Reader comments
Readers' forum: Don't legalize polygamy
254 comments | Read story
pike756 | 11:52 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009
polygamy is against the law, what else do you need to know
muskie1 | 11:54 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009
it is not legal, nor is it right morally
GWB | 11:53 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009
To "RE:GWB": You said "Personally I think it's wrong to
even live that way, but I can't judge"
What do you mean "but I can't judge"?
You just did when you say "Personally I think it's wrong to even live that way."
What do you mean "but I can't judge"?
You just did when you say "Personally I think it's wrong to even live that way."
Comments continue below
re Ester | 12:10 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
do you have any ida how many husbands do NOT cheat on their wives simply because
they have access to what you would call pornography?
If there was no pornography, then these unhappy husbands would go out and cheat. As it is, they are able to find some relief on the inernet.
You seem to be confusing pornography (legal) with illegal child porn. Not the same thing at all.
Child porn ( which does as you say - makes perverts go out and do perverted things) is already illegal - and should be. Regular naked women on the internet actually helps keep marriages together (regardless of what you may believe about your own husband.)
none of which has anything to do with polygamy or gay mariage - so not clear why you even brought it up at all....
If there was no pornography, then these unhappy husbands would go out and cheat. As it is, they are able to find some relief on the inernet.
You seem to be confusing pornography (legal) with illegal child porn. Not the same thing at all.
Child porn ( which does as you say - makes perverts go out and do perverted things) is already illegal - and should be. Regular naked women on the internet actually helps keep marriages together (regardless of what you may believe about your own husband.)
none of which has anything to do with polygamy or gay mariage - so not clear why you even brought it up at all....
The Rock | 12:12 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
What's wrong with descrimination?
We make very few decisions in life that do not have winners and losers. If I eat at Wendy's, McDonnalds loses.
Descrimination and decide come from a common root. One cannot make a decision without descriminating. Is we abolish descrimination we abolish freedom.
The decisions will still have to be made but it will be the government making those decisions.
I am against expanding the definition of marriage so I descriminate against both the plygs and gays.
So be it. I am good with that.
We make very few decisions in life that do not have winners and losers. If I eat at Wendy's, McDonnalds loses.
Descrimination and decide come from a common root. One cannot make a decision without descriminating. Is we abolish descrimination we abolish freedom.
The decisions will still have to be made but it will be the government making those decisions.
I am against expanding the definition of marriage so I descriminate against both the plygs and gays.
So be it. I am good with that.
Arthur | 12:17 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
re: To Arthur | 11:33
I'd totally agree with your math in a closed situation, where the boy to girl ratio is near 1:1, there was no homosexuality, and both genders died at exactly the same age, and each desired marriage.
But again your talking about the FLDS! In the same situation homosexual marriage wouldnt work because you'd be imbalanced too.
Thats not how the world is! For every man that dies, we dont kill a woman, homosexuality and vows of celebacy change the man to woman ratio. One woman marrying multiple men is another factor.
Legalized polygamy and its variants wont cause everyone to go polygamist, just like gay marriage wont turn everyone gay. As far as throwing away boys, the Jews didnt do it, mormons didnt do it, islam doesnt do it, people with mistresses and second familes dont do it, ONLY the recent FLDS do it to my knowledge.
I'd totally agree with your math in a closed situation, where the boy to girl ratio is near 1:1, there was no homosexuality, and both genders died at exactly the same age, and each desired marriage.
But again your talking about the FLDS! In the same situation homosexual marriage wouldnt work because you'd be imbalanced too.
Thats not how the world is! For every man that dies, we dont kill a woman, homosexuality and vows of celebacy change the man to woman ratio. One woman marrying multiple men is another factor.
Legalized polygamy and its variants wont cause everyone to go polygamist, just like gay marriage wont turn everyone gay. As far as throwing away boys, the Jews didnt do it, mormons didnt do it, islam doesnt do it, people with mistresses and second familes dont do it, ONLY the recent FLDS do it to my knowledge.
re the rock | 12:20 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
discrimination is wrong by it's very nature.
eating at wendy's doesn't make mcdonalds a loser. it in fact promotes jobs, by forcing mcdonalds to advertise more and promote their product.
you can discriminate as much as you want, as long as it doesn't violate the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
and we can discriminate against religious zealots and those that can't even spell discrimination....
eating at wendy's doesn't make mcdonalds a loser. it in fact promotes jobs, by forcing mcdonalds to advertise more and promote their product.
you can discriminate as much as you want, as long as it doesn't violate the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
and we can discriminate against religious zealots and those that can't even spell discrimination....
KVC | 12:26 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
You all need help with math and understanding. What Mike said was that a higher
percentage of the gay community has been convicted for sexual abuse than the
straight community. He is not referring to absolute numbers, but proportions.
