Posted on 08/26/2011 11:24:45 AM PDT by stevelackner
The Salt Lake Tribune reported in July that an "attorney for a reality-show family files a lawsuit that could send the state’s ban on plural marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court. Nationally-known constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley said the lawsuit to be filed in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City will not call for plural marriages to be recognized by the state. Instead, it asks for polygamy between consenting adults like his clients, former Utahn Kody Brown and his wives, to no longer be considered a crime." Turley however makes clear that he is not going to argue before a federal district court that marriage certificates must be in accord with the Constitution provided by States to a second or third spouse, or however many the case may be, but only that laws that criminalize polygamy must be abandoned. "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," Turley said in a press release. His clients star in the TLC network show "Sister Wives" and have been the subject of investigations by the State of Utah regarding possible polygamy charges. No charges have yet been filed.
How is he possibly going to argue that the Constitution demands decriminalization of polygamous marital relationships? The challenge is at its core based on the Fourteenth Amendment. The simple fact, however, is that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment as understood by those who drafted and ratified its provision in no way can lead to such an absurd result in any of its clauses. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. In 1854 the Republican party termed polygamy and slavery the "twin relics of barbarism." The Fourteenth Amendment was introduced and drafted by Congressional Republicans. When looking to the history before and after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified as seen in Congressional legislation, it becomes obvious that no one thought that the Fourteenth Amendment said anything at all about polygamy. A few decades before the Fourteenth Amendment polygamy had been against the law. As but one example, polygamy was made illegal in the state of Illinois during the era when several top Mormon leaders, including Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, took plural wives. The Fourteenth Amendment was plainly not meant to overturn this. Looking to federal statutes passed by Congress as examples around the same time as the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 one finds The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862, the Poland Act of 1874, Edmunds Act of 1882, and the Edmunds–Tucker Act of 1887, all are clear indications of the anti-polygamy views and attitudes as expressed in actual legislation of the era in which the Fourteenth Amendment became part of our Constitution. The practice of polygamy continues to be illegal in all 50 states.
Reynolds v. United States (1878) was a Supreme Court decision that dealt with a challenge to the Constitutionality of certain federal anti-polygamy laws, in large part based on the argument that polygamy was a deeply held religious belief of those engaged in it and therefore the legal restrictions and punishments imposed violated the First Amendment's guarantee of "free exercise" of religion. The Supreme Court famously upheld anti-polygamy laws in its ruling, stating in what still stands as binding precedent: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice? So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
Neither the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which demands States provide "due process of laws," "equal protection of laws," or the "privileges or immunities of citizenship" are in any way violated by the criminalization of polygamy.
If there is no actual Constitutional basis for the challenge, what possibly can Turley's argument be based upon? The New York Times reported that "the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the 'intimate conduct' of consenting adults. It will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own 'intimate conduct' so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses." Thus the entirety of the challenge is based upon an unconstitutional and specious ruling from the Supreme Court in 2003. Justice Antonin Scalia persuasively pointed out in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) in regards to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, that “sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today [as Lawrence is being handed down], 24 States and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults.” The idea that the original meaning in 1868 of the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause was to anyone that sodomy or like laws must be overturned is nonsensical and simply not historical. It is an utter abuse of the original meaning.
