Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Polygamy upsets gay activists
Kansas City Star ^ | Mar. 19, 2006 | CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Posted on 03/22/2006 8:01:47 PM PST by neverdem

WASHINGTON — And now, polygamy.

With the sweetly titled HBO series “Big Love,” polygamy comes out of the closet. Under the headline “Polygamists, Unite!” Newsweek informs us of “polygamy activists emerging in the wake of the gay-marriage movement.” Says one evangelical Christian big lover: “Polygamy rights is the next civil-rights battle.”

Polygamy used to be stereotyped as the province of secretive Mormons, primitive Africans and profligate Arabs. With “Big Love” it moves to suburbia as a mere alternative lifestyle.

As Newsweek notes, these stirrings for the mainstreaming of polygamy (or, more accurately, polyamory) have their roots in the increasing legitimization of gay marriage. In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two persons of (2) opposite gender, and if, as gay marriage advocates insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one’s autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement — the number restriction (two and only two) — is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.

This line of argument makes gay activists furious. I can understand why they do not want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I’m not the one who put them there. Their argument does.

Blogger and author Andrew Sullivan, who had the courage to advocate gay marriage at a time when it was considered pretty crazy, has called this the “polygamy diversion,” arguing that homosexuality and polygamy are categorically different because polygamy is a mere “activity” while homosexuality is an intrinsic state that “occupies a deeper level of human consciousness.”

But this distinction between higher and lower orders of love is precisely what gay rights activists so...

(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: gayrights; homosexualagenda; krauthammer; pansexuals; polygamy; slipperyslope
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201 next last
To: pandoraou812
Why was the man forced to marry the goat? I missed that one.

It was posted here. As I recall, it was his neighbor's goat, and he got caught, so to keep from dishonoring the goat, he had to buy it and marry it.

(You just can't make this stuff up.)

161 posted on 03/23/2006 8:56:01 AM PST by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan; neverdem

"not far behind is bestiality"

and here's our solution to the problem posed by the National Animal Identification System (or "Big Brother is watching you. And your little dog, too!)http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/index.shtml


162 posted on 03/23/2006 9:04:15 AM PST by hocndoc (http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka
"The fact that at one time something was not regulated does not mean it cannot or should not be regulated by the government".

That may or may not be true. Something that wasn't regulated indicates that the government either didn't have the power to regulate it or never used said power. Just because you or I (or the president or congress or the USSC) think that something should be regulated does not give the government any additional powers. Government is limited to those powers that they are given by constitutional enumeration. If enough people feel that government should have an additional power then the constitution should be amended to cede that power to government. It's rather immaterial to mention the good reasons why government should have a power as without the constitutional process we no longer have a government of limited powers.

"If you have a better idea, run for office, put your better idea in place."

The constitution is already in place. All I'm asking is that it be obeyed.
163 posted on 03/23/2006 9:10:30 AM PST by Durus ("Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle; Young Scholar
And slavery also had Biblical precedent. Your point is?

Slavery and Polygamy were both societal norms, and treated as such in the Bible. (Paul's Letter to Philemon, however, is interesting in that it sets the groundwork for the eventual abolition of slavery.)

Homosexuality, however, is not accepted at all in the Bible....

164 posted on 03/23/2006 9:11:25 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NYpeanut
Let's see... eight nagging, whiny straight women, or eight nagging, whiny LESBIANS. Hmm. Tough choice.

No, seriously, this is actually a difficult choice. I get the "benefits" if they're straight, but if they're all lesbians, then odds are pretty strong that they'll ignore me and go do their own thing. So they'll be whining and nagging alright, but they'll be doing it to each other, while I drink and play video games or something with no one bothering me.

Honestly, I'm gonna go with the lesbians.

165 posted on 03/23/2006 9:35:15 AM PST by Gordongekko909 (I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

The thing about it all.... straight or gay who would want to be around all those kids and people all the time? I like it when its quiet and peaceful here and I was happy when 2 of my kids got married. I love them all but I get sick of a houseful of kids with friends and all that. And I could never put up with sister-wives. Can you imagine when its that time of the month? No wonder they get different houses. Funny thing is all my girlfriends and I seem to get ours at the same or near the same time each month. So we are all b.tchy at the same time.


