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

Skip to comments.

Is polyamory and incest next?
The Boston Globe ^ | 3/9/2003 | Jeff Jacoby

Posted on 03/09/2003 5:40:25 AM PST by A. Pole

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:09:15 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

DURING THE ORAL argument in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts lawsuit aimed at legalizing same-sex marriage, it was Justice Martha Sosman of the state's Supreme Judicial Court who put her finger on the crux of the case. ''Could it not also be framed,'' she asked Mary Bonauto, the lawyer for the gay and lesbian plaintiffs, that ''you're seeking to change the definition of what the institution of marriage is?'' After all there have been right-to-marry cases before, involving (for example) interracial couples, prison inmates, or the mentally retarded. But, Sosman noted, they ''have not changed . . . the historical fundamental definition of what the institution is.''


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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; courts; gay; homosexual; homosexualagenda; incest; marriage; massachusetts; sodomylaws
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

1 posted on 03/09/2003 5:40:26 AM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
***But if Core Element No. 2 can be struck down for that reason, so can No. 1 and No. 3. If the state has no right to deny a marriage license to would-be spouses of the same sex, on what reasonable grounds could it deny a marriage to would-be spouses from the same family? Or to would-be spouses who happen to number three or four instead of two?***

By the same logic, interspecies marriages should be recognized. Why just two people? Barney Frank might like to marry his boyfriend, his gay sister AND his French Poodle.

2 posted on 03/09/2003 5:48:09 AM PST by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
>> ''Because marriage is so centrally about an individual's love and commitment,''<<

Well, if that's what marriage is "centrally about", then the plaintiffs have a very good case.

3 posted on 03/09/2003 5:48:32 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Is there a species restriction? And must all parthers be alive or even born at the time of the marriage. And, if the 'number 1' is eliminated (2 people), why restrict it to '2 or more'? How about less then 2? This way, many people could marry themselves to great tax advantage and personal enjoyment.

The possiblities are endless. Think about possible 'honorary marriages'. A public personality could be married by his or her entire fan club membership. Or, a future dictator could marry the entire country population.

Temporary marriages could be arranged between whores and their clients, for the time they are performing business together. And the state could collect funds from issuing the marriage license.

Is Algore discussing all these possibilities in his last book?

4 posted on 03/09/2003 5:53:00 AM PST by A Vast RightWing Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Toss in PETA and other animal rights advocate's idea that animals and humans are equal and the picture gets very muddy.

The weirdos are chipping away at our society. We let them get their foot in and now we can't keep them out.
This is all about 'self esteem'.

5 posted on 03/09/2003 5:54:08 AM PST by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
And libertarian Lou sez, "Ain't nobody's bizness if'n ya do."
6 posted on 03/09/2003 5:59:05 AM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole; GatorGirl; tiki; maryz; *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; ...
Ping.
7 posted on 03/09/2003 6:05:14 AM PST by narses (Christe Eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
Exactly

And lets not forgot MANBLA

8 posted on 03/09/2003 6:06:39 AM PST by apackof2 (....the object is make the other son of a bitch die for his country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
No structure can stand for long when its bearing wall is removed. The bearing wall of marriage -- its central and universal defining characteristic -- is its heterosexuality. Knock that down, and what is left will become a ruin.

There it is--the fundamental critique of the thousands of heresies of liberalism.

Civilization may seem perpetual but it is not. It is held together by rules and common assumptions about what is acceptable behavior and what is not. As the liberals destroy those rules they undermine all of civilization until all that is left is the firing squad and the will of the local despot.
9 posted on 03/09/2003 6:16:36 AM PST by cgbg (The Witch of New York is the enemy of civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole; drstevej; Jim Noble
DURING THE ORAL argument in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts lawsuit aimed at legalizing same-sex marriage, it was Justice Martha Sosman of the state's Supreme Judicial Court who put her finger on the crux of the case.

Exactly. The following is from some of my previous ranting on the issue...

Gay advocates of "domestic partnerships" are in effect saying to other homosexuals, that it is only acceptable to be "gay" as long as other homosexuals conform to their hypocritical standard of monogamy. The general public discussion about marriage, homosexuality and "domestic partners," does not address the central issue - - monogamy is a sectarian establishment of religion in the law and violates the First Amendment’s prohibition "regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Various homosexual pressure groups that claim to support "equality" never address bisexuality and the idea that a bisexual is not allowed to benefit from relationships with persons of both sexes. Nor are they, the Left Wing Media, and Left Wing Educational Establishment willing to discuss polygyny or polyandry, which are, or have been traditions for Muslims, Mormons, Hebrews, Hindus, Buddhists and Africans, as well as other Pagan cultures. The two sides currently represented in the same-sex marriage debate both want special rights for monogamists. However, the proponents of heterosexual only marriages are willing to concede that a homosexual has just as much a right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any heterosexual does. [Incidentally, the desire to have children is a heterosexual desire.]

