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.

[philetus]

"it appears that this guy is a real low-life who isn't up to the responsibility of taking care of his 5 wives and countless kids"

or so AP would have you believe and maybe swallow, hook, line, and sinker.

[Torie]

Of course, the Greeks did not have a cultural tolerance of effeminacy. Among other things, the margin of military safety was too thin to give that much of a leash. I missed in my education your nuance about who is on top vis a vis Athens and Sparta. But as you know, many gays are not effeminate in their behavior.

[Utah Girl]

Actually, for once, AP is absolutely correct. Tom Green didn't do much except make babies with his wives. They're the ones who had jobs to make ends meet. One of the things he was found guilty of was non-support of his children, and bilking the Medicaid system of Utah. The prosecuting attorney nailed him on the witness stand. He and his wives were selling magazine subscriptions, they'd sold hundreds, and he sold a grand total of 27.

[AntiGuv]

Yes, of course many gays are not effeminate in their behavior, except to the extent that homosexuality is by definition perceived as an expression of effeminacy. In past societies where this was not the case, the proportion of men who engaged in homoerotic behavior that were not effeminate was far greater.

From a historical standpoint, the controversy has always involved men taking the subordinate position - whether in sexual matters or otherwise. While this almost states the obvious, what I mean to suggest is that the 'active' (or superordinate) sexual role has much less often been a matter of social condemnation. While there have been some exceptions, most societies have evidenced a great deal of conflict in the course of determining which males are legitimate objects of sexual subordination..

The Athenians resolved the matter by prohibiting the assumption of the 'passive' position by adult citizens, and constructing homoerotic relations around an age-differentiated hierarchy (slaves & foreigners were also fair game). The Spartans were one of those rare societies where homosexual relations between social equals was evidently encouraged. With marriage prohibited until age 30, men formed relations within their military unit which was thought to foster unit solidarity and battlefield valor.

Nonetheless, the Spartan example is an aberration from the historical norm, which has generally extended little regard (at best) to 'passive' homosexual behavior by adult men. The perceptual innovation that I referred to previously - in fact not fully realized until the 20th Century - was in conflating 'active' & 'passive' homoerotic behavior into a singular identity presumptive of effeminacy. This is a largely artificial construction which is why it may already be breaking down less than a century later.

Stated differently, the historical transition involved that from a subject-defined to an object-choice sexual identity which originated in its earliest form with the late 19th Century psychodynamic theory of sexual development.

[Calamari]

Next up in Massachusetts will be a couple of friends or brother and sister who love each other and want access to each others government bennies...

Just one of those unintended consequences.

Watch out when homosexuals officially become a federally protected minority!

[Torie]

what I mean to suggest is that the 'active' (or superordinate) sexual role has much less often been a matter of social condemnation.

The above sentence does not seem to fit into your thesis. Did you mean to say "more" rather than "less?" I thought you thesis was that adult male sexual domination was what was valued, rather than who was dominated.

[cartoonistx]

Paging Mr Lot!....Paging Mr. Lot! You have two visitors at the Gates of Sodom!

[philetus]

I only have 1 wife, but if I tried to pull something like that, she would roll me up in a wet sheet and beat me with a baseball bat.... or something.

[Utah Girl]

Most of us would...

[vaudine]

We don't need a marrige amendment. We need legislation to reign in judges.

vaudine

[L.N. Smithee]

And it's not just Mormons. "Polyamory" is the new left-wing sex craze.

From November 2000: SF Pro-Gore Rally Organizer: Polygamous Bisexual Sado-Masochist Pagan Activist:

---

...However, this doesn't even begin to give a comprehensive story of Ms. Schulenburg. Here's what else I discovered about her:

She is married (presumably legally) to Geof Worcester, a man who describes himself on his personal web page as "a queer pagan" who has believes he is "of the third gender, also called, berdache, two-spirit, or man-woman," and who has "known [he is] HIV+ since the test became available in April 1985." He also says he is "a computer geek for a big corporation," with an "extended family...made up of Radical Faeries, leather people, my wife [Schulenburg] and her two wives [bold mine], my daughter, my dead ex-lover and co-parent, and many pierced and tattooed friends who find their spirituality through their bodies."

