Polygamists Point to ‘Gay Marriage’ in Fight Against Utah’s Appeal of Polygamy Ruling

  • Thread starter Thread starter Son_of_Niall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Son_of_Niall

Guest
SALT LAKE CITY — An attorney representing a polygamist at the center of the TLC reality show “Sister Wives” is pointing to the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex “marriage” in his fight against Utah’s appeal of a federal decision striking down the state’s ban on polygamous cohabitation.
Click to expand...
“From the rejection of morality legislation in Lawrence to the expansion of the protections of liberty interests in Obergefell, it is clear that states can no longer use criminal codes to coerce or punish those who choose to live in consensual but unpopular unions,” attorney Jonathan Turley wrote on behalf of plaintiff Kody Brown.
Click to expand...
christiannews.net/2015/08/28/polygamists-point-to-gay-marriage-in-fight-against-utahs-appeal-of-polygamy-ruling/
 
But our slippery slope argument was stupid and wrong, right?
 
Logically speaking, if a man can marry a man, then a man should be able to marry two women or two men or even a goat. 😦
 
phil19034 said:
Logically speaking, if a man can marry a man, then a man should be able to marry two women or two men or even a goat. 😦
Click to expand...
I’m just curiosity, have you encountered many pro-same sex Union defined as marriage folk also subscribing to these things? I have always just heard “that’s not the same thing!” with the individual deciding further conversation wasn’t neccesary because the majority of Americans agreed that “love is love” .
 
phil19034 said:
Logically speaking, if a man can marry a man, then a man should be able to marry two women or two men or even a goat. 😦
Click to expand...
I don’t think so, it’s more like saying an Olympic 4 man rowing team should be able to use a 2 person kayak in competition if they want.
 
Yeah. I knew this was coming. I don’t know. I guess this is just going to end up being a big mess. Marriage is going to end by having no real meaning. But what do I know. I’m not really a paragon of virtue myself.
 
Those who have supported same sex “marriage” have no ground whatsoever for opposing any and all future innovations in “marriage.”
 
JD1789 said:
I’m just curiosity, have you encountered many pro-same sex Union defined as marriage folk also subscribing to these things? I have always just heard “that’s not the same thing!” with the individual deciding further conversation wasn’t neccesary because the majority of Americans agreed that “love is love” .
Click to expand...
No, they usually do not publicly admit to it. Thought I have read some do.

But at the same time, all of the Democrats (Obama, Clinton, Biden, etc) were against same-sex “marriage” before Obama’s first term; so I really believe the left simply tells us what we want to hear until they know they have enough votes to push more immorality.

I’ve read a good article about a pro-gay marriage person who preached that same sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage (which she was happy about)
 
If Kody wants more than one wife, I can see a homosexual wanting more than one man or woman in gay “marriage”. It is all about destroying family and morals.

There is a reality TV show where a father divorced his wife and didn’t see his child again until she was 24. They had emailed for a couple of years and developed a friendship and an attraction which was cemented when both met. Yup, they want to wed. So here we have two consenting adults, not harming anyone, so why not?:eek: And another duo getting on the slide downhill.

Father Z, on his blog, posted this week that it is all about dropping the age of consent.
 
Memaw said:
Our Supreme Court has yet opened another door to Pandora’s box with SSM law. Look where it’s decision on abortion has taken us!!! God have Mercy on our country. God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
Very well said Memaw:thumbsup:
 
The standard defense of gay marriage advocates will be
“Two consenting adults constitute marriage, not four”.

And they have no leg to stand on, because we have formed a society in which words and objective realities are relativized to radical individual rights (aka they are meaningless).

So, polygamists’ answer is
“who says marriage is only between two consenting adults and not four? That’s your definition, not mine. You are denying me my civil rights by denying me marriage with three women. Marriage is not limited to your definition.”
And using the same logic as gay marriage advocates, the polygamist is correct.

I want to be hopeful, but if I had to wager my life savings, I would say this process is going to end in horrifying tragedy for humanity. Not because people are having unusual sex with one another, but because we lie to ourselves about basic human nature. Human nature has become relativized and objectified.
 
On behalf of the gays who were not in support of SSM, I apologize for all the trouble. Some of us knew this was going to happen. Believe it or not. And some of us didn’t want it to for that reason. Sorry.

Peace.

-Trident
 
This isn’t about legalizing polygamous marriage, rather decriminalizing polygamous cohabitation. This is more analogous to Lawrence v. Texas than Obergefell v. Hodges. I support the decriminalization of polygamy while reserving actual marriage recognition to a union of just one man and one woman.
 
I think that the vast majority of people in favor of SSM are not in favor of polyamory. With that said, by their logic, I think that makes their position even more “bigoted” than ours.

Opposition to SSM, when properly formulated, has nothing to do with the morality or appeal of homosexuality. People oppose SSM because they believe that marriage has a specific meaning and purpose, and that meaning and purpose can’t accommodate two people of the same-sex.

Conversely, those in favor of same-sex marriage have essentially said that marriage has no specific purpose other than what we give it. And the purpose that we give it, for the moment, is to endow specific rights and responsibilities upon two people in a relationship. People in polyamorous relationships would benefit just as much from legal protection as those in monogamous relationships. Their love is just as real as anyone else’s. So why not? When you get right down to it, the only reason to deny those rights in priviledes would be because they don’t like polyamory.In otherwords, a person who supports SSM but opposes polyamory is just forcing their beliefs on everyone else.
 
clem456 said:
The standard defense of gay marriage advocates will be
“Two consenting adults constitute marriage, not four”.

And they have no leg to stand on, because we have formed a society in which words and objective realities are relativized to radical individual rights (aka they are meaningless).

So, polygamists’ answer is
“who says marriage is only between two consenting adults and not four? That’s your definition, not mine. You are denying me my civil rights by denying me marriage with three women. Marriage is not limited to your definition.”
And using the same logic as gay marriage advocates, the polygamist is correct.

I want to be hopeful, but if I had to wager my life savings, I would say this process is going to end in horrifying tragedy for humanity. Not because people are having unusual sex with one another, but because we lie to ourselves about basic human nature. Human nature has become relativized and objectified.
Click to expand...
You’re right. The supporters of SSM have widened the meaning of marriage and in doing so, they have shown how easily that can be done. It’s not about slippery slopes. It’s about trail blazing for the rights and equality of anyone else who wants their own definition of their own form of love/marriage.

Polygamists are of course entitled to ask why should marriage be just two people.

More likely, however, is that bisexuals will want to know why they are forced to choose either a male or a female spouse (but not both) thereby restricting their marriage equality. :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top