2 or 3 or 4 or…17?


As if this were not entirely predictable…

As I have consistently said ever since I first heard the term “gay marriage” some 15-20 years ago, this argument would be inevitable, and while I could certainly be wrong about this–because we don’t adopt every silly idea that comes along the pike (remember the “nuclear freeze”?)–it seems likely to me that this concept will trace a familiar path: first, it is roundly dismissed. Then, it begins to gain credibility as a “topic for discussion”. Then, increasingly, it begins to become accepted by some, then by more, and then one day, a restaurant executive says that he is proudly married to only one person, and he is denounced by third-rate political hacks and the Huffington Post calls him a bigot.

Or something like that…


76 responses to “2 or 3 or 4 or…17?”

  1. I assume you are talking about polygamous marriage. The “if we allow gay marriage then we have to allow polygamous marriage ” argument. It is a failed argument and I’m pretty sure I explained why one this blog before.

    But rather than beat that horse. how about you answer this instead:

    what is wrong with polygamous marriage ?

    why don’t YOU, byron, think it should be allowed?

    Certainly your bible supports it.

    • Actually, Ken, I’m not making that argument, that “if we allow gay marriage, we have to allow polygamous…” I am suggesting merely that such an argument is bound to present itself–as I said, this was entirely predictable. I will further suggest that, while we don’t have to do any such thing, the redefinition of marriage from its historic definition (granting rare exceptions, of course) to something different will not only raise such questions/arguments, but also eliminate one barrier to such further redefinitions as this woman argues for.

      Certainly, Ken, my Bible does not support it. What my Bible does is to set forth the “basic marital arrangement” (Genesis 1), which is confirmed by Jesus (Matthew 19). These things are pretty clear: God’s “original intent” for marriage is one man/one woman. That said, it’s certainly true that there were many notable men in the Old Testament who had multiple wives, and it is also true that the Bible does not explicitly condemn polygamy. There is conjecture about why this was so, and at least some of it is quite plausible, notably the differences in culture (particularly but not limited to the status of women), which might argue for polygamy as a practical matter.

      Fast-forwarding to modern times–meaning “beginning with the New Testament until present day”, I would argue that the original intent is the best, that anything else is inferior for one reason or another, including polygamy, which for whatever value it might have had in other cultures in other times, it represents nothing like the ideal, and as one can easily surmise, likely introduces certain problems for every one it might purport to solve.

  2. Ok, we’ll let Byrom answer your question, Ken, and while he is pondering over that, tell us why YOU appear to think polygamous marriage is fine and should be allowed.

    The argument is NOT a failed argument since it has not been argued in the courts pursuant to the precedent of same sex marriage. I’m curious; in a same sex marriage, who is the ‘husband’, and who is the ‘spouse’? If it is it the dominant one who is ‘husband’ and the ‘submissive’ one who is the ‘spouse’? If neither, then why not allow a third party to join the two? Why not allow a ‘group marriage’, ie, sort of like for getting lower insurance premiums for a ‘group’? Since the law does not recognize ‘love’ in the matter, it becomes simply a matter of convenience, so what’s there not to argue in a court of law to prohibit such? Remember ‘tradition’ is also no longer a point of argument.

    And while you’re at it, please quote the part (s) of the bible that SUPPORTS polygamous marriage.

    Thank you.

  3. Esdraelon
    Tuesday September 4th 2012 at 12:24 pm

    “tell us why YOU appear to think polygamous marriage is fine and should be allowed.”

    I don’t think polygamous civil marriage should be allowed.

    “The argument is NOT a failed argument since it has not been argued in the courts pursuant to the precedent of same sex marriage.”

    What about the precedent of inter-racial marriage. “Loving v. Virgina” changed the definition of civil marriage to allow for inter-racial marriage, so why isn’t that sufficient precedent to allow for polygamous marriage?

    “while you’re at it, please quote the part (s) of the bible that SUPPORTS polygamous marriage”

    How many wives did Moses have? David?

  4. :Civil’ marriage is simply one where the marriage ceremony has a government or civil official perform the ceremony.

    A civil marriage is a wedding that takes place without any religious affiliation and meets the legal requirements of the locale.

    If you don’t believe polygamous ‘civil’ marriage should be allowed, then exactly how do you think it should be done? That actually appears to be a bit ingenuous as the question didn’t have a qualifier (civil)but you put one into it?

    Moses had wives, David had wives, but I asked you to show where the bible ‘certainly supports it’ as you maintained? What did Christ say regarding marriage and any relations outside that specific Man and Woman marriage?

  5. Esdraelon
    Tuesday September 4th 2012 at 4:11 pm

    “If you don’t believe polygamous ‘civil’ marriage should be allowed, then exactly how do you think it should be done?”

    I don’t think polygamous marriage should be done at all. However, I don’t tell other people how to practice their religion or live their lives, unless it is causing significant harm to others.

    “Moses had wives, David had wives, but I asked you to show where the bible ‘certainly supports it’ as you maintained?”

    In the Old testament, where many polygamous marriages are referenced. The same part of the bible that is most often referenced whenever homosexuality and gay rights are discussed.

    I have no idea what jesus said about marriage and I don’t care.

    Now I’ve answered your questions how about you answer mine:

    What about the precedent of inter-racial marriage. “Loving v. Virgina” changed the definition of civil marriage to allow for inter-racial marriage, so why isn’t that sufficient precedent to allow for polygamous marriage?

    and the original questions I posed to Byron, don’t bother waiting for Byron’s answer:

    what is wrong with polygamous marriage ?

    why don’t you think it should be allowed?

