What's next after Homosexual Marriage? Let's be vigilant people

[otjm]

I don’t know your motives but many moderates view, at best, these arguments illogical, ignorant, and in many cases outright bigotry that conjures up hatred of gays that can lead to violence. The church teaches respect for gays but is utterly quiet on the bigotry that underlay these arguments and stretches the truth to associate them with gay rights. Let’s take the obvious, incest, bestiality, pederasty and polygamy, are all illegal in all states and except for polygamy illegal in all countries. Arguing that such illegal acts will become the norm because of SS marriage and gay civil rights goes beyond all credibility.

The same can be said for homosexuality; it was illegal until recently.

Somewhere, two to three years ago (I didn’t mark the issue on a calendar), the local Public Broadcasting radio station had a woman on, an interview. She was from San Francisco, and she was talking about polyamory as the newest “relationship” format. Within two weeks of that interview, the same station had another woman on in interview. She was from Chicago, was an attorney, and said very, very clearly that polyamory was the next lifestyle matter to come up, and that those who supported it already had a plan in place. She said that they would be modeling on the process the gay community had used, and they would be using the court system in the same way that the gay community had.

If you think this has no credibility; if you think that the laws will “protect” against this, then you simply have not been paying any attention at all, either to how the gay community used the courts to further their agenda, or paying attention to what anyone else is doing. It is not like this is being done in secret; it is out there in the open.

So far, in cases involving gay “marriage” and state laws - and for that matter, state constitutions, the courts have been unanimous in striking every last one of them down. I have not followed the cases, but it is my understanding the courts are relying on a U.S. Supreme Court case related to the matter.

Where is the history of incest rights, bestiality rights and polygamy rights and their backers, where are court cases for recognition. I am sure that the vast majority of gay right activists would join forces with Christian activist should any of these despicable practices turn into a rights movement.

Where are the court cases? They are being made on an almost weekly basis. Oregon is one of the most recent ones; the attorney general for the state - someone who was sworn into office to uphold Oregon law - refused to appear in court to defend the Oregon constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

For those who are arguing that polygamy is next, are you saying that SS marriage includes polygamist marriages or that gay right activists are for polygamist marriages, or that SS marriage successes will be cause the adoption of polygamist marriages?

Polygamy is not next as that is restricted to one man and multiple wives. It has been long practiced, under the radar, in outlying areas of Utah, Idaho, and Arizona. What is next is multiple partners, and it is called polyamory; so polygamy comes under that umbrella.

I believe organizations like NAMBLA are evil as to vast majority of gays and straights do. The ACLU represented NAMBLA in a case pertaining to free speech. As much as we may hate particular speech we live in democracy whose foundation is based on free speech and freedom of religion. NABULA is a extreme fringe minority and is likely to stay that way. Putting things into perspective I believe there is more cause to be worried about our democracy from the NSA and far right neo-Nazi movements in the US and in Europe.

You might consider it an extreme fringe, but that is because of lack of awareness of the gay subculture.

One of the great sources of sexual activity is between gay men and teenage boys. The teenage boys are runaways, living on the street and by what little wits they posses. The gay men who use the boys (the term prostitution fits) have a nickname - they are called chicken hawks. And this has been going on for who knows how long - decades in terms of the large number of runaway teens.

Not to make too fine a point of it, but the sexual abuse between priests and children was over 80% between priests and teenage boys. That is not pedophilia properly, as pedophilia is between an adult and a prepubescent child. It is rather ephibophilia.

Welcome to the real world. It is far, far worse than you think.

 

[Kamaduck]

We are in 99.9% agreement but I have a minor quibble, SS marriage became reality because civil marriage was rightly framed as a fairness issue which can not be made for polamony. In many states and countries the legal definition of marriage is between 2 adults. Polygamy does not meet the legal definition and can not mare fairness the issue. I must say it is much better to be discussing the issue in a sane manner rather than the illogical attempts to conflate SS marriage with nearly universally despised illegal acts.

That’s true in terms of legality, and another reason why the movement will probably be slow to gain legal recognition, if it ever does. I don’t think it would be as easy to claim discrimination in the case of polygamy, especially since even within the movement, people can’t seem to decide whether polyamory is comparable to a sexual orientation, or if it’s merely a relationship model. The community looks like it’s still small and not as organized, so their odds of gaining legal recognition in the next decade or two are slim.

