motivated traditionalists.
I admit to being confused by this statement in the original post. I think of myself as a "Christianity-motivated traditionalist". Heck, I am an ultramontane R/C. But, I don't support polygamy as a useful lifestyle choice—either simultaneous or serial.
Regards — Cliff
"Civil libertarians should not be scared away by the arguments of people like Justice Scalia,"
Civil libertarians don't worry much about Justice Scalia. They know quite well that the most profound threats to freedom come from the left.
I'll see your plural marriage and raise you the first and second amendments, school choice, and property rights.
OT -
Prof. Reynolds just noted a new book by Sippican Cottage - how many current commenters were around for Sippican's time here?
I'll see your plural marriage and raise you the first and second amendments, school choice, and property rights.
HOWARD JOHNSON IS RIGHT!!!
WV - "sworm" - a huge flying mass of worms.
"Children and animals don't fit that condition."
Legally in most cases, a parent is allowed to give permission for their child. What's to stop a parent from giving permission for his or her 12 year old daughter or son to marry if the law does not restrict it? Who determines consent? A liberal judge?
Oh, and to make this little slope even slicker, add in Sharia law which is on it's way to a courthouse near you.
The issue has always been Sin.
If there is no Sin standard, then incest, sexual abuse of young teens by elders(a/k/a polygamy), sex with goats, sex in public, and sex with slaves bought from the impoverished parents all rank equally among the most sacred freedoms of a free people.
Sure people do all of those sinful conducts all of the time.
The traditional question has been whether leaders should condemn it or approve the practices, and join in themselves.
Does the Constitution now suddenly forbid such standards in our laws?
Maybe it does.
The traditional views came from simply reading scriptures in Judeo-Christian heritage which promise the same judgement of God upon a people as has been earned by their leaders' conduct.
Good and evil societies are viewed as created from the top down. That has always been true in my experiences.
add in Sharia law which is on it's way to a courthouse near you
To overtly allow separate legal systems for different segments of the population is to be aid in the acceleration of the second American civil war. I simply don't think people will stand for it.
If it advances the Welfare State, apparently anything suddenly becomes a right if you're a Lefty.
What's fascinating is that these people, who are supposed to be soooo smart (just ask Jeremy), accept stuff like this without a second's reflection or criticism.
And then they will say Conservatives can't think without listening to Rush.
Ann Althouse said...
Note that he's not asking for the state to recognize plural marriage as marriage. He just wants to be rid of the threat of criminal prosecution.
That's what happens when you break the law.
"the right to live your life according to your own values and faith."
The Mormons don't support polygamy. It was the price for entering the Union.
Royce D. said...
As a libertarian, I support Gay Marriage.
I also support polygamy, polyandry, group marriage and adult incest.
Any structure that helps adults to be happy and supports the rearing of healthy and productive children...
But the polygamists are not happy (certainly the wives are miserable) and the kids grow up on welfare.
As for incest, take a look at Appalachia.
"to aid"...sorry for the sentence fragmenting up there...
Let's see, abort more female sack -o cells than male -
Give some guy 4 wives while others have none.
The law of supply & demand will work.
& so does war.
Man has a purpose - he hunts for his family. Take that away, don't U want Taiwan back?
When life was brutal, polygamy made sense - cos man worked from sun to sun but a woman's work was never done.
Now that we don't have to shlep water from the river, wash clothes in the river, prepackaged food, light at the flick of a finger, life is good, does it really make economic sense?
Western Civ didn't do so bad even w/the perception of the "traditional nuclear" family.
Why in the hell does everything come down to sex with the boomers?
They're stunted at age 2.
So, you are good to go with Polyandry then?
I am.
Actually, in the areas where it is practiced, polyandry essentially works out to sexual slavery for a group of men (in many cases a group of brothers who are keeping family property in one line of inheritance). You'd think the lone woman would be treasured and treated like a queen, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I honestly think if I had to choose between polygyny and polyandry, I'd pick polygyny.
Isn't all this rather silly? Isn't this like arguing about which bottle the genie came from?
Ann and all the other supporters of SSM have what they wanted. Now they can nod their heads sagely and explain why it made sense at the time to support it. (Sound familar, Ann?)
Then when marriage becomes a quaint ritual that people used to actually respect but is now a way to "express yourself", then we can all wonder why we thought it was important in the first place.
Here we are, folks. Hope you're all proud...
Err, that work out as sexual slavery TO a group of men.
Sorry about that.
But the polygamists are not happy (certainly the wives are miserable) and the kids grow up on welfare.
Technically speaking, polygamy can consist of multiple husbands. Wouldn't two couples marrying each other also count under such laws? Frankly, having four incomes under one roof would rock. And if I had to move something heavy, I could just ask my husband, after he's done boinking one of our two wifes, that is. Hell...you'd have a spotter for weighlifting, someone to fish with, you'd only have to cut the grass every OTHER week, and you'd still get threesomes with two chicks any time you want.
Hmm...
"The issue has always been Sin.
If there is no Sin standard, then incest, sexual abuse of young teens by elders(a/k/a polygamy), sex with goats, sex in public, and sex with slaves bought from the impoverished parents all rank equally among the most sacred freedoms of a free people.
Sure people do all of those sinful conducts all of the time.
The traditional question has been whether leaders should condemn it or approve the practices, and join in themselves.
Does the Constitution now suddenly forbid such standards in our laws?
Maybe it does.
The traditional views came from simply reading scriptures in Judeo-Christian heritage which promise the same judgement of God upon a people as has been earned by their leaders' conduct.
Good and evil societies are viewed as created from the top down. That has always been true in my experiences."
Sin, and the shame that used to come from committing it, is a dying concept in our nation - from the top down as you say. Liberals loath it and are doing everything in their power to kill it.
OT a bit though, you're going to annoy the heck out of athiests with this. Which is kewl.
"I can't imagine a crueler form of psychological torture."
If you are referring to parent child incest when the child is a minor - I agree. Children cannot enter into a adult relationship of any kind.
What about an adult brother and sister? What right do you have to impose your notion of torture on them? And with the knowledge we have of the human genome, we can minimize the chance of nasty recessives. So the practical objection to incest loses its importance.
Again, I find incest gross and rather bizarre. But no more than I find actual male homosexual activity.
My limbic reaction does not keep me from having gay friends and being respectful to them. I have a gay brother who I love very much and I consider his partner my brother as well.
Of course, hot lesbian sex is exempt from the disgusting homosexual activity reactionary thingy.
wait... masturbation is illegal?
The fines for that should produce a budget surplus in record time.
Of course, hot lesbian sex is exempt from the disgusting homosexual activity reactionary thingy.
Goes without saying.
I think it's just poetic justice that all the married breeders are now threatened with having to share their privileged space with the extreme breeders.
As a single childfree guy supporting all this Nanny State breeding while being denied the 1000 special privileges available to married breeders, I hope to see marriage become so confused that it is ultimately abolished or reduced to a mere religious sacrament not involving the gummint in any way.
It's ironic that all those conservative married breeders now are faced with the spectacle of polygamous families sharing in their tax deductions, breeding credits, family insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance privileges, while traditional family combinations like cohabiting grandmother-grandson and brother-sister are still mostly denied them.
WHy should I support someone's 3 or more wives & their gaggle of kids?
Why do you now support someone's four or five babymommas and their gaggle?
Because the "progressives" or the death cult
has destroyed the "traditional nuclear" family for the sake of tolerance?
That's what 50 years of damage has done, what do you think this will do?
This is about freedom from responsibility. If it feels good, do it. Damm the cost to society.
Which is really amusing, cos the socialists r all about the community. We must do this, not do that for the good of the community.
This is about giving in to your baser instincts. We were supposed to be striving to be better than that.
"To overtly allow separate legal systems for different segments of the population is to be aid in the acceleration of the second American civil war. I simply don't think people will stand for it."
I agree . . . to a point. I don't believe AMERICANS will stand for it. However, Great Britian is already falling to it and other European nations as well.
And even parts of America will fall to it because it will slowly creep into those liberal states first.
Then of course, comes the civil war.
As a single childfree guy supporting all this Nanny State breeding while being denied the 1000 special privileges available to married breeders,
How about all those unmarried 'breeders' that you are supporting through the welfare state that rewards them by giving more money for each kid they can pop out?
Good with that are you?
It's ironic that all those conservative married breeders now are faced with the spectacle of polygamous families sharing in their tax deductions, breeding credits, family insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance privileges, while traditional family combinations like cohabiting grandmother-grandson and brother-sister are still mostly denied them.
Not sure if you're actually attempting irony. It just comes across as ignorant bigotry. Ignorant being used here in it's actual definition, or, in other words, clueless.
I agree . . . to a point. I don't believe AMERICANS will stand for it.
My apologies. Americans was implied if not listed. I'm well aware of what's happening oversees and fully believe those peoples will rue the day they started down that path.
While this gentleman is not asking for legal recognition of plural marriages, that does not mean that the argument stops with him. There WILL be individuals who want legal recognition for said marriages for the purposes of inheritance laws, legitimization of children, access to health care and access to other services (government or private).
The fact that we will provide government support for single women with illegitimate children but castigate polygamy is the 'in' that this argument has. Illegitimacy is no longer uncommon or, in some circles, something to be ashamed of. Marriage itself is being redefined to include same-sex unions. Given all of this, why should polygamous marriage remain illegal? And once that step has been made, why shouldn't polygamous marriages be given the enforcement of law?
After all, if a second (or third, or fourth . . .) wife leaves, currently, her demand for support and so forth is tenuous because of the lack of legal recognition for this relationship. She may have formed strong bonds with some of the children (from other mothers) that were in the family. Why shouldn't she have a right to continue that relationship (step-parents have that right?)? What about access to health care, pensions, social security, etc that would be passed on only to the first wife? Shouldn't the other wives have access to these as well?
These are the arguments that will be made if we continue on this path.
Hey Dust Bunny Queen,
An unmarried breeder is just as unprivileged as I am as a single person when it comes to marital tax rates and spousal insurance offered in unemployment.
An unmarried breeder is often smart, responding well to and benefiting from Nanny State incentives without polluting her life with man.
Technically speaking, polygamy can consist of multiple husbands
Technically, that is polyandry.
My hubby (The Dumbplumber) and I were jokingly talking about this topic just now.
I could have a husband to do the manly things around the house and in the yard that require strength, like build that new fence around the raised bed garden to keep the deer out.
While the other husband can go off to do the plumbing business and make money.
The other other husband can handle the finances and legal stuff and also have a second job to support all of us.
This leaves me with all the housework and cooking for three men. Not to mention scheduling sexual activities so no one feels slighted.
Who is going to make cocktails at the end of the day for all of us?
Wooah!!!I'm gonna need a wife!!!
This is about giving in to your baser instincts. We were supposed to be striving to be better than that.
Because if we allow the "progressives" with their death cult to give in to their baser instincts, pretty soon women will be allowed to drive, young men will be putting gel in their hair, and nobody will listen to the Basij anymore.
Technically, that is polyandry
Technically, you're right.
Oh Christ, Royce give yourself a break. Your "limbic reaction" interests me not at all. Stop thinking in stupid "you're just a breeder pluraphobe!" splurts and pay attention to the argument. There's a reason societies develop taboos, mores, etc. that involve even things as private as sexuality. It's not because people are "skeeved out" by things so much as that certain things do not contribute to healthy families, communities or societies. If you really think fucking your sister (or brother) is no different than if it were your unrelated spouse, you're on a whole different plane. And it's not Libertarianism.
It's hilarious that all these defenders of "traditional marriage" seem ignorant of the fact that polygamy and single childfree-ness have numerous models and proponents in the Bible (the Patriarchs, Jesus and Paul), while the only example we have of a "traditional marriage" is the one suffered by Job!
Scott M said...
But the polygamists are not happy (certainly the wives are miserable) and the kids grow up on welfare.
