Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah Anti-Polygamy Law

[IndyDave1776]

How… Why do you know this?

How is a rabbit going to get laid WITHOUT knowing this?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

How… Why do you know this?

Are you sure you want to know? He might post pictures.

 

[Bunnykid68]

How… Why do you know this?

Google. Had to look it up to argue with someone about it.

 

[Bunnykid68]

How is a rabbit going to get laid WITHOUT knowing this?

Are you sure you want to know? He might post pictures.

Reported, I may even put you on my ignore list

 

[IndyDave1776]

Reported, I may even put you on my ignore list

 

[cobber]

Some say that is up to the parents.

Others believe a hard line should be drawn.

I am undecided.

That's clear then.

Gay marriage isn't going to help or hinder the eternal question of the age of consent.

Our nanny/police state certainly hasn't solved it.

Logical leaps are being made where they shouldn't. The theory being posed is that allowing gay marriage puts us on a slippery slope towards rape and molestation. I'm saying the two are completely separate issues. One involves an actual victim and the other does not.

Actually you're the only one who is talking about rape and molestation. Those are non-consentual acts. Don't mix apples and pineapples.

If the government is properly removed from marriage, I don't care about polygamy.

A child can not consent to a marriage or a sexual relationship. Therefore, initiating one is an act of aggression.

"Child" is a construct based upon commonly-held cultural notions. Like the notion that gays shouldn't marry perhaps? "Child" can be redefined at any time, and the PRESUMPTION that children are incapable of making contracts is a legal presumption based upon that construct. "Consent" is simply one aspect of that presumption.

Once upon a time, grown women were presumed incapable of and prevented by law from making contracts or entering other such relationships without their husband's (or some adult male's) consent. So, some will say, why not children? (And mind you, children CAN enter these relationships currently with parental consent, so it's not that the relationship is wrong per se, but simply that the child isn't presumed capable of consenting.)

When you deconstruct these ideas, and discard morality as your guide, how precisely do you maintain that line dividing "children" and adults?

And what age limit would you put on the concept of the incompetent child? Eighteen (not old enough to drink, but old enough to vote or die in combat)? In American history, people we would consider "children" were marrying and having families, and conducting business.

You may feel it's "aggression", but isn't that a matter of morality that we are currently being schooled has NO place in recognizing civil rights?

If you can point to some non-Judeo Christian non-value laden fact (not arbitrary belief) that would substantiate your position that this should not happen then I will hold out some hope that we won't see this some day.

But "morality" and "feelings" aside, I don't see how these things won't come to pass, now that society has cast wide the door to the future?

Make no mistake, I am not saying this would be a good thing. I find this chilling to think about, but I am still waiting for an explanation of how we prevent this, sans some notion of morality (and not the Obamoid "we're better than this" drivel that passes for 'values')...

Call it the law of unintended consequences?

 

[steveh_131]

All legislation is the expression of the county/state/country's morality. You can't do one absent the other whether you call it shoving your bible down my throat or non-aggression...and the argument circle is now complete once again.

Perhaps that is the problem. We are legislating our morality instead of focusing on legislation to protect individual liberty. That should be the main focus of a government.

Are you going to Nashville tomorrow night for the M&E? If so, I'll see you there.

I wish. That's a good 5 hour drive for me. Wish I could, it would be cool to meet a lot of you guys.

You have a point that this hasn't happened yet, but you may also notice that as soon as homosexual marriage gained traction, rumbles started from other groups.

Can you give me a single example of a pedophilia group that has gained any traction in mainstream society? Gays have been flaunting their lifestyles for decades. Where are the mainstream pedophiles?

In the end, I will agree that genuine change cannot be legislated or otherwise coerced, but legislation parallel with the morals of the community can do much to prevent the corruption of the youth, as found with schools teaching children that formerly unaccepted lifestyles are perfectly normal and those holding to traditional morality are themselves bigoted and bankrupt of values. Don't open the door unless you are really sure you are willing to deal with what may come through it, invited or not.