However, such is the road paved by the "living Constitution." One baseless Supreme Court precedent serves as an argument for the next baseless precedent. Often in debates or discussions regarding homosexual marriage, arguments are discounted as being unfathomable and unrealistic "slippery slopes." What Turley's lawsuit proves is what should already have been obvious. This sort of dismissal is a demonstration of the inability to distinguish between legal and policy arguments. In the context of policy arguments, the slippery slope argument may not always be the best of arguments if one can simply counter the slippery slope is unlikely or outlandish. That might alone be enough quell the concern as a policy matter. Further, legislation by its very nature addresses only those facts that fall within the legislation, and no more. People don't seem to realize that the "slippery slope" is actually a critical argument in application of or announcing new legal principles. It is actually essential because, as Judge James Graham wrote in his dissent to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding the Obamacare individual mandate (unlike the 11th Circuit which recently declared it unconstitutional), "one exercise of power becomes precedent for the next contemplated exercise." The Supreme Court will eventually announce a rule, and that rule will not be limited to just the facts of that particular case. It will be applied to others. Hence, by definition, in the context of legal justification for law the slippery slope argument is actually very relevant. It forces the person making the justification or crafting this new rule to either admit there is no limit to the reach of the new principle (which is often an admission of having been refuted), or else actually find some reasonable distinguishing element to include within the rule. I have seen this silly dismissal of arguments because they are "slippery slope" made in other contexts as well (e.g., most commonly in discussing gay marriage court rulings), and in many there seems to be the inability to grasp the basic point that it is of course expected and justified to challenge the prospective announcement of a new legal principle by asking about other scenarios that a new rule would in principle apply to. The built-in consequence of court rulings is that PRECEDENT should be established and the ruling should apply to many other hypothetical cases. The slippery slope is therefore key to legal argument. If a rule cannot be crafted that can address the slippery slope, then it should become clear that either the new rule is unjustified and therefore the answer is easy (i.e., Obamacare mandate unconstitutional) or that the issue is outside judicial scope and must be left with the legislature which can clearly limit the legislation to particular scenarios (i.e., definition of marriage is a state legislature issue). A legal precedent simply does not do what legislation does, which is take into account the slippery slope and address only that which it addresses, and hence investigating the underlying legal principle by means of slippery slope is actually essential.
The fact is that Turley has a strong argument based on that unsound Supreme Court precedent that is Lawrence v. Texas. The Supreme Court actually cited "freedom" that "extends beyond spatial bounds" and "liberty...in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions" to strike down the Texas sodomy law in 2003. Justice Anthony Kennedy declared that, "Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct." The Supreme Court said that "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring." Overturning its own precedent that was only 17 years old in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) upholding State sodomy laws, the Supreme Court instead decided to arrogantly state that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment was irrelevant, because "those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of...the Fourteenth Amendment" apparently "knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress." Of course, Justice Kennedy left unexplained why the one unelected branch that is the Supreme Court is to be the one tasked with making this determination as to what is or is not "oppressive" rather than the elected branches or the people themselves when the Constitution's provisions as intended are not truly at issue. Of course, there is no "Oppressive Clause" in the Constitution, which is yet another vagary so malleable that it means only what five Justices of the high court want it to mean. There is only the text and the original meaning of the Constitution which is nowhere violated in Lawrence v. Texas. But with this precedent already place, the polygamists should very credibly now be able to argue that polygamy must be decriminalized because it is a matter of autonomy of self, a matter of personal freedom and liberty, and all sorts of other vague concepts announced in a Supreme Court opinion that was far more about reaching an intended result than it was about adhering to Constitutional principles. The polygamists should be able to argue that these polygamy laws were a product of the blinded backward times in which they came from, and now only serve to oppress. Any distinction will be utterly disingenuous, a further proof that the Supreme Court all too often reasons backwards, finding its result first and then comes up with its reasoning afterwards. There is absolutely no reason the Lawrence v. Texas precedent, if taken seriously, should not result in the decriminalization of polygamy.
While Turley disclaims any intent to force the several States to provide plural marriages with certificates and all the benefits therewith, it is of course the ultimate result that could emerge if the federal judiciary were to rule his way in his case, just as Judge Vaughn Walker absurdly ruled the Fourteenth Amendment demands that every State provide gay couples with marriage licenses. Federal district court Judge Vaughn Walker can be seen relying in large part on Supreme Court precedents like Lawrence v. Texas which was limited in theory only to decriminalizing sodomy. In fact, Justice Antonin Scalia predicted in dissent in Lawrence, "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding." Scalia was clearly correct, as the laws against polygamy are currently being called into question in a federal court case on the basis of that decision from which he so vigorously dissented.
