Saturday, December 01, 2007
|
|
No persecution, no promotion
|
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
7:53 PM
|
|
Polygamy advocate Mark Henkel asks a powerful question: “If it’s all right for Heather to have two mommies, then why can’t she have two mommies and one daddy?” His challenge provides perspective on current demands that government endorse same-sex marriage. Why should society support the novelty of gay relationships ahead of polygamy, which was practiced nearly everywhere for thousands of years and would probably appeal to far more people than homosexuality?
The right answer to polygamists should be government neutrality: if private relationships involve consenting adults, then it makes no more sense to prosecute a male who claims he has two wives than to go after a guy who boasts of two girlfriends. But that doesn’t mean government should license polygamous relationships, any more than it should sponsor homosexual coupling.
In both cases, those who choose unconventional alternatives to one-man/one-woman marriage—still the best situation for child-rearing—shouldn’t be punished, but they shouldn’t be promoted either.
|
|
|
|
You're engaging in a classic fallacy which is more common on the right than on the left... though both sides do use it. The basic form is, "We currently allow people to do A [e.g., marry someone of the opposite sex]... and it seems reasonable to some to do B [e.g., marry someone of the same sex] but we can't allow B because we would also have to allow C [something ostensibly unacceptable, e.g., entering into polygamous marriage]". The fact is we can always do B without doing C.
Gay marriage was in the position of C a couple of generations ago. Not that long ago, interracial marriage was illegal in many states. The main argument was that it was unnatural and disgusting for persons with different racial backgrounds to intermarry-- but back then the kicker was that if we can't let whites marry blacks because then you would also have to let men marry men and women marry women (and no one would ever want THAT to be allowed!)
Since this seems to be an anti-Romney site, I am surprised you are using polygamy as an argument against gay marriage. Romney stated publically that polygamy is the "worst thing" he could imagine. It seems to me you guys should be in FAVOR of polygamy.
|
|
You're engaging in a classic fallacy which is more common on the right than on the left... though both sides do use it. The basic form is, "We currently allow people to do A [e.g., marry someone of the opposite sex]... and it seems reasonable to some to do B [e.g., marry someone of the same sex] but we can't allow B because we would also have to allow C [something ostensibly unacceptable, e.g., entering into polygamous marriage]". The fact is we can always do B without doing C.
Gay marriage was in the position of C a couple of generations ago. Not that long ago, interracial marriage was illegal in many states. The main argument was that it was unnatural and disgusting for persons with different racial backgrounds to intermarry-- but back then the kicker was that if we can't let whites marry blacks because then you would also have to let men marry men and women marry women (and no one would ever want THAT to be allowed!)
Since this seems to be an anti-Romney site, I am surprised you are using polygamy as an argument against gay marriage. Romney stated publically that polygamy is the "worst thing" he could imagine. It seems to me you guys should be in FAVOR of polygamy.
BTW, here is a totally unsubstantiated story about Romney & "plural marriage" which you will never see in the mainstream media:
http://tinyurl.com/2wb4p3 |
|
Hey, where'd your blog go?
Mr. STM: "My name is Smoke-Too-Much."
Mr. Bounder: "What?"
STM: "My name is Smoke-Too-Much; Mr. Smoke-Too-Much."
Bounder: "Well, you'd better cut down a bit then."
STM: "What?"
Bounder: "You'd better cut down a bit then."
STM: "Oh, I see. Cut down a bit for Smoke-Too-Much."
Bounder: "Yes. I expect you get people making jokes about your name all the time, eh?"
STM: "No, no. Actually, it never struck me before. Smoke ... To ... Much. Ha, ha, ha." |
|
|
|
Gay marriage is much worse than heterosexual
polygamy. But neither
should be legal-both are bad for kids and
society.
|
|
Thank you. I've watched this fiasco in my own back yard, first as a reporter, then as a concerned citizen for more than three years now.
Every concubine has children and is considered by the U.S. government to be a single mother, so she collects food stamps and health care from the rest of the tax paying citizens. That would be you and me. We end up paying for their "freedom of religion."
The entire set up is a pedophile's dream come true. Your wife and any concubines consider you a "god" and their only hope of ever making it to heaven.
They can create as many victims as they could ever desire [through birth, which the government pays for] and keep them removed from the protection of the evil society outside. I've seen it over and over again. Many of the girls or women who eventually escape have been repeatedly sexually molested from the time they could first remember anything. And sometimes the fathers can't even remember their names. One girl who's father had many wives and dozens of children recounted her experience of being repeatedly sexualy molested and said her father actually looked at her one day and asked her, "What's your name and who is your mother?"
I have nothing against homosexuals and if they want civil unions I'm not opposed at all. But marriage is a different thing all together and should only be allowed between one man and one woman. It scares me to death to think what would happen to countless women and children cought in this bizarre cult if this were ever to be legal here.
As the great niece of a fierce shuffragette I ask that someone show me one, just one society, where polygamy is legal, which gives women equal rights and protection under the law. There is none. |
|
|
Thanks for stopping by king...or should I say Angus Moore. |
|
The issue of Gay marriage can be argued against even without religion. There are perfect Darwinism reasons as why society should not embrace such practice.