That door opened when we invented government-run schools. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it.

You may feel it's "aggression", but isn't that a matter of morality that we are currently being schooled has NO place in recognizing civil rights?

No. The non-aggression principle is about liberty. Liberty is not a moral issue to me. It is a matter of practicality.

A governmental system that fights against human nature is impractical. Capitalism, for example, leverages human greed and self interest to ultimately provide wealth for all. Communism does the opposite.

Theocracies and dictatorships breed rebellion and animosity. The NAP leverages the human desire to be left alone to ultimately provide liberty for all.

If you can point to some non-Judeo Christian non-value laden fact (not arbitrary belief) that would substantiate your position that this should not happen then I will hold out some hope that we won't see this some day.

But "morality" and "feelings" aside, I don't see how these things won't come to pass, now that society has cast wide the door to the future?

Let me be clear on the parameters of this argument.

The argument being posed is this:

Allowing gays to get married opens the door for further immorality that will ultimately result in pedophilia becoming a culturally acceptable practice.

The rationale behind this seems to be: Allowing one immoral act leads to worse immoral acts.

If you buy into this rationale, then you must of course support every and any legislation that criminalizes sinful behavior, especially behavior that is sexual in nature.

Allowing gays to have sex will bring us pedophilia.
Allowing unmarried couples to have sex will bring us pedophilia.
Allowing pornography will bring us pedophilia.
Allowing lewd language will bring us pedophilia.

Right?

I don't agree with this rationale, but I am willing to respect it on the condition that you remain consistent in its application. If you want a theocracy, then so be it. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Fourtrax]

Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

Are you saying that we must legislate biblical morality or the very fabric of society will crumble? Are we going to criminalize gossip? What about lying? Fornication? What about skipping church?

We need a moral society. I'll even agree that those morals should be based 100% on the bible. I won't ever agree that more government is the way to produce the results that we're looking for. It's not practical or even biblical.

In the first paragraph....First sentence, my answer is no. No one can legislate morality. But we have based our laws on good morality, such as that found in the Judeo Christian bible. After that you are just being funny in that paragraph.

In the second paragraph I agree 100% with your first 2 sentences. I have no idea how anyone could get "more government" out of anything I write, so while I agree completely with your third sentence, I am confused if you think I support more government.

We currently have a judicial system based almost entirely on the Judeo Christian ethic. The problem is that during the last 40-50 years some are legislating with no basis in this ethic. The system is slowly being eroded and replaced by one based on Man. These types of based systems always fail. Because man is ever changing.

This is how it is now possible, in some states, for our daughters to receive abortions without our knowledge.

It is why I point out that even if you are not a believer, like some of our founding fathers, it doesn't take much investigation to realize that the Judeo Christian moral ethic is a very good basis for law. It does not change, it is the same today as it was 2,000 years ago. Unlike man, and his whims, there is no change in the base.

 

[cobber]

Perhaps that is the problem. We are legislating our morality instead of focusing on legislation to protect individual liberty. That should be the main focus of a government.



I wish. That's a good 5 hour drive for me. Wish I could, it would be cool to meet a lot of you guys.



Can you give me a single example of a pedophilia group that has gained any traction in mainstream society? Gays have been flaunting their lifestyles for decades. Where are the mainstream pedophiles?



That door opened when we invented government-run schools. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it.



No. The non-aggression principle is about liberty. Liberty is not a moral issue to me. It is a matter of practicality.

A governmental system that fights against human nature is impractical. Capitalism, for example, leverages human greed and self interest to ultimately provide wealth for all. Communism does the opposite.

Theocracies and dictatorships breed rebellion and animosity. The NAP leverages the human desire to be left alone to ultimately provide liberty for all.



Let me be clear on the parameters of this argument.

The argument being posed is this:

Allowing gays to get married opens the door for further immorality that will ultimately result in pedophilia becoming a culturally acceptable practice.

The rationale behind this seems to be: Allowing one immoral act leads to worse immoral acts.

If you buy into this rationale, then you must of course support every and any legislation that criminalizes sinful behavior, especially behavior that is sexual in nature.