@10:25- Your abuser was either gay or bisexual. You cannot be completely straight and sexually abuse someone of the same sex. That act defines you as gay or bi.
My question is how do straight people turn gay? Anne Heche was straight then gay, and is now married with a child. George Michaels did not decide he was gay until he was in his 20's. Lindsay Lohan does not seem to know what she is. It is almost as it is a fad to some people.
8:49- The general definition of marriage has always included being 2-people of opposite gender, not just a numerical issue. Where did you get the idea that it was only about numbers and not gender? If that was the case, and people never considered gender into the equation, we would not be having this debate.
@10:25- Your abuser was either gay or bisexual. You cannot be completely straight and sexually abuse someone of the same sex. That act defines you as gay or bi.
My question is how do straight people turn gay? Anne Heche was straight then gay, and is now married with a child. George Michaels did not decide he was gay until he was in his 20's. Lindsay Lohan does not seem to know what she is. It is almost as it is a fad to some people.
8:49- The general definition of marriage has always included being 2-people of opposite gender, not just a numerical issue. Where did you get the idea that it was only about numbers and not gender? If that was the case, and people never considered gender into the equation, we would not be having this debate.
RedShirt | 12:33 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
To "realitycheck | 11:39 a.m. " you said that "being attracted to
multiple women doesn't mean you have to marry them." Which, can be
applied to the gay community. How many men have been able to love multiple
women throughout their life. All I am asking for is the opportunity to love
multiple women at once.
To "Anonymous | 11:30 a.m." why is it that your genetic predisposition for same sex attractedness is ok, yet my genetic predisposition for being attracted to multiple women is not ok? I am tired of having the government force me into a lesser monogomous marriage.
I do realize that my arguement does away with the equal protection clause, unless we allow marriage to be turned into a free-for-all where anybody can enter into any relationship they want, put some paper to it, and call it a marriage.
Who is to say that if gay marriage is accepted that the Man-Boy Love association won't want the same, or that a group of lesbians would want a plural marriage, or that a bisexual person would want to marry one of each. The ways of the strange would be opened up, and it would come rushing out.
To "Anonymous | 11:30 a.m." why is it that your genetic predisposition for same sex attractedness is ok, yet my genetic predisposition for being attracted to multiple women is not ok? I am tired of having the government force me into a lesser monogomous marriage.
I do realize that my arguement does away with the equal protection clause, unless we allow marriage to be turned into a free-for-all where anybody can enter into any relationship they want, put some paper to it, and call it a marriage.
Who is to say that if gay marriage is accepted that the Man-Boy Love association won't want the same, or that a group of lesbians would want a plural marriage, or that a bisexual person would want to marry one of each. The ways of the strange would be opened up, and it would come rushing out.
D | 12:34 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
Reader comments: Don't legalize polygamy
Keep: Second-class citizens ?
Keep: Second-class citizens ?
Roger Brown | 12:42 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
An "anonymous coward" wrote:
> both [gayrriage and polygamy] will happen in our lifetime. for those opposed, sorry you lose.
Sorry but it only really matters who wins in the end.
You might win for a time but you will permanently lose in the end!
It doesn't matter if you go ahead in the 4th quarter if you lose in the end.
God will be the final judge.
> both [gayrriage and polygamy] will happen in our lifetime. for those opposed, sorry you lose.
Sorry but it only really matters who wins in the end.
You might win for a time but you will permanently lose in the end!
It doesn't matter if you go ahead in the 4th quarter if you lose in the end.
God will be the final judge.
Arthur | 12:46 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
The best argument against homosexuality opening the doors to polygamy is
'Linguists' citing of the "equal protection clause".
I thought it nearly impossible that polygamy could wiggle around that one until some of the other posters have reminded me of how I would have laughed and said "yeah right" if you told me 5 years ago that to get around the gender specific definition of marriage people would redefine marriage itself.
If you can mess with the definition of a term as old and significant as "Marriage", I'm now a believer that equal protection could be knocked down in a second.
I thought it nearly impossible that polygamy could wiggle around that one until some of the other posters have reminded me of how I would have laughed and said "yeah right" if you told me 5 years ago that to get around the gender specific definition of marriage people would redefine marriage itself.
If you can mess with the definition of a term as old and significant as "Marriage", I'm now a believer that equal protection could be knocked down in a second.
re RedShirt 12:33pm | 12:50 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
if you just put in the clause "any two unmarried consenting adults can be
wed" then all your strange notions go away. So it's two people and
they are consenting adults. Not rocket science...
No big "ways of the strange" is opened up. what do you not understand?
No big "ways of the strange" is opened up. what do you not understand?
Re: KVC | 12:26 | 12:52 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
"Your abuser was either gay or bisexual. You cannot be completely straight
and sexually abuse someone of the same sex. That act defines you as gay or
bi."