However, I do think many of the current reasons why individual people accept same-sex relationships work almost as well as reasons to accept polyamory. The same can’t be said of the OP’s other examples. Polyamory is much more likely to gain social acceptance than something like bestiality or pedophilia, because it doesn’t have the same issues regarding consent.

 

[Kamaduck]

Polygamy is not next as that is restricted to one man and multiple wives. It has been long practiced, under the radar, in outlying areas of Utah, Idaho, and Arizona. What is next is multiple partners, and it is called polyamory; so polygamy comes under that umbrella.

Technically the difference is that polygamy means the people involved are married to each other, while polyamory involves having multiple partners without necessarily being married to any of them. One man with many wives would be polygyny. One woman with many husbands would be polyandry. A lot of the time people will assume that polygamy = polygyny, because legally recognized polyandry is so uncommon.

This knowledge will probably not help any of us in any way, but there it is.

 

[EasterJoy]

I agree, and as I’ve said before, these arguments do more harm than good.

Child marriage and animal marriage are things that over 99 percent of Americans strongly oppose, and I have seen on at least two occasions same-sex marriage advocates refer to opponents as “stupid” or “idiots” for bringing it up, accusing opponents of not understanding the major difference, that these relationships don’t involve adult consent.

Some of us are old enough to remember being told we were hysterical idiots for believing that striking down the right of a state to forbid certain sexual acts between consenting adults would lead to gay marriage. We were told that was preposterous, were we not?

Legal marriage to animals are not going to happen, because consent is impossible. Adoption? I would not put anything past “pet parents,” but no, that is also not going to happen.

Legalization of child marriage is highly unlikely, as Americans are extending the practical length of childhood later and later into life. In spite of being willing to try adolescent murderers as adults, Americans want to be able to helicopter their children’s lives until they’re 18.

Plural marriage, OTOH, is something that secular people will actually voice a tolerance for. Pretty much any arrangement restricted to consenting adults has some audience for it. More to the point, if the courts strike down the ability of states to define marriage for citizens who have reached the age of majority, the plural marriage advocates may win their day in court, and bypass the ballot box entirely. The trail has been blazed.

 

[EasterJoy]

We are in 99.9% agreement but I have a minor quibble, SS marriage became reality because civil marriage was rightly framed as a fairness issue which can not be made for polamony. In many states and countries the legal definition of marriage is between 2 adults. Polygamy does not meet the legal definition and can not mare fairness the issue. I must say it is much better to be discussing the issue in a sane manner rather than the illogical attempts to conflate SS marriage with nearly universally despised illegal acts.

Is it fair to restrict the sort of families people want to form? Is it fair to deny a woman marriage to the father of her children because he is already married to someone else, even though he is supporting both families and being a husband to both women, by mutual consent? If the state has been deemed to have no right to impose the forms of family life by its definition of marriage, I would not be so certain that the state has a right to impose a limit on how many people can commit to each other in mutual care and family life, particularly since plural marriage has been practiced in some many places and ages of history, including now and in this country. The state is making it hard for those families to get basic services and to grant the rights of the married to each other. Honestly, to argue that a prohibition on plural marriage is arbitrary and unjust is almost easier to make than the case for same-sex marriage, since fewer societal taboos have to be thrown under the bus to do it.

Well, time will tell on this question. Vigilance is worthwhile, but conjecture won’t do much.

 

[Avocadomom]

Yep. I think that’s the most likely. Let’s face it, no one, conservative, liberal, gay, or straight wants pedophilia legalized. Polygamy would be all but impossible. But the push for gay adoption is the natural progression of the gay rights movement-which is gaining steam and spreading faster every day.

No, no one wants pedophilia legalized. But there will come a time when people argue that their preference for sex with minors is a variant of normal, is healthy, and with consent of the minor should be permitted.

We are already letting minors consent to surgical abortions and contraception without their parents’ knowledge.

