Polygamists cite famous gay case when suing for their rights

  • metta

    Posts: 39133

    Jul 19, 2011 7:34 AM GMT

    Polygamists cite famous gay case when suing for their rights

    http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory/5717/18/07/2011/polygamists-cite-famous-gay-case-when-suing-for-their-rights.aspx
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2011 7:39 AM GMT
    They'll probably win. Religion can't keep a stronghold on the law too much longer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2011 7:40 AM GMT
    re: polygamy - don't care how many people they want to marry, but I think it's fucked that only the men should have multiple spouses.

    re: citing a gay case - we've done it with social progress of black people or jews. No harm paying it backward.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2011 8:20 AM GMT
    well ideally they would cite the bible... TONNES of polygamy there, both in the Old Testament and in the New. In fact, if anything counts as true "traditional marriage" it´s polygamy.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2011 9:44 AM GMT
    SkinnyBitch saidre: polygamy - don't care how many people they want to marry, but I think it's fucked that only the men should have multiple spouses.

    re: citing a gay case - we've done it with social progress of black people or jews. No harm paying it backward.


    One of Joseph Smiths wives had two husbands, and she is not on her own, it's called polyganist
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2011 6:45 PM GMT
    I think its a little more farfetched to say "well you let 2 men marry so therefore I should be able to marry 5 wives."

    Actually, its really farfetched and has nothing to do with marriage. If they want to engage in more than one marriage like contract, while only having one legal marraige they will suffer the consequences of doing so.

    Heres an idea, dont marry the one and all live together.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2011 7:39 PM GMT
    This is why marriage needs to be removed and replaced with civil unions for any kind of union two or more people want to have. Their status as "married" would then be outside of anything to do with government involvement.

  • metta

    Posts: 39133

    Jul 19, 2011 9:49 PM GMT
    ^
    Yes, that is one of their main arguments and they will, as much as they can, use this against us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 20, 2011 4:22 PM GMT
    To even use the word "allow" for consenting adults to engage in anything without harm to others illustrates amply how far the society has to go towards complete individual freedom. Legal implications should be worked out through case law without inhibiting freedom also. My self-righteous two cents.
  • metta

    Posts: 39133

    Jul 24, 2011 4:00 AM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 25, 2011 2:42 PM GMT
    my-two-moms.jpg
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Jul 25, 2011 4:19 PM GMT
    There is a fundamental break in logic in the argument: people are born gay, so denying them equal rights on the basis of something intrinsic is indefensible. No one is born polygamous.

    I'm neutral on the topic, though I admit that personally I find polygamy repellent, but as I posted to a pro-polygamy statement in the Seattle Times, if polygamist want to rally thousands of people and spend a generation convincing everyone of the legitimacy of their claims - let them. That's how it works.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 2:22 AM GMT
    tazzari saidThere is a fundamental break in logic in the argument: people are born gay, so denying them equal rights on the basis of something intrinsic is indefensible. No one is born polygamous.


    Au contraire, if you believe half the sociology out there, male mammals are born polyamorous ("polygyny") while female mammals are born monogamous, to maximize their chances of reproductive success.

    E.g. Lions--"The pride usually consists of five or six related females, their cubs of both sexes, and one or two males (known as a coalition if more than one) who mate with the adult females (although extremely large prides, consisting of up to 30 individuals, have been observed)"

    http://www.snappingturtle.net/jmc/tmblog/archives/005331.htmlThe few exceptions prove the rule. Among seahorses, the fertilized egg is nurtured in a kangaroo-like pouch on the male's stomach. This makes the male the limiting factor to reproduction. As a result, the sex roles are reversed. Male seahorses become "mothers," nurturing their offspring to maturity, while females abandon their "impregnated" sexual partners and look for new mating opportunities.


    Note that I disagree with the homosexual part of this article.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2011 3:50 AM GMT
    Polygamy is like a business arguing for the same price that one person paid when ordering a single unit of software that will be passed around to everyone in that business. It doesn't work this way and they should pay more. The only was polygamy should get any rights is if the law structure completely remodels itself to logically accommodate all aspects of polygamy: and that's going to be a fucking headache that no one but polygamists wants to entertain.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jul 26, 2011 10:59 AM GMT
    Hey .... George W Bush used the anti-discriminatory civil rights laws to claim he won the 2000 election

    Why is it a surprise that someone else would bastardize current law to make their case?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 3:02 AM GMT
    Hi there, I was looking for the famous gay men online. I think you have shared good thread regarding the gay heroes and role models. Keep sharing like this. thank you.

    ==============
    famous gay men
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 11:14 AM GMT
    The polygamists are simply evil sons o' bitches. How **cking dare they? Not the same thing at all--especially that they are the most anti-gay people on the planet. (Of course they are moral... and on their way to becoming exalted gods... in heaven.)

    Of course, a Utah court of law would agree with their retarded argument.

    Utah refuses to prosecute, unless it becomes public and an embarrassment. The only reason they went after this guy was because he made a TV show about it.

    Why else would Utah have 60,000 people involved in the practice. Over 100 years and they've pretty much been left alone.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Aug 19, 2011 3:34 PM GMT
    At the end of the day, if they want to spend 50 years presenting their case to the public, and can win enough support and sympathy - then let them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 3:40 PM GMT
    habbrwn saidHi there, I am a stupid spammer.
    Fixed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 3:54 PM GMT
    Polygamists can cite Brown v. Board if they want to. The important point is, has the Supreme Court agreed to their polygamist rights on this, or any basis?
  • smudgedude

    Posts: 260

    Aug 19, 2011 3:56 PM GMT
    GQjock saidHey .... George W Bush used the anti-discriminatory civil rights laws to claim he won the 2000 election

    Why is it a surprise that someone else would bastardize current law to make their case?


    excellent point
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 4:42 PM GMT
    As a principle, I do not think that people should be charged for what essentially amounts to cohabitation. If there is one legal marriage, that should not preclude there being additional household members that assume a certain de factor role - additional spouses without legal recognition.

    That said, in some (but not all) Mormon groups that practice plural marriage, there is more than a small element of coercion involved with the marriage relations, particularly when minors may be involved. The Centennial Park group in southern Utah has actually banned marriages involving minors, and has to a greater extent integrated itself with the community-at-large. I wouldn't have a problem with that. But the FLDS group has committed a number of abuses and so everything is suspect in their communities...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 4:50 PM GMT
    Who cares if 5 silly women are dumb enough to share 1 likely gross man?
    Who cares if 5 dull men are boring enough to share 1 woman? (Oh wait, they already do that. They're called hookers/escorts/etc.)

    Really, who cares? Outrage is often for the stupid and or the jealous.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 20, 2011 12:34 AM GMT
    This article is misleading. The plaintiffs aren't arguing for their relationship to be recognized because of Lawrence v. Texas, but that the government has no right to regulate what goes on behind closed doors. The man is only legally married to one woman and the others lived with them. They are arguing that they have the right to cohabitate as they wish. Lawrence v. Texas is completely valid in this instance and I agree with them that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to in the privacy of their own homes.