Nowhere in the religious texts of the above mentioned cultures is there a prohibition of polygamy and I challenge any scholar of theology, literature or history to refute it with proof from the Judeo-Christian Bible, Holy Qur’an, Mahabharata, Rig Veda, or Dhammapada. The ignorance of these historical and cultural facts is evidence of the failed public education system and the fig leaf covering the personal bias of certain staff members in the Left Wing Press and Left Wing Educational Establishment concerning facts, reporting them and/or teaching them.

To allow an institution of homosexual marriage in a monogamous form requires some sort of moralistic meandering to justify it and prohibit any form of polygamy. Upon what basis, if we are to assume it is discrimminatory to not allow homosexuals to "marry," can there be a prohibition of the varying forms of polygamy? Especially, since the First Amendment is specific in forbidding an establishment of religion in the law and is supposed to protect the people's right to assemble peaceably? The entire issue of "same-sex" marriage hinges upon the assumption that monogamy is the only form of marriage. I contend that it is based upon human biological reproduction and is outside of the government's authority to regulate in regard to the First Amendment...

To bolster some of my assertions:

-

"What gay ideologues, inflated like pink balloons with poststructuralist hot air, can't admit, of course, is that heterosexuality is nature's norm, enforced by powerful hormonal cues at puberty. In the past decade, one shoddy book after another, rapturously applauded by p.c. reviewers, has exaggerated the incidence of homosexuality in the animal world and, without due regard for reproductive adaptations caused by environmental changes, toxins or population pressure, reductively interpreted bonding or hierarchical behavior as gay in the human sense."

About the writer: Camille Paglia is professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.

-

The issue of polygamy is an Achille's heel for both popular sides of the same-sex marriage issue. The religious cannot find a prohibition of it in their sacred texts. The advocates have to resort to a litany of moralistic meandering based upon the creationist philosophy they claim to oppose to justify it. Both want special rights for preferred groups and are not interested in the individual freedoms of free association. They both want an establishment of religion in the law no matter how much they will deny that.

Unless you like conforming to the religionist dictates, I suggest you and others re-examine the B.S. the guardians of political correctness on the Religious Left have been feeding you.

The First Amendment is very unambiguous. The creationist cultural patent of monogamy is an establishment of religion in the law. The idea that some people get a preferred status based upon their personal relationships goes against the idea of individual rights and the idea of equal protection before the law. What of the people's right peaceably to assemble? It does not take an advanced legal education to comprehend the very clear language of the First Amendment. I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all, except where each individual has a biological responsibility for any offspring they produce. With "reproductive rights," there must be reproductive responsibilities.

In addition, prohibition of polygyny, polyandry and various forms of polygamy (which includes bisexuals) is not consistent with Roe v. Wade - - society has no right to intervene in private reproductive choices. The recent case of a polygynist being prosecuted in Utah is a great example. Do the women associated with the man who fathered those children have a "right to choose" who they want to mate and produce offspring with? Does the man have a right to choose concerning the production of his progeny? Roe v. Wade says societal intervention in private reproductive choices is a violation of individual liberties. What implication does this also have concerning welfare and public funding of abortions? The issue of polygamy tears down a lot of the sacred cows...

The so-called empowerment of women and rights of women have been appropriated by a few to mean rights of the few and no longer means an individual woman’s right to equal treatment. Some would emphasize the "inalienable right" of women to decide whether or not to bear a child. This has the effect of defining women as reproductive units rather than as human beings. Real women’s rights would emphasize greater opportunities for education and employment instead of emphasizing a cult of fertility which leads to economic dependency on men and the rest of society, including homosexual men and women who do not reproduce.

The inaccuracies concerning the political economy of sex as portrayed by pro-"choice" advocates deserve a thorough review: Reproductive "choice" is made when two heterosexual people decide to engage in adult relations, not after the fact. The desire to have children is a heterosexual desire. Provided it is a consenting relationship, no woman is forced to become pregnant. Modern science and capitalism (see: Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personae) have provided methods to give women pre-emptive power over the forces of nature. No woman has control over her body; only nature does. It is modern Western Civilization that gives women power over nature, not Roe v. Wade. [Incidentally, Roe v. Wade, if strictly interpreted, would prohibit public funding for abortion since public funding for abortion is a form of societal intervention in reproduction - - the very thing prohibited by Roe v. Wade.] One may reply Roe v. Wade is part of a larger good called "women’s rights," but this is really a disguise, consigning other women (those who don’t reproduce or those who oppose abortion) to second class citizenship.