Of course, Turley's conceding that the Constitution does not disallow a State to restrict marriage to monogamous couples, or at least unwillingness to argue that the Constitution demands polygamous marriage certificates be provided by the States, itself shows the weakness of his argument. Following his line of thinking, there is no right to be "married" to more than one spouse with a certificate. But then there is simply no Constitutional right to be "married" to more than one person, whether or not each and every person gets a license (which of course cannot happen because that is, for now, against the law). If marriage can be defined, violating those laws openly can be criminalized by a "married" relationship with more than one person. If one assumed polygamy can be prohibited (which the Supreme Court said was the case in Reynolds in 1878) it seems odd to think the concept of polygamy simply does not exist by virtue of the fact that the State did not issue a second license. This also would be much the same way technically adultery could (and has historically been) criminalized. There are even still states where adultery is on the statute books (although obviously rarely prosecuted). Or for that matter fornication laws (which date back very far and which have never expressly been declared unconstitutional, though if a prosecution would take place it almost certainly be struck down under Lawrence v. Texas). The fact is States have the right to enforce the definition of marriage through criminal laws should they so choose. Law governing marriage itself, rather than emerging only from community or ecclesiastical sources, do go back very far in our history. There was at the very least common LAW marriage in early American history and this began to be replaced with marriage statutes for the benefit and protection of the institution, the spouses involved, the family, etc, (and sometimes for pretty ignoble racist purposes like miscegenation laws which date back even farther). Some States still have common law marriage along with marriage laws.
Regardless, however, the point is there is now new precedent on the books with the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas. Without that case, this challenge of Turley on behalf of polygamous reality TV stars would be a sure loser. There is little doubt about that. With that one sodomy law case if it were to actually be honestly applied, it would seem like Turley has an easy winner. What is also beyond doubt is that this polygamy lawsuit has therefore got to have those engaged in the federal lawsuit falsely claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment demands gay marriage nationwide quite vexed and annoyed.
It’s only a matter of time before they drop the “adults” from the “consenting adults” thing.
According to the great philosopher Miley Cyrus all love is equal so boys marrying boys ia a good as bys maying girls. Under this moral equivalency brain fart why not more than one, why bot mother and son, why not brother and sister ..... Either marriage means a specific thing or it means nothing.
Oh oh. Both Mormon and Islam desire multi wives in order to beget more children to their own glory. Monmey’s grandfather was a polygamist. Mormon and Islam are very close first cousins.
I believe at least some of this controversy relates to laws against “cohabitation.”
No, I do not believe in polygamy or same-sex “marriage.” And yes, statutory rape and child abuse need to be prosecuted, forcefully.
But if the issue is, say, a man living with two women, or a woman living with two men, etc.I may not see a role for the criminal law for that. I have moral issues, and I pity these “couples,” but how would a law against more than two people “cohabiting in a polygamous relationship” be enforced? If there’s no attempted bigamy - no legal marriage of more than one man and one woman - how would the charges be proven?
I’m no legal expert. Maybe my facts are wrong too. Thanks in advance for any info.
Two of Mitt Romney's great-grandparents (Miles Park Romney and Helaman Pratt) were polygamists, but there's no indication that either of his grandfathers were polygamists.
SEBASTIAN
[To OLIVIA] So comes it, lady, you have been mistook:
But nature to her bias drew in that.
You would have been contracted to a maid;
Nor are you therein, by my life, deceived,
You are betroth’d both to a maid and man. —Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Man-made up arbitrary laws not based on Natural Law Theory are not “Right Reason according to Nature” and should be null and void.....Supra Positive Law has stated just that.
Just because Hitler said something is “law”, it was still null and void, according to our Constitution and Jurisprudence and Supra Positive Law invoked at Nuremberg and again in the Civil Rights legislation. Natural Rights come from God and are inalienable-—that standard of right and wrong comes directly from Locke’s philosophy and Blackstone’s and was the Christian standard of Right and Wrong.