Allowing gays to have sex will bring us pedophilia.
Allowing unmarried couples to have sex will bring us pedophilia.
Allowing pornography will bring us pedophilia.
Allowing lewd language will bring us pedophilia.

Right?

I don't agree with this rationale, but I am willing to respect it on the condition that you remain consistent in its application. If you want a theocracy, then so be it. You can't have it both ways.

Lots of straw men here.

Your personal opinion about aggression or practicality are not going to serve as the basis for a social/cultural proscription against any behavior. They may deter YOU from taking certain actions, but they're hardly going to serve as a nation-wide substitute for Judeo-Christian ethics. And why should your personal opinion have any more validity as a basis for law, than said JC ethics??

And did I understand that you are non-aggressive because you believe in liberty, as a matter of practicality? I'm not even sure I have a clue what you're saying here. But if it were practical to deprive someone of liberty, you would be okay with that?

I'm not proposing a theocracy at all. When you undermine a system of morality that has served as a bulwark for generations, be prepared for the unintended consequences. Others will leverage this new-found freedom to promote their own preferences.

You did not at all address the fact that constructs such as "child" and "consent" are there as arbitrary limits on behavior. People will move, or abolish those limits as they see fit. Unless there is a proscription that transcends personal taste.

You also did not address that your earlier post conflated rape and molestation with what can be argued are consensual relations, or will be presented as such by those who would like to move them to the mainstream, and as we move toward a society more tolerant of 'diversity', how exactly do we maintain some lines, but abolish all others?

Again, I did not call for a theocracy. But I'm not sure I would not rather live under a JC theocracy, than in a society whose moral compass is simply "we're better than that" until they identify the next thing that they would like to deconstruct, and then it's "just do it".

This is substituting casuistry for principles that constitute part of an ethical whole.

 

[steveh_131]

But we have based our laws on good morality, such as that found in the Judeo Christian bible.

Our laws aren't even close to those of the bible. We're missing a LOT of them. Would you advocate implementing them?

I have no idea how anyone could get "more government" out of anything I write, so while I agree completely with your third sentence, I am confused if you think I support more government.

Asking the government to implement biblical morality is 'more government'.

It is why I point out that even if you are not a believer, like some of our founding fathers, it doesn't take much investigation to realize that the Judeo Christian moral ethic is a very good basis for law. It does not change, it is the same today as it was 2,000 years ago. Unlike man, and his whims, there is no change in the base.

And yet you didn't answer any of my questions. If it is a good basis for law, then what about the rest of it? Lying? Gossip? Fornication? Drunkenness? Selfishness? Coveting?

Your personal opinion about aggression or practicality are not going to serve as the basis for a social/cultural proscription against any behavior. They may deter YOU from taking certain actions, but they're hardly going to serve as a nation-wide substitute for Judeo-Christian ethics. And why should your personal opinion have any more validity as a basis for law, than said JC ethics??

Non-aggression is not my moral code. I imagine that my moral code matches yours, as it is completely biblically based.

And did I understand that you are non-aggressive because you believe in liberty, as a matter of practicality? I'm not even sure I have a clue what you're saying here. But if it were practical to deprive someone of liberty, you would be okay with that?

Not really. Again, it's not my moral code. It is the most functional system of government. Theocracies don't work.

I'm not proposing a theocracy at all. When you undermine a system of morality that has served as a bulwark for generations, be prepared for the unintended consequences. Others will leverage this new-found freedom to promote their own preferences.

You did not at all address the fact that constructs such as "child" and "consent" are there as arbitrary limits on behavior. People will move, or abolish those limits as they see fit. Unless there is a proscription that transcends personal taste.

This is not at all logical. If the bible is the system of morality that you would like to see enforced by legislation, how can you discard so much of it? Why do you get to pick and choose which parts of the bible are enforced by the government? It should be all of it.