This topic is applicable to homosexuality, both the male and female variety, as well as to sexual crimes. The choice to engage in any type of sexual activity is an individual’s, provided of course, he or she is not victim of a sexual assault. It is absurd to claim the rapist has no control over his actions and it is equally ridiculous to say a homosexual does not have a choice not to involve him or herself with another. The same is true for heterosexual females - - being a woman is not an excuse for making poor choices. The idea that "the choice to have an abortion should be left up to a woman" does not take into account the lack of a choice to pay for such services rendered: The general public is forced to pay massive subsidies for other people sex lives. Emotive claims that the decision to have an abortion is a private one is refuted by the demands of those same people who want public funding for their private choices and/or mistakes.

An adult male or female can be sent to the penitentiary for engaging in carnal pleasures with a minor. One female schoolteacher had become the focus of national attention because she produced a child with her juvenile student. She went to prison while pregnant the second time from the very same child student. Courts allowing a minor female to have an abortion without parental consent or notification can destroy evidence of a felony (such as molestation, rape or incest). Those courts and judges therein have become complicit in the destruction of evidence and are possible accessories in the commission of a felony.

Another source of amazement is the concept of those who hold candlelight vigils for heinous murderers about to be executed, a large number of whom think it is acceptable to murder an unborn child without the benefit of a trial. Is the "right to life" of one responsible for much murder and mayhem more important than that of a truly innocent unborn child? Perhaps we should call capital punishment "post-natal abortion" and identify abortion as a "pre-natal death sentence" or "pre-natal summary execution." "Reproductive freedom" is my economic and environmental tyranny.

There are likewise examples of polygyny in the Bible...

Don't misunderstand me.

1. It is my fundamental contention that "marriage" is based on human reproductive biology and outside of government's authority to regulate.

2. There is no outright prohibition concerning polygyny in the Bible at all (this is not found in the Old or New Testament anywhere). There is no prohibition in any religious text. The actual words of Jesus in the Gospel makes no mention of the issue for Jews or Christians. In fact, the Old Testament is explicit in it's permitting of polygyny.

3. If marriage is based on human reproductive biology, is outside of government authority to regulate, and is a religious institution - - then only the churches may regulate marriage. Some may not like this idea, however, the churches that venture outside of accepted tradition will ultimately fail, they will not have any congregation to support them.

Furthermore, abolishing non-profit status for religious institutions will keep the institutions alive that people actually actively support. There are too many organizations and false churches kept alive by the non-profit crutch.

I'm not saying I support something by discussing the issue, but it is imperative that a biological basis for marriage is established. This makes the issue of homosexual marriage null and void...

10 posted on 03/09/2003 6:30:32 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
It wouldn't bother me in the least if the government got completely out of the marriage business.
11 posted on 03/09/2003 6:32:59 AM PST by The Other Harry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator; cgbg; apackof2; narses; GatorGirl; tiki; maryz; *Catholic_list; ...
Is there a species restriction? And must all parthers be alive or even born at the time of the marriage. And, if the 'number 1' is eliminated (2 people), why restrict it to '2 or more'? How about less then 2? This way, many people could marry themselves to great tax advantage and personal enjoyment.

The possiblities are endless. Think about possible 'honorary marriages'. A public personality could be married by his or her entire fan club membership. Or, a future dictator could marry the entire country population.

See post #10... I am interested in all of your thoughts on it...

12 posted on 03/09/2003 6:42:25 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Other Harry
As far as I am concerned the Holy Bible says nothing about going to the state department and getting a license.
The feds have thrown that in the lake and we the people have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
Signing that paper gives gov.org the right interfer at a later date, just like birth certificates and social security numbers give them the right to meddle in your childrens affairs.
If gov.org makes sodomy the equal of a man and a woman being married then all bible believers should refuse to obtain a license and go back to a more biblical approach to marriage.
Before you know it the BALS (barnyard animal lover society) will want a license to marry their goat. And our gov.org in the finite wisdom will grant them one.
13 posted on 03/09/2003 6:49:20 AM PST by winodog (The problem is sin. The solution is Christ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Thank you for this thread A. Pole. Please visit
CNLGLFG.com

14 posted on 03/09/2003 6:51:03 AM PST by MeekMom (( Please visit http://CNLGLFG.com) (HUGE Ann-Fan!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Larry Flynt might see (another, actually) chicken that strikes his fancy...

Who are we to deny a man the right to spend the rest of his life in a covenant, blessed by God himself, with the farm animal of his choice?