Right Reason would deny a “right” to sodomy, a right to multiple sex partners—as did all legal scholars for hundreds of years. What changed? Standards.....we went off the standard of “right and wrong” embedded into the Constitution.
Zorach v. Clauson 1962 “We are a religious people who presuppose a Supreme Being.”
What Supreme Being was that? Not allah—not Marx—not Andrew Sullivan.
Turley ignores all precedents and intent and meaning of the Constitution in even arguing this point.....that things considered “evil” should be promoted or at least “allowed” —even things which cause disease, social dysfunction and children out of wedlock—known things which damage social contracts and the emotional stability of children and destroy civil society and Justice.
He is talking about polygamy which destroys the biological family unit, demeans women, makes them worth less, than the one male. It elevates an idea that men can father 50 children to women’s limited amount. All their progeny view women as subservient, and objects, and unequal to men—as sheep is to a shepherd.
The General Welfare of the country will be damaged....equality between male and female damaged—as it is in all polygamous countries—women have low worth and status.
Turley should be ashamed of his stupid logic—jumping on the Marxist bandwagon to destroy the Natural Family—when our Foundation of government—and the reason it has been so successful and logical—is based on Natural Law Theory.
Can the Declaration be more clear than-—the laws of nature and nature’s God—There is no doubt to the origin and meaning of our legal system but because they want to totally transform this nation into the Marxist Atheist/pagan hellhole, they have to remove God and all our Natural Rights....to do that they are intentionally removing God’s law and Right Reason and using silly nonsense, like two men are the same as a man and woman. They are actually creating unnatural “rights” to destroy all reason and logic which will destroy our legal system and the idea of Just Law.
This egalitarianism of rejecting science and biology in stating man is the same as a woman, and thus, interchangeable, is so stupid and unscientific and denies nature. Add now—a society that can never have any standards on “Right and Wrong” according to God’s law??????
He thinks (which all Founders and true scholars could prove wrong) that morality does not belong in a civil society. Children don’t need positive, moral role models. They can watch as men treat women as objects of lust and utilitarian purposes and treat them as a commodity....like prostitution and it won’t lead to a type of worldview like all polygamous societies have: women have no intrinsic value compared to men.
To ignore biology and science and reason as Marxism does....is to destroy logic and reason—no legal system that is Just can exist in that paradigm. No Just Law is what is happening intentionally by Marxists in today’s world.
This Turley Twisting of our legal system is NOT “Right Reason according to Nature” which is the basis of all posited law—Just Law.
He wants unjust law and unequal law—all of it is blatantly unconstitutional....but then our Constitution has been chipping away (intentionally by Marxism) since Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Founders, especially John Jay, would puke when they see what “legal scholars” have done to our legal system which is intentionally destroying the Rule of Law and putting in it’s place—the Rule of Man (Legal Positivism)—which is always Might makes Right. Hitler and Stalin used that system of law very effectively and Turley is endorsing their system which removes standards of Right and Wrong—morality from the law...He is Holme’s little Marxist idiot.
I don’t care too much about what Mitt Romney’s Great Grand Parents did, but, if queers can get married I don’t see a rational basis for denying polygamy.
For thousands of years we knew what marriage was now because of a bunch of selfish queers our whole society goes to hell in a hand basket.
This world is getting crazy.
Nor do I (although polygamy was illegal in Mexico at the time, just as it was in the United States and in Utah). I was responding to a poster who stated that Romney's grandfather was a polygamist. That falsehood is posted frequently on Free Republic.
I don't see any sense in our FR community continuing to perpetuate the falsehood about Romney. Rather than simply saying it was incorrect I posted authority for my statement. I thought that would be helpful.
I didn't intend that my post be interpreted as a negative statement about Romney regarding polygamy in his family history; he had no control over what his grandparents or great-grandparents did.
I agree that Romney should not be held accountable for anything his ancestors did. If only the same principle could be applied to whites on the issue of guilt for slavery (including whites whose ancestors were not in the US in 1865).
Thank you,
Aren’t there Muzzies that come to this country that have more than one wife and get both of them on the dole?