You also did not address that your earlier post conflated rape and molestation with what can be argued are consensual relations, or will be presented as such by those who would like to move them to the mainstream, and as we move toward a society more tolerant of 'diversity', how exactly do we maintain some lines, but abolish all others?

That will be for states, localities, and juries to decide. Just like it is now. How does our current supposed JC society maintain some lines but abolish others?

I still haven't seen a single historical example of a group of child molesters gaining mainstream traction in a society because the government nosed out of marriage. I'm letting you have the burden of proof on that one, since it's your assertion.

The bible is intended to be an individual moral code. Not a legislative system for our government. This isn't Israel, and our leaders are not Godly men.

If you want biblical law, then go for it. But you need to include the entire thing. Not your own personal selection of things that you find icky.

 

[cobber]

Our laws aren't even close to those of the bible. We're missing a LOT of them. Would you advocate implementing them?



Asking the government to implement biblical morality is 'more government'.



And yet you didn't answer any of my questions. If it is a good basis for law, then what about the rest of it? Lying? Gossip? Fornication? Drunkenness? Selfishness? Coveting?



Non-aggression is not my moral code. I imagine that my moral code matches yours, as it is completely biblically based.



Not really. Again, it's not my moral code. It is the most functional system of government. Theocracies don't work.



This is not at all logical. If the bible is the system of morality that you would like to see enforced by legislation, how can you discard so much of it? Why do you get to pick and choose which parts of the bible are enforced by the government? It should be all of it.



That will be for states, localities, and juries to decide. Just like it is now. How does our current supposed JC society maintain some lines but abolish others?

I still haven't seen a single historical example of a group of child molesters gaining mainstream traction in a society because the government nosed out of marriage. I'm letting you have the burden of proof on that one, since it's your assertion.

The bible is intended to be an individual moral code. Not a legislative system for our government. This isn't Israel, and our leaders are not Godly men.

If you want biblical law, then go for it. But you need to include the entire thing. Not your own personal selection of things that you find icky.

"Icky"? Seriously??

You persist with the red herrings. "Child molesters"? No, but law based on JC tradition was nosed out, and now we have gay marriage. QED.

And in case you haven't noticed we do have laws against lying and drunkenness in certain contexts. Do you think that we shouldn't have OWI or perjury laws, because they are somehow associated with Biblical proscriptions?

You knock down one proscription, why would you suppose that the 'change' ends with that? And for the 99th time, how do you justify drawing lines based on morality--yours, mine or the Bible--in some cases but not others? America has never been a theocracy, but to hear some folks talk, it's the Taliban on steroids. And again, I have not suggested that we should institute a theocracy.

I don't know what my moral code is based on. That doesn't matter in terms of law. If the laws don't proscribe behaviors, then my personal moral code is only going to stop me from doing X.

And again, you keep bringing up child molestation, and asserting that A) we are all agreed on what constitutes a "child" and B) that based on this arbitrary concept, such "children" have no ability to give consent. Continually bringing up molestation, which is by its nature an non-consensual act, hardly makes your point.

If child marriages are by their very essence molestation, then please tell me what you would do about cases where parents give consent for their minor children to marry under present law? Your theory that this is molestation would make those parents parties to molestation. Not under the law as it is presently constituted, but under your code of practical law.

If you're not concerned about the floodgates opening, how about recent federal regulations allowing minor females to get vaccinations for STDs without parental consent/notification? And the ongoing debate about parental notification in cases of abortion? Sounds like there are plenty of folks in America who believe young women are already capable of consenting to all sorts of things.

How does your notion of 'practicality' figure in all this?

Sounds like the bus has already left the station.

 

[steveh_131]

"Icky"? Seriously??

Yes, seriously. By biblical standards, homosexuality is no more evil than fornication. Two gays being married is no more evil than two divorced people getting married, right? Do you fight just as hard to ban the marriage of divorced people?

You persist with the red herrings. "Child molesters"? No, but law based on JC tradition was nosed out, and now we have gay marriage. QED.

