Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah Anti-Polygamy Law

[steveh_131]

I can't see any good coming from folks having homosexual relations. With or without government involvement. They need spiritual, medical and physical guidance. Not really sure what can be done about it. Pray for our leaders to make the right decisions, and vote. I would probably lean to #3 and #4 .

I don't necessarily disagree with you, although I was discussing the best political option since this is a political discussion.

That doesn't work. Don't you know that our youth are being taught that there is no right and wrong. Inside of a generation or two your reasonable "lack of consent" will not matter. Laws must be based on the unwaverable.

You think that rape will become an acceptable practice in our society inside of a generation or two?

Not sure I'm going to be able to agree with that one.

During the greatest revolution in world history, OURS, there were plenty non believing founding fathers, gasp! The difference being that then it was understood, by even these unbelieving, but learned men, that law and order must be based on principles set forth "outside of men" or they would be adjusted by men and eventually become not much more than filth. These men understood that such principles existed and had been set down and although they might not "believe" they clearly grasped the truth inherit in such a system. Thank God for these learned unbelievers. In that day and age logic and reasoning was still being taught and studied.

Which principle set forth 'outside of men' told them that it was A-OK to own other human beings?

I think their principles came directly from other men.

 

[HotD]

Apparently it's not legal in Lafayette, Indiana.

http://www.jconline.com/article/201...stiality-charges-Lafayette-man?nclick_check=1

I believe that Indiana's law proscribing such behavior, became effective in 2007.

 

[cobber]

Originally Posted by cobber

Please explain to me the legal bar that will prevent these things, as we discard tradition and morality from the equation?

The non-aggression principle would be my vote.

This will deter people from polygamy and child marriages?

How is polygamy aggressive, whereas monogamy is not?

Ditto for child marriages?

 

[steveh_131]

This will deter people from polygamy and child marriages?

How is polygamy aggressive, whereas monogamy is not?

Ditto for child marriages?

If the government is properly removed from marriage, I don't care about polygamy.

A child can not consent to a marriage or a sexual relationship. Therefore, initiating one is an act of aggression.

 

[Fourtrax]

As far fetched as it seems, yes, I believe rape can become as you describe. Why would I believe that? Well, you don't have to look very far to find instance after instance of judges who are sentencing convicted molesters to almost nothing. You don't have to look very far to find judges who are using the laws of other countries/religions to help them make decisions in OUR courtrooms. It sounds so far fetched, but it is happening.

So, yes, I believe it can happen, and yes, sooner than you think. But, I'm 46 and already see that the country I grew up in is not the country I currently live in. USA is changing fast.

There is a great little movie out there called Agenda. I'd recommend everyone on this forum find and watch it.

 

[squirrelhntr]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, although I was discussing the best political option since this is a political discussion.

I am not sure I have a "best political option" for homosexual marriage. Personally, I don't have any problem with folks doin there own thing. my neighbor is a homosexual and we are friends, his older brother was on my little league ball team.. and he keeps his place better looking than anyone on the block (not that that matters) just sayin. anyway, I don't pressure folks to except my life style, and I want the same treatment. as an example if you hate guns fine. don't call me a right wing gun nut if I like em. If you like to abort a perfectly harmless, helpless human. fine don't call me a bible thumpin rightwing nut because I don't. if joe wants to marry sam. fine don't call me a rightwing homophobe nut or teach it to my grandkids. cause I don't. the looney left is always trying to ram their bad tasting agenda down everybody else's throat. no pun intended. p.s. I have no political answer wish I did.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

A child can not consent to a marriage or a sexual relationship. Therefore, initiating one is an act of aggression.

Until what age?

 

[steveh_131]

Until what age?

Some say that is up to the parents.

Others believe a hard line should be drawn.

I am undecided.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Some say that is up to the parents.

Others believe a hard line should be drawn.

I am undecided.

There we are...one man's act of aggression is another's loving relationship.

 

[steveh_131]

There we are...one man's act of aggression is another's loving relationship.

Gay marriage isn't going to help or hinder the eternal question of the age of consent.

Our nanny/police state certainly hasn't solved it.

Logical leaps are being made where they shouldn't. The theory being posed is that allowing gay marriage puts us on a slippery slope towards rape and molestation. I'm saying the two are completely separate issues. One involves an actual victim and the other does not.