There is a huge - HUGE contingent of people that prefer underage sexual partners. Just look at how many porn titles include the words “underage” “barely legal” “first time” and “teen.” It’s going to happen. I know it seems outrageous now, but at some point someone will argue that those with an orientation toward preferring children should be a protected class.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I think you’re wrong about that. One of the main reasons NAMBLA exists is to try to gain acceptance for pedophilia and child rape. As of 1995, the group only had 1000 members. That’s not much, and it’s not a threat. The ACLU has defended NAMBLA. So? They’ve defended a lot of unsavory groups, as well as conservative organizations. They don’t defend groups based on whether or not they agree with them. Right now, I’m interning at a public defender’s office and I’m working on a case where a man is accused of raping and murdering his 2 year old nephew. Should I be hated for working to defend him? Harry Hay, who for years was one of the most prominent leaders of the LGBT community, supported them and their inclusion in gay pride parades. He did, and much has been said and written about that. I encourage you to look into it. It stemmed from his deeply held belief that the gay rights movement needed to be completely free from outside forces. It was this issue that promptly pushed him to the fringe of the gay rights movement. Countless Democrats (including Nancy Pelosi) supported Hay, and not one of them ever condemned Hay or the ACLU for their support of NAMBLA. Why condemn the ACLU. The ACLU was right, the organization was not liable for the deaths and did have a right to free speech. Furthermore, Hay did have a positive impact on the movement and was a hero in many ways. Yes, he had some very deep flaws. If they’re not vocally supporting the group, I’d say they’re at least condoning it by their silence I’d say that’s a stretch. And if that’s the road you want to go down, conservatives would be in a lot of trouble too. I praise MLK for his work, I don’t feel the need to go on a tangent about adultery, plagiarism, and prostitutes are bad. Same with Jefferson and slaves. .

As far as marriage goes, I’m sure polygamy will be next. However, I’ve been saying for decades that the acceptance of pedophilia is part of both the gay and liberal agendas. You may have been saying it for decades, but there is no evidence of it. You point to Hay, but he did not advocate for pedophilia. His views on teen sex and age of consent were actually quite nuanced and stemmed from his own experiences as a young man. And Hay aside, there’s no one else to point to. While you don’t see a lot of overt support for it, it doesn’t take much to find countless examples of the sexualization of children in mainstream media. Actually, when I think of sexualization of children, I think of child beauty pageants…and those are not kept alive with liberals. I think it’s a big enough taboo that we’re still a good way off from open, vocal support of it but I also feel that every little thing that corrodes our basic morality gets us a step closer.

I love Harry Hay! When I was in high school, we were given an assignment to pick an American historical figure and write a ‘Good, Bad, and Ugly’ paper about them. I chose Hay and it was fascinating. (Other popular choices were MLK, Rosa Parks, any number of the founding fathers, Reagan, Hoover, and FDR).

Anyway, I don’t think that you could be further off. I tried to respond to your points individually though, because I didn’t want any of the nuances to get lost.

 

[otjm]

Technically the difference is that polygamy means the people involved are married to each other, while polyamory involves having multiple partners without necessarily being married to any of them. One man with many wives would be polygyny. One woman with many husbands would be polyandry. A lot of the time people will assume that polygamy = polygyny, because legally recognized polyandry is so uncommon.

This knowledge will probably not help any of us in any way, but there it is.

You are right; I should watch my definitions better.

The legal basis, in large part, for gay marriage is the bundle of rights associated with marriage, and in particular, rights concerning health care and estate/inheritance.

And whether polyamory supporters are using the incorrect terms (or if we even have one for a multiple wife/multiple husband arrangement), the comments from the woman attorney indicated that at least a significant number of the subset are viewing this in terms of “marriage” - that is, something other than Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice - which simply had to do with sexual liaisons outside of marriages. They are planning on further redefining marriage (now that the gay community has redefined it) to include multiple spouses. Whether it is one woman and several husbands, on husband and sever wives, or several husbands and several wives, that is where things are headed right now. Not the future, somewhere off ten, fifteen, or who knows how many years from now.

 

[frobert]

The same can be said for homosexuality; it was illegal until recently.

The fact that the laws against homosexuality were ruled unconstitutional tells us homosexuality was unconstitutionally ruled illegal so therefore homosexuality was legal.

Somewhere, two to three years ago (I didn’t mark the issue on a calendar), the local Public Broadcasting radio station had a woman on, an interview. She was from San Francisco, and she was talking about polyamory as the newest “relationship” format. Within two weeks of that interview, the same station had another woman on in interview. She was from Chicago, was an attorney, and said very, very clearly that polyamory was the next lifestyle matter to come up, and that those who supported it already had a plan in place. She said that they would be modeling on the process the gay community had used, and they would be using the court system in the same way that the gay community had.

