Slope is a slippin'-Polygamist invokes sodomy ruling
Polygamist invokes ruling
Well here we go again folks. It is the big elephant in the room that has been eluded to in multiple threads and now it looks like I'll get to look for wife number 2 and 3 soon enough. Hopefully husband number 2 will like the same body type I do.
Simply put, in my opinion the Texas ruling tossed out the baby with the bath water. There were two issues addressed. The right to privacy and equal protection. Using equal protection they could have simply ruled that homosexual sodomy had to be legal since heterosexual sodomy was legal. Instead they gave what adults do in their bedroom a privacy right and now the reality is coming home to roost.
How do you think it will go?
Nick
Well here we go again folks. It is the big elephant in the room that has been eluded to in multiple threads and now it looks like I'll get to look for wife number 2 and 3 soon enough. Hopefully husband number 2 will like the same body type I do.
Simply put, in my opinion the Texas ruling tossed out the baby with the bath water. There were two issues addressed. The right to privacy and equal protection. Using equal protection they could have simply ruled that homosexual sodomy had to be legal since heterosexual sodomy was legal. Instead they gave what adults do in their bedroom a privacy right and now the reality is coming home to roost.
How do you think it will go?
Nick
Comments
b) he wasn't convicted on the grounds of sodomy.
c) it's CNN, so they have to mention sodomy, so most people won't get what the story is actually about.
d) his attorneys are grasping at straws.
e) he's a perv and should get life in prison.
also, AFAIK, sodomy is still a criminal offense in some states.
http://nytimes.com/2003/12/03/opinion/03KRIS.html
"Critics used to say that adopted children of gay couples would end up gay. But there's growing evidence that children raised by homosexuals are no more likely to end up gay than those raised by heterosexuals.
The bottom line is that same-sex love is a mystery far more subtle than just a matter of Biblical injunction ? just as interracial love has turned out to be. A 1958 poll found that 96 percent of whites disapproved of marriages between blacks and whites (Deuteronomy 7:3 condemns interracial marriages). In 1959 a judge justified Virginia's ban on interracial marriage by declaring that "Almighty God . . . did not intend for the races to mix."
Someday, we will regard opposition to gay marriage as equally obtuse and old-fashioned.
No force is more divine than love, and if some people are encoded to love others of the same sex, how can that be unholy? To me, the blasphemy is not in those who want to share their lives with others of the same sex, but rather in anyone presumptuous enough to vilify that love._"
Originally posted by pfflam
yyyeeeah . . . . bejeeezuz . . . that trumpfeller is right . .**snnnnooort hawchptewy** . .we unz never shulda awta leglized them there crimes gainst naycha int furst playce!
Nothing like informing others of your lack of intelligence by demonstrating a desire to stereotype others.
Ironically you do this to... fight stereotypes I suppose...
For the comprehension impaired, I declared the could have still ruled against the sodomy law without creating a ruling that would allow legal challenges on matters not relating to homosexuality. Instead they opened the door wide open. That doesn't mean certain people are hateful. It means the ruling should have been made on equal protection instead right to privacy. Equal protection... . You know the 14th amendment. It doesn't have to be "found" in the Constitution because it is actually written down. (unlike the right to privacy) You know that was part of...oh I don't know...Brown vs. Board of Education. It isn't exactly a lightweight way of enforcing rights. It sort of ended all legal school segregation. Played a major role in the whole civil rights movement... yes THAT equal protection clause....
I suppose your post-modern text generator broke down so now you are left with single sentence quips and hateful stereotyping. I hope you get it fixed soon. It is more enjoyable when you are incomprehensible for multiple paragraphs instead of just a sentence or two.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Hmm. I hope a woman can have 10 have husbands then...
Why go through the trouble of husbands... I'm sure you and they would just prefer the money from ten unreversable default paternity judgements.
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Good editorial by Kristof today too...
http://nytimes.com/2003/12/03/opinion/03KRIS.html
"Critics used to say that adopted children of gay couples would end up gay. But there's growing evidence that children raised by homosexuals are no more likely to end up gay than those raised by heterosexuals.
The bottom line is that same-sex love is a mystery far more subtle than just a matter of Biblical injunction ? just as interracial love has turned out to be. A 1958 poll found that 96 percent of whites disapproved of marriages between blacks and whites (Deuteronomy 7:3 condemns interracial marriages). In 1959 a judge justified Virginia's ban on interracial marriage by declaring that "Almighty God . . . did not intend for the races to mix."
Someday, we will regard opposition to gay marriage as equally obtuse and old-fashioned.
No force is more divine than love, and if some people are encoded to love others of the same sex, how can that be unholy? To me, the blasphemy is not in those who want to share their lives with others of the same sex, but rather in anyone presumptuous enough to vilify that love._"
Yes this is called the endorsement fallacy. Remove gay and the entire text is still true. It is much more likely that we will simply find marriage old fashioned.
I'm sure the same 1958 poll likely found 96 percent of whites disapproving of people living together in "sin" or having children out of wedlock.
Nick
That's right an amendment to discriminate. nice.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Well the 14th amendment works... until the republicans pass an amendment banning same sex unions.
That's right an amendment to discriminate. nice.
I think you are being a little presumptuous. An amendment requires two-thirds of both houses and ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. I know you conspiratorially assume that Republicans and especially Bush are profoundly stupid, yet somehow also all powerful. However don't you think it would be a little hard to pull that off without say, oh a few Democrats as well.