---

[AntiGuv]

No, that was what I intended to write. To put it more clearly, few societies in history have expressed much concern or alarm about men who top other males. The cultural controversy has almost always revolved about men who permit themselves to get topped by other men. As a general rule, men who were perceived as the dominant partner in a homoerotic encounter (of whatever kind) were considered normative, masculine men. The social constructs evidently arose in order to regulate which males could be submitted under what circumstances (and thereby rendered 'unmasculine').

More exactly, every known society has exhibited a paramount interest in preventing the effeminization of its males, and usually the 'passive' sexual role is considered inherently effeminate. Therefore, most societies have been and continue to be fixated with preventing its men (those that it values) from assuming or being subjected to that role. To the extent that dominant homoerotic behavior could be channeled toward the designated outlets, most societies expressed little further concern about those men. It's a rather fine nuance, but a rather critical one insofar as understanding the history of male sexuality.

[scripter]

Uhhhhh how can it affect anyone unless they they're not practicing monogomy or abstinance?!

It's this thing called AIDS and it's contagious through bodily fluids such as blood.

This is pure propaganda.

Prove it. I've provided 5 links with a lot of supporting evidence. So again, prove it. Prove it's propaganda with something that wasn't discredited within hours of its release. Stating it's propaganda is typical of those who support the homosexual agenda.

Frankly I don't care whether or not it's genetic.

That says a lot!

I just don't see how come people feel entitled to infringe upon the private behaviour of two consenting adults.

As I see it, a Compassionate Society Should Discourage Deadly Homosexual Behavior. Maybe you hate gays so you don't care if they kill themselves off. And if true, I'd hate to be your friend.

[scripter]

I noticed you didn't comment on the severe health hazards of the homosexual lifestyle. I previously said:

Homosexual behavior results in severe health hazards that can affect all of us.

In addition to the above:

C-D-C says fight against H-I-V as urgent as it was 20 years ago
U.S. Syphilis Rates Climbs for Second Consecutive Year (Downward trend among African Americans and women offset by increases among gay and bisexual men)

Yeah, I know, you don't care.

[Torie]

Well the sentence confused me, and if I am confused, well ... :) But thanks for your clarification. I guess maybe given what is hard cultural hard wiring, we are on the road to legitimizing men topping male teenagers. Count me out on that one.

[Calamari]

You can expect the following types of sentences to appear in elementary school readers:

And the sex ed classes will include the practical aspects of "stump breaking" your chosen sheep or goat.

[TheDon]

I knew Santorum's name would be posted somewhere one this thread. How the press and the Demorats piled on him. I wonder if they'll republish what he said, and point out he was right? Right....

[AntiGuv]

Hmm.. I don't see much evidence whatsoever of a reversion to normalized age-structured relations (same-sex or otherwise), at least not in our lifetimes (or many, many lifetimes!)

I do have some remarks on the subject, though, but they'll have to wait until tomorrow since I've got to go now. Is it reasonably clear now what I was saying earlier? I've been somewhat rushed in my comments.

[GulliverSwift]

There will be no slippery slope. It's all about gays. No court will rule for poly, incest, or anything else. It ends at gay marriage. Pure politics in the courtroom. Other groups do not have a chance with their agendas. It would be a losing proposition for the activist courts! They are not about to limit their power now.

You are absolutely correct. Left-wing jurisprudence has never been about logic or consistency, just as left-wing religion has never been about God. Politics is the god of all liberals and is the sole reason that they hate with a passion anyone who dares not submit everything in his life to it. This is the real reason they hate Dubya.

I do think this guy will lose his appeal but in a few more years, the left will finally line up behind polygamy, especially if we get more Muslims in this country.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

What you said.