Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah Anti-Polygamy Law

[traderdan]

You are mixing the OT and NT. Read - Matthew 19:8. Polygamy is not what God wanted. He allowed it but it came at a hard price. Jacob, David, and Solomon all had major problems because they took multiple wives.

WOW!! There is someone else on this forum that understands something about the Good Book!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Give it time. Gay marriage, sodomy and interracial marriage were also against the law at one point.

Yes, and we now have more freedom to choose how we live and society didn't collapse on itself because a white man could marry a black woman. However, as I keep pointing out, this case has nothing to do with marriage in its legal sense. The initial filing specifically agrees that the state has the right to regulate issuing multiple marriage licenses. There activities would have been legal in Utah if he'd legally divorced his first wife, and wouldn't have been illegal to begin with in Indiana.

This case neither asks for nor grants any legal status of marriage to polygamous relationships.

 

[steveh_131]

Why not? What makes you think 50 years from now a whole new level of "enlightenment" won't look back on your prudish, quaint, narrow-minded belief on what is right and wrong and scoff? If the folks that tried to follow what they were taught in Sunday school, the ones now defending the redefinition of marriage, what Christmas really is all about, prayers in public schools, etc. can now be identified as rights-abusing zealots, you can too, some day. To pretend your definition is some universal truth is arrogant folly.

We are considering two separate arguments.

1. Our society is on a general trend towards the acceptance and promotion of immorality.

This may be true, to some degree. However, human behavior is cyclical and often predictable. We may soon see a trend in the other direction. Who knows? That said, will we ever (here in the U.S.) see a social acceptance of pedophilia? I think this is highly unlikely. Even ancient Greece didn't stoop much below pederasty. What comes next? Child sacrifices? Social acceptance of murder and rape?

If this is the natural progression then I'd be interested to see some historical precedent. If it is as certain as you seem to think it is, then it must have happened before.

This argument is legitimate, but irrelevant. #2 is the argument that is really being made in this thread and others.


2. A government acceptance of gay marriage will cause our society to accept bestiality and pedophilia.

This is the argument being made here. The sky is falling. If the government accepts gay marriage then the U.S. is headed straight into pedophile land. We must die on this hill, or children will be molested.

I don't buy it. #1 is at least rational, but #2 implies some sort of causality that strikes me as a real stretch. Maybe if you supplied some evidence it would be an easier sell.

 

[Bennettjh]

You are mixing the OT and NT. Read - Matthew 19:8. Polygamy is not what God wanted. He allowed it but it came at a hard price. Jacob, David, and Solomon all had major problems because they took multiple wives.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

But it is ok for the state to recognize your way of marriage as legitimate?

Marriage is a domain of religion wholly outside the powers of the State. The State cannot condone gay marriage because it cannot condemn gay marriage. If it weren't for the already-entrenched plunder that comes along with State recognition of marriage, this entire issue would be moot. Unfortunately, since the State has decided to cut 'married' couples tax breaks and plays favoritism within the law, everyone seeks out the distinction of marriage so that they too may plunder for the minimal State-granted benefits given to 'married' couples. Gays, polygamists, bestialists, whomever, can do whatever they please - and if they can find a church to 'marry' them - fine, I hope they enjoy their deviant ceremony which is an absolute abasement of the natural order of this world as well as my own religion. Liberty. But I do not acknowledge such deviancy as legitimate, and moreover should absolutely not be - and will not be - intimidated by the authority of the State into being forced to acknowledge it. "We're oppressed! You won't acknowledge our love as legitimate or bake us a cake! We're oppressed, we're oppressed!"

To paraphrase Trace Adkins, the Constitution protects them from the government, not from me. I remain free to not acknowledge deviancy masquerading as legitimate love and normalcy. You have the right to acknowledge it, if that's what you desire, or even to engage in such consensual activity between adults, but I don't have to acknowledge such behavior as legitimate, and I don't have to accept the premise that anything adults can do sexually is legitimate or deserving of the title of 'marriage' or deserves recognition from society as simply an 'alternate' lifestyle. 98-99% of the adult population in this country engages in heterosexual behaviors. 1-2% choose to do otherwise, and more power to them. I view such deviancy the same way as I view the Flat Earth Society: wrong, totally wrong, but still permitted to be wrong, and humorously so. Liberty.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Marriage is a domain of religion wholly outside the powers of the State. The State cannot condone gay marriage because it cannot condemn gay marriage. If it weren't for the already-entrenched plunder that comes along with State recognition of marriage, this entire issue would be moot. Unfortunately, since the State has decided to cut 'married' couples tax breaks and plays favoritism within the law, everyone seeks out the distinction of marriage so that they too may plunder for the minimal State-granted benefits given to 'married' couples. Gays, polygamists, bestialists, whomever, can do whatever they please - and if they can find a church to 'marry' them - fine, I hope they enjoy their deviant ceremony which is an absolute abasement of the natural order of this world as well as my own religion. Liberty. But I do not acknowledge such deviancy as legitimate, and moreover should absolutely not be - and will not be - intimidated by the authority of the State into being forced to acknowledge it. "We're oppressed! You won't acknowledge our love as legitimate or bake us a cake! We're oppressed, we're oppressed!"

