Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah Anti-Polygamy Law

[Bunnykid68]

You cannot legally have sex with ANY animal in ANY state period. This is incorrect.

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

 

[squirrelhntr]

There is no "collective cost" to gay or even polygynous marriages. They have no affect on anyone outside of them. That's a statist and collectivist trope that hold no water.

Whats up DOC ? All Americans are going to aquire increased health and tax burdens. Including Americans who don't support it. Just like Abortion. Me might have to live with that fact, BUT me don't have to like it. P.S. I haven't been squirrel huntin yet.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Whats up DOC ? All Americans are going to aquire increased health and tax burdens. Including Americans who don't support it. Just like Abortion. Me might have to live with that fact, BUT me don't have to like it. P.S. I haven't been squirrel huntin yet.

Why would there be an increased tax and health burden?

 

[cobber]

I do agree cobber that dems have also wasted their time on the issue.

The argument that gay marriage/polygamy will lead to child brides and/or bestiality is absolutely asinine. For a bunch of straight, so called normal people, your average conservative INGO member is absolutely obsessed with sex.



Let me save you some time, they don't.

Why asinine? Unwarranted ad hominem, but aren't they all?

Obsession with sex? Nah. But I am interested in unintended consequences that flow from social engineering.

Please explain why polygamy won't be legal in another twenty years. Some people would like that form of marriage. Other than a moral objection, based on some religious orientation, what rational basis is there for the State to ban polygamy? If morality cannot be used as an argument against gay marriage, how can it be used as an argument against plural marriages.

As to child brides, again, in many world cultures this is a common practice. America is now embracing diversity, the idea being that you can come to America and still retain your own culture and belief system (since the government cannot impose Judeo-Christian morality upon those who do not share those beliefs). Also, US courts are showing an inclination toward adopting, or at least consulting, foreign law in deciding US questions. So how does the government block this practice, without infringing upon religious values. Remember, children are only presumed incapable of entering contracts, and their parents/guardians can often vouch on behalf of their children, or give consent.

So what bar, once you have knocked down tradition as a barrier to alternative arrangements, to these sorts of unions?

It's not just going to be Ozzie and Harriet, or Ozzie and Ozzie or Harriet and Harriet from here on out.

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

 

[squirrelhntr]

Why would there be an increased tax and health burden?

A Pharmacist's View on Gay Marriage

My wife's niece has a homosexual male friend. He has to have his anus and rectum reconstructed every few years. That procedure costs 100s of thousands of dallors. Times many 100s of thousands of other homosexual males. They ain't getting it for free. Do the math.

 

[Bunnykid68]

A Pharmacist's View on Gay Marriage

My wife's niece has a homosexual male friend. He has to have his anus and rectum reconstructed every few years. That procedure costs 100s of thousands of dallors. Times many 100s of thousands of other homosexual males. They ain't getting it for free. Do the math.

Never heard of this before. Do women have to have their bungholes repaired all the time as well. My guess is the one homosexual are talking about is doing more than just having sex with a person with that particular orifice

 

[squirrelhntr]

Never heard of this before. Do women have to have their bungholes repaired all the time as well. My guess is the one homosexual are talking about is doing more than just having sex with a person with that particular orifice

I am 60 years old and never heard of nothing like this until a few months ago. My wife doesn't like talking about it and I don't pry. So I don't have any idea what they do at home. I actually feel sorry for the poor lad. Can you imagine life like that. Personally, I prefer natural sex with a soft, clean, healthy women, but that's just me. I don't want to help with the medical bills.

 

[squirrelhntr]

Well, I guess I would gladly lend him some money. But I don't want my government making me give him some...

 

[steveh_131]

Well, I guess I would gladly lend him some money. But I don't want my government making me give him some...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I do understand where you are coming from.

Our government has long been in the business of social engineering. Having kids? Tax credits. Married? Tax benefits (sometimes), health insurance benefits, legal benefits.

I do not accept homosexuality as a moral lifestyle. Like you, I don't appreciate my tax dollars being used to subsidize any of these benefits for homosexual couples.

I think that you and I are on the same page this far. Now we come to a fork in the road: How should this be rectified?

1. Deny homosexuals these benefits? I'm not sure that I can support this as a libertarian. I don't like the idea of the government making moral distinctions. On a practical level, I think that tasking the government with making these distinctions is more dangerous to society than homosexual marriage.