 

[Fourtrax]

Gay marriage isn't going to help or hinder the eternal question of the age of consent.

Our nanny/police state certainly hasn't solved it.

Logical leaps are being made where they shouldn't. The theory being posed is that allowing gay marriage puts us on a slippery slope towards rape and molestation. I'm saying the two are completely separate issues. One involves an actual victim and the other does not.

Thats were I disagree. Your position assumes that everyone has your belief system. Well,.......they don't. Do you understand that as crazy as it sounds there are those that argue that there is no victim. Some of these people honestly believe there is no victim in child sex. Get it? There is no right and wrong. We have allowed this to be taught to our children for the last couple decades. It's well under way and only getting worse.

Once you accept that our laws should not be based on morality and the Judeo/Christian standard then there is no basis for our laws. Or any law for that matter. Laws become based on what? Simply the whim of man. One mans idea of right and wrong, or one groups ideas of right and wrong. Over time, societal morality is eroded and non existent.

We are at a crucial point in American history. Regardless of whether we are believers in a Supreme being or not, we must decide, like some non believing founding fathers, whether or not the Judeo/Christian moral code is the basis for our laws.

These men recognized the simple truth of the matter and while not believers, understood no other basis could or would be better,......none.

 

[steveh_131]

Thats were I disagree. Your position assumes that everyone has your belief system. Well,.......they don't. Do you understand that as crazy as it sounds there are those that argue that there is no victim. Some of these people honestly believe there is no victim in child sex. Get it? There is no right and wrong. We have allowed this to be taught to our children for the last couple decades. It's well under way and only getting worse.

Once you accept that our laws should not be based on morality and the Judeo/Christian standard then there is no basis for our laws. Or any law for that matter. Laws become based on what? Simply the whim of man. One mans idea of right and wrong, or one groups ideas of right and wrong. Over time, societal morality is eroded and non existent.

We are at a crucial point in American history. Regardless of whether we are believers in a Supreme being or not, we must decide, like some non believing founding fathers, whether or not the Judeo/Christian moral code is the basis for our laws.

These men recognized the simple truth of the matter and while not believers, understood no other basis could or would be better,......none.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

Are you saying that we must legislate biblical morality or the very fabric of society will crumble? Are we going to criminalize gossip? What about lying? Fornication? What about skipping church?

I don't believe for a moment that parents in this nation are going to accept molestation as a 'victimless' crime. And if I did believe it, I'd never buy the idea that getting the government out of marriage is the last straw that broke the camel's back and turned everyone into lawless pedophiles.

We need a moral society. I'll even agree that those morals should be based 100% on the bible. I won't ever agree that more government is the way to produce the results that we're looking for. It's not practical or even biblical.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Gay marriage isn't going to help or hinder the eternal question of the age of consent.

Our nanny/police state certainly hasn't solved it.

Logical leaps are being made where they shouldn't. The theory being posed is that allowing gay marriage puts us on a slippery slope towards rape and molestation. I'm saying the two are completely separate issues. One involves an actual victim and the other does not.

I know what you're saying. But even by your standard, you can't provide a clear, bright line that separates a choice from a victim.

 

[steveh_131]

I know what you're saying. But even by your standard, you can't provide a clear, bright line that separates a choice from a victim.

And sometimes it's difficult to separate murder from self defense.

Although interesting, both examples are entirely irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

And sometimes it's difficult to separate murder from self defense.

Although interesting, both examples are entirely irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage.

I understand that homosexual marriage will not necessarily result in anything but to deny the path from mental illness to public celebration that we've witnessed with homosexuality could not be replicated with no other type of sexual relationship is illogical. We already know people have appetites for all sorts of what most moral people would find disgusting behaviors. It wasn't that long ago homosexuality was considered part of that list. I find it completely baffling that there are so many that will not entertain the idea that some future generation will be celebrating behaviors todays open minded people dismiss because of their quaint 2000's morailty.

 

[steveh_131]

I understand that homosexual marriage will not necessarily result in anything but to deny the path from mental illness to public celebration that we've witnessed with homosexuality could not be replicated with no other type of sexual relationship is illogical. We already know people have appetites for all sorts of what most moral people would find disgusting behaviors. It wasn't that long ago homosexuality was considered part of that list. I find it completely baffling that there are so many that will not entertain the idea that some future generation will be celebrating behaviors todays open minded people dismiss because of their quaint 2000's morailty.