15 posted on 03/09/2003 6:53:21 AM PST by Jhoffa_ ("HI, I'm Johnny Knoxville and this is FReepin' for Zot!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
The familiy institution, as we know it - heterosexaul, monogamous - is a 'de facto' state of affairs in our society. I agree that monogamy is not the only possible heterosexual family arrangement but 'our family' is monogamous. Of course, monogamy is in peril if we agree to see ourselves as a 'multiculturally diverse' type of human amalgamation instead of a 'Western', largely Christian nation.

On the other hand, there is no example anywhere in the world and at any time in the past of 'homosexual' families. We know that people used to seek pleasure in fornicating with children or humans of the same sex, or with animals, or corpses, or with themselves but such practices never turned into 'families'.

The 'homosexual family' would be something completely knew and probably impossible to sustain. Its only drivers - tax and other 'welfare society'-type 'benefits'.

16 posted on 03/09/2003 6:55:09 AM PST by A Vast RightWing Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: winodog
As far as I am concerned the Holy Bible says nothing about going to the state department and getting a license...

That is really what I think.

I personally believe that the institution of marriage is intended to provide a stable family for the purpose of raising children. To me, that implies a heterosexual marriage.

The compact that is made is between the two people and God. It is none of the government's business.

In that sense, I suppose I could support a gay marriage or a polyamorous marriage. I do not -- but I still don't think it is the government's business. It is God's business.

17 posted on 03/09/2003 7:15:04 AM PST by The Other Harry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
I agree with what you said. I also think it is imperative a SECULAR basis for marriage should be the scientific realities of human reproductive biology (male + female) that renders the whole homosexual issue moot.
18 posted on 03/09/2003 7:25:42 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
There are three core elements to a legal marriage: It must be a union of (1) two people (2) of the opposite sex (3) who are not related.... ''Because marriage is so centrally about an individual's love and commitment''....

If we're going to redefine marriage, and eliminate elements 1, 2 & 3, why not do away with that "love and commitment" business as well? Why does a marriage have to be "till death do we part?" Why not have a temporary marriage contract, for a month or 8 months, or 3 years or however long the persons (or animals -- or plants?) involved choose?

This would have the side benefit of reducing the divorce rate (and the expenses involved). If some persons know that the contract expires in a year, they may not get on each others' nerves so much. And if they find each other compatible, they can extend the contract for a few more months.

And why the pretense that "love" should be "central" to this arrangement?

19 posted on 03/09/2003 7:26:24 AM PST by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
You have posted exactly what I am thinking in a far superior manner than I would have done. Thank you. Marriage should be "under God" as in the Bible.
20 posted on 03/09/2003 7:46:42 AM PST by B4Ranch (Politicians, like diapers should be changed often. Stop re-electing these 'good' people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
From Jeff Jacoby's article:
"But sometimes, change destroys. No structure can stand for long when its bearing wall is removed. The bearing wall of marriage -- its central and universal defining characteristic -- is its heterosexuality. Knock that down, and what is left will become a ruin."

'Way back in 1996, in a posting I made to an AOL forum about an issue that would help Bob Dole's sagging presidential campaign, I proposed that the Republicans introduce this amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
"The United States, and the Several States, recognize that the legal and moral contract of marriage may be established only between one man and one woman. Neither the United States, nor the Several States, will sanction nor recognize any form of marriage other than that entered into by one man and one woman."

Simple and succinct. Worthy of inclusion into the United States Constitution.

As the years have passed, I have become more convinced that the _only_ possible way to "preserve" the traditional concept of marriage, in the moral, legal, and contractual sense, will be to place it onto a pedestal which neither the courts nor legislatures can "reach". If such pre-emptive action is not taken, sooner or later, through judicial activism or overly-liberal, well-intentioned legislation, the left will succeed in toppling one of the last icons of the Judeo-Christian West.

Vermont has already made such "progress", prompted by a State Supreme Court decision ordering the legislature to "do something" -- which the legislators promptly _did_. That's why we have "civil unions" in Vermont today. In my own state of Connecticut, state court action may be unnecessary; the Connecticut state legislature is considering a "same-sex marriage" bill, and there's a good chance it may actually pass.

Again: conservatives must unite to take "pre-emptive" action _now_ to enshrine marriage as a traditional union between one man and one woman. If we are unwilling to do this, we _will_ face a time where the courts and legislatures seek to re-define it for us.

It's important to pass such an amendment before liberals succeed in changing the "marriage-view" of a sizeable portion of the American population. To draw an analogy using illegal immigration: fifty years ago, it would probably have been possible to change the Fourteenth Amendment to exclude citizenship to the newborns of non-citizens (i.e., illegals). Today, the thought of making such a change is [in my view] politically impossible - it would never be ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures.