Well, honestly, it’s great to hear some sane moral reasoning. I don’t care if some guy and his girlfriends ask for some sort of marriage license or not. IMO, it’s not worth buying Playboy magazine when you consider the fact that you are supporting Hugh Hefner and his cohabitating girlfriends, some of which may even have had kids through him. To me, a man cohabitating with plural girlfriends is equally detestable as a cultist who marries them. Either way, it’s rediculous that whether or not they are married is all that seems to make the difference.
As far as enforcing against polygamy, the basic concept involved was laws against cohabitation, in other words, living and presumably having sex with women who were neither your legal wife (by marriage license) or a close relative such as a mother or sister, if someone was going against those rules, it was assumed that the cohabitating individual was a polygamist and a criminal. However, for quite some time, anti-cohabitation laws have been poorly enforced or even struck down, such as in Florida. The main argument here is that since the laws against cohabitation (i.e. the methods of enforcing against polygamy) aren’t enforced, why not just drop them. As for me, if the way to encouraging traditional marriage means going against cohabitation, I personally am all for it. By all means, I am also against people cohabitating too, it’s rediculous how cohabitating outside of marriage has become so popular in recent years
The part where Turley is wrong is the idea of accomodating special exceptions. IMO, that’s the part where you go against what makes laws great. Laws are great, because they apply to everyone, not just to special groups. Setting a standard as to what should be supported versus what shouldn’t be encouraged is also important. There’s no way of preventing alternative relationships from happening. But there is a way of stating that some things are the exceptions, and that for the sake of the remainder of society, make some sacrifices. That’s been my life in a nutshell. Sure, I have some learning disabilities, but at the same time, add a little altruism and display of understanding the mannerisms in society and it’s amazing how much the rest works out for you.
Yes, special exceptions are nothing but “unequal law”. They can never be Just Law—and we are supposed to have a Justice system. Affirmative action should be illegal. No freedom of association should be illegal.
Just Law is defined in Natural Law Theory as Right Reason according to Nature which is defined in the philosophy of our Founding Fathers and the Federalist papers. It is written into our documents...the term, Natural Rights from our Creator—originated from Natural Law.
Law can not be made which deny Natural Rights of individuals in the USA—not even for the Marxist ideology—”the end justifies the means”. For the general welfare—utilitarian ethics—it is ok, ONLY if it never violates the Absolutes of the Natural Rights of all people in US.
Our legal system (The Constitution, etc) rejects utilitarianism when it results in a denial of Freedom of conscious, Freedom of religion, etc. That is NO accident. The dignity and rights of EVERY single person has to be considered in EVERY law. That is what makes a law Just Law (Equal Law) according to Locke, Blackstone, Cicero, Aquinas—all Natural Law Theory—basis of our legal system.
Alternatives to non-teleological idea of human being relationships—that denial in how biology works—it unconstitutional by reasons of science, logic and reason.
Right Reason does not consist of giving silly urges that cause disease, dysfunction and death special status. It denies natural rights of human beings, which demeans the dignity of people, and forces some children into an artificial societal construct which denies them the love of a biological mother which is inhumane and reduces man to a commodity— a commodity to be bought and sold.
Homosexual marriage—should not even be “considered” by any intelligent, scientific minded person-—it is an absurd concept with no teleological meaning—just nihilism and destruction of natural rights for children. To elevate something as silly as a sexual urge to a right—when it has nothing to do with the design of human beings in a flourishing society, is complete insanity and stupidity.
This undermines “the General Welfare” clause in the Constitution, also. That lifestyle not only shortens lifespan and causes incurable disease, along with myriads of other abnormalities....it confuses children with lies and immoral examples of lifestyles. It glorifies dysfunction, nihilism and disease-causing behaviors that even in amoral societies, should be discouraged, through law if necessary.