No - he was heterosexual. As has already been posted, the act of abuse with a child is not about sex, it is about control and/or anger and children are more readily controlled by most adults.
A sexual act does not define an individual's sexuality. Are men in prison that participate in sexual activity with other male inmates gay? Doubtful - just sexual opportunists in that they take advantage of what is available. When released they return to sexual activity with wives, girlfriends - the opposite sex. The 'ACT' does not define or change their sexual identity.
No - he was heterosexual. As has already been posted, the act of abuse with a child is not about sex, it is about control and/or anger and children are more readily controlled by most adults.
A sexual act does not define an individual's sexuality. Are men in prison that participate in sexual activity with other male inmates gay? Doubtful - just sexual opportunists in that they take advantage of what is available. When released they return to sexual activity with wives, girlfriends - the opposite sex. The 'ACT' does not define or change their sexual identity.
Mike Richards | 12:58 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
The denials continue. How many posters ignored the words, "as a
percentage" in my earlier post? How many posters want us to believe that
when a man has sex with a boy that the act is not necessarily homosexual?
If less than 3% of the population is homosexual, then not more than 3% of sexual crimes should be caused by men having sex with boys or other men. In fact, given 3% as the total percentage of both male and female homosexuals, then a figure much less than 3% should be used to show that sexual crimes committed by homosexual men against other males is not above the national norm, based on percentage of homosexual males in the general public.
No amount of weeping and wailing will change the fact that, as a percentage, there have been more sexual crimes committed by homosexuals than their 3% of the population would explain.
No amount of denial will change the fact that having sex with someone of the same sex is a homosexual act, and that it takes an acting homosexual male or female to perform a homosexual act.
The "don't blame us" rhetoric is lame and undignified.
If less than 3% of the population is homosexual, then not more than 3% of sexual crimes should be caused by men having sex with boys or other men. In fact, given 3% as the total percentage of both male and female homosexuals, then a figure much less than 3% should be used to show that sexual crimes committed by homosexual men against other males is not above the national norm, based on percentage of homosexual males in the general public.
No amount of weeping and wailing will change the fact that, as a percentage, there have been more sexual crimes committed by homosexuals than their 3% of the population would explain.
No amount of denial will change the fact that having sex with someone of the same sex is a homosexual act, and that it takes an acting homosexual male or female to perform a homosexual act.
The "don't blame us" rhetoric is lame and undignified.
wrz | 1:16 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
To: Mike Richards | 8:39 a.m.:
>>>The courts have ruled consistently that polygamous marriages are not protected by freedom of religion in the constitution.<<<
The courts are not always right. They have also decided that killing of the unborn is in the Constitution and therefore, legit.
>>>The courts have ruled consistently that polygamous marriages are not protected by freedom of religion in the constitution.<<<
The courts are not always right. They have also decided that killing of the unborn is in the Constitution and therefore, legit.
Anonymous | 1:23 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
Mike,
Please read Re: KVC | 12:26. It might give you a few insights into some information that you seem to be lacking.
Really, you should know what you are talking about before you post.
Where is your citations on gays saying that men/boy relationships should not be all illegal? Still haven't heard from you on that one. Did you make that up?
Please read Re: KVC | 12:26. It might give you a few insights into some information that you seem to be lacking.
Really, you should know what you are talking about before you post.
Where is your citations on gays saying that men/boy relationships should not be all illegal? Still haven't heard from you on that one. Did you make that up?
All Knowing | 1:30 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
Re: Mike Richards | 8:49 a.m.:
>>>In America, marriage has always been well defined within the concept of two people. >>Courts around the U.S. have made it clear that with more than two people you would change the meaning of marriage.<<<
The meaning of marriage around the world includes polygamy.
>>>In America, marriage has always been well defined within the concept of two people. >>Courts around the U.S. have made it clear that with more than two people you would change the meaning of marriage.<<<
The meaning of marriage around the world includes polygamy.
Percentage | 1:32 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
What proof do you have that there are a higher percentage of homosexual
predators than heterosexual predators?
If 3% of the population is homosexual, and x% of them are sexual predators, than that x% must be higher than the y% of the other 97% of the population.
If you do x% of 3%, that x% if still based on the root of 100 - otherwise it would not be a percent.
If 3% of heterosexuals are sexual predators, and 3% of homosexuals are sexual predators - that is the same percentage. If you have 10,000 heterosexuals you would have 300 sexual predators. If you have 300 homosexuals (3% of 10,000) you would have 9 sexual predators.
So - back to the original question: Sources please!
If 3% of the population is homosexual, and x% of them are sexual predators, than that x% must be higher than the y% of the other 97% of the population.
If you do x% of 3%, that x% if still based on the root of 100 - otherwise it would not be a percent.