And so it goes with a potential "Marriage Amendment". The Marriage Amendment could probably survive [a certainly bitter] debate in the Congress, and successfully emerge for ratification by the states. And enough states _would_ ratify it -- now -- so that it would become a part of the Constitution. But "put this issue off" for twenty or thirty more years -- by then, after which a number of states may already have "gay marriage" laws on the books, possibly even legalized polygamy -- and the bets will be off. Those would "preserve marriage" must speak with forceful actions now, or face the future prospect of forever holding their opinions to themselves.

Cheers!<br) - John

21 posted on 03/09/2003 8:10:45 AM PST by Fishrrman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
You have posted exactly what I am thinking in a far superior manner than I would have done. Thank you. Marriage should be "under God" as in the Bible.

Consider the purpose of that post. Marriage for the purpose of secular government should be based on secular, scientific realities of human biology.

Leave the ceremonial/esoteric issues to the spiritual institutions.

Since the Left always claims to want their "separation of church and state," let's cram it down their throats for a change...

22 posted on 03/09/2003 8:14:55 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
>> ''Because marriage is so centrally about an individual's love and commitment,''<<

"Well, if that's what marriage is "centrally about", then the plaintiffs have a very good case."


If you will reread the article, you will see the statement was mad by the Goodridge plaintiffs.


23 posted on 03/09/2003 8:22:09 AM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fishrrman
Consider the purpose of my post #10. Marriage for the purpose of secular government should be based on secular, scientific realities of human biology.

Leave the ceremonial / esoteric issues to the spiritual institutions.

Since the Left always claims to want their "separation of church and state," let's cram it down their throats for a change...

24 posted on 03/09/2003 8:23:25 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: philetus
If you will reread the article, you will see the statement was mad by the Goodridge plaintiffs.

Why is that?

Consider Plato's Euthyphro and Apology.

Socrates advances the argument to Euthyphro that, piety to the gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible.

Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols used by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which most often are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. Morals are a deceptive replacement for the avoidance of sin. If a person believes in a God, it is the conviction of the Holy Ghost by which they are guided and not by the idolatrous vanities of morals constructed by others.

Plato's Apology is a drama that portrays the current Left wing frustration with talk radio in America. The people of Athens (the Left) are demanding that Socrates (Rush) be silent. Socrates refuses and the elite of Athens demand the execution of Socrates. The modern Left wants a figurative execution of Rush Limbaugh and others like him (although 'figurative' would be quickly made actual if the Left ever had the unchecked power they desire).

Radio is the focus of only one of the five senses. A listener has to really tune in to the subject matter and focus on the content of the ideas.

Television is a combination of sensory focus and it is far easier to distract and misdirect viewer attention from essential topics presented.

Considering that 90% of people tend to be more influenced by the visual, television has become a new religion. It is analagous to Plato's cave allegory. Television as a propaganda tool helps create visual phantasms (or as Thomas Hobbes called them, 'phantastical images') of the brain.

There are three ways people are influenced according to the school of behavioral psychology - - visual (sight), auditory (sound), kinesthetic (emotion). The kinesthetic or 'feeling' is also based on olfactory and tactile sense, much like Pavlov's salivating dogs. Visual images and sound portrayed can be used to anchor emotional and/or conditioned responses desired by those that present them, which in the case of television, is the Leftist television media, actors who create phantastical images in film, and Leftist politicians who pander to symbolism over substance (like Rush always says about them).

The visual aspect of that phenomenon is also used by the print media to a degree. Interactve talk radio requires thought, television does not and relies on this as a means to influence viewers...

They worship for gods 'those appearances that remain in the brain from the impression of external bodies upon the organs of their senses, which are commonly called ideas, idols, phantasms, conceits, as being representations of those external bodies which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream...'

Like the necromancy of the Wellstone funerally, the use of Martin Luther King Day, or constantly invoking the "spirit of the '60's," the Left attempts to raise spirits of the dead as a totem for worship.

Marxism and their forms of Cultural Marxism are a religion, a collection of cults. In many cases they worship a dead Karl Marx like some (and I stress some) Christians worship a dead Jesus, and not a living God. This is no more apparent than in the practice of enshrinement and regular grooming of Lenin's corpse in the former Soviet Union.

It is the religious fervor associated with the pro-abortion advocacy. The societal practice of abortion is ritual mass murder upon the altars dedicated to idolatrous vanities, a collective human sacrifice to pagan idols. It has a similitude to the Teutonic paganism of Adolph Hitler, whose idolatry was the idea of a "master race." In effect, this genocide was a mass human sacrifice to those pagan idols.

The advocacy of "gay marriage" is based on an esoteric idolatry. (See my post #10 and others here...)