When you can find an example of victimization of children becoming culturally acceptable because of gay marriage then you will have my attention. If it is such a natural progression then there must be other examples. I think that most human beings, even in our fallen state, have a natural instinct to protect children and I don't see that changing just because two women live in the same house.

And in case you haven't noticed we do have laws against lying and drunkenness in certain contexts. Do you think that we shouldn't have OWI or perjury laws, because they are somehow associated with Biblical proscriptions?

I don't care what they are associated with. I care that their source is being used piece by piece in a completely inconsistent manner and in a way that just plain doesn't work.

You knock down one proscription, why would you suppose that the 'change' ends with that? And for the 99th time, how do you justify drawing lines based on morality--yours, mine or the Bible--in some cases but not others? America has never been a theocracy, but to hear some folks talk, it's the Taliban on steroids. And again, I have not suggested that we should institute a theocracy.

I don't know what my moral code is based on. That doesn't matter in terms of law. If the laws don't proscribe behaviors, then my personal moral code is only going to stop me from doing X.

And again, you keep bringing up child molestation, and asserting that A) we are all agreed on what constitutes a "child" and B) that based on this arbitrary concept, such "children" have no ability to give consent. Continually bringing up molestation, which is by its nature an non-consensual act, hardly makes your point.

If child marriages are by their very essence molestation, then please tell me what you would do about cases where parents give consent for their minor children to marry under present law? Your theory that this is molestation would make those parents parties to molestation. Not under the law as it is presently constituted, but under your code of practical law.

If you're not concerned about the floodgates opening, how about recent federal regulations allowing minor females to get vaccinations for STDs without parental consent/notification? And the ongoing debate about parental notification in cases of abortion? Sounds like there are plenty of folks in America who believe young women are already capable of consenting to all sorts of things.

How does your notion of 'practicality' figure in all this?

Sounds like the bus has already left the station.

I understand human nature. Movement towards sin is inevitable. The floodgates opened when the forbidden fruit was eaten. Trying to close the floodgates via legislation is a losing proposition every time it has been tried.

Trying to leverage the flow to provide a productive society makes more sense. Capitalism achieves this. The NAP achieves this. Theocracies do not.

 

[HotD]

How… Why do you know this?

Bunny, like many others, has been desperate or drunk enough to have known a few cows in his day.

 

[cobber]

Yes, seriously. By biblical standards, homosexuality is no more evil than fornication. Two gays being married is no more evil than two divorced people getting married, right? Do you fight just as hard to ban the marriage of divorced people?

When you can find an example of victimization of children becoming culturally acceptable because of gay marriage then you will have my attention. If it is such a natural progression then there must be other examples. I think that most human beings, even in our fallen state, have a natural instinct to protect children and I don't see that changing just because two women live in the same house.


I don't care what they are associated with. I care that their source is being used piece by piece in a completely inconsistent manner and in a way that just plain doesn't work.


I understand human nature. Movement towards sin is inevitable. The floodgates opened when the forbidden fruit was eaten. Trying to close the floodgates via legislation is a losing proposition every time it has been tried.

Trying to leverage the flow to provide a productive society makes more sense. Capitalism achieves this. The NAP achieves this. Theocracies do not.

You used the term "icky". I'm sorry, but that's not a term I used. I don't think I even implied that homosexuality per se is immoral. See my original thread on polygamy and child marriage. Now in view of new privacy rules that allow girls to get vaccinated for STDs, and some who want to make abortion a private matter between a child (as you yourself would acknowledge) and her doctor. Then tell me how exactly you propose to prohibit child marriages, when the government already allows children to consent in matters involving sexuality?

As far as your attempt to paint me with another absurd position, that I was saying that child molestation would become legal, well, er no. No one has claimed that any kind of molestation would become legal. But your attempts to equate child marriage with molestation sound rather, well, parochial in an odd way. And as I asked, if child marriage is per se molestation, then certainly you (on the basis that liberty = practicality) would want to prosecute parents who consent to minor children being married as accomplices to molestation. Right?

As far as drunkenness and lying being illegal, do you think the ONLY reason these are illegal is because the Bible says they are bad?

Trying to leverage the flow to provide a productive society makes more sense. Capitalism achieves this. The NAP achieves this. Theocracies do not.

What??

Do you fight just as hard to ban the marriage of divorced people?

Well, I'm not fighting to ban anything. I am just asking questions about unintended consequences. Which you seem to think are just a paranoid fantasy. And you might be right about divorce. It's easy to get now and it has eroded the sanctity of marriage. But that battle is long lost.

 

[steveh_131]

You used the term "icky". I'm sorry, but that's not a term I used. I don't think I even implied that homosexuality per se is immoral. See my original thread on polygamy and child marriage. Now in view of new privacy rules that allow girls to get vaccinated for STDs, and some who want to make abortion a private matter between a child (as you yourself would acknowledge) and her doctor. Then tell me how exactly you propose to prohibit child marriages, when the government already allows children to consent in matters involving sexuality?

As far as your attempt to paint me with another absurd position, that I was saying that child molestation would become legal, well, er no. No one has claimed that any kind of molestation would become legal. But your attempts to equate child marriage with molestation sound rather, well, parochial in an odd way. And as I asked, if child marriage is per se molestation, then certainly you (on the basis that liberty = practicality) would want to prosecute parents who consent to minor children being married as accomplices to molestation. Right?

As far as drunkenness and lying being illegal, do you think the ONLY reason these are illegal is because the Bible says they are bad?

What??

Well, I'm not fighting to ban anything. I am just asking questions about unintended consequences. Which you seem to think are just a paranoid fantasy. And you might be right about divorce. It's easy to get now and it has eroded the sanctity of marriage. But that battle is long lost.

This argument has gone in some strange circles. I'm going to try to bring it around.

It was asserted that allowing gays to get married would cause our society to slip towards pedophilia.

I argued that the two are unrelated. Gay marriage, while distasteful to some, is victimless by every standard.

You argued that pedophilia is also victimless to some people. You're somewhat correct. The line between child and adult is extremely grey. It is an eternal battle in our society trying to find justice in these situations.

But what on earth does that have to do with gay marriage? Every society is already struggling with child sexuality issues. What, exactly, do you think is going to change about that if gays start getting married? Do you have any evidence at all linking the two topics in any way?

Gay marriage violates the concept of biblical marriage.

Most remarriages violate the concept of biblical marriage.

Two unbelievers getting married violates the concept of biblical marriage.

Would we support legislation that bans all of these?

 

[zippy23]

The decline of the american society is in full speed.

 

[traderdan]

The decline of the american society is in full speed.

It certainly is..and by and large the general public is too dumb to ascertain the root causes of our decline.

 

[HotD]

It certainly is..and by and large the general public is too dumb to ascertain the root causes of our decline.

As well as viciously attack those whom articulate such.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I argued that the two are unrelated. Gay marriage, while distasteful to some, is victimless by every standard.

The problem here is that they do NOT want equal rights. That has been offered several times with the standard response of a litigious temper tantrum. They want public imprimatur declaring their ways socially acceptable. If they really wanted equal rights to joint property, sharing their worldly fortunes, rights of primary inheritance, and so forth, they would have snapped up civil unions in half a heartbeat. The only reasonable conclusion left is that their insistence on redefining language, a pastime with which the .gov has already caused far too much mischief, is that they want a stepping stone to becoming a protected special class, much like ethnic minorities, and/or to be placed on the national stage and legislatively or judicially declared normal and acceptable. I am sorry, but it is not the venue of the government to attempt to force people to philosophically accept anything, especially that which is egregiously unacceptable. I will grant them that liberty ultimately defaults to the right to be wrong and that anyone who wished to share their worldly fortunes with someone else is entitled to do so, but using the .gov as a bludgeon to force the rest of us to socially accept those we consider unacceptable is clearly out of line.

 

[steveh_131]

A government than can force people to philosophically accept heterosexual marriage can just as easily force people to philosophically accept gay marriage.

I think that removing the government altogether is the optimal solution. We probably agree on that.