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

Skip to comments.

Utah Polygamist Invokes Ruling on Gay Sex
AP ^ | December 1, 2003 | MARK THIESSEN

Posted on 12/01/2003 5:01:52 PM PST by 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.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: blueoyster; buttpirates; catholiclist; disney; gay; gaylifestyle; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexuals; lawrencevtexas; marriage; polygamy; prisoners; slipperyslope; sodomy; stoptheexcerpts; tomgreen; utah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-178 next last
To: Tempest
"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.
101 posted on 12/01/2003 8:45:08 PM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
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.
102 posted on 12/01/2003 8:45:58 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: philetus
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.
103 posted on 12/01/2003 9:11:50 PM PST by Utah Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Torie
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.
104 posted on 12/01/2003 9:20:13 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
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!

105 posted on 12/01/2003 9:20:54 PM PST by Calamari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
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.

106 posted on 12/01/2003 9:34:50 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: ChewedGum
Paging Mr Lot!....Paging Mr. Lot! You have two visitors at the Gates of Sodom!
107 posted on 12/01/2003 9:39:24 PM PST by cartoonistx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
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.
108 posted on 12/01/2003 9:43:40 PM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: philetus
Most of us would...
109 posted on 12/01/2003 9:45:20 PM PST by Utah Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
We don't need a marrige amendment. We need legislation to reign in judges.

vaudine
110 posted on 12/01/2003 9:45:20 PM PST by vaudine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
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."



111 posted on 12/01/2003 9:52:35 PM PST by L.N. Smithee (Just because I don't think like you doesn't mean I don't think for myself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Torie
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.
112 posted on 12/01/2003 10:06:10 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
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.

113 posted on 12/01/2003 10:10:50 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
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.
114 posted on 12/01/2003 10:18:12 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
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.
115 posted on 12/01/2003 10:19:45 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Wilhelm Tell
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.

116 posted on 12/01/2003 10:35:20 PM PST by Calamari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
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....
117 posted on 12/01/2003 10:36:39 PM PST by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Torie
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.
118 posted on 12/01/2003 10:43:59 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: At _War_With_Liberals
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.

119 posted on 12/01/2003 11:17:39 PM PST by GulliverSwift (Howard Dean is the Joker's long-lost twin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: GulliverSwift
What you said.
120 posted on 12/01/2003 11:22:29 PM PST by At _War_With_Liberals
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM; EdReform; Tempest; ArGee; John O; Bryan; little jeremiah
Tempest, do you deny the reality of the following, and if so, on what grounds?

Between the Lines, Michigan's statewide "gay" newspaper, reports the risk of anal cancer "soars" by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with men. "The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive." Between the Lines admits there's no such thing as "safe sex" to prevent this "soaring" cancer risk: "A condom offers only limited protection."

The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reports [Executive Summary, "Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality," 1999]:

- "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."
- "Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women."
- "Domestic violence is...probably more common among homosexuals than among heterosexuals."
- "Significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals."

The Advocate, a "national gay and lesbian newsmagazine,"concurs that "lesbians are at higher risk of breast, cervical, and ovarian cancer."

As with smoking, homosexual behavior's "second hand" effects threaten public health.

The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention report that men who engage in homosexual behavior are 860% more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), increasing up to 500% their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Men who have sex with men "have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of STDs," the CDC warns. "Control of STDs is a central component of HIV infection prevention in the United States; resurgence of bacterial STD threatens national HIV infection prevention efforts."

Gay Health reports that men who have sex with men are 320% more likely than heterosexuals to have unprotected sex without telling their partners they're HIV-positive.

Reuters reported that while "'gay men of all ages remain at an alarming risk,' a CDC spokesman told a news conference," another CDC study "confirms that young bisexual men are a 'bridge' for HIV transmission to women."

Thus, individuals who choose to engage in homosexual behavior threaten not only their own lives, but the lives of the general population. Source

And there are some like Freeper Tempest who thinks we shouldn't care or it's none of our business.

121 posted on 12/02/2003 12:55:12 AM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
That is the problem. A man should not have more wives, of legal age, that he can support, either serially or in a mob.

Green's mature, but documented 13 y.o. bride broke his case wide open. Tom Green seems more hustler than bread winner. If a man can move, he should never live off his mate's(s') earnings.

Our society has not faced open war with famine (yet) on our lands for many generations where the mass loss of men imbalanced the general population.