25 posted on 03/09/2003 8:30:25 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Considering that 90% of people tend to be more influenced by the visual, television has become a new religion.

Television has become a virtual temple in which the liberal priesthood performs without rest its sacraments and seeks to assemble the masses to worship the profane, the "progessive," and the politically correct.

26 posted on 03/09/2003 8:57:01 AM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek; Socks C.
Polyandry ... In Praise of Infidelity
27 posted on 03/09/2003 9:33:27 AM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
What does any of that have to do with my view that Jim Nobles answer seems to imply that he thought the statement,
>> ''Because marriage is so centrally about an individual's love and commitment,''<<, was made by the court?

28 posted on 03/09/2003 9:35:56 AM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: philetus
The statement was made by the plaintiffs.

They are hoping that the court will adopt their view.

My point was, if you take this view of marriage-that it is a personal choice like steak tips instead of brisket, and that it affects only individuals (which, BTW, no society anywhere at any time has ever done)-then the plaintiffs have a good argument.

Another way to put this is that, if you allow heterosexuals to have "gay marriage" (unilateral termination at will, multiple albeit sequential partners, no commitment to reproduce, and lots of governemnt benefits to define the relationship), then the case to deny "gay marriage" to gays becomes quite weak.

29 posted on 03/09/2003 10:29:48 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
The case for consensual polygamy is much, much stronger (from tradition, by religious sanction, and to prevent all the social pathology arising from forced sequential polygamy [divorce]) than any case for gay marriage could ever be.

It therefore follows that if a court rules for these plaintiffs, consensual polygamy must be and will be legalized within two years.

30 posted on 03/09/2003 10:34:42 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
Or, a future dictator could marry the entire country population.

I think something very similar has already happened. It was a president instead of a dictator. Why else would Clinton have dared to f*ck the whole country unless he was exercising his conjugal rights ;-)

31 posted on 03/09/2003 10:52:33 AM PST by varon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
Oy - how embarrassing...
32 posted on 03/09/2003 11:09:57 AM PST by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Thank God for Jeff Jacoby. It would also seem that the Mass Supremes get the question, too. Perhaps there IS a light at the end of the tunnel, and it is not an oncoming freight train.

Of course, we don't know for sure, yet.
33 posted on 03/09/2003 1:18:12 PM PST by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
The biological basis you seek is established--albeit indirectly. It's called the natural law, and was specifically referenced by the Founders ("....laws of Nature and Nature's God...")

Further, the Catholic Church has taught for CENTURIES that not only is marriage between two people, of the opposite sex, who are not related (I believe that 1st-cousin-once-removed is the nearest allowable...)---the Church has also followed it up with laws on "divorce" (annulment) which are quite strict everywhere but in the USA. (That's the topic for a WHOLE new thread.)

Now the Church didn't simply make all this up one day lacking anything else to do. They took it at least partially from Orthodox Jewish practice (with which I am not familiar enough to cite the applicable laws) and partly from Christ's amplification of the Jewish Law (Torah.)

Thus I think that your thesis is partly correct, and partly historically deficient.
34 posted on 03/09/2003 1:26:43 PM PST by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Polyamory?
It's not my fault. The little tramp would do anything for a cracker.
35 posted on 03/09/2003 2:18:03 PM PST by gcruse (When choosing between two evils, pick the one you haven't tried yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
It must be a union of (1) two people (2) of the opposite sex (3) who are not related.
I probably shouldn't point this out but this sentence could be parsed as:
It must be a union of (1)two (2)people (3)of the opposite sex (4)who are not related.
In this day and age any perversion is considered diverse and therefore good.
36 posted on 03/09/2003 2:36:13 PM PST by avg_freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
I've always thought that if two people, regardless of orientation, want to enter into some sort of contract saying that they are going to share their "stuff," I have no problem with that, but to call any "union" that is not between man and a woman "marrige" only seeks to legitimize a lifestyle.
37 posted on 03/09/2003 2:38:24 PM PST by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
the Catholic Church has taught for CENTURIES that not only is marriage between two people, of the opposite sex, who are not related (I believe that 1st-cousin-once-removed is the nearest allowable...)Didn't the Spanish Hapsburg family get a lot closer than that? And in Mediterranean cultures the marriage of first cousins has always been allowed, even encouraged.
38 posted on 03/09/2003 2:55:22 PM PST by BlackVeil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator; The_Reader_David
Temporary marriages could be arranged between whores and their clients, for the time they are performing business together. And the state could collect funds from issuing the marriage license.

Marriage customs are very varied. Your suggestion is quite seriously followed in Iran, because Shia Islam allows the institution of "temporary marriage". This is a union contracted for a specific amount of time, which can be as short as an hour, with both partners agreeing to the duration, and the "gift" paid by the man to the woman. He is free of the obligation to support her (which always applies in a permanent union) but he has to acknowledge paternity of a child, and support it, if she has one. Men can make as many temporary marriages as they want. Women can only have one after a "waiting period" of more than 6 weeks - in order to settle any questions of paternity. Of course, most people in a temporary union do not aim to have children. In Persian slang, it is a "pleasure marriage."

This is specific to Shia Islam, the Sunnis don't have it, and indeed any mention of temporary marriage puts them in a rage. However, it has limited cases of adultery before the Islamic courts in Iran, where such cases are rarer than in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

Reader David, I am flagging you to this, because I think that you had commented on this in an earlier thread. You can back up what I am saying! I expect some incredulous reactions. (On the other hand, if it wasn't you, and you have never heard of temporary marriage, I apologise.)

39 posted on 03/09/2003 3:04:05 PM PST by BlackVeil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
The biological basis you seek is established--albeit indirectly. It's called the natural law,...

The idea of Natural Law came from Thomas Hobbes, and later from John Locke. Ben Franklin was also influenced by that school of philosophy.

They took it at least partially from Orthodox Jewish practice (with which I am not familiar enough to cite the applicable laws) and partly from Christ's amplification of the Jewish Law (Torah.)

The question I ask, is where in the Gospels is Christ attributed to having spoken on the issue of monogamy or polygyny?

We know it was explicitly permitted by Jewish Law (which is from Moses) to have polygyny and not polyandry.

Whenever I have questions about Biblical law, I refer to Hobbes.

Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness
Chap. xlv. Of Demonology and other Relics of the Religion of the Gentiles.

[10] Another relic of Gentilism is the worship of images, neither instituted by Moses in the Old, nor by Christ in the New Testament; nor yet brought in from the Gentiles; but left amongst them, after they had given their names to Christ. Before our Saviour preached, it was the general religion of the Gentiles to worship for gods those appearances that remain in the brain from the impression of external bodies upon the organs of their senses, which are commonly called ideas, idols, phantasms, conceits, as being representations of those external bodies which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream. And this is the reason why St. Paul says, "We know that an idol is nothing": not that he thought that an image of metal, stone, or wood was nothing; but that the thing which they honored or feared in the image, and held for a god, was a mere figment, without place, habitation, motion, or existence, but in the motions of the brain. And the worship of these with divine honour is that which is in the Scripture called idolatry, and rebellion against God. For God being King of the Jews, and His lieutenant being first Moses, and afterward the high priest, if the people had been permitted to worship and pray to images (which are representations of their own fancies), they had had no further dependence on the true God, of whom there can be no similitude; nor on His prime ministers, Moses and the high priests; but every man had governed himself according to his own appetite, to the utter eversion of the Commonwealth, and their own destruction for want of union. And therefore the first law of God was: they should not take for gods, alienos deos, that is, the gods of other nations, but that only true God, who vouchsafed to commune with Moses, and by him to give them laws and directions for their peace, and for their salvation from their enemies...


40 posted on 03/09/2003 3:26:46 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
I can't speak to polygamy. I DO know that Christ made it clear that the Mosaic Law re: divorce/remarriage was not up to God's standards. That was specifically referenced in the Gospel.

The Church's teaching on marriage was based on two items known in the Gospel: first, Christ's sanctification of marriage through his action at the Wedding at Cana; and secondly, his comments (op.cit.) on the Mosaic Law.

The balance of the Church's teachings on marriage are either logical and precise development of the above two OR are drawn from Apostolic Tradition (commonly thought to be based on words/teachings of Christ NOT written in the New Testament.)

As to Natural Law--I think an earlier outline is found in Thomas Aquinas. Hobbes' take on the same is 'secular;' TA's is 'religious.' If I am not mistaken (and I could be,) Thomas A drew his teaching on the topic from Aristotle.

There is quite a body of literature which serves to argue whether or not Hobbes' view of NL should predominate in secular affairs, or whether it should be TA's. I think Mike Novak and Richard Neuhaus (among others) are in the fray...
41 posted on 03/09/2003 3:44:02 PM PST by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
read later
42 posted on 03/09/2003 9:33:15 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackVeil
Just writing to confirm BlackVeil's report of Shi'ite marriage customs. The Iranian mullahs' like to boast the prostitution is unknown in Iran. Well, hardly surprising, since by involving a mullah, one can have what Christians would regard as prostitution, but which is defined by Shi'a Islam as "honorable marriage."
43 posted on 03/10/2003 1:53:19 PM PST by The_Reader_David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Interestingly, rabbinic Judaism only embraced monogamy in the middle ages, in the context of living as a minority in a world dominated by Christian monogamists.