  6. Well, Ken, since Byron already trumped it, I will simply say that I agree completely with what he said, BUT…:-)……as I don’t like to give replies in a sentence of two, I’ll add to his response, but I am pointing out that this response is off the web and not my own words:

    Polygamy’s origins and consequences:

    A very important point to remember is that not everything recorded in the Bible is approved in the Bible. Consider where polygamy originated — first in the line of the murderer Cain, not the godly line of Seth. The first recorded polygamist was the murderer Lamech (Gen. 4:23–24). Then Esau, who despised his birthright, also caused much grief to his parents by marrying two pagan wives (Gen. 26:34).

    God forbade the kings of Israel to be polygamous (Deut. 17:17).

    Look at the trouble when they disobeyed, including deadly sibling rivalry between David’s sons from his different wives; and Solomon’s hundreds of wives helped lead Solomon to idolatry (1 Kings 11:1–3). Also, Hannah, Samuel’s mother, was humiliated by her husband Elkanah’s other wife Peninnah (1 Sam. 1:1–7).

    What about godly men who were polygamous?

    Abraham and Sarah would have been monogamous apart from a low point in their faith when Hagar became a second wife — note how much strife this caused later. Jacob only wanted Rachel, but was tricked into marrying her older sister Leah, and later he took their slave girls at the sisters’ urging, due to the rivalry between the sisters. Jacob was hardly at a spiritual high point at those times, and neither was David when he added Abigail and Ahinoam (1 Sam. 25:42–43).

    Why did God seem to allow it, then?

    It is more like the case of divorce, which God tolerated for a while under certain conditions because of the hardness of their hearts, but was not the way it was intended from the beginning (Matt. 19:8). But whenever the Mosaic law had provisions for polygamy, it was always the conditional ‘If he takes another wife to himself …’ (Ex.21:10), never an encouragement. God put a number of obligations of the husband towards the additional wives which would discourage polygamy. It is no wonder that polygamy was unknown among the Jews after the Babylonian exile, and monogamy was the rule even among the Greeks and Romans by New Testament times.

    As to your question on the racial make up of civil marriage…that’s the point which escapes you, it did not change the definition of ‘marriage’ as other than a man and woman and i already pointed out the answer in my first post.

  7. Byron
    Tuesday September 4th 2012 at 7:32 pm

    the only argument against polygamy you seemed to make Byron is that it is against your religious beliefs ?

    “the redefinition of marriage from its historic definition”

    you mean like when it was re-defined from one man/many women” to one man/one woman. It was a myth that marriage hasn’t change significantly over time. Why does changing civil marriage to include gay couples mean “anything goes”, but changing it to include inter-racial couples didn’t? or changing it to allow woman to be equal to a man in a marriage? Changes to marriage (or anything else for that matter), need to be evaluated on its own merits. Not some specter about other issues that have nothing to do with the change in question.

    • Ken, with all due respect, I think we’ve covered that territory before, in our drawn-out discussion a few months ago. I have not conceded your idea that allowing inter-racial couples access to one-man/one-woman marriage constituted changing marriage’s very definition, and the prospects aren’t looking good that I will; further, the evolving of a woman’s role and status in a one-man/one-woman marriage relationship doesn’t constitute changing marriage’s very definition either, and so it strikes me as fruitless to continue down that path.

      Now, I guess that it’s fair to say that I answered part of your question (“your Bible certainly supports it”) and didn’t tackle the entire question. Let me get back to you on that one when it’s not after 11 at night…

  8. Esdraelon
    Tuesday September 4th 2012 at 8:18 pm

    “As to your question on the racial make up of civil marriage…that’s the point which escapes you, it did not change the definition of ‘marriage’ as other than a man and woman and i already pointed out the answer in my first post.”

    The Loving decision changed the definition of marriage from being “one man and one woman of the same race” to being “one mane and one woman.” So why isn’t that change in the definition of marriage sufficient precedent to allow for polygamous marriage?

  9. LOL! Because of legal precedent…however, it IS being argued in the hopes that at some point some activist judge willing to go out on an even longer limb will be found…for recent decisions of activist judges that thrust homosexual marriage on the American public are now being used, chapter and verse, to argue for legalization of polygamy.

  10. Esdraelon
    Wednesday September 5th 2012 at 2:01 pm

    This post didn’t make much sense to me.
    What “legal precedent” are you referring to and how is it relevant to my question?

    “however, it IS being …”

    what is “it”?

    Can you define what an “activist” judge is?

    And were the Justices who ruled on the Loving decision “activist” judges?

  11. What? Ok…..if you notice my post is right below yours, and unfortunately there is no ‘quote’ box here and i dislike typing what’s already been said…so: the ‘Legal Precedent’ is that marriage was changed according to RACE and remained one man-one woman and THAT”S the Legal Precedent……however…POLYGAMY IS being argued by some under the Loving decision……

    There are Mormon sects who still adhere to polygamy (though only in principle) and many Muslims believe in polygamy (at least many Muslim men do) in fact there are some web dating sites where Muslim men advertise for another woman to come into the household…..thus there are many who would take up polygamy if it were legal…i note you don’t favor polygamy, so how does that not make you a bigot?

    The judges who ruled on the Loving case were activist judges usurping the power of the legislative to make the law…it is for the courts to either uphold or toss it out, not make law themselves…..

  12. Esdraelon
    Wednesday September 5th 2012 at 9:34 pm

    To clarify, you thing the Loving decision was wrong because allowing inter-racial marriage could lead to polygamy?

