Utah Polygamist Invokes Ruling on Gay Sex

AP ^ | December 1, 2003 | MARK THIESSEN

[Kay Soze]

December 1, 2003, 7:38 PM EST

SALT LAKE CITY -- A lawyer for a Utah man with five wives argued Monday that his polygamy convictions should be thrown out following a Supreme Court decision decriminalizing gay sex.

The nation's high court in June struck down a Texas sodomy law, ruling that what gay men and women do in the privacy of their homes is no business of government.

It's no different for polygamists, argued Tom Green's attorney, John Bucher, to the Utah Supreme Court.

[tuckrdout]

Well, it is not an either or situation. It is a situation where if one deviant sexual practice has the government stamp of approval, then all of the deviant "marriage" situations must be approved. Incest; groups of all kinds; human/animal; children/adult....all must be approved. There can be no descrimination!


These kinds of laws, changing marriage, infringe on our rights. It takes away THE PEOPLE's right to have a self determined society. It takes away our right to teach our children our historic religious principles, traditions and heritage. These laws, made from the appointed, judical branch of government, take away our rights to a representative government and remove our freedom of speech, so that we can not even say that homosexuality is a sin. In Canada it is already illegal to say such a thing.

The homosexual is free to do what they want in the country, but they want to take away our rights, so that they think they can feel better about themselves. Sorry, it will not work. Homosexuality is not natural, and they will not feel better with government protection and approval.

[tracer]

No offense noted or taken. It's a fact that the fastest way to get "exed" from the Church is to be found to be a polygamist....

[tracer]

Okay!! Just for that, you're off of my "futures" list!! Besides, Elmer would kill me...... 8~)

[LibertarianInExile]

As to who signs the marriage license, the witnesses, married couple, and the person who performed the ceremony.

As to where you get married, well, that depends on where you live. In France, you have two ceremonies, one at the city hall and one at the church. In most states, you can get married anywhere as long as the person doing the ceremony's certified to do so BY the state (preacher, priest, notary public).

So the state IS involved in every instance of what is a religious ceremony--even though religion isn't involved in every instance of the state certification.

[LibertarianInExile]

Isn't marriage for most folks a union between a man and woman in the eyes of GOD?

"It may have been that when Adam and Eve walked the earth, but throughout most of history it has been a civil contract between the state and the couple."

For most of history for most folks, it's been exactly what I said. There was no state to contract WITH. I'm not denying that it is also a civil contract NOW, but I still don't believe it's between the state and the couple--it's between the bride and groom. The state has no part in the marriage, and no reason to be part of the marriage, except for the state's grants of oh-so-wonderful 'benefits,' then and now.

[ArGee]

For most of history for most folks, it's been exactly what I said.

Says you. I think every government has recognized that contracting for stable families is required to maintain the state. Without a stable family structure the state will eventually self-destruct.

The family is the cornerstone of the nation.

Shalom.

[LibertarianInExile]

Says me, and human history. There has to BE a state in order for you to be right. The history of humanity isn't one that leads directly to the formation of nation-states as we know them.

We don't disagree as to the aims of the state in promoting stable families; what we disagree about is whether the state's role in such is in fact a positive or negative in the end. Obviously, you think the former.

[ArGee]

There has to BE a state in order for you to be right.

Sounds like you and I are using the word "state" differently. I'm using it to mean any government.

Shalom.

[scripter]

Hey, you stated my post was progaganda and then you ran away without an iota of evidence to:

1. support your claim
2. discredit the information I posted

Please support your statement that what I posted was propaganda. If what you say is accurate it should be an easy task for you. I'm sure you'll want to start with the references, footnotes and data sources to the links I posted. How about looking at post 113, 114 and 121 and getting back to me?

[Elsie]

I'd like to hear the rationalization for ruling against polygamy.

God said so!

I think..

make up your OWN mind about it was closer to what was reported......

[Elsie]

They'll ask for working to the effect that "two people" can be considered married, but they will be drowning in their own pre-election polling when they discover that nearly 70% of Americans are against gay marriage all together.

UHHhhhh........

Since WHEN does what the MAJORITY want make any difference in this country????

[Elsie]

There's no glossing over it, God tolerates it in the OT.