Technically speaking, polygamy can consist of multiple husbands. Wouldn't two couples marrying each other also count under such laws?
Polygamy consists of polyandry (many husbands) and polygyny (many wives). The problem with polyandry, as well as the newer polyamory, is that you may have problems telling whose kids belong to whom. DNA testing can help, but you're still getting into a very murky swamp when things reach the "falling out of" whatever stage and both "parents" don't want the kid(s).
PS Royce is the reason Libertarians will always be a fringe movement.
And they will always wonder why.
An unmarried breeder is just as unprivileged as I am as a single person when it comes to marital tax rates and spousal insurance offered in unemployment
I realize that. If you look at my profile and read some of my posts you know that I am all over the financial and tax inequities of the government being involved with marriage.
In FACT this is my main reasoning for not supporting gay or same sex marriage at this time.
Not because I am opposed to same sex marriage, but because pushing for SSM without changing the tax treatment, Social Security survivor rules, inheritance tax laws, insurance taxation......doesn't change anything other than to be able to use the word 'marriage' and to succeed in pissing off the religious right.
In addition, your use of the term 'breeder' just pisses me off and I cannot take you seriously, because it shows that you are not dealing with the topic objectively and have some sort of an agenda.
Among the many things that need be pointed out to Dust Bunny Queen is that polyandry is a type of polygamy, as is polygyny.
"There's a reason societies develop taboos, mores, etc. that involve even things as private as sexuality. It's not because people are "skeeved out" by things so much as that certain things do not contribute to healthy families, communities or societies."
Taboos like eating bacon and drinking booze?
Who gets to decide whether a taboos are serious enough that they should be enforced by the barrel of a gun? The majority in charge?
And if Fred Sanford had remarried, that would've been poly-Esther...
... pretty soon women will be allowed to drive, young men will be putting gel in their hair, and nobody will listen to the Basij anymore.
Facile.
wv: obvjula - this is bound to be a real word in Romanian.
"Of course, hot lesbian sex is exempt from the disgusting homosexual activity reactionary thingy."
It's also a myth. At least in Madison.
"The problem with polyandry, as well as the newer polyamory, is that you may have problems telling whose kids belong to whom. DNA testing can help."
DNA testing can *help*?
You tell me Driver. We enforce recycling rules "at the point of a gun" (drama queen much?), is that cool?
It's also a myth. At least in Madison.
Only the "hot" part. I'm sure there's plenty of lesbian sex in Madison, but it strikes me that it's mostly of the Unshorn Sisters Of The Apocalypse sort.
Why would this issue be easier for libertarians than liberals?
Because libertarians are so committed to abstract principles at the expense of practical outcomes that they don't care about the real threat to gay rights that comes from associating it with the right to polygamy? Or simply because they don't actually care about gay rights?
It seems to me that anyone who cares about gay rights (which ostensibly includes libertarians) should be concerned about too hastily connecting them to the right to polygamy.
Procreation had always been seen as a social good.
It adds to a society's numbers to defend itself and also to expand. (See, How the West Was Won). Empty land with great resources has been treated as a signal for an increase of procreation ASAP.
The malthusian Greens Party with roots in the 1800s Eugenics and Scientific Marxism sees procreation as an evil activity because it does do what people always wanted it to do, as set forth above.
So the Green's antidotes to population growth are new public policies that favor:
1) free abortion on demand, and
2)glamorizing the Gay lifestyle, and
3)Famines from restriction of food production by shorting the available energy sources while using corn for energy,and
4) cutting back sharply on medical delivery outside of government control, and
5) Plagues of antibiotic resistant pathogens erupting suddenly from germ warfare experimental labs, and,
6) Ethnic strife leading to wars of attrition in stalemate mode.
The greatest generation is gone now.
We are faced with the Deception Generation which has not got a clue about the values fathers and their families.
D.D. Driver said...
"The problem with polyandry, as well as the newer polyamory, is that you may have problems telling whose kids belong to whom. DNA testing can help."
DNA testing can *help*?
Last I heard, DNA can eliminate people from consideration, it can't specify whodunit.
t-man wrote:
Prof. Reynolds just noted a new book by Sippican Cottage - how many current commenters were around for Sippican's time here?
*raises hand*
I recall reading him here. He was witty and loquacious. Something happened and he left. Later, he deleted all his comments here so it's hard to piece together what happened but I suspect that it involved four strong winds and the resulting vortex. JMO
The greatest generation is gone now.
We are faced with the Deception Generation which has not got a clue about the values fathers and their families.
Our kids, those not yet in high school, are going to have to be the Bravest Generation or it's all going to go swirly.
Oh, horse feathers!
We've been having a cultural revolution since the 1960's. What was most formative was the postponement of teenager sex. Abortions stopped the adoption industry cold.
Women didn't have to be married when they did become moms.
Marriages split up. And, the rules changed.
Homosexuality became more accepted. Even though there had been places were homosexuals gathered and lived their lives openly.
Then, the push was on to "go a little further" ... and to claim "monogamous relationships with religious vows." And, the culture climate found itself pushed back on ... with the "old fashioned" ideas.
They solved this in france, in a better way. The word marriage isn't in the deal. The word UNION is in the deal. And, it's available to anyone who doesn't want the religious marriage. Perhaps, it was meant for homosexuals? But it's a very popular means in france for couples to enter a "union." Without entering marriage.
And, if this is a pendulum ... the pendulam is swinging away from the "swingers."
In other words? If a politician is gay. And, acts on it ... there are no wedding bells. Not even for Barney Frank. (He's not the only homosexual politician elected to office, either.)
We have 50 states. Some are very different than they neighbors.
There just isn't a one-size-fits-all homosexual code that will send two guys down the aisle, together, at church.
France is a small country. Basically, communist. And, secular. The idea of adult "unions," however, turned out to have an attraction to heterosexual couples ... who wanted no part of church affairs.
When America gets serious about removing Federal oversight ... there's going to be lots of agencies ripe for cutting.
We will have lots of unemployed. But the groups of who they are will change.
And I find myself becoming less and less of a libertarian.