    “POLYGAMY IS being argued by some under the Loving decision”

    Can you give me a pointer to any of these people who are claiming because of the Loving decision polygamy has to be allowed as well?

    “… activist judges usurping the power of the legislative to make the law…it is for the courts to either uphold or toss it out, not make law themselves”

    I am not aware of any law on the books (state or federal) written (“made”) by a judge from the bench. Can you cite one? All of the SCOTUS pretty much did what you said judges are supposed to do: “either uphold or toss out” laws.

  13. Pointer: GOOGLE

    Of course, you have your own perception of what others view as ‘activist’ judges, and ‘activist’ courts making law, but since I have not the least desire to even begin to persuade you otherwise, we;ll leave it at that.

    And I notice you failed to address the question of how does your not approving polygamy does not make you a bigot on the same parallel as my not approving same sex marriage?

  14. Esdraelon
    Thursday September 6th 2012 at 8:00 am

    “Pointer: GOOGLE”

    And what exactly should I be putting in for the search terms? Also, to be clear, you can ALWAYS find some nut on the web who is saying whatever you want. Is that really the citation you want to use? Now I admit, you didn’t say the people you were citing had any credentials or even mental stability. However, is that really the type of debate you want to have, citing some whack job as your evidence?

  15. “And I notice you failed to address the question of how does your not approving polygamy does not make you a bigot on the same parallel as my not approving same sex marriage?”

    1st, I NEVER called you a bigot simply because you didn’t approve of same-sex marriage. Now I do believe you are homophobic (bigoted), but that is based on your mis-information about sexual orientation and attitudes about gays in general, not simply because you oppose same-sex marriage.

  16. (response part II )

    Not approving of marriage (same-sex or polygamous) alone, doesn’t make a person a bigot. I discussed this all in the huffington post article which you did take part in.

  17. Whack job? Ken, obviously you are intelligent enough to do a search line pursuant to the discussion and intelligent enough to separate the wheat from the chaff…

    With all due respect, I am NOT homo’phobic’…I may be bigoted just like every human being is bigoted if you must put a fine point upon it, but I understand the point especially coming from someone whose just-as -biased view of sexual-‘orientation’ is so diametrically opposed to my own.

  18. Oh, I approve of marriage, per se….simply don’t approve of homosexual marriage or polygamous marriage, but the that disapproval, DOES, per se, make me a bigot, maybe not in your eyes, then, but in the eyes of your kindred and other proponents.

  19. It’s simply an ad hominem on your part: Heterosexuals who are against same sex marriage can be labeled hateful bigots, and as having an irrational fear of homosexuals (homophobic).

  20. By the same logic, the same way, homosexuals and heterosexuals who do not support polygamy can be labeled hateful bigots, and as having an irrational fear of polygamists.

  21. Geez, this is becoming a bit tiresome! First I break up the post to avoid spam-limbo then I’m admonished that ‘I’m posting too quickly , slow down’…..geez!

  22. Esdraelon
    Thursday September 6th 2012 at 7:21 pm

    “obviously you are intelligent enough to do a search line pursuant to the discussion and intelligent enough to separate the wheat from the chaff…”

    I’m also intelligent enough to be able to support the claims I make. Apparently you aren’t. You made a claim (that people where using the Loving decision to justify polygamous marriage), and when I asked you who these people were, you had no answer.

    And it does matter what your sources are. Is your source a peer-reviewed ph.d. or the guy who argues with his on reflection in the bus-stop shelter? I want to know who you are relying on for your information. Because I suspect it is closer to the bus-stop guy than it is the ph.d.

    “someone whose just-as -biased view of sexual-’orientation’ is so diametrically opposed to my own”

    My opinions on sexual orientation are based on personal experience (knowing people of a variety of orientations), and knowledge of the research into the field (I’ve read many research papers on the topic) as well as 2ndary sources (popular press, opinion pieces from researchers in the field, etc.). I doubt your opinions are based on those sorts of sources. I think they are base on your personal/religious prejudices and groups that support them (FRC, AFA, NARTH, etc).

  23. Esdraelon
    Thursday September 6th 2012 at 7:24 pm

    “It’s simply an ad hominem on your part: Heterosexuals who are against same sex marriage can be labeled hateful bigots, and as having an irrational fear of homosexuals (homophobic).”

    Again, as I pointed out int the huffington post thread (http://www.byron-harvey.com/2012/07/what-huffington-wouldnt-post/), it isn’t simply about whether a person is/isn’t supportive of gay marriage, is tis the reasons they give for their position that I would consider a person homophobic (by which I mean the poplar def. of someone who is prejudiced against gays – like racism, and NOT the clinical definition of an irrational fear).

    As far as what other people say, I do not speak for anyone but myself, nor do they speak for me.

  24. Ken: Yeah, that’s me, just a lumbering, uneducated, prejudiced, and bigoted redneck.

    Of course, it is only natural that you gravitate to your so-called phd’s and popular articles since the left leaning ‘popular’ position today are that homosexuals are ‘special.’

    http://www.indystar.com/usatoday/article/837023?fb_action_ids=10151194965865590&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_ref=artsharetop&fb_source=timeline_og&action_object_map={%2210151194965865590%22%3A452895611422149}&action_type_map={%2210151194965865590%22%3A%22og.recommends%22}&action_ref_map={%2210151194965865590%22%3A%22artsharetop%22}

  25. You know as well as I do that Loving vs Virginia is used by all as the courts precedent that encapsulated a persons ‘legal right to marry’, thus it is used by both homosexual marriage proponents and polygamy proponents.. The ‘right to marry’ unfortunately was not defined as NOT defined as one man/one woman, two of the same sex, or three or more…..