What can I say, success breeds imitation. The issues are like night and day and successful legal challenges in this area will remain elusive. I dislike polygamy and do encourage you to start a campaign against it but keep in mind the similar among legal tactics does not justify conflating SS Marriage and polygamy. I believe St Augustine reasoned “the means do not justify the ends.”

If you think this has no credibility; if you think that the laws will “protect” against this, then you simply have not been paying any attention at all, either to how the gay community used the courts to further their agenda, or paying attention to what anyone else is doing. It is not like this is being done in secret; it is out there in the open.

So far, in cases involving gay “marriage” and state laws - and for that matter, state constitutions, the courts have been unanimous in striking every last one of them down. I have not followed the cases, but it is my understanding the courts are relying on a U.S. Supreme Court case related to the matter.

Where are the court cases? They are being made on an almost weekly basis. Oregon is one of the most recent ones; the attorney general for the state - someone who was sworn into office to uphold Oregon law - refused to appear in court to defend the Oregon constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Read the first sentence of my reply.

We have different would views. For many, the gay community and its supporters properly defined the legal issues which resulted in success in knocking down unconstitutional statues.

Polygamy is not next as that is restricted to one man and multiple wives. It has been long practiced, under the radar, in outlying areas of Utah, Idaho, and Arizona. What is next is multiple partners, and it is called polyamory; so polygamy comes under that umbrella.

You might consider it an extreme fringe, but that is because of lack of awareness of the gay subculture.

One of the great sources of sexual activity is between gay men and teenage boys. The teenage boys are runaways, living on the street and by what little wits they posses. The gay men who use the boys (the term prostitution fits) have a nickname - they are called chicken hawks. And this has been going on for who knows how long - decades in terms of the large number of runaway teens.

Not to make too fine a point of it, but the sexual abuse between priests and children was over 80% between priests and teenage boys. That is not pedophilia properly, as pedophilia is between an adult and a prepubescent child. It is rather ephibophilia.

Welcome to the real world. It is far, far worse than you think.

Recently, one of the great sources of sexual activity within the Catholic Church clergy (also in other denominations) was between priests and young boys. Are all priests and clergy bad? Should we condemn the CC itself for such immoral acts? I hope not but people who conflate the issues may likely arrive at such erroneous conclusions.

 

[Kamaduck]

The legal basis, in large part, for gay marriage is the bundle of rights associated with marriage, and in particular, rights concerning health care and estate/inheritance.

I can see them arguing discrimination on that front, but as BEL said, that would be a legal nightmare. The hypothetical group of three people all married to each other isn’t too hard to make calls on, but if we get massive relationship webs, marriage will really become nothing more than a marker for primary relationships. We’d end up completely abandoning the idea of family units, and I don’t think Americans are going to go for that in the near future. In twenty or thirty years the movement might have gained steam, but it’s probably not going to be legally recognized before that.

And whether polyamory supporters are using the incorrect terms (or if we even have one for a multiple wife/multiple husband arrangement)

The term for animal groups organized like that is polygynandry, but that’s getting kind of long, so we’d probably just call them polygamous or group marriages.

the comments from the woman attorney indicated that at least a significant number of the subset are viewing this in terms of “marriage” - that is, something other than Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice - which simply had to do with sexual liaisons outside of marriages. They are planning on further redefining marriage (now that the gay community has redefined it) to include multiple spouses. Whether it is one woman and several husbands, on husband and sever wives, or several husbands and several wives, that is where things are headed right now. Not the future, somewhere off ten, fifteen, or who knows how many years from now.

They can try it now, but I don’t think they have enough backing. There are too many practical concerns involved. Americans are still divided over gay marriage- I don’t think they’re all going to jump on the polyamory bandwagon yet. They might have more success with the court system, but I don’t think they have enough backing right now.

I suppose it will come down to what secular society thinks marriage actually is- not who can have one, but what it actually signifies. If it’s a commitment, then what exactly is it a commitment to? Raising children together? A continuing relationship? Sharing resources and a household? Whatever the answer is, I think that will determine which arrangements will ultimately gain legal recognition. Any arrangement that can’t practically meet those requirements is unlikely to gain legal recognition, certainly not in the near future.