If the end game of libertarianism is no societal standards at all codified into law, count me out.
"We enforce recycling rules "at the point of a gun" (drama queen much?), is that cool?"
No.
"If the end game of libertarianism is no societal standards at all codified into law, count me out."
That's a strawman. There are societal standards codified into law, but those standards require a victim.
I have never met a libertarian that hasn't thought racism is shameful and repugnant. But that doesn't mean we start throwing asshole racists in jail.
Why do people struggle so much with that distinction?
Another post documenting how the New York Times keeps making better arguments against gay marriage than Maggie Gallagher and the Republicans.
People are their own worst enemies.
At some point, you have to start drawing lines, or it will never end.
Keep this up, and you'll eat away and eat away and eat away at civilized society until you have nothing left but a mass of endlessly amused barbarians. "The age in statutory rape law is arbitrary! Why should the government define love?!" "Why can't we let the Muslims in America live under their own sharia criminal code? It's their choice!"
Forget it. I'm out.
Conservative thought is almost always, in the end, proven correct, that it is the human condition to make the same mistakes over and over again.
Tradition helps us avoid those mistakes.
The US has taken the anti-tradition path.
My prediction is that this will end badly, and conservatives will be proven right, again.
Being right offers no solace, because our kids are going to have to suffer the outcomes.
So the slide into philosophical goofiness has already begun? I thought iT would take at least a decade.
If the end game of libertarianism is no societal standards at all codified into law, count me out.
That is the end of the libertarian road, but there is a spectrum of libertarian values from which to choose. Thus, it is OK for one to be fine with gay marriage but not polygamy.
Why do people struggle so much with that distinction?
You're taking your distinction too much for granted. You will start redefining victims.
Adultery, for example, there's no victim there? Abortion, no victim? Drug abuse, no victims even when the abusers have children?
You're only narrowing your definition of victim. It will narrow further if you keep it up.
Carol_Herman said...
Oh, horse feathers!
We've been having a cultural revolution since the 1960's. What was most formative was the postponement of teenager sex. Abortions stopped the adoption industry cold.
No, about 10 - 20% of the country had a "cultural" revolution - in effect, a 40 year temper tantrum. Everybody else knows it's nonsense.
And plenty of people adopt, although a lot more have to go overseas to do it.
But I do like the idea you didn't resort to profanity.
PS The Red Chinese had a Cultural Revolution, too. A really lousy idea.
Thus, it is OK for one to be fine with gay marriage but not polygamy.
I agree. But now we're talking about polygamy, so I'm responding to that.
Sharia is actually already here, and it will grow.
What all this means is that in the US everyone will be able to live according to his own "values" and will have terrific self-esteem (probably financed by the taxpayers of the future). In that process, our society will change. I would venture for the worse, but I'm a pessimist...realist.
Next up: Minnesota decriminalizes first-cousin marriages.
Seriously.
http://www.mndaily.com/2003/01/23/proposed-bill-would-legalize-first-cousin-marriages
Oh, polygamy is sooooo 2005. The next big civil rights battle will be doing away with genders. You are whatever you feel like that day. All bathrooms will be used by anyone.
...whether it is a gay or plural relationship...
Translation: the fudge packing community is the new normal. The deviant coupling of man and woman is "plural."
Here's the twisted part of this: I bet most people here would not support prosecution of adulterers. (although I bet some would). There might even be some adulterers posting comments. I bet almost everyone *knows* someone very close to them that is an adulterer.
That is not to say that we "approve" of adultery. But we don't want our dumb-ass brothers, friends, and neighbors thrown in jail for it.
What make polygamy different is not the sex with multiple partners: it's that adults are making *commitments* to one another. We are actually more comfortable if there is some deception involved.
holdfast...true. There have been many polygamist societies over the past 3,000, but never has there been a homosexual society. So how can the liberal left deny that there won't be a push for that next.
I agree. But now we're talking about polygamy, so I'm responding to that.
Gotcha! I thought you might be going all authoritarian because polygamists are attempting a libertarian argument to support their interests.
What principle are people using to make gay marriage okay, but not polygamy? Seems like this is where some libertarians split, but I can't see why.
Keep this up, and you'll eat away and eat away and eat away at civilized society until you have nothing left but a mass of endlessly amused barbarians. "The age in statutory rape law is arbitrary! Why should the government define love?!" "Why can't we let the Muslims in America live under their own sharia criminal code? It's their choice!"
The professional legal class and subclasses and support groups do not see nonsense. They see superior intellectual nuance.
After this creates general goofiness,
they'll end up living in gated communities, of course. With owners' associations having rules that limit cohabitation in areas of less than 25,000 square feet bounded by structural elevations not inside common areas to heterosexual couples. Nuance, you know.
So. readers of the Times would rather sound like a hack professor than an erudite justice?
Makes sense.
Here's the twisted part of this
That isn't twisted in the slightest. Yes, we tend to be forgiving of people who fall short of certain moral standards and not as forgiving of those who open flout those standards. That's logical, not twisted.
My prediction is that this will end badly, and conservatives will be proven right, again.
This is called, to quote a very wise, very dead, man, "bad luck".
Kind of related.......I went out for cocktails with a couple of friends last night, who in turn brought a couple of co-workers. One guy went to an expensive private college. I asked him how he could affod it. He said "because I was born in Mexico, I worked the affirmative action angle and got 2 years free. I would have gotten all 4 years covered if I were a woman also".
The one thing the guy should guarantee -- the guy being Mr Polygamy -- is that he has a functioning will that divides his Estate. If he wants to live with many 'wives' -- not in the legal sense -- the Govt should not have to clean up the inheritance mess that's created when he dies to get some peace from all that nagging.
This all presupposes that his wives can give legal informed consent (that is, they are not minors).
Having said all that, let me add that I would not want my daughter -- or son -- to enter into a polygamous marriage. But if he or she did, and I was able to discern that he or she was truly happy, I'd accept it.
openly even
"Why can't we let the Muslims in America live under their own sharia criminal code? It's their choice!"
