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 ...
And the Freepers who support homosexual marriage said it wouldn't happen. Thanks for the ping.
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1), (Version 1.0) |
| Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list) |
| Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search |
Homosexual behavior results in severe health hazards that can affect all of us.
Homosexuals, being around 2% (including bisexuals) of the population, account for a third of child molestations. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
There is absolutely no evidence homosexuality is genetic.
Homosexuals can change their behavior. That's just one of many links. You can find more of the same here and here.
Homosexuals must be accepted as the human beings that they are. It's their behavior that we must not accept.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that in the States. It workes in places where women basically have no rights, in places where you can end a marriage by saying 'I divorce you' three times, and kick her out. Having multiple wives here would be just asking to get mauled in divorce court.
I suspect we both know that the Lawrence citation was but a pretext, amongst other things designed to suggest that this is what it should mean, while recognizing it does not. The Mass SJC granted cert in Goodrich many months before the Lawrence challenge was even argued, much less a ruling handed down. I don't recall anyone at the time expecting anything aside from the eventual ruling, the impending Lawrence decision notwithstanding.
The path to the destruction of marriage has its origins in Lawrence, a brief stop in a liberal New England State for a majority of 1 oligarch to redefine marriage and straight through to the full faith and credit clause.
The path to the destruction of marriage as a meaningful institution has its origins in the women's rights movement, with Lawrence but another brief stop amongst many on the path to its eventual dissolution.
You know it, I know it and the proponents of homosexual "marriage" know it. Of course, should they succeed there will be unintended consequences because every adult will be able to exercise there new found "right to marriage".
I do not doubt that there will be unintended consequences, most likely of the same kind as those in other historical societies which have embraced homosexual relations. To be exact, I would imagine that homosexuality will become far more prevalent amongst the society as a whole, though this will likely take at least three more generations.
It can be stopped but I'm not optimistic about it. I say that knowing that we diverge on "homosexual" marriage.
The fact of the matter is that our modern sociolegal order is not designed to tolerate inequality on the basis of class. So long as the culture deems sexual orientation a dichotomous phenomenon, it is inevitable that in time equal protection under the law will be extended on this basis. Since there appears little indication that this paradigm of orientations will be abandoned anytime soon (since the alternative of a 'polyvalent' continuum is even more contrary to the modern Western culture), I see no reason to expect otherwise.
I'm not sure how much we diverge on the matter beyond my recognizing and accepting long ago the course society would take on the matter.
Well of COURSE!!
I wasn't trying to slur Mormons as a group -- I know and respect many. I guess I was just talking about the extreme Mormon polygamy proponents (and of course there are Mulsim proponents as well).
I predicted this too. Polygamy is the logical next step after gay "marriage." Then it will be okay for adults to be "married" to children. Finally, humans will be allowed to "marry" chimps, sheep, dogs, or whatever...
You can expect the following types of sentences to appear in elementary school readers:
He seeks the sleek sheik's sheep.
The shagged sheep sure are shy in the shower.
The sleek sheik shagged the shy sheep in his sleep while sliding down the slippery slope.
She sheared the shy sheep that the sleek sheik shagged.
Uhhhhh how can it affect anyone unless they they're not practicing monogomy or abstinance?! Frankly anyone that decides to have sex with out getting to know their partner very well and using contraceptives is at risk of a STD whether or not they're a a homosexual.
"Homosexuals, being around 2% (including bisexuals) of the population, account for a third of child molestations. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5."
This is pure propaganda. Child molestation is a problem that extends well beyond the realms of homesexuality and into the realm of sexual abuse without consent of adults. I'm just not really inclined into buying this load of tripe where goverment should legislate the sexual behaviour of two willing and consenting adults of the same sexual orientation should be prosecuted for activities in which they are fully cognisent and desirous of participating in, in the privacy of their own domicile.
"There is absolutely no evidence homosexuality is genetic.
Homosexuals can change their behavior. That's just one of many links. You can find more of the same here and here.
Frankly I don't care whether or not it's genetic. I just don't see how come people feel entitled to infringe upon the private behaviour of two consenting adults.
???? 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 intelligence. . .
Bingo! We have a winner!
D'accord, for rather mundane but compelling rather than transcendental reasons.
Brigham Young
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.