I have no problem with a man and several women setting up their durable household as man and wives or wwoman and husbands. Aside from the Biblical stretch, I absolutely believe that there are more good women than good men.

Children need a stable home with responsible parents at home more than the State's certification.

The family unit more than the legal definition of marriage is in question. I am not in favor of homosexuals adopting children, because homosexuality is a mistake in nature, unlikely to ever be mainstream because most normal people find it abnormal. Dr. Laura caught some heavy flack some time ago for stating that obvious fact.

We need to live among people who love us and are willing to care for children and the aged/infirm - for life. That is the true, healthy family, however comprised. The State is doing rather badly as the "extended family", despite its power as schitzy nanny.

Plural marriage families living off the peoples' tax dollars' welfare is too much.

Green broke too many rules of man. Homos break too many rules of nature. The "Gay Plague" will take its toll.

We live in evolutionary, secular times benefitting self-absorbed people rejecting right and wrong.

122 posted on 12/02/2003 1:46:37 AM PST by SevenDaysInMay (Federal judges and justices serve for periods of good behavior, not life. Article III sec. 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
???? Huh?! Was that supposed to make sense?! Or was that you showing your disagreement with my opinion. Perhaps you think that everyone that doesn't want to hang a homosexual must be one??? Ahhh such a great display of intellige"

temper, tempwr, tempest.

123 posted on 12/02/2003 3:44:50 AM PST by truthandjustice1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
It's no different for polygamists, argued Tom Green's attorney

Of course not. Polygamy is far more natural than sodomy. Just read the Old Testament. I'd like to hear the rationalization for ruling against polygamy.

124 posted on 12/02/2003 5:08:48 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
I thought that one of the basis of conservatism was to remove big goverment from our private lives?!

You are mistaken. The purpose of government is to promote the common good, or "the general welfare" as stated in the preamble to the Constitution. Society depends for its existence on the existence and welfare of the family, so the state has an interest in the welfare of the family.

125 posted on 12/02/2003 5:13:42 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ChewedGum
We expected it. And here it is. My, my that slippery slope sure is steep.

Well, you obviously don't pay attention. There is no such thing as a slippery slope. For there to be a slippery slope, there would have to be an "up" and a "down" which would imply a "right" and a "wrong." Since there is no right and wrong, especially when it comes to sexual perversion - I mean fetish - I mean orientation (sorry about the confusion there) then we aren't slipping downhill.

I know it looks like slipping downhill and it feels like slipping downhill but it is definately not slipping downhill by judicial fiat.

Shalom.

126 posted on 12/02/2003 5:42:16 AM PST by ArGee (Scientific reasoning makes it easier to support gross immorality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
A guy can have more than one wife soon? Woo hoo!

Most of us could not afford more than one.

And imagine multiple divorces at one time. It makes the strong blanch (unless it's a strong lawyer).

Shalom.

127 posted on 12/02/2003 5:43:04 AM PST by ArGee (Scientific reasoning makes it easier to support gross immorality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch
Polygamists are not organized, nor an important special interest in the Democratic Party.

... yet.

Shalom.

128 posted on 12/02/2003 5:45:23 AM PST by ArGee (Scientific reasoning makes it easier to support gross immorality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze; newgeezer
Sounds like he went to Bring-em-young University.
129 posted on 12/02/2003 5:47:34 AM PST by biblewonk (I must answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
Anyways. . . I never really could figure out what wrong with homosexual relationships and why so called conservatives want the the goverment to legislate laws against it?!

The conservatives did not want to create new laws, just keep existing ones. Laws against buggery have been around for as long as the republic has.

I thought that one of the basis of conservatism was to remove big goverment from our private lives?!

No, because people will choose to do evil in private. The government does exist to restrain evil. Anyway, gay marriage isn't about private lives, it's about a public institution.

Meantime, the liberals are creating bigger government by asking them to prosecute "hate crimes". We had illegal homosexuality for over 200 years without creating a bedroom police. But homosexuality wasn't legal for more than 20 years before we got thought police.

Just who is trying to get government to intrude where, hmmmm?

Shalom.

130 posted on 12/02/2003 5:48:31 AM PST by ArGee (Scientific reasoning makes it easier to support gross immorality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
I think I'll wait until at least one court interprets Lawrence v Texas as requiring gay marriage before I worry about any court finding in Lawrence a right to multiple, simultaneous marriages.