This post is like a mobius strip of ideas. Sharia Law is the ultimate in codifying lifestyle choices and taboos. You should love Sharia Law.
The answer is simple: we don't want to enforce THEIR taboos. We want to enforce our awesome taboos.
What principle are people using to make gay marriage okay, but not polygamy? Seems like this is where some libertarians split, but I can't see why.
Althouse has posted about this before. Here's the link:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/03/distinguishing-gay-marriage-and.html
This is called, to quote a very wise, very dead, man, "bad luck".
Isn't Lou Reed still alive?
Thank you D.D. Driver.
I'd like to see government get out of the marriage and coitus monitoring businesses altogether and allow consenting adults to make whatever contract they wish with each other.
That is not to say that anyone should not be allowed to speak their mind.
The left and the right... so similar at times. The only difference is what each seeks to control.
"That isn't twisted in the slightest. Yes, we tend to be forgiving of people who fall short of certain moral standards and not as forgiving of those who open flout those standards. That's logical, not twisted."
So we should throw adulterers in jail if their are not discrete enough?
There is only a "right to marriage" as a State sponsored vehicle for the right of procreation, and an incentive for propagation of the citizenry. In that sense Polygymy is more of a right than "gay marriage". However the pronlem w/ polygymy is the legal system set up around it (in Islam, and Mormon) is separate from the US legal system, and the tenets of which could never be considered Constitutional or legal.
All the lesbians I have run into look and act like Janet Reno. None look like the ones in the "romance" movies (if you know what I mean).
"Scott M said...
Only the "hot" part. I'm sure there's plenty of lesbian sex in Madison, but it strikes me that it's mostly of the Unshorn Sisters Of The Apocalypse sort. "
Yep. Yep.
Isn't Lou Reed still alive?
Technically, perhaps, in the same sense Keith Richards is. Wrong wise guy, though.
WV - "copifi" - when you don't have enough time to cop an entire feel.
This post is like a mobius strip of ideas. Sharia Law is the ultimate in codifying lifestyle choices and taboos. You should love Sharia Law.
The answer is simple: we don't want to enforce THEIR taboos. We want to enforce our awesome taboos.
To the second paragraph, yes. To the first, no.
Our civilization and culture are superior to sharia law which is barbaric. Or are you a relativist who is afraid to say that? I'm not, so I'm not.
So we should throw adulterers in jail if their are not discrete enough?
We're not talking about throwing adulterers in jail. (Though we can, if you'd like.) We're talking about the logic or illogic of grudgingly allowing adultery to be legal while punishing polygamy. It is perfectly logical.
It all boils down to the State enforcing what "all right thinking people" believe.
Royce, which is also exactly what you're talking about doing. No matter what the cost to actual people, codify into law that anything goes. That will only erode back and back until victims are defined more and more narrowly and things are allowed that you would never have thought possible.
Althouse's take seems to be that given the sanction of gay marriage the only reasons not to sanction polygamous marriage are economic.
But it should be easy enough to even out the economic inequalities of polygamy, at least I think so (I confess somebody smarter than me will have to do it or argue that it can't be done).
Once the economic argument is dismissed, is there a RATIONAL argument against polygamy that doesn't hold against SSM?
Are you libertarians who are okay with gay marriage but not polygamous marriage using a rational principle?
Yes Freeman, as the death sentence for apostasy is perfectly logical.
Or... fill in the blank for (select your group of all right thinking people here) (whatever turns your religious/cultural crank) is perfectly logical.
Again, tolerance does not mean acceptance or subsidy.
"…liberals resist showing favor to polygamy because it's done by people they don't like: Christianity-motivated traditionalists."
Well…, that's exactly the case, isn't it? What possibly could be the liberal argument against any potential pairings or "groupings" of consenting adults?
So... Freeman would deal with "the cost to people" by criminalizing consensual, adult behavior that does not cause direct harm.
Progressives, OTOH deal with the "cost to people" by subsidizing stupid behavior.
What about having government stepping out of the way and letting natural consequences take a turn?
"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." - Bobby Heinlein
What's going to happen is that things will deteriorate to a point where any order that's imposed will be welcome - and that's when everybody will learn to love Sharia.
Germany had a similar problem (Cabaret, old chum?) about 80 years ago.
Royce D. said...
Thank you D.D. Driver.
I'd like to see government get out of the marriage and coitus monitoring businesses altogether and allow consenting adults to make whatever contract they wish with each other.
The problem will become all those other people who may have an interest in not recognizing those contracts.
PS I once saw a cartoon with 2 guys undressing with obvious intent toward a young woman clutching at her clothes.
The caption:
"Well, I'm a consenting adult and he's a consenting adult."
@ phx
I'm not a libertarian, so maybe I should just someone else respond, if someone else is so inclined, but...
First of all, it seems a bit weak to shrug off the economic argument when you quite freely admit that you can't address it yourself.
Secondly, if you don't buy the economic argument, there's the to-my-mind rather convincing point that polygamous relationships will result in total-nightmare custody arrangements for kids with 13, 24, or 82 "parents."
Divorce is hard enough on kids who have to shuttle back and forth between two separated parents, never mind when there are 10 of them.
Yes Freeman, as the death sentence for apostasy is perfectly logical.
Or... fill in the blank for (select your group of all right thinking people here) (whatever turns your religious/cultural crank) is perfectly logical.
Again, tolerance does not mean acceptance or subsidy.
No, not just anything you can put in the blank is logical.
And it does mean some level of acceptance. It makes them legal.
Should we, for example, allow NAMBLA type couplings? If not, why not? It's just our own cultural value that children can't be in romantic relationships with adults. Some people disagree. Some whole cultures disagree.
Obviously you have to draw lines. The question becomes where.
You're just pretending that your lines are obvious and the other guy's are arbitrary.
TMW --
"OT a bit though, you're going to annoy the heck out of athiests with this. Which is kewl."
Pray tell, why?
Alex, the best marketing campaign ever was what the homosexuals did over the past 30 years. They have taken a deviant behavior that only the most hardcore liberals approved off, and not only made it mainstream, but have now made it illegal to disapprove of.