Sodomy laws should still exist since they are so costly to society. There was no “reason” to take them off the books except the homosexual agenda started by the homosexual Hayes who was sodomized as a boy and advocated man/boy “love”. Normalizing the sick, learned behavior is also an acceptance of child abuse which is always a large part of any homosexual society—like ancient Greece, Afghanistan, Medieval Japan, Nazis Brownshirts, etc. Boys are always the ideal partner in a homosexual union because it was the age of initiation into the “lifestyle”.
Polygamy creates a society where men and women are not equal in worth. It is completely insane and unreasonable to have young children grow up thinking a man has more worth that females.....which has happened in all polygamous societies—(look at the sick mentality of the muslim world and women in that polygamous culture—and all the African countries where polygamy exists). Sick worldview that should never exist in a enlightened, reasoned country (that is one that is not trying to self-destruct so the Marxists can create their Brave New World-—where all children are romping around having sex and pleasuring the men —that is their utopia—proven by the UN and Germany and the APA, trying to sexualize even 4 year olds in schools and remove pedophilia from the “disordered” list—exactly the same way they removed the sickness of homosexuality—by junk science.
They remove it, then use the media and laws to force normalization of the unnatural.....for the children. Worldview is being created—read Brave New World to see what their worldview leads to. It is sick and has to be stopped.
Sodomy laws should still exist since they are so costly to society. There was no “reason” to take them off the books except the homosexual agenda started by the homosexual Hayes who was sodomized as a boy and advocated man/boy “love”. Normalizing the sick, learned behavior is also an acceptance of child abuse which is always a large part of any homosexual society—like ancient Greece, Afghanistan, Medieval Japan, Nazis Brownshirts, etc. Boys are always the ideal partner in a homosexual union because it was the age of initiation into the “lifestyle”.
Even moreso about the civilizations you mentioned was the fact that the Greeks were incredibly male supremacist in their ideologies. There was a great deal of this pederastic upbringing promoted, as a means of indoctrinating the boys into feeling superior to the women in their society. I am sorry, but a society that can come to a recognition for distinct genders and their roles together is one that does well, because it’s also an important instruction iterated numerous times both in history as well as in religion.
There are loads of cases where a guy who has multiple women cohabitating with him gets away with it because they often aren’t legally married to each other, Muslim, founder of a porn magazine, politicians, you name it, they are all as morally repugnant to me. Again, that’s also the problem, the law enforcement used to care if someone was legally wed or not to someone whom they were living with who was not related to them, but now, such laws are either struck down, or so poorly enforced that it’s ineffective.
The Samurai in Japan was another culture which was very similar to the male supremacy ideology of the Greeks and also included men having sex with boys as the Ideal. (always very hateful of women) It was the lifestyle of the homosexual cultures....which always featured the initiating into homosexuality in childhood, like is done in Afghanistan today. It is a learned behavior.
There is no “gay” gene...their whole fraudulent “science” was to make the abhorrent, disgusting behavior acceptable to decent human beings—to destroy the Christian morality which destroyed the practices of pederasty and homosexuality and slavery in the first place. Make the Bible Hate Speech! It was the beginning of normalizing the behavior so that little boys can again be conditioned into the lifestyle. It is why the Germans and the UN are considering removing all age limits for sex and why the APA is now in the process of removing man/boy sex as a disorder.
The end result of the homosexual movement was always about getting free access to boys for sex. All their sick pornography glorifies the Greek Ideal—of the man and beautiful boy.
Again, women were pretty much objects to men in the Greek Society, there also was a serious issue when women cheated on their husbands, but if a man cheated on his wife, the general attitude was that she had no right to complain about his unfaithfulness, like Zeus and Hera. Again, as I have learned more and more about history, the more and more, I have come to appreciate biblical morality and the fact that it actually encourages behaviors that keep a good respectable relationship between genders, as compared to those which do otherwise.
So many times, people whine about how repressive this society is to women, at times it seems like they really ignored the Greek, Persian, and Babylonian, as well as you mentioned, ancient - early industrial Japanese civilization, and need to realize that certain cultural customs made women quite objectified, only nowadays it’s worse, because it both objectifies both genders in some way.
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.