I understand the path that you're referencing, and I will not deny its existence.

On the other hand, can you give me any examples, in America's history, of predatory sexual behaviors being celebrated? Examples of sexual victimization being celebrated?

I don't think it is logical to compare them.

I applaud your willingness to fight for morality, and I'm right there with you. I just don't think it can or should be done with legislation. The best, and probably only way to do it is to tell people the 'good news' and pray that they accept it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If the government is properly removed from marriage, I don't care about polygamy.

A child can not consent to a marriage or a sexual relationship. Therefore, initiating one is an act of aggression.

Some say that is up to the parents.

Others believe a hard line should be drawn.

I am undecided.

Gay marriage isn't going to help or hinder the eternal question of the age of consent.

Our nanny/police state certainly hasn't solved it.

Logical leaps are being made where they shouldn't. The theory being posed is that allowing gay marriage puts us on a slippery slope towards rape and molestation. I'm saying the two are completely separate issues. One involves an actual victim and the other does not.

I see some problems here.

First, how do you justify the position that a child cannot consent (aside from the law saying so at the present)? We have at least one Supreme Court Justice (Bader-Ginsburg) who believes the age of consent should be 12, coinciding with the crude expression I have heard 'If she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to breed'. Seriously, you are taking an absolute stand on an absolutely arbitrary standard.

Second, marriage has been defined throughout history as a heterosexual phenomenon, and in our culture, as a monogamous heterosexual relationship. When you take away a fixed definition, even though you may have in mind what you consider the appropriate replacement, you are not guaranteed that, but have in fact opened the door to a wide variety of competing ideas.

Third, with, well, cross-species affairs, I would point out that the argument has not been made in any of the woman/animal situations that the animal did in fact consent based on the fact the woman simply positioned herself and allowed the animal to do as he would. This also raises an equal rights issue so far as addressing how one person's perversion becomes a right and another person's perversion is still a perversion. Why should Adam be able to screw Steve, but Rachel can't screw Rover?

I should also revisit the first point in terms that rape has a definite victim, but how do you consider molestation to necessarily have a victim, particularly in light of your NAP? How is it aggression or criminal according to the NAP if both participants are willfully involved, laws arbitrarily declaring an age limit on consent notwithstanding? In fact, isn't it a violation of the NAP for the .gov to presume to tell someone who makes his or her own choice that he/she is not allowed to get laid in spite of the fact that he/she wants to do so?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I understand the path that you're referencing, and I will not deny its existence.

On the other hand, can you give me any examples, in America's history, of predatory sexual behaviors being celebrated? Examples of sexual victimization being celebrated?

I don't think it is logical to compare them.

I applaud your willingness to fight for morality, and I'm right there with you. I just don't think it can or should be done with legislation. The best, and probably only way to do it is to tell people the 'good news' and pray that they accept it.

All legislation is the expression of the county/state/country's morality. You can't do one absent the other whether you call it shoving your bible down my throat or non-aggression...and the argument circle is now complete once again.

Yep, doing the praying, etc. but a good internet debate is fun.

Are you going to Nashville tomorrow night for the M&E? If so, I'll see you there.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I understand the path that you're referencing, and I will not deny its existence.

On the other hand, can you give me any examples, in America's history, of predatory sexual behaviors being celebrated? Examples of sexual victimization being celebrated?

I don't think it is logical to compare them.

I applaud your willingness to fight for morality, and I'm right there with you. I just don't think it can or should be done with legislation. The best, and probably only way to do it is to tell people the 'good news' and pray that they accept it.

You have a point that this hasn't happened yet, but you may also notice that as soon as homosexual marriage gained traction, rumbles started from other groups.

In the end, I will agree that genuine change cannot be legislated or otherwise coerced, but legislation parallel with the morals of the community can do much to prevent the corruption of the youth, as found with schools teaching children that formerly unaccepted lifestyles are perfectly normal and those holding to traditional morality are themselves bigoted and bankrupt of values. Don't open the door unless you are really sure you are willing to deal with what may come through it, invited or not.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Actually it looks like there are still states where it is perfectly legal

How… Why do you know this?