Although monogamy was the Christian norm from Apostolic times, concubinage seems to have been tolerated well into the Christian era, though clergy were forbidden to take concubines even as they were forbidden to remarry. These fact, together with the fact that we have no record of Our Lord speaking against the polygamy of the patriarchs makes me wonder whether monogamy is really part of universal moral law, or whether it may---unlike non-adultery---be an ascetic discipline incumbent upon Christians in particular rather than on human beings in general. If it is a Christian ascetic discipline, insisting on the state enforcing it on society in general is rather haughty and intolerant. I don't, for instance, want the government to enforce the keeping of Great Lent according to the Orthodox rule, while I do expect my spiritual father to give me an epitemia if I break the fast.

44 posted on 03/10/2003 2:02:55 PM PST by The_Reader_David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: BlackVeil
Short term, if not de jure "temporary," marriages are a common guise under which rich Sunni Muslims from the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia procure themselves teenage vacation girlfriends in Egypt and other less prosperous Arab states.

Sadly, because in these countries citizenship flows solely through the paternal line, but the fathers won't acknowledge them, the children born of these arrangements are stateless and disenfranchised -- suffered to reside in the mother's country, but without many rights reserved to citizens (advanced schooling, much healthcare and other benefits, many jobs).
45 posted on 03/10/2003 2:07:00 PM PST by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
I also think it is imperative a SECULAR basis for marriage should be the scientific realities of human reproductive biology (male + female) that renders the whole homosexual issue moot.

But taking this stance pretty clearly implies that if you don't plan on having kids, there is no good reason to get married. If the core of the institution is biological reproduction, then half the people out there should not have bothered to get married.

46 posted on 03/10/2003 2:12:00 PM PST by tortoise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
The plaintiffs are not asking for the right to marry, for each of them has exactly the same marriage rights as every other Massachusetts adult.

Gays and lesbians are already allowed to get married. If a gay man wants to marry a lesbian, it's legal! </sarcasm>

47 posted on 03/10/2003 2:28:21 PM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Other Harry
The compact that is made is between the two people and God. It is none of the government's business.

You're wrong. When people are married, there are all sorts of legal implications concerning property, financial obligations, and so on. Even within the context of Biblical marriage there were legal/governmental implications.

48 posted on 03/10/2003 2:34:39 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
Interestingly, rabbinic Judaism only embraced monogamy in the middle ages, in the context of living as a minority in a world dominated by Christian monogamists.

Although monogamy was the Christian norm from Apostolic times, concubinage seems to have been tolerated well into the Christian era, though clergy were forbidden to take concubines even as they were forbidden to remarry. These facts, together with the fact that we have no record of Our Lord speaking against the polygamy of the patriarchs makes me wonder...

This is the central question Christians and Jews must ask themselves. As with Hobbes' assertions concerning the Laws of Moses and those of Christ, what is the non-sectarian interpretation of Biblical Law? Who are the ultimate lawgivers, God or Mammon?

This is why I am forever (it seems), introducing Hobbes:

Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness
Chap. xlv. Of Demonology and other Relics of the Religion of the Gentiles.

[10] Another relic of Gentilism is the worship of images, neither instituted by Moses in the Old, nor by Christ in the New Testament; nor yet brought in from the Gentiles; but left amongst them, after they had given their names to Christ. Before our Saviour preached, it was the general religion of the Gentiles to worship for gods those appearances that remain in the brain from the impression of external bodies upon the organs of their senses, which are commonly called ideas, idols, phantasms, conceits, as being representations of those external bodies which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream. And this is the reason why St. Paul says, "We know that an idol is nothing": not that he thought that an image of metal, stone, or wood was nothing; but that the thing which they honored or feared in the image, and held for a god, was a mere figment, without place, habitation, motion, or existence, but in the motions of the brain. And the worship of these with divine honour is that which is in the Scripture called idolatry, and rebellion against God...

When does obedience to God become replaced by an idolatry of sectarian dogma?

I have also asserted elswhere, that in certain circles (most notably in the conspiracy crowd), that there has grown cults of personality, which are really nothing more than Leftist subterfuge. All too many conservatives have been taken in by this, and we have lost elections because of it.

49 posted on 03/10/2003 9:58:54 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
If the core of the institution is biological reproduction,...

Note the difference...

I'm not saying I support something by discussing the issue, but it is imperative that a biological basis for marriage is established. This makes the issue of homosexual marriage null and void...

I also think it is imperative a SECULAR basis for marriage should be the scientific realities of human reproductive biology (male + female) that renders the whole homosexual issue moot.

There is a difference between what I said and what you have interpreted it to mean.

50 posted on 03/10/2003 10:10:57 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 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