Nick
I don't think it would ever happen though.
Personally, I could care less if you have one wife or 20. The problem with polygamy (as it's practiced out here, and from what I understand about it elsewhere) is that it almost always involves either/or/both pedophilia and/or incest. Now, I can go all Humbert Humbert on you, I suppose, are talk about the arbitrariness of such things as "age of consent" (the darned thing keeps changing!), but that's not really the point. The point, I think, is simple:
When you're talking about freedom, sometimes you're going to have to allow things you don't like.
We have freedom of the speech, press, and assembly, and so we have to put up with hate speech, hate groups, and Klan rallies, porn, OUT Magazine, Big 'Uns, the New York Times, CNN, Mike Savage, Michael Moore, and Ann Coulter.
It's that simple.
You want to have a guaranteed right to privacy--so long as you're not breaking any laws in the meantime? You have to accept that people are going to do things with their privacy that you're not going to like, whether it be homosexual sex or polygamy.
Don't like it? Tough.
Cheers
Scott
2nd post down... Sourced from ABC's This Week
U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) has drafted a proposed constitutional amendment that she says is designed to ban same-sex marriage. Right on the heels of the Massachusetts court ruling on gay marriage, Musgrave had her first prime-time TV opportunity to make the case as to why America needs to add this amendment to its Constitution. She failed miserably on last Sunday's ABC News' "This Week."
George Stephanopoulos hosted the segment, and the guests included Rep. Musgrave, syndicated columnist George Will, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and commentator Andrew Sullivan. In this exchange, Rep. Musgrave was asked a simple question about her amendment -- does it ban both same-sex marriage and civil unions? (It appears to do just that.) Musgrave gave an initial answer, but soon -- confronted with the language from her own amendment -- found herself in a corner:
STEPHANOPOULOS: "Congresswoman Musgrave, [Andrew Sullivan] brings up the issue of civil unions. There's been some question about the scope of your constitutional amendment, which is designed to ban marriage. Would it also, in your view, outlaw and prevent any state from recognizing civil unions that are not called marriage?"
Originally posted by trumptman
Nothing like informing others of your lack of intelligence by demonstrating a desire to stereotype others.
Ironically you do this to... fight stereotypes I suppose...
For the comprehension impaired, I declared the could have still ruled against the sodomy law without creating a ruling that would allow legal challenges on matters not relating to homosexuality. Instead they opened the door wide open. That doesn't mean certain people are hateful. It means the ruling should have been made on equal protection instead right to privacy. Equal protection... . You know the 14th amendment. It doesn't have to be "found" in the Constitution because it is actually written down. (unlike the right to privacy) You know that was part of...oh I don't know...Brown vs. Board of Education. It isn't exactly a lightweight way of enforcing rights. It sort of ended all legal school segregation. Played a major role in the whole civil rights movement... yes THAT equal protection clause....
I suppose your post-modern text generator broke down so now you are left with single sentence quips and hateful stereotyping. I hope you get it fixed soon. It is more enjoyable when you are incomprehensible for multiple paragraphs instead of just a sentence or two.
Nick
You mean it left the door wide open to allow adults to conduct whatever business they want in their own bedrooms with other consenting adults without government interference?
DAMN THEM! HOW DARE THEY INFRINGE UPON OUR RIGHTS TO BE OPPRESSED BY THE GOVERNMENT!
Polygamy means having multiple marriages.
A man engaging in sexual relation with several women (simultaneously, in shifts, or whatnot) is not a polygamist, he who marries several ones is.
The way the established and recognised institution of marriage is legally defined varies from place to place and can change over time.
As it now stands, the law in most industrial societies prefers to define marriage as exclusive, hence monomgamy. It also refrains (again in most industrial societies) from meddling in what kind of relation adults engage in private and of their own volition. Those are two distinct matters in the eye of the law, since marriage is an established institution it is not a strictly private matter between consenting adults, which sex is. It seems deserving reiteration given the amount of confusion so once again: marriage and sex are two different things, one pertaining to the public domain, another to the private one.
So the analogy made by the convict Mr. Green is irrelevent, and was probably taken up by the dubious network cited above, as sensation for the masses.
Originally posted by 709
also, AFAIK, sodomy is still a criminal offense in some states.
It's not. Lawrence struck down all sodomy laws everywhere in the United States (outside of the military, which operates under the UCMJ).
The difference here is that this guy is sleeping with 13 year old girls. Not an adult, and unable to properly consent by law in the US. Statuatory rape is not covered by priovacy laws, neither is molesting and possibly corrupting a minor. See you in jail pal.
Originally posted by trumptman
Instead they gave what adults do in their bedroom a privacy right and now the reality is coming home to roost.
And this is a bad thing because it differs from your moral attitude?
(Note: I am talking not about the guy $$$$ing a 13-year old, but only consenting adults)
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Good editorial by Kristof today too...
http://nytimes.com/2003/12/03/opinion/03KRIS.html
(Deuteronomy 7:3 condemns interracial marriages).
really, read that chapter again, if you still beleive that has to with race(considering back them biblically there was only one race, but there were nationalities, and enimies and stuff, but that has NOTHING to do with race).
as a matter of fact, moses married an ehiopian read below:
1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. 2 And they said, Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the LORD heard it. 3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.) 4 And the LORD spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out. 5 And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. 6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. 7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. 8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? 9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed. 10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous. 11 And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned.