Jump to content

Polygamists In Utah


WalkerW

Recommended Posts

I'm not seeing how the arguements are the same as those used to support SSM?

The lawyer Turley says "We are not demanding the recognition of polygamous marriage. We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs," the statement reads."

What the Browns want-what they are sueing for-, homosexual people already have. No one can be arrested for living a gay lifestyle or living with a gay partner as spouses, or calling the relationship a marriage and living as married people live, while polygamists can be arrested (and be forced to severe such relationships) for living a polygamist lifestyle as married spouses.

Polygamist fathers can even legally be kept from their children if i understand it correctly.

Which arguements did you find to be similar to those used to support SSM?

Link to comment

I'm not seeing how the arguements are the same as those used to support SSM?

The lawyer Turley says "We are not demanding the recognition of polygamous marriage. We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs," the statement reads."

What the Browns want-what they are sueing for-, homosexual people already have. No one can be arrested for living a gay lifestyle or living with a gay partner as spouses, or calling the relationship a marriage and living as married people live, while polygamists can be arrested (and be forced to severe such relationships) for living a polygamist lifestyle as married spouses.

Polygamist fathers can even legally be kept from their children if i understand it correctly.

Which arguements did you find to be similar to those used to support SSM?

I meant to include these. Don't know why I didn't. I was just trying to summarize what the articles said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/us/12polygamy.html

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/07/should_bigamy_be_illegal.html

Link to comment

under what basis of law are these persons "persecuted". Are they being persecuted for violating co-habitation laws? Adultery laws? Or Polygamy laws?

If they are being persecuted under co-habitation or adultery laws, then they have a point.

If they are being persecuted under polygamy laws then they most certainly are seeking recognition of polygamy.

edit: just read the NYT article, they are seeking to challenge the polygamy laws, they would use Lawerence v. Texas (legalized private intimate adult consensual homosexual) to claim that their conduct - polygamy - should not be prosecuted, which means they seek to invalidate polygamy laws.

Link to comment

under what basis of law are these persons "persecuted". Are they being persecuted for violating co-habitation laws? Adultery laws? Or Polygamy laws?

If they are being persecuted under co-habitation or adultery laws, then they have a point.

If they are being persecuted under polygamy laws then they most certainly are seeking recognition of polygamy.

edit: just read the NYT article, they are seeking to challenge the polygamy laws, they would use Lawerence v. Texas (legalized private intimate adult consensual homosexual) to claim that their conduct - polygamy - should not be prosecuted, which means they seek to invalidate polygamy laws.

They are seeking to decriminalize polygamous relationships, yes.

They aren't seeking for the state to legally recongize such relationships though. Not yet, anyway.

Link to comment

They are seeking to decriminalize polygamous relationships, yes.

They aren't seeking for the state to legally recongize such relationships though. Not yet, anyway.

Slippery slope alert. Decriminalize polygamous relationship will lead to decriminalizing "special" relationship with barnyard animals.

Link to comment

Slippery slope alert. Decriminalize polygamous relationship will lead to decriminalizing "special" relationship with barnyard animals.

Polygamous relationships are between men and women, so no new kind of sexual relationship is being recognized by decriminalizing them. Thus, no precidents that could lead to a 'slippery slope' would be set.

Link to comment

Slippery slope alert. Decriminalize polygamous relationship will lead to decriminalizing "special" relationship with barnyard animals.

I completely disagree, simply because a barnyard animal can't give consent in a relationship. I personally think that's a strawman argument that avoids the complexities of human-to-human relationships that exist whether one is heterosexual or homosexual. I also don't believe the world will fall apart if gay marriage is allowed, provided it follows the New York statute of respecting the rights of certain religions to not perform same-sex unions.

Link to comment
I completely disagree, simply because a barnyard animal can't give consent in a relationship. I personally think that's a strawman argument that avoids the complexities of human-to-human relationships that exist whether one is heterosexual or homosexual.

Dead on. I think the comparing same-sex relationships to bestiality is both absurd and repugnant.

I also don't believe the world will fall apart if gay marriage is allowed

I do think it will help solidify and legitimize a particular view of sex, parenting, and family relations that has been gaining prominence over the past century that I find to be extremely unhealthy. However, too much blame has been placed on same-sex couples when it in fact largely stems from many of the practices of heterosexuals (e.g. premarital and extramarital sex).

provided it follows the New York statute of respecting the rights of certain religions to not perform same-sex unions.

This is good, though I wonder how sustainable this "respect of rights" is over time.

Link to comment

I'm actually reading Stephanie Coontz, Marriage - A History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage (Viking, 2005) and Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (Doubleday, 2000) right now. I've been sitting on material and collecting my thoughts on the whole same-sex marriage issue for over a year. I think it will express itself fairly soon in a blog post.

Link to comment

Dead on. I think the comparing same-sex relationships to beastiality is both absurd and repugnant.

It is most refreshing to read this statement. It is even more refreshing to see that persons other than, Jaybear, California Boy and myself see the same repugnance in the comparison. Thank you both. Unfortunantely, such repugnance is common place in some thread and oft regurgitated.

Link to comment
Dead on. I think the comparing same-sex relationships to beastiality is both absurd and repugnant.
It is most refreshing to read this statement. It is even more refreshing to see that persons other than, Jaybear, California Boy and myself see the same repugnance in the comparison. Thank you both. Unfortunantely, such repugnance is common place in some thread and oft regurgitated.

No such comparison was made. However, more likely than beastiality, similar adult-child relationships could be decriminalized since there is actually is a large group of people fighting for it (homosexuals such as members of NAMBLA). But it is true that homosexuality is absurd and repugnant.

Link to comment

No such comparison was made.

I think Jaybear is referring to my statement. You are correct, I was not comparing them in the statement that I made. I did however, say it would be easier for such a thing to pass... considering the technology breakthroughs we have gotten of late. I also said it would make allowing... robotics in relation to the issue, much more legally accessible.

Alas, that is crux of looking into the future... many possibilities... which one will happen?

I did not say barn animals, of course ;-). I think Jaybear missed the point of my post when I stated it, kinda... but not sure. It isn't something to worry about now =).

Corny Wishes,

TAO

Link to comment

No such comparison was made. However, more likely than beastiality, similar adult-child relationships could be decriminalized since there is actually is a large group of people fighting for it (homosexuals such as members of NAMBLA). But it is true that homosexuality is absurd and repugnant.

Jaybear could have just as easily and mockingly said "incest", "rape", "child pornography".

From the breaking new - gay marriage thread post 290.

What if it isn't a person, but is something that looks like a person? Or animals, for instance, who cannot say 'no'.

sorry Tao, not picking on you. and i was convinced it came from someone else.

---------------------

I have yet to see someone make an articulate argument that based on case law in favor of homosexuals someone else could argue in favor of rape, incest, bestiality, child pornography. Take Lawrence v. Texas, the Justices pointed that the case did not involve children or others who would be susceptible to coercion.

Lawrence v. Texas

"The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution."

Link to comment

I'm actually reading Stephanie Coontz, Marriage - A History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage (Viking, 2005) and Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (Doubleday, 2000) right now. I've been sitting on material and collecting my thoughts on the whole same-sex marriage issue for over a year. I think it will express itself fairly soon in a blog post.

I just finished reading John M. Finnis, Law, Morality, and "Sexual Orientation". In it Finnis, an Oxford scholar and professor of law at Notre Dame, claims that same-sex relations are comparable to a prostitute and a client, that bestiality and homosexuality are comparable in the sense that they are both divorced from actualizing a common good, that the common good of marriage consists of parenthood and friendship (of which homosexuality is incapable of sustaining), and that the political community should deny that homosexuality is a valid form of life, but would no go so far as to politically discourage such conduct.

Make sure to check this out when you can, if you haven't already.

The Divine Institution of Marriage

Link to comment

I just finished reading John M. Finnis, Law, Morality, and "Sexual Orientation". In it Finnis, an Oxford scholar and professor of law at Notre Dame, claims that same-sex relations are comparable to a prostitute and a client, that bestiality and homosexuality are comparable in the sense that they are both divorced from actualizing a common good, that the common good of marriage consists of parenthood and friendship (of which homosexuality is incapable of sustaining), and that the political community should deny that homosexuality is a valid form of life, but would no go so far as to politically discourage such conduct.

Make sure to check this out when you can, if you haven't already.

The Divine Institution of Marriage

Perhaps I should make myself more clear: comparing bestiality and homosexuality as if they are on par is absurd and repugnant. As you stated, there is a complexity to human-to-human relationships no matter the sex that is not found in human-to-animal relationships. Crossing sexes and crossing species, I find, to be quite different. However, I often agree with the notions of Thomist philosophers and natural lawyers (particularly Robert P. George). It very much has to do with the principle of marriage being related both to the act (i.e. sexual union) and product of procreation.

I don't think it was same-sex relationships that were compared to a client and prostitute, but the basis of the sexual acts (he included oral and **** sex between spouses in the footnotes, I believe). The basis of the sexual acts between a client and prostitute is sexual pleasure. It is sex divorced from both the act and product of procreation. This is where the bestiality comes into play. It isn't that homosexuality and bestiality are the same, but that they both stem from a concept of sex that is divorced from the act and product of procreation. This applies to heterosexual, homosexuals, etc. This is why I say that the whole gay marriage issue is a manifestation of a view of sex that is prevalent in our culture and runs deeply in heterosexual relationships as well.

Personally, I would have avoided the comparison for fear of being misunderstood.

Nonetheless, I found much that I agreed with in Finnis' article.

Like I said, future blog post.

Link to comment

I just finished reading John M. Finnis, Law, Morality, and "Sexual Orientation". In it Finnis, an Oxford scholar and professor of law at Notre Dame, claims that same-sex relations are comparable to a prostitute and a client, that bestiality and homosexuality are comparable in the sense that they are both divorced from actualizing a common good, that the common good of marriage consists of parenthood and friendship (of which homosexuality is incapable of sustaining), and that the political community should deny that homosexuality is a valid form of life, but would no go so far as to politically discourage such conduct.

Make sure to check this out when you can, if you haven't already.

The Divine Institution of Marriage

Personally I think the religious groups fighting against gay marriage is embarking on a very scary social experiment. When you have a whole generation being taught that unless your marriage is like their marriage where father/mother and children are involved, you should not get married. The message is a dangerous message that is driving those that don't intend to have that type of relationship away from marriage. It gets even more scary when that group tells gay couples that have adopted children that even then, marriage for them is not important. Is that really the message we should be giving this generation who already has a skeptical view of marriage in which almost 50% of them grew up in divorced situations? Do you think the generation that is listening very closely to religious arguments against gay marriage really buy into the idea that gay marriage will lead to bestiality? Or calling gay marriage the same as prostitution? Is there a big demand for parents wanting to marry consenting children? The more ridiculous the argument against gay marriage makes a stronger case for not caring about the importance of marriage in their lives. We all know the statistics. The younger generation is pulling away from marriage at an alarming rate. Those that should be encouraging everyone to marry are pointing away from it.

Do you think that the political community by denying that homosexuality is a valid form of life is going to cause gays to somehow cease to exist? Do you see any indication from the gay community to go back to lying and hiding their relationships because their state has passed a constitutional amendment against marriage? It is a comical argument. If anything it just makes the gay lifestyle more visible to the community through the constant press that this position creates. Take away the issue of not allowing gay marriage to one of encouraging gays to marry and form more stable relationships and you also take away 90% of the reporting on gay issues. Poof. Over night, most of the publicity goes away the same way black civil rights issues when passed eliminated news of the Black Panthers and black activism went away. When is the last time you saw a black fist raised at an Olympic event???

Link to comment

Do you think that the political community by denying that homosexuality is a valid form of life is going to cause gays to somehow cease to exist? Do you see any indication from the gay community to go back to lying and hiding their relationships because their state has passed a constitutional amendment against marriage?

As mentioned before, Finnis doesn't argue that gays will cease to exist, he simply notes that the choice to engage in such conduct (focusing on the act, not the feelings) dis-integrates homosexuals as acting persons, because it is incapable of participating in actualizing the common good of friendship, which can only be achieved through the union of reproductive organs between husband and wife - uniting them biologically (and their biological reality is part of, not merely an instrument of, their personal identity). Thus, according to Finnis, sexual acts "cannot in reality be self-giving unless they are acts by which a man and a woman actualize and experience sexually the real giving of themselves to each other - in biological, affective, and volitional union in mutual commitment, both open-ended and exclusive - which like Plato and Aristotle and most peoples we call marriage. In short, sexual acts are not unitive in their significance unless they are marital (actualizing the all-level unity of marriage) and (since the common good of marriage has two aspects) they are not married unless they have not only the generosity of acts of friendship but also the procreative significance, not necessarily of being intended to generate or capable in the circumstances of generating but at least of being, as human conduct, acts of the reproductive kind - actualizations, so far as the spouses then and there can, of the reproductive function in which they are biologically an thus personally one."