To paraphrase Trace Adkins, the Constitution protects them from the government, not from me. I remain free to not acknowledge deviancy masquerading as legitimate love and normalcy. You have the right to acknowledge it, if that's what you desire, or even to engage in such consensual activity between adults, but I don't have to acknowledge such behavior as legitimate, and I don't have to accept the premise that anything adults can do sexually is legitimate or deserving of the title of 'marriage' or deserves recognition from society as simply an 'alternate' lifestyle. 98-99% of the adult population in this country engages in heterosexual behaviors. 1-2% choose to do otherwise, and more power to them. I view such deviancy the same way as I view the Flat Earth Society: wrong, totally wrong, but still permitted to be wrong, and humorously so. Liberty.

In other words the state just needs to be out of the marriage business.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

In other words the state just needs to be out of the marriage business.

Yes. State and society are two distinct institutions. Marriage is a distinct third institution instituted by members of the second institution, not the first institution.

 

[hornadylnl]

Yes. State and society are two distinct institutions. Marriage is a distinct third institution instituted by members of the second institution, not the first institution.

Yet many want to further entrench the states role in marriage by amending the US Constitution.

 

[mrjarrell]

Yet many want to further entrench the states role in marriage by amending the US Constitution.

As well as the Constitution of the state of Indiana.

 

[hornadylnl]

As well as the Constitution of the state of Indiana.

Good luck finding more than 1 or 2% of conservatives advocating for the state to relinquish their control of marriage. Hell, most are pissed that the government isn't involved enough.

 

[traderdan]

I am MORE than conservative on most fronts...yet I despise overbearing government much more than the poor, destructive choices many make.

 

[lucky4034]

Not sure about the applies to oranges thing.

It is absolutely an apples to oranges comparison.

Bestiality and Pedophilia are sexual acts with entities that can't give consent... Polygamy is simple marriage of more than one consenting partners....

As far as "marrying" a dog or a car or a tree or a barbie doll... again, this is where the government has little to no business recognizing self proclaimed titles. The term "Marriage" shouldn't be mentioned anywhere in any government document. Leave it between self proclaiming parties all others who wish to recognize it (or don't want to recognize it). If some guy wants to label himself "married" to his dog... I could care less and so should the government. If I want to deem myself the "King of Indiana", the state has no business paying any attention to me as long as I'm not beheading anyone.... If some hot women across the street wants to recognize me as her "King" and bake me crown shaped cookies... that is between her and I. (Just don't tell my fiance)

All of these problems are then solved and the semantics about the "true definition" of marriage can be argued in church and on internet forums.

 

[rambone]

What comes next? Child sacrifices?

We were warned this would happen when BJs were legalized.

 

[steveh_131]

We were warned this would happen when BJs were legalized.

You have no right to a beautiful BJ.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You have no right to a beautiful BJ.

The Supreme Court in Larry v. Tejas disagrees.

Lawrence v. Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[steveh_131]

The Supreme Court in Larry v. Tejas disagrees.

Lawrence v. Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whoosh.

 

[Mark 1911]

Polygamy as a form of marriage has been a norm for as long as people have been gathering together in tribes. Even the religious right cannot escape this as fact, as their holy book has numerous examples of it. It's not a want, it's an ignored norm.

You are certainly entitled to your views, and you seem more well versed on the subject of polygamy than I am, and you also seem more well versed on the subject of polygamy than on the Bible. Sure the Bible documents that polygamy was common at times in history. But you also have to read the entire message, not just the passages that seem to support your argument when taken out of context. Since you are the one basing your argument on the Bible, don't ignore that Christ explained sorta near the end, that whatever concessions were made in the Old Law, it was God's intention from the very beginning that a man should cleave to his wife, not to his wives, and that they should be two in one flesh.

Just saying, you could probably find a (much) stronger argument for polygamy than the Bible.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Whoosh.

Well, the sound is something like that.

 

[steveh_131]

Well, the sound is something like that.

Do you also think that they feel like 'bags of sand'?

 

[rambone]

Is it true that if you don't "use it," you "lose it"?