 

[otjm]

So where is this all going to go? Conjecture can be so much fun…

There are several European countries which have a significant Muslim population. There has been chatter for several years (well, more than several) concerning this in terms of several aspects.

One of the northern countries (I think it was Denmark, but perhaps another) recently went through a change of government, and started to tighten down on the population, Putting the arguments concerning that matter aside, there are communities developing at a rapid rate, and the majority of European countries have either a barely maintenance rate of birth (other than the Muslim population) or are below the replacement rate - several to a significant degree.

Assuming that Europe continues to contracept and abort itself towards extinction, and the Muslim populations continue to grow both because of a much higher birth rate and immigration, the reality of sharia being voted in as the law of some of the land becomes more and more possible. Whether or not that is on a local or semi-local basis, or a state basis, if the statistics continue in the same direction they have been going, it becomes inevitable.

In spite of the fact that there is almost no media coverage as to why, there has been plenty of information around as to why the radical (and ascendant) aspect of Islam has so much hatred for the United States and Europe. It is simplistic to stop at their name calling of the Great Satan; but they articulate what they mean; and that has primarily (but certainly not exclusively) to do with their (not exactly incorrect) view of sexual morality, or the lack thereof, in the US and Europe.

So while Europe and the US continue on a path towards unwinding 5000 years of moral law, we have another group gaining population (and thus voting power) which is radically opposed to such direction.

So, the media ignores one faction, while touting another, Makes for interesting watching.

 

[otjm]

The fact that the laws against homosexuality were ruled unconstitutional tells us homosexuality was unconstitutionally ruled illegal so therefore homosexuality was legal.

What it tells us is that an activist court which ignores constitutional history can reshape the constitution in their own image an likeness. Short of calling a Constitutional Convention, they can continue to do so.

What can I say, success breeds imitation.

That one is too good to ignore, and too juicy to touch.

The issues are like night and day and successful legal challenges in this area will remain elusive. I dislike polygamy and do encourage you to start a campaign against it but keep in mind the similar among legal tactics does not justify conflating SS Marriage and polygamy. I believe St Augustine reasoned “the means do not justify the ends.”

I have practiced law. Sorry, I don’t think you have the faintest clue.

Read the first sentence of my reply.

I did. Read my response.

We have different would views. For many, the gay community and its supporters properly defined the legal issues which resulted in success in knocking down unconstitutional statues.

Perhaps it is pedantic to point out that this country (contrary to our current President) was founded as a Christian nation under Christian principles. The Enlightenment has finally caught up with us, several centuries later, and Christian principles have been tossed out of the public square. As Madam I Want to be President has made not to fine a point: religion observances are private, by which she meant, not to be part of any public discussion.

So, your reading of the constitution is not historically supported. It is beyond any imagining of a fevered high school sophomore that the founding fathers, in writing the constitution, would have ever intended that gay rights would be considered legal, permissible, and within the gamut of constitutional law.

Recently, one of the great sources of sexual activity within the Catholic Church clergy (also in other denominations) was between priests and young boys. Are all priests and clergy bad? Should we condemn the CC itself for such immoral acts? I hope not but people who conflate the issues may likely arrive at such erroneous conclusions.

Off topic, irrelevant to the discussion, and not indicative of anything to do with future directions of sexual morality vis a vis the law. And by the way, you failed to include all the high school teachers, Boy Scout leaders, and others involved in sexual activity with teens.

 

[otjm]

No, no one wants pedophilia legalized.

Actually, that is not correct; NAMBLA defitiely does. And just in case readers do not know who NAMBLA is and don’t do the research, it stands for North American Man Boy Love Association.

But there will come a time when people argue that their preference for sex with minors is a variant of normal, is healthy, and with consent of the minor should be permitted.

That one was breached some time ago.

 

[otjm]

I can see them arguing discrimination on that front, but as BEL said, that would be a legal nightmare. The hypothetical group of three people all married to each other isn’t too hard to make calls on, but if we get massive relationship webs, marriage will really become nothing more than a marker for primary relationships. We’d end up completely abandoning the idea of family units, and I don’t think Americans are going to go for that in the near future. In twenty or thirty years the movement might have gained steam, but it’s probably not going to be legally recognized before that.