    In polygamy, the favorite definition of it is one man and several women, but that is just it, a ‘definition,’ nothing will preclude one woman having several ‘husbands’. Will it?

  26. So there, you have my ‘opinion’ as to why Loving creates an opening for both homosexual marriages and polygamous marriages…in fact the polygamous proponents are simply waiting for the homosexual marriage precedent to become the law of the land before arguing against the ‘traditional’ concept as they would have to do at this point in time.

    Now you tell me why Loving is NOT an opening for polygamy once homosexual marriage is legalized?

  27. Esdraelon
    Friday September 7th 2012 at 10:57 am

    “You know as well as I do that Loving vs Virginia is used by all as the courts precedent that encapsulated a persons ‘legal right to marry’, ”

    I know it’s not correct. “Skinner v. Oklahoma 315 U.S. 535” established in 1942 that marriage was a “fundamental right” “Loving v. Virgina” (and other cases) simply re-affirmed that. While I’m sure there are more than a few who mistakenly believe Loving case established marriage as legal right, it do not.

    “thus it is used by both homosexual marriage proponents and polygamy proponents..:”

    you keep saying it, but you have yet to show me who these “polygamy proponents” you refer to are.

    And to clarify, do you believe it was wrong to make inter-racial marriage legal?

  28. Esdraelon
    Friday September 7th 2012 at 10:58 am

    “Now you tell me why Loving is NOT an opening for polygamy once homosexual marriage is legalized?”

    The short answer is because our legal system cannot handle such marriages and there is not a fair, workable polygamous marriage scheme. And THAT is a compelling state interest in banning polygamous marriages.

    For the long answer (which I doubt the spam filter will let through) go here:

    http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/02/15/goproud-says-the-world-net-daily-report-is-not-true/comment-page-1/#comment-324962

  29. btw byron I’m still waiting for YOUR reason you don’t approve of polygamous marriage. And no cheating off that link to warren’s blog.

    • Hey, it’s my blog; I’ll cheat if I want to! 🙂

      This is literally the first moment I’ve been back on site since I last posted; you should know by now it takes patience with an old guy like me. Try to answer in the next day or so.

  30. I believe it was wrong for the courts to do so, instead of the legislative.

    Other than that, I have no problem with it.

  31. “The short answer is because our legal system cannot handle such marriages and there is not a fair, workable polygamous marriage scheme. And THAT is a compelling state interest in banning polygamous marriages.”

    Nonsense, since when has the US legal system not been able to handle whatever it’s been placed to handle?

    And what is your idea of a ‘fair, workable polygamous marriage scheme?”

  32. Esdraelon
    Saturday September 8th 2012 at 6:48 pm

    “Nonsense, since when has the US legal system not been able to handle whatever it’s been placed to handle? ”

    Did you follow the link ?

    “what is your idea of a ‘fair, workable polygamous marriage scheme?””

    There isn’t one. However, by fair I largely mean one that doesn’t re-regulate women to a 2ndary status in marriage. And workable means one that addresses the myriad issues I discussed in the other post. None of these issues are in anyway involved with same-sex marriage.

  33. Oh, yes, I followed the link; still nonsense…the reason precedents are established are to deal with case law. If the idiotic courts can create law as they presently do, it’s comical to suggest they cannot address polygamy.

    I’m certain that there will also be rich bimbos collecting husbands also of whom the guys certainly won’t see themselves as ‘secondary’. You are simply making an assumption that You see as empirical.

  34. “None of these issues are in anyway involved with same-sex marriage.”

    Perhaps, but I think you’ll agree that polygamy has far more a precedent that same sex marriage………

  35. Esdraelon
    Sunday September 9th 2012 at 8:10 am

    “Oh, yes, I followed the link; still nonsense…”

    Only to someone who doesn’t really understand the US legal system.

    “the reason precedents are established are to deal with case law.”

    what legal precedents are there for addressing the issues that would be brought up by allow polygamous civil marriage?

    ” If the idiotic courts can create law as they presently do, it’s comical to suggest they cannot address polygamy.”

    the courts can’t and don’t make law. Never have. that is a fiction made up by people who don’t like a court decision. Unless you can cite me a SINGLE law on the books that was written by a judge FROM THE BENCH, then I will simply discount your “making law” claims as the ramblings of someone who has no idea what he is talking about.

    Sunday September 9th 2012 at 8:13 am

    “I think you’ll agree that polygamy has far more a precedent that same sex marriage…”

    Yes, there a lots of examples of polygamous marriage, which is why I don’t believe it can work within the US legal system. However, there are no such impediments to gay marriage.

  36. “the courts can’t and don’t make law. Never have. that is a fiction made up by people who don’t like a court decision. Unless you can cite me a SINGLE law on the books that was written by a judge FROM THE BENCH, then I will simply discount your “making law” claims as the ramblings of someone who has no idea what he is talking about.”

    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1989/09/25/72489/index.htm

    LOL! that was ‘written’ by a judge….ramblings…. such disingenuity ……

  37. “Yes, there a lots of examples of polygamous marriage, which is why I don’t believe it can work within the US legal system.”

    Those who prefer polygamy would obviously disagree.

  38. Esdraelon
    Monday September 10th 2012 at 12:10 pm

    “http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1989/09/25/72489/index.htm

    LOL! that was ‘written’ by a judge….ramblings…. such disingenuity ……”

    And nowhere does he cite a single law on the books that was written by a judge. Now, he does describe why he believes others think judges “make law” and the problems of interpreting it. However , the author never claims judges “make law”

    “Those who prefer polygamy would obviously disagree.”

    Probably, but as I’ve said before, until I see a fair workable system of how polygamous civil marriage would be handled in our current legal system, I stand by my claim that the problems (none of which occur in same-gender marriages) it causes DO raise to a justifiable state interest in not allowing them.

  39. Courts ‘create’ law by ‘remaking’ law. You are correct in that they do not actually ‘write’ the law otherwise they would be impeached, however, they take legislative laws and ‘re-interpret’ them as they see fit.
    Roe vs Wade was a perfect example.

    Then until I see how legalizing homosexual marriage will not disrupt the societal marriage state, the family, etc, and would provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options, as Byron noted, and I agree, and your protestations, notwithstanding, are endless. If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use the statute to open the door. It doesn’t matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy, one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Do you remember how two judges in California recently declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? If the decision hadn’t been overturned, it would have prevented millions of children from being able to say the pledge every morning, despite the fact that 95 percent of Americans disagreed with the decision.

    As usual, while you, personally, may not have a clue, your opinion is your opinion. Children learn about expectations and gender roles from society. It’s difficult to teach the importance and traditions of the family when such confusion of homosexual marriage is thrust upon them. Only a man and woman can bear children, and for thousands of years, a man & woman headed household has carried generations of people through life. One last thing: Studies show that homosexuals, for a variety of reasons, have life expectancies of approximately 20 years less than the general population. Just like a lifestyle of smoking, drinking, etc., unhealthy lifestyles should be discouraged.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/

  40. Esdraelon
    Tuesday September 11th 2012 at 8:14 am

    “they take legislative laws and ‘re-interpret’ them as they see fit.”

    No not “as they see fit.” that it is just hyperbole. The courts have a hierarchy to prevent judges from arbitrarily imposing unjust requirements. Further, the legislature can modify laws to make them more specific to limit judicial interpretation (or roll it back entirely). Although, one important role of the courts is to prevent what is refered to as “the tyranny of the majority”, i.e. to prevent the majority from imposing unjust regulations (like segregation or denial of rights) on the minority.

    “Then until I see how legalizing homosexual marriage will not disrupt the societal marriage state, the family, etc, and would provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options,”

    Fortunately, the courts don’t work the way you want them too. People are required to prove they are “worthy” to have rights. The state must prove they are not (or rather there is a justifiable reason to deny them the right. Your paranoia about what it might lead to is NOT a valid justification. Now what EVERY group has the right to do is challenge the government to prove they have a valid justification.

    “one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone.”

    No, this isn’t true. 1st. the judges ruling will only apply for the region (county, district) that the judge has authority. 2nd, there are appellate courts (going all the way up to the SCOTUS) that can OVERTURN the lower courts ruling.

    “Do you remember how two judges in California recently declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? ”

    Nope, perhaps you can give me a link to it. I do recall some cases ruling that children cannot be FORCED to say the pledge of allegiance though.

    “for thousands of years, a man & woman headed household has carried generations of people through life. ”

    Again, not true. for thousands of years MEN headed households, while women were little better than their property.

    “Studies show that homosexuals, for a variety of reasons, have life expectancies of approximately 20 years less than the general population. ”

    This is complete BULL. There are no such studies. Your “20 years less” is based on a fraudulent study by a man named Paul Cameron. And your citation of it is typical of the “christian conservative” misuse of science.

  41. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/090313

    In a truly remarkable development, homosexual activists in Canada have openly admitted the rather severe health risks associated with their non-normative sexual behavior.

    A group of six Canadian “queers,” to use the gay media’s term, have filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, charging the nation’s entire healthcare system with homophobia.

    Astonishingly, these activists admit what we have been saying for years, that “gay/bisexual men have a life expectancy 20 years less than the average man” in Canada. Even the life expectancy of lesbians, though not as severely impacted, “is still lower than the life expectancy of the general population.”

    Suicide rates, they admit, are anywhere from double to 13.9 times higher than the general population. By their own estimates, homosexuals comprise 30% of all suicides in Canada.

    They admit that smoking rates among gays are up to three times higher, alcohol use up to seven times higher, and illicit drug use up to 19 times higher than the general population.

  42. They themselves openly acknowledge that 76.1% of all AIDS cases since statistics were first kept occur in gay and bisexual men, and further acknowledge that the infection rate is up to 26 times higher than among the population as a whole.

    When it comes to cancer of various types, they candidly admit that “gay men, lesbians and bisexual men and women are at higher risk for some cancers as a result of their sexual orientation (emphasis added).” Smoking and alcohol use puts them at elevated risk of lung and liver cancer, while their sexual activity increases their risk of anal cancer and cancers of the head, throat and neck through frequent exposure to HPV, the human papilloma virus.

  43. 1. “We cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own up to that and face up to that.” – National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Leader, Matt Foreman.

    2. “Domestic violence is the 3rd largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community today and trails only behind AIDS and substance abuse in terms of sheer numbers and lethality.” – Susan Holt, coordinator Los Angeles Gay Lesbian Center.

    3. Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: “The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality” – San Francisco Sentinel, 27/03/92.

    NOT BULL……..JUSTIFIABLE PARANOIA……………..

  44. Esdraelon
    Tuesday September 11th 2012 at 5:40 pm

    “http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/090313”

    And now you are citing Brian Fischer, I suspected someone like him was your source of information. 1st, no where in the article does Fischer cite HIS source for his claims. For all I know he made it all up, at the very least, he grossly distorted the facts.