Link to comment

As mentioned before, Finnis doesn't argue that gays will cease to exist, he simply notes that the choice to engage in such conduct (focusing on the act, not the feelings) dis-integrates homosexuals as acting persons, because it is incapable of participating in actualizing the common good of friendship, which can only be achieved through the union of reproductive organs between husband and wife - uniting them biologically (and their biological reality is part of, not merely an instrument of, their personal identity). Thus, according to Finnis, sexual acts "cannot in reality be self-giving unless they are acts by which a man and a woman actualize and experience sexually the real giving of themselves to each other - in biological, affective, and volitional union in mutual commitment, both open-ended and exclusive - which like Plato and Aristotle and most peoples we call marriage. In short, sexual acts are not unitive in their significance unless they are marital (actualizing the all-level unity of marriage) and (since the common good of marriage has two aspects) they are not married unless they have not only the generosity of acts of friendship but also the procreative significance, not necessarily of being intended to generate or capable in the circumstances of generating but at least of being, as human conduct, acts of the reproductive kind - actualizations, so far as the spouses then and there can, of the reproductive function in which they are biologically an thus personally one."

HUH? You said the same thing three time, and I still don't understand the point.

Link to comment

As mentioned before, Finnis doesn't argue that gays will cease to exist, he simply notes that the choice to engage in such conduct (focusing on the act, not the feelings) dis-integrates homosexuals as acting persons, because it is incapable of participating in actualizing the common good of friendship, which can only be achieved through the union of reproductive organs between husband and wife - uniting them biologically (and their biological reality is part of, not merely an instrument of, their personal identity). Thus, according to Finnis, sexual acts "cannot in reality be self-giving unless they are acts by which a man and a woman actualize and experience sexually the real giving of themselves to each other - in biological, affective, and volitional union in mutual commitment, both open-ended and exclusive - which like Plato and Aristotle and most peoples we call marriage. In short, sexual acts are not unitive in their significance unless they are marital (actualizing the all-level unity of marriage) and (since the common good of marriage has two aspects) they are not married unless they have not only the generosity of acts of friendship but also the procreative significance, not necessarily of being intended to generate or capable in the circumstances of generating but at least of being, as human conduct, acts of the reproductive kind - actualizations, so far as the spouses then and there can, of the reproductive function in which they are biologically an thus personally one."

Oh, the joys of Thomist-Aristotelian metaphysical arguments. I have a slight fetish for them, which is odd for a Mormon.

Link to comment

HUH? You said the same thing three time, and I still don't understand the point.

This is why I simplified it to both the act of and product of procreation. In a recent article in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Princeton's Robert P.George, Ph.D. candidate Sherif Gergis, and Notre Dame's Ryan T. Anderson expound on the connection between marriage and procreation (both the act of and product of):

[O]rganic bodily unity is achieved when a man and woman coordinate to perform an act of the kind that causes conception. This act is traditionally called the act of generation or the generative act...Because interpersonal unions are valuable in themselves, and not merely as means to other ends, a husband and wife’s loving bodily union in coitus and the special kind of relationship to which it is integral are valuable whether or not conception results and even when conception is not sought. But two men or two women cannot achieve organic bodily union since there is no bodily good or function toward which their bodies can coordinate, reproduction being the only candidate...[Marriage] is the kind of relationship that by its nature is oriented to, and enriched by, the bearing and rearing of children...Marriage is a comprehensive union of two sexually complementary persons who seal (consummate or complete) their relationship by the generative act—by the kind of activity that is by its nature fulfilled by the conception of a child. So marriage itself is oriented to and fulfilled by the bearing, rearing, and education of children. The procreative-type act distinctively seals or completes a procreative-type union. (Gergis, George, Anderson, "What Is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34:1, Winter 2010: pgs. 254-256)

The proper function of sexuality is procreation, but procreaton is not to be limited to its result (i.e. the child). It is the entire process, including the sexual union. Though some unions may not result in a child, this does not make the union illegitimate. It is still the process or act of procreation. The two complementary bodies become one not merely due to the intimate closeness, but the fact that the very act is procreation; a single purpose and process possible in principle by the union of two complementary bodies (i.e. male and female), with the expectation and obligation of caring for the plausible result (i.e. the child). When sex is divorced from the concept of procreation (both in act and result), as it is in one night stands, same-sex unions (whose procreative abilities are not only impossible in practice, but in principle), or whatever, this is where the actualization of the marital good cannot be achieved.

That is, at least, how I understand their arguments. It is all based on the concept of natural law.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...