166 posted on 03/23/2006 10:17:21 AM PST by pandoraou812 ( barbaric with zero tolerance and dilligaf?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
To have a polygamist society would insure the rich and well off males would have multiple wives, and the young men wouldn't have any

Like, for example, Larry King, Teddy Kennedy, Donald Trump, Kwisi Imfume, Jesse Jackson, or the legendary Wilt Chamberlain ....

Newsflash: Rich and well off males have as many women as they want, both licit and illicit. Not unless there are significantly more "rich" than exist today will it effect the availability of females in the overall population. The problem you anticipate comes from having an extremely limited population with nearly universal polygamy within to start with.

I say again, we already practice polygamy in the US, with all the attendant inheritance, social welfare and complex clan implications. It is socially sanctioned and commonplace. The only requirement is that we have our multiple spouses sequentially and not concurrently.

167 posted on 03/23/2006 11:01:44 AM PST by LexBaird ("I'm not questioning your patriotism, I'm answering your treason."--JennysCool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
The reference was to marital bestiality...people will want to marry their dogs, horses, etc.

Well, I have had dogs that were far more loyal than my two ex-wives were. Hmmm...you've now got me thinking that marital bestiality might not be a bad idea.

168 posted on 03/23/2006 11:11:48 AM PST by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington (Axis of Evil: Iran, N. Korea, Syria, Democrat Party & US Mainstream Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Durus

Since the federal government is not the one regulating marriages, doctors and driving, have you checked your state constitution yet? Does it allow your state to regulate those things?

And as for having a better idea I was sort of suggesting running for a state office, not a federal one.


169 posted on 03/23/2006 11:18:45 AM PST by Cheburashka (World's only Spatula City certified spatula repair and maintenance specialist!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird

"Like, for example, Larry King, Teddy Kennedy, Donald Trump, Kwisi Imfume, Jesse Jackson, or the legendary Wilt Chamberlain ....

Newsflash: Rich and well off males have as many women as they want, both licit and illicit. Not unless there are significantly more "rich" than exist today will it effect the availability of females in the overall population. The problem you anticipate comes from having an extremely limited population with nearly universal polygamy within to start with."

True, but most of the women they get are temporary relationships. The little slut will go find a new man after the fling is over. Polygamy insures that a large percent of women will be with a small percent of the men perminatly. Its the knowledge that you will never get a wife that would cause most problems.

"I say again, we already practice polygamy in the US, with all the attendant inheritance, social welfare and complex clan implications. It is socially sanctioned and commonplace. The only requirement is that we have our multiple spouses sequentially and not concurrently."

Having multiple spouses sequentially is far different than concurrently. Under the immoral system we have now, most people pair off, even if its only for a short time. Under large scale Polygamy, most men will NEVER have a partner, and they know they won't. This is all speculation because polygamy only works when women are treated like property anyway. What percent of women would accept her man getting a new wife? The murder rate amoung women would certainly go up!


170 posted on 03/23/2006 11:19:29 AM PST by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

A gay male friend once confided in me that it's a known secret that gay male couples will go clubbing "together" and find someone to take back home...


171 posted on 03/23/2006 11:26:04 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
Polygamy insures that a large percent of women will be with a small percent of the men perminatly.

Not unless we outlaw divorce, criminalize adultery, make female consent to marriage unrequired and drastically enlarge the percentage of rich.

This is all speculation because polygamy only works when women are treated like property anyway. What percent of women would accept her man getting a new wife?

Which is why your scenario doesn't work out. There has never been "large scale" polygamy, because there has never been a "large scale" group of wealthy that would soak up the available pool of spouses. If the US legalized polygamy, you likely wouldn't see any more polygamous marriages than already occur illegally. Unless the 2nd spouse sees some benefit, I don't think there will be much desire to get into the relationship, and if the first spouse sees no benefit, she is unlikely to consent.

As it is now in the US, with "no fault" divorce, one spouse can unilaterally practice polygamy by simply dumping his/her current spouse and marrying another, who sees a clear benefit by cutting out the first. Or, a guy can practice polygamy by simply impregnating his multiple "hos" concurrently and not even bother to marry them. That way, Uncle Sam will pick up the household grocery bill and he won't be facing bigamy charges along with the paternity suits.