---

Not any more........

According to --> http://scriptures.lds.org/od/1

[Rutles4Ever]

Since WHEN does what the MAJORITY want make any difference in this country????

Yeah, I have to agree with that, but I have to wonder where middle America will draw the line....

[jimt]

They want to make their religion appear as close to Orthodox Christianity as possible!

Are your slurs against Mormons intended to be Christian commnetary?

Ridiculing others' beliefs is so unbecoming.

[Jim Cane]

How many wives did Good King Solomon have?

[Tempest]

"Hey, you stated my post was progaganda and then you ran away without an iota of evidence to: "

Yes quite, actually your whole mentality leans towards distortion of the facts. You seem convinced that homosexuality is the sole cause or the primary indicator to deathly sexually transmitted diesease. When that's simply not hte case.

STDs are not any more or less likely to infect anybody whether straight or homosexual as long as they practice safe sex. Actually if you use the proper precautions beyond just contraceptives your risk of getting one is just as likely, regardless of your sexual orientation. Unless your trying to claim that condoms or such are less effective for homosexuals. Or monogomy is less effective if your gay?!

Your statistics and numbers have very little to due with the fact that the problem stems from irresponsible social behaviour amongest all of society and not so much with anyones particular sexual orientation.

do you need for me to elaborate further.?

[scripter]

Yes quite, actually your whole mentality leans towards distortion of the facts.

Ah, more unsupported statements.

You seem convinced that homosexuality is the sole cause or the primary indicator to deathly sexually transmitted diesease.

A straw man indeed, along with the rest of your post.

do you need for me to elaborate further.?

Elaborate further? Try sticking to what I've actually said and respond with something of substance. You claimed what I posted was propaganda, so support your claim with something that hasn't been discredited. Be the first to actually try!

[scripter]

STDs are not any more or less likely to infect anybody whether straight or homosexual as long as they practice safe sex.

AIDS targets homosexual behavior, monogamous or not. If you have any evidence to refute this well known fact, post it.

Perhaps you can start here: Health and Homosexuality, but you won't find any evidence to support your claim there. What you will find is more of this:

AIDS is one disease that has captured the attention of the media. Homosexuals make up over 80 percent of the AIDS cases in America. ¹ However, AIDS is but one of the many diseases linked to homosexual behavior. A survey of literature in leading medical journals reveals the host of medical dangers associated with the homosexual lifestyle.

While it appears clear that homosexual men have a difficult time sustaining "safe" sexual behavior, the inevitable question is why? Medical and psychological experts have developed several explanations. Some homosexual men believe that once they have established a monogamous relationship, they aren't at risk. The American Journal of Public Health published a study in 1990 that found, "Being in a monogamous gay relationship was associated with higher risk sex throughout the entire study."⁸²

The Journal of the American Medical Association found that "among men, report of any lifetime homosexual activity was associated with an elevated risk for HSV-2 [herpes simplex virus - 2]." ⁵⁴

The link between homosexuality and herpes simplex-2 has also been noted in other journals. ⁵⁵

Footnotes:

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services -- Centers for Disease Control. "HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report." July 1993 Vol. 5 No. 2.

54. Seigel, D, Golden E, Washington E, Morse SA, Fullilove MT, Catania JA, Marin B, Hulley SB. "Prevalence and Correlates of Herpes Simplex Infections: The Population-Based AIDS in Multiethnic Neighborhoods Study." Journal of the American Medical Association, 1992; Vol. 268 No. 13 (1702-1708).

55. Simmons PD. "Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men." The Practitioner, 1985; Vol. 229 (1003-1008).

82. McKusick L, Coats TJ, Morin SF, Pollack L, Hoff C. "Longitudinal Predictors of Reductions in Unprotected Anal Intercourse Among Gay Men in San Francisco: The AIDS Behavioral Research Project." American Journal of Public Health, 1990: Vol. 80 No. 8 (978-983).

Shall I elaborate further or can you refute the above, and if so, do it.

[scripter]

Maybe you're just not very well informed of the risks of gay sex. Here's a PDF document you may find informative: The Health Risks of Gay Sex.

[Liberal Classic]

For the sake of argument, does heterosexual polygamy have the same risks?