Pay attention, right here and now, to what is occurring on an almost weekly basis. What Americans want, feel, go for, or for that matter, vote into law has absolutely no relevance whatsoever as to the decisions the courts are making, unanimously. Each and every case that has come up recently attacking statutes or state constitutional provisions has been struck down. Each and every last one of them. All.

Americans have no say whatsoever in the matter. Period. End. Nada. Zip.

Between the courts and the current administration, there is not one iota of interest, concern, care, apprehension, consideration, unease, worry, heed, or solicitude as to what Americans think, unless they are in agreement with the direction the courts and the administration is going.

The term for animal groups organized like that is polygynandry, but that’s getting kind of long, so we’d probably just call them polygamous or group marriages.

They can try it now, but I don’t think they have enough backing. There are too many practical concerns involved. Americans are still divided over gay marriage- I don’t think they’re all going to jump on the polyamory bandwagon yet. They might have more success with the court system, but I don’t think they have enough backing right now.

Cases are not decided by “backing” anywhere near what you think. Kinsey said that 10% of the population is gay, and Kinsey has been repeatedly put down for skewed statistics, bias, and inaccuracy. 3% to 4% are the best numbers I can find; that means that 96 to 97% of Ameicans are not gay. And not only that, numerous states have either passed statutes or modified their state constitutions to say that marriage is between a man and a woman; and that has not even slowed the courts down, let alone stop any of them.

I suppose it will come down to what secular society thinks marriage actually is- not who can have one, but what it actually signifies. If it’s a commitment, then what exactly is it a commitment to? Raising children together? A continuing relationship? Sharing resources and a household? Whatever the answer is, I think that will determine which arrangements will ultimately gain legal recognition. Any arrangement that can’t practically meet those requirements is unlikely to gain legal recognition, certainly not in the near future.

Unless the Supreme Court finds that states, under a theory of states’ rights, can determine what marriage is, it will not matter what secular society thinks.

Ten years ago, there was far greater rejection of gay marriage than there is today, and the most notable change has been among young adults. Given they are the future, it bodes not well, simply because society will turn to accepting the court’s definition. The direction was against gay marriage; the courts stepped in, and there has been an about-face fast enough to break your neck.

And the bleating sheep follow.

 

[frobert]

Congratulations on being a lawyer.

Perhaps it is pedantic to point out that this country (contrary to our current President) was founded as a Christian nation under Christian principles. The Enlightenment has finally caught up with us, several centuries later, and Christian principles have been tossed out of the public square. As Madam I Want to be President has made not to fine a point: religion observances are private, by which she meant, not to be part of any public discussion.

Are you suggesting we go back to a Holy Roman Empire type of government? I don’t believe there was much religious discussion back then either though.

So, your reading of the constitution is not historically supported. It is beyond any imagining of a fevered high school sophomore that the founding fathers, in writing the constitution, would have ever intended that gay rights would be considered legal, permissible, and within the gamut of constitutional law.

We can only speculate about what our founding fathers thought about homosexuality but I concede its likely they did not approve but its also likely they did not approve of the CC either. Who knows how their thinking would have evolved. Even in the CC thinking evolves. However, We can say with certainty that the founding fathers believed in the strict separation of church and state–no need for speculation about it.

Originally Posted by frobert
Recently, one of the great sources of sexual activity within the Catholic Church clergy (also in other denominations) was between priests and young boys. Are all priests and clergy bad? Should we condemn the CC itself for such immoral acts? I hope not but people who conflate the issues may likely arrive at such erroneous conclusions.

Off topic, irrelevant to the discussion, and not indicative of anything to do with future directions of sexual morality vis a vis the law. And by the way, you failed to include all the high school teachers, Boy Scout leaders, and others involved in sexual activity with teens.

I will concede to your legalese.

Still, it has much to do with future legal direction. Don’t you think that attorneys will use, as evidence, the sexual abuse in the churches, schools, boy scouts, etc? Doesn’t the state have a vested interest in protecting minors who are potential victims of pedophiles?

So lets put it back on topic and “include all the high school teachers, Boy Scout leaders, and others involved in sexual activity with teens.”

If I was unclear in previous posts I will try to be clear on this one. There are straight and gay people who illegally indulge in bestiality, pedophilia and polygamy. They should be prosecuted within our legal system when found out. Adults whether gay or straight should do all they can to protect animals, minors and venerable adults against sexual abuse. Sexual abuse of children, bestiality and polygamy are not internal aspects of SS marriage or LGTB civil rights. Such illegal acts are committed by disturbed people.