However, if you want to know a more likely place for your scenario, look to Red China, where they have been aborting their female population into imbalance. There the pool of females won't be just sequestered, it will be scarce to nonexistent.

172 posted on 03/23/2006 12:22:51 PM PST by LexBaird ("I'm not questioning your patriotism, I'm answering your treason."--JennysCool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Flavius Josephus
"Isn't this better than kicking the old wife to the curb and marrying someone half his age, as happens now?"

The older divorced wife has the same human value and should make herself available to a new potential lover.

173 posted on 03/23/2006 12:39:47 PM PST by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka
The federal government regulates all of those through fiat through the states. My state Constitution doesn't enumerate a fraction of the powers my state government wields and I would be honestly surprised if your state was any different unless you live in Virginia or Wyoming.
174 posted on 03/23/2006 12:51:01 PM PST by Durus ("Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: pandoraou812
That's another reason why I'm going with the lesbians: No kids. This is, of course, assuming that my only other option is eight straight women. I'll take marrying one woman or remaining single if I had those options instead. But that is beyond the scope of the question that I was asked.

Yeah, you can tell that I just got finished with my Trial Practice Seminar homework. : )

175 posted on 03/23/2006 2:41:06 PM PST by Gordongekko909 (I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

We saw it this past weekend, and they weren't so lovey dovey. The women were all getting jealous, and the man is all stressed out.

Doesn't look good to me.


176 posted on 03/23/2006 4:10:25 PM PST by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Durus
Where is regulation of Marriage enumerated as a power of the Federal Government?
Article the third [Amendment I]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right and we do have a right to regulate practice, not belief.

No man can become a law unto himself under the guise of religious freedom...

Again, here is the case law...

“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices...”

[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]

Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).

The First Amendment is about speech and thought, not actions.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Rights of Americans are not limited to those that are enumerated...

Like I asked more pointedly last time, from where are such rights derived?

Answer: The Declaration of Independence... “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” Genesis and Mosaic Law... like it or not...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

This question clearly has nothing to do with my position.

Oh, it most surely does. That is why you want to run away from it...

No man can become a law unto himself under the guise of religion!

No, you cannot have ritual murders or rapes. You cannot marry your weird uncle if you are a ten year old boy, marry your dog or invent a religion that says you can and claim it as your “right” to do so. That is bullcrap and you know it.

We cannot regulate biology.

Now, you can make babies all day long, but just don't expect everyone else to give you tax exemptions or welfare to pay for it, or expect us to put up with your brood of hooligans you cannot raise properly and not hold you accountable.

Article. I.

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...

To promote the Progress of Science...

Homosexuality in and of itself is a biological threat, hardly promoting the progress of science or the ‘general Welfare.’ The same is true for polygamy.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Article. III.

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...

It has been adjudicated...

Marriage is not a right, it is a privileged practice that requires statutory license.

[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]

Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).


177 posted on 03/23/2006 6:11:41 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird
Or, a guy can practice polygamy by simply impregnating his multiple "hos" concurrently...

LOL! Such a picturesque cultural reference!

...and not even bother to marry them. That way, Uncle Sam will pick up the household grocery bill and he won't be facing bigamy charges along with the paternity suits.

Yep, ain't that the truth?

178 posted on 03/23/2006 6:32:04 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: All

increasing acceptance of homosexual marriage?

What drugs is the author taking? There were 12 amendments to prevent homosexual marriage and ALL passed by landslides.

All states have some prohibition of homoseuxla marriage save massachusetts. That state had it imposed by a judge who copied the language out of the ABA model law. (she wanted to go down in history as a judge who freed the homosexuals on some civil rights holiday)

Homosexuals are just upset because polygamists are have sex with the opposit sex and are able to produce children. Homosexuals produce nothing other than recreational sex.


179 posted on 03/23/2006 6:57:01 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909
I fail to see how having gay marriage in only one state, and there by judicial fiat, constitutes something that "worked."

I would consider having homosexuality removed, as a mental disorder, from the DSM IV, having several cable networks devoted exclusively to homosexuals, having several network TV shows devoted exclusively to homosexuals, having "sexual orientation" written into every non-discrimination clause in every legal document, and having instilled fear of prosecution into anyone who dares speak out about homosexuality, indicative of a strategy that "worked."

180 posted on 03/23/2006 6:59:30 PM PST by Washi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson