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

Skip to comments.

Polygamy upsets gay activists
Kansas City Star ^ | Mar. 19, 2006 | CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Posted on 03/22/2006 8:01:47 PM PST by neverdem

WASHINGTON — And now, polygamy.

With the sweetly titled HBO series “Big Love,” polygamy comes out of the closet. Under the headline “Polygamists, Unite!” Newsweek informs us of “polygamy activists emerging in the wake of the gay-marriage movement.” Says one evangelical Christian big lover: “Polygamy rights is the next civil-rights battle.”

Polygamy used to be stereotyped as the province of secretive Mormons, primitive Africans and profligate Arabs. With “Big Love” it moves to suburbia as a mere alternative lifestyle.

As Newsweek notes, these stirrings for the mainstreaming of polygamy (or, more accurately, polyamory) have their roots in the increasing legitimization of gay marriage. In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two persons of (2) opposite gender, and if, as gay marriage advocates insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one’s autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement — the number restriction (two and only two) — is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.

This line of argument makes gay activists furious. I can understand why they do not want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I’m not the one who put them there. Their argument does.

Blogger and author Andrew Sullivan, who had the courage to advocate gay marriage at a time when it was considered pretty crazy, has called this the “polygamy diversion,” arguing that homosexuality and polygamy are categorically different because polygamy is a mere “activity” while homosexuality is an intrinsic state that “occupies a deeper level of human consciousness.”

But this distinction between higher and lower orders of love is precisely what gay rights activists so...

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: gayrights; homosexualagenda; krauthammer; pansexuals; polygamy; slipperyslope
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201 next last
To: BamaGirl
Just confused because I thought most the gay marriage types were really trying to tear down marriage anyway

They are, but if polygamy activists get into the mix, a lot of liberals may get antsy about opening this pandora box. They dont want the cat out of the hat until gay marriage is a done deal.

121 posted on 03/23/2006 6:21:09 AM PST by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Our founding father created a government of limited and enumerated powers. It is one of the basic concepts concerning our system of government. I'm concerned that anyone would be willing to ignore this basic concept to further a social engineering goal. That includes the USSC by the way.

"No man can become a law unto himself under the guise of ‘freedom of religion'".

Nor can the government assume unlimited powers with or without collaboration of the USSC. I think Roe v. Wade is a prime example of the results of the USSC simply assuming powers.
122 posted on 03/23/2006 6:30:46 AM PST by Durus ("Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Blogger and author Andrew Sullivan, who had the courage to advocate gay marriage at a time when it was considered pretty crazy, has called this the “polygamy diversion,” arguing that homosexuality and polygamy are categorically different because polygamy is a mere “activity” while homosexuality is an intrinsic state that “occupies a deeper level of human consciousness.”

Unbelievable.

123 posted on 03/23/2006 6:44:32 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
Unbelievable.

Isn't it? From what I've read of Andrew Sullivan for the past few years it's quite typical. Homosexual activists Andrew Sullivan and Mark Pietrzyk have been known to say anything for the good of the cause.

124 posted on 03/23/2006 6:54:15 AM PST by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Durus
Our founding father created a government of limited and enumerated powers.

Which “founding father” is that???

Where is it enumerated that marriage is a “right” in the Constitution?

So, we should allow ritual murder as a “right” of religious freedom???

No man can become a law unto himself under the guise of ‘freedom of religion.'

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

In fact, from where are the enumerated rights in the United States’ Constitution derived???

ANSWER - - The Declaration of Independence: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…"

Genesis...

125 posted on 03/23/2006 7:02:26 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Young Scholar
"That polygamy is certainly no worse morally than homosexual marriage."

Its definitely worse for society though.If two men wanna go fag off that leaves two women out there for the rest of us men. If one guy has 6 wives there are 5 guys who cannot possibly get a woman. When a society has alot of guys who have no possibility of ever getting a woman, they become violent. If polygamy ever became widespread in America the crime rate would sky rocket, and eventually a mob of 18-25 year old men would overthrow the government and redistribute the women.

There's a reason why polygamist towns push young men out of their society.
126 posted on 03/23/2006 7:05:59 AM PST by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: scripter

It's hard to know whether to go Monty Python (wink, wink, nudge, nudge...) or Beavis and Butthead (deeper...hehehehe).

And he gets paid to write stuff like this too.


127 posted on 03/23/2006 7:13:55 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Durus
You of course have to check your state constitution to find out if the powers to regulate driving, practice of medicine, and marriage are given to the state by the people. None are regulated at the federal level.

The fact that at one time something was not regulated does not mean it cannot or should not be regulated by the government.
Driving became possible before people realized how potentially dangerous an act it was. So the laws had to catch up later.
Drivers' licenses mean that the government has attempted to ascertain that you are competent to be driving a ton or so of metal down the road at 20-65 miles per hour. You of course might be perfectly capable of driving safely. How about that nimrod coming towards you at 45 mph just on the other side of the double line? Do you want someone to at least have checked out whether that clod has any clue what he is doing?
At the start of the Republic basically all doctors were quacks. His doctor bled George Washington just before he died. On some quack theory or another.
As late as the Civil War doctors had no idea of the proper sanitary practices for amputations in order to minimize post surgery infections.
If you point out that licenses do not prevent all the potential catastrophes, that is true. But everyone believes that they do help reduce the number of incompetent people doing potentially danger things.
If you have a better idea, run for office, put your better idea in place.
128 posted on 03/23/2006 7:14:20 AM PST by Cheburashka (World's only Spatula City certified spatula repair and maintenance specialist!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
Bestiality is already legal in WA.

The reference was to marital bestiality...people will want to marry their dogs, horses, etc.

129 posted on 03/23/2006 7:17:25 AM PST by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist
They are, but if polygamy activists get into the mix, a lot of liberals may get antsy about opening this pandora box. They dont want the cat out of the hat until gay marriage is a done deal.
---
Nonstatist, hitting the nail on the head.
130 posted on 03/23/2006 7:18:26 AM PST by Cheburashka (World's only Spatula City certified spatula repair and maintenance specialist!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
If polygamy ever became widespread in America the crime rate would sky rocket

And what if feminists in control of legislatures enact laws that discourage marriage, such as no-fault divorce and pro-fem custody law ? Marriage rates are dropping and theres a de-coupling of child-raising and marriage, but I guess as long as men can still "hook-up", the society won't devolve? Maybe , maybe not.

131 posted on 03/23/2006 7:19:25 AM PST by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle

Your voice sounds familiar, what high school did you go to?

Wait, I dated your sister, she was as fox!

(Smack) hey would you rather I said she was ugly? (Smack-Smack)

(How old friends become old enemies)

Whew, I don’t want that, so…..

Long time no see, I hope you are doing well…(Tries to place face silently…)


132 posted on 03/23/2006 7:22:41 AM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
If one guy has 6 wives there are 5 guys who cannot possibly get a woman.

Now there's an interesting line of reasoning... I doubt you'll ses a New York Times editorial arguing that one.

133 posted on 03/23/2006 7:29:26 AM PST by Young Scholar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

I think what happens is that when the first wife gets past childbearing years, the man, who is by now at the peak of his earning potential, goes out and gets a new childbearer. Isn't this better than kicking the old wife to the curb and marrying someone half his age, as happens now?


134 posted on 03/23/2006 7:30:22 AM PST by Flavius Josephus (War today is always cheaper than war tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Thunder90

I don't know that buggering animals counts, because they ain't talkin'.


135 posted on 03/23/2006 7:31:14 AM PST by Flavius Josephus (War today is always cheaper than war tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow

>>Just think of the numbers of pairs of shoes!

If you married wives with the same size feet… Nah they’d want to match, just to mess that up.

LOL!


136 posted on 03/23/2006 7:35:23 AM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

When all is a free-for-all, what will happen after they do the expose' on the gay guy married to a man, and becomes a polygamist by marrying a woman, then marries a dog, then marries a 5 year-old?


137 posted on 03/23/2006 7:36:46 AM PST by Sensei Ern (Now, IB4Z! http://www.myspace.com/reconcomedy/ "I believe Hillary is the aunti-christ.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

And I bet if someone dies while a thief in doing his thing, even if not his intent, he might feel bad too.


138 posted on 03/23/2006 7:37:35 AM PST by trubluolyguy (Islam is a Cult of Death that has been infiltrated by a few non-violent believers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

>>Of course first you have to more than one woman to agree to marry you

I had a hard enough time finding Mrs. Delphiuser. (Had to find a woman with good taste in everything but men)


139 posted on 03/23/2006 7:39:01 AM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
No, the real problem with polygamy would be this. In this country a blue collar worker used to be able to completely provide for his family on one full time paycheck and live reasonably well.

Now it takes TWO full time paychecks to live reasonably well due to taxation.

How would people like it if it wound up taking 3 or 4 full time paychecks to live reasonably well? You can bet the government would crank up the tax rates if this went legal.

140 posted on 03/23/2006 7:39:39 AM PST by Centurion2000 (Islam's true face: http://makeashorterlink.com/?J169127BC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201 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