Evolution is a process of gene mutations and the strongest surviving, when a gene line mutates and can not reproduce that line ends upon its death. Those who argue for the "Gay Gene" theory should then concede that under the normal life those born “Gay” will not naturally reproduce. They can only reproduce if they do not follow their natural order of what they perceive to be. Unless they support a form of polygamy. They must have sex outside of their "perceived biological function". Hetro-sex would be abnormal to them in which case for society there is no need to embrace a gene line that will become extinct by nature. Thus the “Gay gene” theory is becomes synonymous to extinction.
If being Gay is just a behavior or choice, then by the same rules, its outside of our "perceived natural biological function" thus deviant and should not be embraced as normal, in a genetic sense, its equal to embracing suicide. Because if both parties have the “Gay Gene”, the two separate lines can not join so one line will not be able to reproduce with the other.
The Irony of all this “Gay Marriage” argument is that the argument would not exist without the union of a male and female, because the human race would not exist. So the easiest answer to “Why we should not embrace Gay marriage” is… “Because we exist.”
It becomes reasonable impossible for supporters to support gay marriage and say no to polygamy. Yet they do so. So one can easily conclude we are not dealing with reasonable people regardless of how intellectual they are. Which leads to the obvious question. Why do intellectual people push this agenda?
Daniel Hoppe
Aubrey Texas.
|
|
|
As I watch my gay neighbors doing the fourth remodel on the house they park their matching BMW's at, as I hear them talk about their cash-stuffed 401k accounts I think about family values...the value my wife and daughters give me as they strip every penny from my 80hr work week paychecks and cast me into the deep pit of debt. Now some idiot thinks its a cool idea to have TWO wives! How many more jobs do I have to get to support that? And just think of the NOISE when the two wives go to scrappin'. Talk about unhealthy lifestyles! Forget ESPN or the History Channel, it'll be HGTV and Oprah on every set. Polygamy might have sounded better before my prostate swelled to the size of a tennis ball but I think we are better served by monogamy. |
|
I'm not a supporter of polygamy, and certainly not a supporter of he FLDS or any organization that marries off their daughters for political or religious gain, not to mention under-age marrying.
However if polygamy existed somewhere where such atrocities did not occur and all the participants were willing members of consentable age I wouldn't see it as being any worse than same-sex marriages. Thing is ... I doubt any such modern-day examples of that exist. The logistics of it alone make it seem terminal at best (unless the male population was somehow constrained by some weird natural and permanent phenomena).
Anyway, the comparison of same-sex with polygamous acceptance is a fascinating essay on the liberal left. If you're going to criticize one you'd better criticize both (as I do) in order to be fair. If you're going to use the example of Warren Jeffs for the polygamists then you need to use the example of the Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey for gay parents. |
|
|
Yeah, think they pulled it. Found your blog, but ya gotta write something in order for us to post! :) |
|
|
Lost my connection to/or server down at Beck Blog. Thought you might ck here. I've set-up a blog here at TH. Go to "my blogs", click either "faith and family" or "tx", scroll to Reck's Blog. Haven't made an entry yet but will soon. |
|
|
kdeeig, Thanks for writing the only sane comments (so far) on this article. |
|
|
This is the best analogy I have read. If these outcasts insist on foisting their abnormal life style on the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals, then by damn, let all sick lifestyles run rampant. The sooner society gets a close up look at "Mommy-Mommy" or "Daddy-Daddy" marriages, the sooner the country will rise up, and chase these abnormal humans back in the shadows. So we, the straights have our right to not have any association, or tolerance for them questioned. Hey! why not let harems be legal too? |
|
|
As an activist in the region where The FLDS, led by Warren Jeffs is located, I can definitely say that polygamy is not harmless to women, children or the tax payers. You should see the bill for government assistance we pay every month for this small group of people in food stamps alone in Mohave County where Colorado City is located. Because they can only legally have the one wife, all their other concubines are eligible for food stamps and government health care. We can start by refusing to call these women "wives" when they are no such thing. They are concubines plain and simple. |
|
|
Liberals whine and cry about equal rights but what they really mean at the end of the day is special rights. Gays and Liberals in this country want to cast conservatives as these scaaarrrrryyyy radicals who are coming to beat them up, and invade their homes but all conservative really are doing is refusing to subsidize or endorse dangerous, unhealthy, filthy sexual relationships. |
|
Rudy practiced a type of fiscal Bigamy.
Rudy provided tax payer funded protection both for his girl friend (essentially a common law wife) and 2nd wife for 2 years. He treated both women as if they were wives. Only wives and children receive tax payer paid protection.
"For a period of time in 2000-2001, when Rudy Giuliani was mayor of New York City and married to another woman, his "very good friend" Judith Nathan received police protection 12 hours a day, seven days a week, which cost the city about $200,000 per year - in addition to the security provided for his wife and children at the mayor's mansion."
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Rudy_Girlfriend_Got_Secu r/2007/12/01/53698.html |
|
|
|