2. Give homosexual couples the same benefits? This bothers me on a moral level. My wealth should not be redistributed to support lifestyles that I don't agree with. However, this is practically less dangerous than using the government to engineer our society to meet my moral standards.

3. Work towards removing the government from this arena entirely? I benefit greatly from child tax credits, but I don't think it's right. I don't think that childless families should have to subsidize my choices to have children. I benefit from my legal married status. I don't think that people who are anti-marriage should have to subsidize my choice to get married.

I support #3. #1 and #2 are both wrong, but #1 strikes me as more dangerous as far as government interference.

That's my two cents.

 

[squirrelhntr]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I do understand where you are coming from.

Our government has long been in the business of social engineering. Having kids? Tax credits. Married? Tax benefits (sometimes), health insurance benefits, legal benefits.

I do not accept homosexuality as a moral lifestyle. Like you, I don't appreciate my tax dollars being used to subsidize any of these benefits for homosexual couples.

I think that you and I are on the same page this far. Now we come to a fork in the road: How should this be rectified?

1. Deny homosexuals these benefits? I'm not sure that I can support this as a libertarian. I don't like the idea of the government making moral distinctions. On a practical level, I think that tasking the government with making these distinctions is more dangerous to society than homosexual marriage.

2. Give homosexual couples the same benefits? This bothers me on a moral level. My wealth should not be redistributed to support lifestyles that I don't agree with. However, this is practically less dangerous than using the government to engineer our society to meet my moral standards.

3. Work towards removing the government from this arena entirely? I benefit greatly from child tax credits, but I don't think it's right. I don't think that childless families should have to subsidize my choices to have children. I benefit from my legal married status. I don't think that people who are anti-marriage should have to subsidize my choice to get married.

I support #3. #1 and #2 are both wrong, but #1 strikes me as more dangerous as far as government interference.

That's my two cents.

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 .

 

[squirrelhntr]

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_yl...+return+to+normal+sex&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-901

steve_131 here is a list of possible other ways to resolve the question. I am sure there are many more places to check out. I understand that homosexual folks are converting all the time.
Lets call it #4.

 

[HARVEYtheDAMNED]

Why asinine? Unwarranted ad hominem, but aren't they all?

Obsession with sex? Nah. But I am interested in unintended consequences that flow from social engineering.

Please explain why polygamy won't be legal in another twenty years. Some people would like that form of marriage. Other than a moral objection, based on some religious orientation, what rational basis is there for the State to ban polygamy? If morality cannot be used as an argument against gay marriage, how can it be used as an argument against plural marriages.

As to child brides, again, in many world cultures this is a common practice. America is now embracing diversity, the idea being that you can come to America and still retain your own culture and belief system (since the government cannot impose Judeo-Christian morality upon those who do not share those beliefs). Also, US courts are showing an inclination toward adopting, or at least consulting, foreign law in deciding US questions. So how does the government block this practice, without infringing upon religious values. Remember, children are only presumed incapable of entering contracts, and their parents/guardians can often vouch on behalf of their children, or give consent.

So what bar, once you have knocked down tradition as a barrier to alternative arrangements, to these sorts of unions?

It's not just going to be Ozzie and Harriet, or Ozzie and Ozzie or Harriet and Harriet from here on out.

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

That was a little unwarranted, my apologies. Minority opinion + Character flaws = taking it too far.

I don't have a problem with polygamist marriages personally. I haven't seen any credible data (i.e. a major university or major scientific publication) that says polygamy has any negative effect on society. How many life partners someone has is irrelevant to my rights, and does not infringe upon them at all. That's my logic with it so far.

I just don't see this huge wave of immoral degeneracy following legalization of polygamy as being realistic, gay marriage has been legalized in many places, and it hasn't resulted in anything negative.

It's true that many cultures (India) allow this practice of child marriage. We wouldn't guarantee anything; their religious freedom is of non issue when you're discussing a federal offense. I'm sure we wouldn't legalize murder so some devil worshiper could murder for his religious freedom, right? I don't have a very high opinion of the left either, but they wouldn't vote in favor of touching children.