They have even taken over very large old Protestant churches. Imagine going in a time machine back to 1960 and telling the leadership of these churches that in 2011, their churches would be huge promoters of homosexual marriage.
They know a cultural revolution is taking place.
Bullshit. You're assuming that they're thinking abstractly and objectively about the whole thing when they're doing nothing of the sort. They're browbeat from day one that it's okay and that's their takeaway. Grow up.
I'm not saying it's not happening and I'm not making a value judgement about SSM one way or the other. I'm merely stating that you're categorically wrong. The other Alex wouldn't be so wrong. You know, the Alex that posts here that's smarter than you.
"Should we, for example, allow NAMBLA type couplings? If not, why not?"
Children (and the mentally infirm) are not sophisticated enough to enter these types of relationships. Put another way, they are not capable of giving meaningful consent.
That is why libertarians talk so much about "consenting adults."
My second favorite Mencken quote:
"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
I am THE other Alex. I have always supported gay rights over the objections of you right-wing bigots.
@Trapper John:
Now you are at least making a reasonable argument against polygamy. I'm not sure it will hold under scrutiny but it's respectable and reasonable on its face.
Seems like many of the other arguments against it are visceral, just as they were against SSM.
"Children (and the mentally infirm) are not sophisticated enough to enter these types of relationships."
One time the same thing was said about Blacks.
There is in fact a revolution going on. The problem with most such revolutions is when the victors kill off the revolutionaries and there follows 2-3 generations of hell on earth.
I am THE other Alex. I have always supported gay rights over the objections of you right-wing bigots.
Your NOT and you have no idea what I believe in well enough to lump me in with some fevered imaginings of yours.
Obviously you have to draw lines. The question becomes where.
I think people need to at least articulate the reason why they draw the line where they do.
Children (and the mentally infirm) are not sophisticated enough to enter these types of relationships. Put another way, they are not capable of giving meaningful consent.
Define "child."
16 y.o?
R 16 y.o. today actually sophisticated enuf to understand the long-term ramifications?
Or would they be flattered by an older person or say, an older person in power's attentions?
Gonna allow an older 40ish person to prey on the young?
Cos that's what's gonna happen.
Civil libertarians should not be scared away by the arguments of people like Justice Scalia.
During Clinton/Monica JT used to go on The News Hour and other news outlets sounding non-partisan..
Was that a hoax?
Chuck66 said...
Alex, the best marketing campaign ever was what the homosexuals did over the past 30 years. They have taken a deviant behavior that only the most hardcore liberals approved off, and not only made it mainstream, but have now made it illegal to disapprove of.
I'd argue it really isn't mainstream, but the Demos are big into control and need the urban homosexual vote.
They have even taken over very large old Protestant churches. Imagine going in a time machine back to 1960 and telling the leadership of these churches that in 2011, their churches would be huge promoters of homosexual marriage.
Not marketing - Gramscian infiltration, "the long march through the institutions".
When you looked at "distinguished theologians" like William Sloane Coffin back then, I don't think they would have been surprised, at all.
It was already on the agenda.
There is in fact a revolution going on. The problem with most such revolutions is when the victors kill off the revolutionaries and there follows 2-3 generations of hell on earth.
I think the revolution that overthrew Communism made that less certain than it used to be.
"I think people need to at least articulate the reason why they draw the line where they do."
We have articulated it. Over and over. But liberals don't listen. And don't care. Even when what we predicted is coming true.
Communism didn't end by revolution, but by dissolution.
Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Hitler, Hugo, Sanger
Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Hitler, Hugo, Sanger
Weren't they all married?
Communism didn't end by revolution, but by dissolution.
I thought it was the long cargo trains full of rotting grain right next to a city of starving people.
Yes Freeman, I'll draw my line at children and not believe that I'm logically inconsistent in the least. Simply put, children are not adults.
I'm talking about logic within our culture - broadly defined as a classic liberal society based on limited government, the rule of law and the primacy of the individual - and pointing out inconsistencies with some who claim to be true to that culture. When, in fact they selectively construct the rules as they go.
Now, if you are against gay marriage as well as forms of group marriage; more power to you. We disagree, but you are at least sitting on a three legged stool.
So, yeah I admit to drawing the line. Just not as with as much cultural caprice as some.
Communism didn't end by revolution, but by dissolution.
As if Solidarity never existed.
Now go ahead, make your rebuttal and let's get back OT.
Now the obligatory
"correlation is not causation."
From the Op/ed "there is just a right of privacy that protects all people so long as they do not harm others. "
Here we have liberals, who usually argue for social-ist like principles taking the extreme individualist position.
What's interesting is the play between individual rights vs. society. It is true that polygamy and same sex marriage, etc. are at the extreme end, causing no harm to individuals, but it does create harm in the societal sense that it forcibly transforms and redefines something that society does not wish to be redefined. In that sense, the interests of society are harmed in order to further the desires of certain individuals.
Strange to see such a flip-flop, but ultimately the principled positions employed by both liberals and conservatives are only tactics in pursuit of their goals. Liberals pursuing an amoralist, relativist cultural mindset while conservatives are more concerned with increasing morality from a Judeo-Christian perspective -- I hasten to add this does not mean they want their God to be required worship for everyone, but rather want a society which encourages the kinds of practices their God likes.
Just not as with as much cultural caprice as some.
Are those the common, shared morals and traditions that go down past the knee?
I have gotten into the slippery slope argument over at volokh.com in this area on multiple occasions. My view is that polygamy has traditionally been accepted throughout history, and gay marriage has not. It is mentioned on multiple occasions in the Old Testament, and Paul cautioned against bishops and deacons having more than one wife in the New (which I think implies that he accepted polygamy for everyone else). And, don't forget, that the religion of better than a billion people on this planet right now condones polygamy. And, yet, same sex marriage has little, if any, historical support.
Of course, the Religion of Peace, which approves of polygamy (limited apparently to 4 wives, so they allow for concubines above that number) also does not seem to condemn bestiality all that much, if we are to believe the UAV handlers watching Afghan men routinely buggering their sheep at night.
In any case, I just can't get worked up to oppose any of this. I just don't think that we would see all that much polygamy if it were legal. With women tending towards being better educated than men in our country, I just don't see all that many of them putting up with it.
"During Clinton/Monica JT used to go on The News Hour and other news outlets sounding non-partisan..
Was that a hoax?"
Turley is a former professor of mine. Politically he is tough to pin down with a label. I would describe him as pretty far left. But he is not a partisan stooge. He was a big defender of Citizen's United, for example.
Chuck66 --
"Children (and the mentally infirm) are not sophisticated enough to enter these types of relationships."
One time the same thing was said about Blacks.
Which was an obvious lie. Are you by chance promoting that children and the mentally infirm *are* sophisticated enough to enter into them?
I think one of the reasons the hard left is such a big supporter of gay marriage, is that it gives them a tool to use to attack traditional institutions:
Salvation Army
Boy Scouts
Catholic Church
Yes Freeman, I'll draw my line at children and not believe that I'm logically inconsistent in the least. Simply put, children are not adults.
I can at least respect someone who knows and admits that they are being logically inconsistent in their arguments.
Logic first, IMO, but logic doesn't always trump everything.
Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Hitler, Hugo, Sanger
If they were all married, Sanger would've been one tired woman.
FWIW... I'm a straight, married man who's been in a monogamous marriage with the same woman for 30 years.
I find very amusing the antics and angst of the folks who believe that gay or alternate forms of marriage are a threat to the institution, considering how straights have shat on it for the last 50 years.
In his dissent in Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia said the case would mean the legalization of “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”
This clown made it to the Supreme Court believing that fornication and mastubation are illegal?!
Good God, doesn't the legal "profession" have any standards at all?
I have yet to near the 13th Amendment argument to outlaw polygamy.
But it is plain on the face of it. Servitude ain't legal here.
That is also the best legal argument against Sharia slave makers.
Crap, need a proofer - "not logically inconsistent..."
All the lesbians I have run into look and act like Janet Reno. None look like the ones in the "romance" movies (if you know what I mean).
I think that in my limited existence, this seems to be generally true. A friend of mine showed me a picture of her and her new girlfriend. And, yes, it was easy to pick them out for just that reason.
But there are exceptions.
I was at a club in Scottsdale a couple of years ago, and was flirting with one woman at a table on the dance floor. At break, I used the singer (whom I know) to introduce us. And, after the singer left, the other woman made it absolutely clear that I was poaching. Both of them were quite attractive. Obviously though, the one I had been flirting with was somewhat bi, or her date would not have been so aggressive protecting her property.
"I have yet to near the 13th Amendment argument to outlaw polygamy."
That's not a bad argument. In fact, perhaps all marriages are illegal under the 13th Amendment!
Is President Obama the first President to be the product of a polygamous family?
Is President Obama the first President to be the product of a polygamous family?
I think you have to stare into a mirror and say something about Obama's family three times before Mick appears, but why tempt fate?
What if polygamy cases generally involved a woman with multiple husbands - would the liberal civil liberties establishment have a cause they could get excited about?
Olign....I am mocking the liberals who equate gay sex with being black.
Every arguement against changing the definition of marriage gets a comparison to Jim Crow Black history.
D.D. Driver --
"That's not a bad argument. In fact, perhaps all marriages are illegal under the 13th Amendment!"
Mutual benefit is not servitude. Good point for a divorce in a terrible marriage though.
Crap, hadn't thought of that. I'm at least half-kidding about the polygamous Prez, but wouldn't his family "qualify" as polygamous? Maybe not, but I do know that Dad was a ramblin' man with little regard for the niceties of nuptial licensure.
Chuck66 --
Sorry. I just figured that out while rereading the thread. Apologies.
OK, proof Blogger reads the comment section for wv - sheeple.
in the end, we'll all marry our parents to avoid the estate tax.
"I find very amusing the antics and angst of the folks who believe that gay or alternate forms of marriage are a threat to the institution, considering how straights have shat on it for the last 50 years."
Now that makes a lot of sense. You acknowledge that the institution (one you evidently value since you've been married so long) is going through tough times, yet you amused at the - obviously valid now that we are seeing them - concerns of additional stress placed on it by gay marriage and all that is sure to follow.
How about all those unmarried 'breeders' that you are supporting through the welfare state that rewards them by giving more money for each kid they can pop out?
Good with that are you?
Exactly.
The progressive liberal mindset so idolizes the poor (some as a reflection of their own desire to return to a perceived care and responsibility-free existence, others as a capital 'D' Democratic vote plantation) that the thought of responsible, self-reliant, tax-paying adults playing by the long-established rules and traditions brings about a sort of gag reflex in which they 'puke, just a little', in their own mouths.
They throw around words like 'breeders' with their eyes all but rolling out of their sockets in their eagerness to demonstrate how brilliantly cynical they are.
The sooner they all choke on their own vomit, the happier I'll be.
Well...his father, grandfather and brother are/were all polygamists.
Imagine if a Republican came from that background.
C'Mooooon TWM, you been called. Explain the cheap shot.
What makes you think atheists will be annoyed by this? Anything other than religious bigotry?
As a practicing attorney who maintains an academic interest in Con Law I will be fascinated to see whether Scalia concludes that Lawrence requires, under the principle of stare decisis, the extension of marital rights to polygamous couples, as his dissent in Lawrence suggested. This case could create some fascinating splits and flip-flops on the Court.
As a conservative libertarian I would like nothing more than to see government get out of policing the institution of marriage.
And as someone who has lived for years with one foot planted in the BDSM subculture I have know many poly-amorous households over years. Some are headed by men. Some are headed by women. Some have children. Some do not. Some are gay/lesbian/bisexual. Some are exclusively hetero. Everyone involved is a high-functioning member of everyday society. Outside the home you would never recognize them as being different. They work, own businesses, pay taxes, coach kids sports, volunteer in schools, organize food drives, drive minivans to charity bake sales. What goes on behind their closed doors is their business and their business alone. Government has no business criminalizing consensual relationships between adults solely because the relationships fall outside established norms of sexual propriety.
X --
"in the end, we'll all marry our parents to avoid the estate tax."
I am simply *not* that interested in money.
"I was going to observe, that the insatiable desire of this and the neglect of other things introduces the change in democracy, which occasions a demand for tyranny"
"...When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil cupbearers presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable and give a plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs"
"...The last extreme of popular liberty is when the slave bought with money, whether male or female, is just as free as his or her purchaser; nor must I forget to tell of the liberty and equality of the two sexes in relation to each other"
"...And above all, I said, and as the result of all, see how sensitive the citizens become; they chafe impatiently at the least touch of authority and at length, as you know, they cease to care even for the laws, written or unwritten; they will have no one over them"
Some Greek doomsaying from about 2300 years ago. Food for thought. Happy Thursday!
blythe_masters --
"What goes on behind their closed doors is their business and their business alone."
Unless destructive to any of the individuals, I agree.
Problem is, they feel they can advertise and shouldn't be then criticized.
Open the doors, deal with the disagreement.
First, presume society has a right to preserve itself from destruction.
Then look to that great social petri dish, African-Americans, that progressives and liberals have thrown everything at in the last forty years to see what happens.
Result: the family structure destroyed, the majority of A-As live in or very proximal to drug-infested, hyperviolent neighborhoods of one type or another, hopeless and without trust...lost. That will happen to society eventually, with this goofiness descending upon us.
Wait-wait-wait! Scalia is telling us that masturbation could be made legal?! If it's not, then I think a lot of us are scofflaws. And I notice that he wears glasses, so didn't do it up to the point of blindness...
TWM - As a married man I don't see gay marriage as a threat.
I do see most of the protestations of many married (and divorced) straights against gay marriage as a form of projection.
"And as someone who has lived for years with one foot planted in the BDSM subculture I have know many poly-amorous households over years."
...and the other foot in a bear trap.
I'm kidding. (Half-joking)
And I agree with you on all points.
D D Driver...The one on one marriage is not servitude. But the group on the young recruit marriage certainly looks like it to me.
Servitude has also always been practiced. Ask the Arabs.
But we used a morality based argument to outlaw it. We said servitude is theft.
I think servitude is a cruel trick that ends a servant's false hope the day the master is finished and keeps everything.
The Judeo-Christian traditions refuse the core concept behind slavery which is that some people are born masters and some people are born slaves.
@Royce
Of course you do.
It's always "projection" or a "phobia". Nobody who disagrees can be anything but mentally infirm. Such open-minded folks, these oh-so concerned libertarians.
Oligonicella - gays and all that do not cause direct harm to others should be able to freely live in the open.
They should not be immune from criticism. They should be protected by the law from direct harm (and hurt feelings don't count) from those that disapprove.
Such open-minded folks, these oh-so concerned libertarians.
You don't have to be open-minded at all to be a libertarian. In fact, being principled on given issues would suggest the opposite is true. The proof in the pudding is how pragmatic you are and how much strength that case-by-case pragmatism has in relation to the strengths of your principles.
"D D Driver...The one on one marriage is not servitude. But the group on the young recruit marriage certainly looks like it to me."
Why not? What is a wealth heiress marries an 18 year old man and lords his wealth over him? That should be illegal, right?
In just about every marriage or relationship there is bound to be a disparity of power. That doesn't equate marriage with bondage (not the fun kind).
Have people really lost perspective over what "slavery" was?
""The problem with polyandry, as well as the newer polyamory, is that you may have problems telling whose kids belong to whom. DNA testing can help."
DNA testing can *help*? "
It can, at best, establish who the biological father is. It won't resolve claims about who the "psychological" father is, if you follow me.
Royce D. -
Then, overall, we agree I think.
One problem that won't disappear is various people defining harm.
I'm a libertarian who opposes redefining marriage to include same sex relationships. Why? Because the end result will be going after religious institutions' tax exempt status because they refuse to perform gay marriages. Oh, I'm also an agnostic.
Being a libertarian also means not letting your personal prejudices (of which I have more than plenty) override your principles, even if you can dress you prejudices up in "logic", "pragmatism" and some self-serving concept of "cultural survival".
Royce D. --
"and some self-serving concept"
Everyone is self-serving, so that's a push.
Another interesting data point.
Conservatives trotting out chattel slavery as a worn out straw man.
Just like the...
Being a libertarian also means not letting your personal prejudices (of which I have more than plenty) override your principles, even if you can dress you prejudices up in "logic", "pragmatism" and some self-serving concept of "cultural survival".
I don't know why you are claiming this for libertarians. It's just intellectual integrity, regardless of the group you belong to or the ideology you subscribe to.
Are you in marketing?
As I suspected, the hard core libertarians think the child line is sacrosanct. Nevermind that our age definitions of adult are entirely arbitrary. Nevermind that other people and cultures disagree.
"No lines! No lines! Except that one, of course!"
Recruiting young women into polygamous marriage and raising children in polygamous marriages, A-OK. They're not victims, and society has no interest in holding to certain standards. It will be great when this is accepted and rich, powerful people keep scads of spouses. Couldn't possibly be destabilizing and eroding of society's moral core.
Ha.
Maybe we need universal checks for near-sightedness.
Granted, but acknowledging that we are all self serving and - to the best of one's abilities - using that self awareness to develop and live one's principles.
That's the work.
Royce D. --
"Just like the..."
Just like the what? That's a partial sentence, not a logical *or* illogical argument.
Granted, but acknowledging that we are all self serving and - to the best of one's abilities - using that self awareness to develop and live one's principles.
Yes, THAT seems like a true libertarian concept.
Being a libertarian also means not letting your personal prejudices (of which I have more than plenty) override your principles, even if you can dress you prejudices up in "logic", "pragmatism" and some self-serving concept of "cultural survival".
Being a (insert ideology here) is the same. It's not reserved to libertarians alone (speaking as one). My pragmatism point was made to mirror real life, not textbook examples of -isms.
Post a Comment