    But you still haven’t cited one credible source (i.e. peer-reviewed paper) that supports your claim of “gays live 20 years less than straights do”. And you can’t. I know you can’t because I know more about the source of that claim than you do.

    And as long as you listen to the likes of Fischer and NARTH and FoF etc, you are going to continue to look foolish. Because they, like you mis-use science.

    By misuse I mean this. the purpose of research is to advance knowledge and ultimately help people. So if a paper comes out that shows group A is better educated, is happier, has few health problems or lives longer than group B, further research is done to understand WHY the 2 groups are different, and how those in group B can be helped to live better lives.

    But that isn’t what you do. You (and those like you) simply try to use such research (often by distorting or otherwise mis-representing what the actual research says) to justify your own bigotry towards group B. To show how they are inferior to you. To justify your moral disgust with them. How very christian of you.

  45. The facts are what they are, you can spin them as you please. The Fact of the matter is that you have not presented ONE single thing to discount the original post.

    You assassinate the messenger, dispute the science, and generally disparage that which you have an inherent preference towards only that which can be cast in a positive light for yourself.

    Very ‘Christian’ of me?… next you’ll be preaching the talking points set forth by the homosexual community regards Jesus and His so-called ‘tolerance’ and how my opposition to homosexual marriage is not a ‘Christian’ thing and I should ‘tolerate’ it an move on…

  46. And since you keep bring up your ‘peer reviewed papers’….here’s another one you can try to skewer regards Proposition 8 and your ‘science’:

    To be sure, homosexual activists have been building a ‘scientific case’ that homosexuality is irrelevant to marriage or successful child rearing — and also unrelated to child molestation, etc. — by publishing quasi-bogus conclusions appended to empirical studies in the journals of the major psychiatric professions, or by getting these associations to make exculpatory pronouncements. Consistent with Judge Walker’s legal argument, most of these studies purport to ‘prove’ that the outcomes and consequences of homosexuality are no different than the outcomes and consequences of heterosexuality.

  47. Since a trove of such studies exist, then if what ‘science’ is is what gets published in peer-reviewed professional journals or declared by professional associations, the homosexuals ‘win.’ After all, homosexual sympathizers have generated more pro-gay conclusions based on social science studies than conclusions in studies that refute their ‘proof.’

  48. The American Psychological Association, for instance, is ‘all in’ for gay rights, declaring that the outcomes of homosexual parenting or gay mental health are ‘the same’ as heterosexual parenting or heterosexuals. Walker was well aware of these studies, and undoubtedly thought it was time to ‘put marriage to the scientific test.’ If a larger number of studies on one side carried the day, homosexuals would win.

  49. Esdraelon
    Wednesday September 12th 2012 at 10:03 am

    “The Fact of the matter is that you have not presented ONE single thing to discount the original post.”

    I showed why allowing same-sex civil marriage is NOT a “slippery slope” to polygamous marriage, because the constitutional case against polygamous marriage is entirely different than for same sex marriage.

    “You dispute the science,”

    What “science” have I disputed? I have yet to see you present anything that would be classified as a scientific finding.

    “since you keep bring up your ‘peer reviewed papers’….here’s another one you can try”

    If there was supposed to be a reference there, it didn’t show up.

    I’ve noticed you tend to make a lot of “noise” but you don’t really say much. Just a lot if innuendo and unfounded claims. EX: what “quasi-bogus” research conclusions are you talking about? and how have you determined that they are “quasi-bogus”

    “most of these studies purport to ‘prove’ that the outcomes and consequences of homosexuality are no different than the outcomes and consequences of heterosexuality.”

    Do you have any evidence to disproved these (yet again unspecified) studies?

    and to clarify “science” is the study of nature. Scientific studies are how researchers share and improve our knowledge of science. “Peer-review” is a method (generally considered limitus test) to authenticate/validate/improve ccv the study. Peer-review isn’t perfect, but it is the best method out there for validating scientific research.

  50. Esdraelon
    Wednesday September 12th 2012 at 10:28 am

    “homosexual sympathizers have generated more pro-gay conclusions based on social science studies than conclusions in studies that refute their ‘proof.’”

    And again, do you have any evidence that the studies produced by these “homosexual sympathizers” are flawed, or made incorrect conclusions? Or are they just “wrong” because you don’t like their results?

    Funny how having more research results showing there is nothing wrong with homosexuality than those showing the opposite leads you to imply there is some sort of conspiracy, rather than the more logical conclusion.

  51. There is only ONE conclusion generated by ‘homosexual sympathizers’ with regard to so-called ‘social-science’ as pertaining to ‘nothing wrong with homosexuality’ and that conclusion is that there is ‘nothing wrong with homosexuality’, disregarding the horde of evidence to the contrary….if you want me to go into that evidence, feel free to continue….

  52. Esdraelon
    Wednesday September 12th 2012 at 10:33 pm

    “disregarding the horde of evidence to the contrary….if you want me to go into that evidence”

    Provided you have actual evidence and not more offensive and bigoted mis-representations about gays from the likes of Fischer, FRI, FOF, AFA etc.

    I’ve been asking you for evidence for quite some time, but all you ever do is provide even more unsubstantiated claims.

  53. “Provided you have actual evidence and not more offensive and bigoted mis-representations about gays from the likes of Fischer, FRI, FOF, AFA etc.

    I’ve been asking you for evidence for quite some time, but all you ever do is provide even more unsubstantiated claims.”

    LOL! I can only shake my head since your own is ensconced so tightly in the sand.

    But back to the original post, since you haven’t given a shred ‘actual evidence’ to refute Byron’s post, I assume you don’t have any. and fall back on hyperbole yourself in defense…….

  54. Esdraelon
    Friday September 14th 2012 at 9:48 am

    Are you going to provide this evidence you claim to have (or answer any of my questions about your claims), or are you just going to stoop to ad-hominem attacks and hope no one notices you can’t actually support your claims.

    “since you haven’t given a shred ‘actual evidence’ to refute Byron’s post,since you haven’t given a shred ‘actual evidence’ to refute Byron’s post,”

    Specifically what evidence are you asking for? Byron’s post was a bit rambling and ill-defined, so perhaps you can be a little more specific in what you are asking for.

  55. Since you’ve already set definite parameters for the ‘evidence’ you will accept, ie, pro-homosexual, don’t insult my intelligence.

    And if you have to ask the question: “Specifically what evidence are you asking for?” If you don’t have a clue after 30 posts, I don’t think I can offer you any remedy….

  56. And to suggest that you have your head in the sand, or are clueless after 30+ posts, is not an ‘attack’, simply an observation…..

    Setting a parameter for what you personally will accept as ‘evidence’ and crucifying every messenger that fails your stipulation is a bit trite…and besides I HAVE given that evidence…evidence that I fully understand the average person agrees with so I certainly am not losing sleep….

  57. Esdraelon
    Friday September 14th 2012 at 2:04 pm

    “Since you’ve already set definite parameters for the ‘evidence’ you will accept, ie, pro-homosexual, ”

    I never set any such parameter. The only requirement I have is that it meet peer-review standards and not simply based on some bigots ramblings.

    ““Specifically what evidence are you asking for?” If you don’t have a clue after 30 posts, I don’t think I can offer you any remedy….”

    You can try a simple sentence or 2 to explain what specifically what evidence you are asking for. Let me give you an example :

    You said “by publishing quasi-bogus conclusions appended to empirical studies ”

    I asked for the titles to the studies you are referring to and how you determined the conclusions were “quasi-bogus” (to which you still haven’t responded as well as many other requests I’ve made for you to provide more details about your claims).

  58. Esdraelon
    Monday September 17th 2012 at 6:14 am

    I’m guessing this means you aren’t going to support the claims you made. I suspected as much. Your problem is you are getting most (all) of your information from anti-gay sources like American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Family Research Institute, Brian Fischer, Tony Perkins, etc. These people and organizations are distorting, mis-representing and even lying about the research into sexual orientation. Since these mis-representations match with your own prejudices you simply accept them without question (“drink the kool-aid”).

    However, when someone actually presses you for evidence of your incorrect claims, you can’t provide any, because you don’t have any. Instead, you resort to making even more unsupportable claims and ad-hominem attacks in a childish attempt to deflect from the fact that you can’t support what you have said.

    In the future, I will simply point out when you say something incorrect, but I won’t bother trying to engage you in any sort of rational debate. You are incapable of it.

  59. Oh, but they Have been supported….from ‘anti-gay’ sources like American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Family Research Institute, Brian Fischer, Tony Perkins, etc. These people and organizations are distorting, mis-representing and even lying about the research into sexual orientation.

    I note you simply accuse but not substantiate where they are misrepresenting or lying…..sort of the pot calling the kettle black…..:-)

    A bit more on the ‘slippery slope’….

    http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/incest-and-pedophilia-new-frontier

    Cassavetes is selling his film “Yellow,” which stars his ex-wife Heather Wahlquist as a beautiful woman addicted to pain pills. She travels back home to Oklahoma after being expelled from her teaching job in Los Angeles for “having broom closet sex on Parent Night.” On her way home, she stops to visit her brother in prison. It results in a incest scene that we’re told is “tender and affecting and signals no judgment of the relationship.”

    Cassavetes told Waxman at The Wrap, “I have no experience with incest…We started thinking about that. We had heard a few stories where brothers and sisters were completely, absolutely in love with one another. You know what? This whole movie is about judgment, and lack of it, and doing what you want. Who gives a [bleep] if people judge you?”

    Then he arrived at what became the headline of the article: “I’m not saying this is an absolute, but in a way, if you’re not having kids – Who gives a damn? Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want? If it’s your brother or sister, it’s super-weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody, except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.”

    In a very real sense, he’s right. This is where the slippery slope leads. Cassavetes said he wanted to portray a modern woman who is, in his words, “a rock star” and “a mess.” He wanted “an exaggerated version of a girl who came from a place where different things are acceptable.” In reality, he wanted a beautiful woman that viewers would find sympathetic, and then throw this shocking, “tender” incest scene in their face.

    Don’t think critics won’t like it. A reviewer on Indiewire called this movie “officially the most refreshing breath of air” at the Toronto film festival. “So far there is no news on distribution or when this thing is coming out, but as soon as it does, go out, don’t take it too seriously and have a little fun with it.”

    Don’t take the incest scene too seriously? Have fun with it? What – chuckle?

  60. Btw, Byron, you still never answered my questions:

    what is wrong with polygamous marriage ?

    why don’t you think it should be allowed?

    • Sorry this has taken some time, Ken. It’s not a subject I’ve thought about much, to be candid with you; my first answer, which doesn’t help you, is that I think that it is not the ideal arrangement as designed by God–and that, for me, is enough, but I understand that you are asking for “secular” arguments, and I’ve never really thought about that subject a whole lot, why society ought to disallow it. It does seem to me, practically speaking, that it entails a redefinition of the love relationship; there is a fundamental difference between a relationship of exclusivity and one of…well, non-exclusivity, but that doesn’t really answer why it ought to be illegal. I did a little searching on the web for some thought-provoking things, and one site I came across suggested that women’s rights, in practice, suffer significantly in countries where polygamy is legalized, and I don’t discount that possibility. And as I’ve said before, I personally think for at least a couple of reasons that it is a more “natural” (weird to use that word in this context) redefinition of marriage than gay marriage. Summing up this weak argument, I don’t think that it’s best for society to recognize such marriages legally, but I do recognize that my arguments aren’t as solid–at this point–as perhaps they might be, absent my personal appeal to God’s design.

  61. So the one secular reason you came up with as to why polygamous civil marriage should not be allowed is due to a concern over women’s rights. In my own arguments against polygamous civil marriage I express this as a fairness issue. However, this reason (nor any of the others I described in the link to Warren’s blog) have anything to do with gay marriage. Those issues don’t arise with gay marriage.

    Gay marriage and polygamous marriage have nothing in common, other than they are both not allowed in the US and both opposed by similar groups of people. But the REASONS why they are not allowed are very different. And that is why there is not “slippery slope” argument from gay marriage to polygamous marriage (or from inter-racial marriage to polygamous marriage).

    But it is a convenient distraction from actually having to address the issues of gay marriage.

    • I would disagree, Ken, with your quick dismissal of a slippery slope, because I wouldn’t base my argument on the same grounds that you might think. It’s not that the arguments against gay marriage and polygamy are similar, but rather this: once marriage is redefined from the one standard definition it has held (granting those rare exceptions as I have), we open the door to not one, but potentially many such redefinitions. The arguments for those redefinitions may differ in ways beyond the ones you and I might think of, but the “slippery slope” is just this simple: if marriage becomes something other than the one-man/one-woman arrangement it always has, what natural stopping point is there? It seems arbitrary to me that we’d stop at a number (2), at least as arbitrary as stopping at heterosexual arrangements such as are maintained in polygamy. That’s my point.

  62. “once marriage is redefined from the one standard definition it has held (granting those rare exceptions as I have), we open the door to not one, but potentially many such redefinitions. ”

    It already has been re-defined (i.e. changed) from what it has been to what it is now. And these changes have come about by law, court rulings and changing social values.

    “if marriage becomes something other than the one-man/one-woman arrangement it always has, what natural stopping point is there?”

    it hasn’t always been “one-man/one-woman” that is a fiction. And the “stopping point” is the US Constitution, i.e. do the government restrictions on who can marry meet constitutionally valid criteria.

    • Ken, I think we’ve been down this road before, and we must agree to disagree on these points (though for the record, I have and continue to grant “rare exceptions” to “one-man/one-woman”, which would seem to render moot your point that it is a fiction. Strictly speaking, you are right; practically speaking, I would suggest otherwise).

  63. Yes, we have been through the one man/one woman issue before. However, the new issue I’m bringing up is that gay marriage and polygamous marriage are very different and more importantly the reasons for denying polygamous marriage have nothing to do with gay marriage. And that is why there is no “slippery slope.”

    Do you believe there is a “slippery slope” from civil inter-racial marriage to civil polygamous marriage?

    • Ken, I thought I’d answered this one, about the slippery slope…maybe you just don’t agree, but I tried to make it clear: I don’t disagree that the reasons for denying one might be different from denying another, but I see the slippery slope consisting of the simple fact that once “one-man/one-woman”, the (nearly!) universal definition of marriage (and the only one ever operative in this country save for outlaw Mormon territories, I guess) is abandoned–for whatever other definition (for that matter it could be polygamy FIRST, and the slope could potentially be just as slippery)–then the entire enterprise is opened to re-examination.

      To your second question, the answer is “no”, because (as I’ve also argued before), I don’t see the former as a redefinition, because the one-man/one-woman construct is still operative. To try to find a hypothetical, I’d say that if there were several different one-man/one-woman combinations that had been prohibited by law (say, in addition to black/white, white/Oriental, white/Hispanic, or what-have-you), then the overturning of sanctions against one of those would seem to open up a slippery slope to doing the same with the others. But simply put, opening up the institution of marriage to “mixed-heritage” one-man/one-woman couples is a very different thing from saying that one man can marry five women, in that the latter, as I see it, redefines the institution.

  64. Marriage (both religious and civil, but as I’ve said my interest is in civil marriage), has had many criteria throughout history for who was allowed to marry: religion, citizenship, age, race, consanguinity, number, gender, etc. You argue that gender (and indirectly number) is the unchangeable criteria. To change the gender requirement is to “redefine” marriage, but changing anything else is not a “redefinition”. However, I have yet to hear a reason for why gender is the significant criteria that cannot change, but not any of the others, except maybe the number.

    And when pressed for a reason why the gender cannot be changed for civil marriage, most people have no argument for that. Or rather arguments that don’t match reality. Ex. “because same sex couples can’t have children together”, but many couples that can’t have children are allowed to marry. And a lot of times, the opponents use the slippery slope argument to some other form of marriage (ex. polygamy). Mostly that form of argument is really saying: “I don’t have a good reason to deny same-sex marriage, so I want to talk about this other type of marriage instead.”

    Now, I’d like to address byron’s comments specifically. When I asked him to explain why he didn’t think polygamous marriage shouldn’t be allowed, he couldn’t really articulate any non-religious reasons. When people can’t articulate reasons for being opposed to something, that is a good indication that they are basing their opinion on prejudices about that something rather than knowledge about it. Now, there is nothing wrong about making initial decisions based on prejudices (pre-conceived notions), we actually need that to survive. The problem is when people refuse to let go of those prejudices when confronted with more accurate information.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.