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

It's not, some states it's a misdemeanor instead of a felony. Not a harsh enough penalty, definitely, as an animal cannot consent so it is therefore rape, but still not a lawful action.

 

[cobber]

That was a little unwarranted, my apologies. Minority opinion + Character flaws = taking it too far.

I don't have a problem with polygamist marriages personally. I haven't seen any credible data (i.e. a major university or major scientific publication) that says polygamy has any negative effect on society. How many life partners someone has is irrelevant to my rights, and does not infringe upon them at all. That's my logic with it so far.

I just don't see this huge wave of immoral degeneracy following legalization of polygamy as being realistic, gay marriage has been legalized in many places, and it hasn't resulted in anything negative.

It's true that many cultures (India) allow this practice of child marriage. We wouldn't guarantee anything; their religious freedom is of non issue when you're discussing a federal offense. I'm sure we wouldn't legalize murder so some devil worshiper could murder for his religious freedom, right? I don't have a very high opinion of the left either, but they wouldn't vote in favor of touching children.



It's not, some states it's a misdemeanor instead of a felony. Not a harsh enough penalty, definitely, as an animal cannot consent so it is therefore rape, but still not a lawful action.

Mind you, I'm not claiming any of this is degenerate. These are things that are accepted many times and places. Just not to date in the US. But as the change in attitudes toward gay marriage shows, that can change. I am just saying that the people currently celebrating this change may find themselves facing things they find upsetting, but will have no objective, secular basis for preventing. Especially if it has the potential to 'victimize' women (as some seem to believe polygamy does) or children (as some believe child marriages do).

And it will happen, as the US becomes increasingly secular and diverse. Something like Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. We'll see how tolerant even the progressives are when the day comes...

 

[HotD]

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

It's not, some states it's a misdemeanor instead of a felony. Not a harsh enough penalty, definitely, as an animal cannot consent so it is therefore rape, but still not a lawful action.

Bestiality is currently still legal in Alabama, Texas, Hawaii, Kentucky, Virginia, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Vermont, West Virginia, Montana,Wyoming and the District of Columbia.

January 30, 2014: Alabama no longer feeling sheepish about their lack of bestiality laws | The Raw Story

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Why asinine? Unwarranted ad hominem, but aren't they all?

Obsession with sex? Nah. But I am interested in unintended consequences that flow from social engineering.

Please explain why polygamy won't be legal in another twenty years. Some people would like that form of marriage. Other than a moral objection, based on some religious orientation, what rational basis is there for the State to ban polygamy? If morality cannot be used as an argument against gay marriage, how can it be used as an argument against plural marriages.

As to child brides, again, in many world cultures this is a common practice. America is now embracing diversity, the idea being that you can come to America and still retain your own culture and belief system (since the government cannot impose Judeo-Christian morality upon those who do not share those beliefs). Also, US courts are showing an inclination toward adopting, or at least consulting, foreign law in deciding US questions. So how does the government block this practice, without infringing upon religious values. Remember, children are only presumed incapable of entering contracts, and their parents/guardians can often vouch on behalf of their children, or give consent.

So what bar, once you have knocked down tradition as a barrier to alternative arrangements, to these sorts of unions?

It's not just going to be Ozzie and Harriet, or Ozzie and Ozzie or Harriet and Harriet from here on out.

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

Well there's the entire thesis nailed to the tree. Excellently put.

 

[Fourtrax]

Well put ^^ . What grounds do you use to prevent the North American Man Boy Love Association from having its way with minor boys? If MORAL values are not to be used then there is no objection to anything. Get it?

When we say we should leave Moral argument out of the gay marriage debate, we are being duped into accepting whatever they think up next. And believe you me, something next is always around the corner. And NAMBLA does exist.

 

[steveh_131]

Well put ^^ . What grounds do you use to prevent the North American Man Boy Love Association from having its way with minor boys?

Lack of consent.

 

[steveh_131]

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.

 

[hornadylnl]

Bestiality is currently still legal in Alabama, Texas, Hawaii, Kentucky, Virginia, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Vermont, West Virginia, Montana,Wyoming and the District of Columbia.

January 30, 2014: Alabama no longer feeling sheepish about their lack of bestiality laws | The Raw Story

Apparently it's not legal in Lafayette, Indiana.

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

 

[Fourtrax]

Lack of consent.

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.

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.