 

[Kamaduck]

Ten years ago, there was far greater rejection of gay marriage than there is today, and the most notable change has been among young adults. Given they are the future, it bodes not well, simply because society will turn to accepting the court’s definition. The direction was against gay marriage; the courts stepped in, and there has been an about-face fast enough to break your neck.

And the bleating sheep follow.

Then it really only matters what the supreme court justices think about any of this. If they decide that anti-polygamy laws are not constitutional, then that’s that.

But honestly, if we have no power whatsoever, why bother discussing any of this? I think we have to keep believing that we have some kind of say if we’re going to keep discussing the issue. Otherwise we should accept that which we have no power to change.

 

[EasterJoy]

Then it really only matters what the supreme court justices think about any of this. If they decide that anti-polygamy laws are not constitutional, then that’s that…

Pretty much. We know that during our lifetimes the 14th Amendment has been applied in ways not dreamt of when it was ratified in 1868, let’s just say that. I think it safe to say no one back then envisioned that it would imply a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I agree with the comments regarding plural marriages. Unlike gay marriage, plural marriages of various types have a history going back thousands of years, and is legal in various countries. Making it legal also solves the issues that can arise during the immigration of a polygamous family legal married in another country.

Child marriage? It simply won’t happen. It’s simply not supported on either side of the aisle, and I believe that it is one of the issues that if passed can actually cause a real revolt and violence against the legal system. FWIW, people can get married at relatively young ages, depending on state law. Generally, for states that allow it, 16-17 requires parental consent, 15 and under require parental consent and court approval.

Marriage to non-humans? Never. That’s based on the way marriage (and contracts in general) works in the U.S. You can’t marry something that can’t give consent. Futhermore, it would open a can of worms that would bog down the legal system for decades. For example, let’s say someone marries 99 weasels (not politicians, but the long skinny mammals). The husband is disabled, and the 99 weasels can’t work. That would mean that they can collect Social Security disability x100. Or if the human died, inheritance goes to the 99 weasels…etc.

 

[Seraphignatius]

I agree with the comments regarding plural marriages. Unlike gay marriage, plural marriages of various types have a history going back thousands of years, and is legal in various countries. Making it legal also solves the issues that can arise during the immigration of a polygamous family legal married in another country.

Child marriage? It simply won’t happen. It’s simply not supported on either side of the aisle, and I believe that it is one of the issues that if passed can actually cause a real revolt and violence against the legal system. FWIW, people can get married at relatively young ages, depending on state law. Generally, for states that allow it, 16-17 requires parental consent, 15 and under require parental consent and court approval.

Marriage to non-humans? Never. That’s based on the way marriage (and contracts in general) works in the U.S. You can’t marry something that can’t give consent. Futhermore, it would open a can of worms that would bog down the legal system for decades. For example, let’s say someone marries 99 weasels (not politicians, but the long skinny mammals). The husband is disabled, and the 99 weasels can’t work. That would mean that they can collect Social Security disability x100. Or if the human died, inheritance goes to the 99 weasels…etc.

If I didn’t know of cases where animals have inherited millions of dollars I would almost consider the possibility of that being a temporary barrier to legalizing bestial marriages, but seeing as we live in the crazy messed up world we do, I would never put it past them.

 

[Seraphignatius]

Your perspective is interesting, and at one time I would have thought you were right.

However, experience has shown me that you don’t need “enough people” who are willing to make it work. All you need is a JUDGE in a sympathetic court period. Look at California, they had a vote and the law of the land was marriage between one man and one woman and the courts overturned it, repeatedly. So even though the people of the United States may not be ready to accept multiple marriage partners I really wonder if that matters much? Even if there was a vote on it, the law could be easily overturned. It is happening. On the grounds of what is good for society they could even argue that a man with two wives is a stable family that produces children and a gay-man couple doesn’t (sans adoption.)

Therefore I am beginning to think that you don’t need a lot of people really. It helps, it helps a lot in some cases and it can never hurt! But it isn’t 100% necessary. I hate to see things go this way but I fear they might, I guess we get what we ask for when we are a nation living as we do. Heaven help us I hope I am wrong.

Really, the supreme court is becoming America’s de facto oligarchy. We need a constitutional convention.