What do you think the Massachusetts Supreme Court did?

Shalom.

131 posted on 12/02/2003 5:49:21 AM PST by ArGee (Scientific reasoning makes it easier to support gross immorality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Shalom.

132 posted on 12/02/2003 5:52:54 AM PST by ArGee (Scientific reasoning makes it easier to support gross immorality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: TYVets
It kept Brigham Young for awhile though...
133 posted on 12/02/2003 5:54:39 AM PST by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
LOL!!!! All I can do is issue a hearty chuckle. What was it, two weeks? I predicted here that every lawyer for every bigamist/polygamist would be hurriedly crafting their motions for the immediate reversal of their convictions.

I don't think even the Democrats want to be on this runaway coal train. I fully expect that if the GOP presses for a constitutional convention, the Dems will be forced to go along. The gay/bigamist voting block is just not big enough to trade for the Excedrine headache they're about to get slapped with. 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.
134 posted on 12/02/2003 6:28:57 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
wording, not working
135 posted on 12/02/2003 6:29:36 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Here is a tragic story about "polygamy".

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2003/12/01/feature/a01112803_01.txt


http://www.helenair.com/articles/2003/12/02/feature/a01112903_01.txt



http://www.helenair.com/articles/2003/12/01/top/a01113003_01.txt

136 posted on 12/02/2003 11:41:59 AM PST by tuckrdout (grant Terri Schindler Schiavo's wish: DIVORCE from Michael!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: linksduster
Any way, I wish government truly would defend marriage, such as providing greater tax deductions for married families with children.

A thousand bucks a kid tax credit isn't good enough for you?

Back to the topic of this thread, so some sleazeball shyster attorney is citing a non-related court case to try to get his dirtbag client off? That happens every day, the only thing wrong with this story is that it IS a story. Why the media pays any attention to a man that is surely despised by the left and the right is a mystery to me.

137 posted on 12/02/2003 11:50:17 AM PST by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: tuckrdout
I don't recommend polygamy and I don't think that it should be legal but... if it's polygamy or sodomy, polygamy gets the nod. There's no glossing over it, God tolerates it in the OT. It's a very difficult issue.

The History of Marriage

138 posted on 12/02/2003 12:29:21 PM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: tuckrdout
You might be interested in this too. Polygamy in Natural Law.
139 posted on 12/02/2003 12:34:12 PM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
I've never understood why it would be legal to have one wife and four mistresses, but not five wives. Presumably at least the last four wives are not legally married to him, so even if they all want to look at it as a marriage arrangement, I don't understand how the law can differentiate, at least in an unfavorable way, between this situation and that of a man who has five mistresses, assuming he pays support for children resulting from those extramarital affairs.

VERY GOOD POINT. AN EX-LOVER OF A SINGLE MAN CAN GET "PALIMONY," SO WHY COULDN'T AN EX-LOVER OF A MARRIED MAN BE ENTITLED TO SPOUSE-LIKE BENEFITS?

140 posted on 12/02/2003 12:36:47 PM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
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.
141 posted on 12/02/2003 12:47:40 PM PST by tuckrdout (grant Terri Schindler Schiavo's wish: DIVORCE from Michael!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
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....
142 posted on 12/02/2003 2:00:00 PM PST by tracer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Okay!! Just for that, you're off of my "futures" list!! Besides, Elmer would kill me...... 8~)
143 posted on 12/02/2003 2:03:46 PM PST by tracer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
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.
144 posted on 12/02/2003 4:07:19 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (When laws are regularly flouted, respect of the law and law enforcement diminishes correspondingly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
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.

145 posted on 12/02/2003 4:31:20 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (When laws are regularly flouted, respect of the law and law enforcement diminishes correspondingly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
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.

146 posted on 12/02/2003 4:34:40 PM PST by ArGee (Scientific reasoning makes it easier to support gross immorality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
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.
147 posted on 12/02/2003 6:05:54 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (When laws are regularly flouted, respect of the law and law enforcement diminishes correspondingly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
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.

148 posted on 12/02/2003 6:10:56 PM PST by ArGee (Scientific reasoning makes it easier to support gross immorality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
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?
149 posted on 12/02/2003 10:46:44 PM PST by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
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......

150 posted on 12/03/2003 6:38:15 AM PST by Elsie (Don't believe every prophecy you hear: especially *** ones........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-178 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