If 3% of heterosexuals are sexual predators, and 3% of homosexuals are sexual predators - that is the same percentage. If you have 10,000 heterosexuals you would have 300 sexual predators. If you have 300 homosexuals (3% of 10,000) you would have 9 sexual predators.
So - back to the original question: Sources please!
To The Rock | 1:35 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
Discriminate is spelled with an "i" not an "e" - when you
spell it correctly, it is very easy to see that decide and discriminate do not
have a common root.
But, in case that is not enough for you, you can look the words up and see their roots and origins.
But, in case that is not enough for you, you can look the words up and see their roots and origins.
frank w | 1:40 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
Most want it but they can't even handle the one family they have been
given.
It's a religious excuse for adultery, and neglect.
Don't compare it to gay marriage. The polititions wil pander to get votes.
Don't call religion into this argument...call in common sesse and morality. If you have either.
It's a religious excuse for adultery, and neglect.
Don't compare it to gay marriage. The polititions wil pander to get votes.
Don't call religion into this argument...call in common sesse and morality. If you have either.
KVC | 1:48 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
Realitycheck- That fact that someone identifies themselves as a heterosexual
does not make it so. If you commit homosexual acts, you are by definition a
homosexual or bisexual, regardless of what you label yourself. And considering
there is as much evidence for a genetic link to pedophilia as there is to
homosexuality, you should show compassion and not call them perverts. They
cannot help it anymore than gays can. So if it is not a choice, how can you
treat them like criminals. Why should one group be required to bridle their
passions, but another, gays, be encouraged to act on them?
@11:33- When the LDS Church practiced polygamy in the 1800's, there were not all of these boys being kicked out. I would like to see evidence to the contrary as it is a core of your argument. You can't take what happens in some groups and apply it to all.
As many consider homosexuality to be genetic, do all gay people have a random mutation since most do not come from gay parents who would pass the gene on? Actually, I bet it is from the MMR vaccine just like people claim autism is.
@11:33- When the LDS Church practiced polygamy in the 1800's, there were not all of these boys being kicked out. I would like to see evidence to the contrary as it is a core of your argument. You can't take what happens in some groups and apply it to all.
As many consider homosexuality to be genetic, do all gay people have a random mutation since most do not come from gay parents who would pass the gene on? Actually, I bet it is from the MMR vaccine just like people claim autism is.
Pologamy | 1:47 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
When the LDS Church practiced this act of marriage only 5% of all the males
currently in the Church practiced it. Generally an individual was called to
enter into a pologamy marriage. My family has pologamy in it and for us it is a
righteous act.
Pologamy is also defined in the Bible but many of the so called Christians fail to recognize that fact. Currently the LDS Church does not practice Pologamy and not because some law was coming in to take that away but because the reasons for it no longer existed and the Lord took the practice away.
Those sects of the LDS Church that have broken away and practice pologamy are no more apart of our church than a Luthern is Catholic though they are a break off of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Lord has defined marriage between man and woman for the purpose of procreation. However, in some marriages this is not always possible. Adoption and other means allows for this to continue. Society is stronger when a marriage is between man and woman. The family is stronger. Any substitute reduces the strength of the family.
Marriage must remain defined as man and woman.
Pologamy is also defined in the Bible but many of the so called Christians fail to recognize that fact. Currently the LDS Church does not practice Pologamy and not because some law was coming in to take that away but because the reasons for it no longer existed and the Lord took the practice away.
Those sects of the LDS Church that have broken away and practice pologamy are no more apart of our church than a Luthern is Catholic though they are a break off of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Lord has defined marriage between man and woman for the purpose of procreation. However, in some marriages this is not always possible. Adoption and other means allows for this to continue. Society is stronger when a marriage is between man and woman. The family is stronger. Any substitute reduces the strength of the family.
Marriage must remain defined as man and woman.
Mike Richards | 1:49 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
To 11:46,
The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) clearly promotes sex between homosexual men and boys and thinks that it should be acceptable and legal.
Most bank robbers don't consider themselves to be bank robbers either, but society does. If someone has sex with someone else who is the same sex, a homosexual act has taken place. The name used to identify those who participate in homosexual acts is homosexual - whether the individuals consider themselves to be homosexual or not.
To 1:16 p.m.,
To avoid confusion, please do not infer that I wrote a post just because the poster you quoted used the name "RE: Mike Richards". When there is a possibility of confusion, I find it best to simply address the poster by his/her time stamp.
The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) clearly promotes sex between homosexual men and boys and thinks that it should be acceptable and legal.
Most bank robbers don't consider themselves to be bank robbers either, but society does. If someone has sex with someone else who is the same sex, a homosexual act has taken place. The name used to identify those who participate in homosexual acts is homosexual - whether the individuals consider themselves to be homosexual or not.
To 1:16 p.m.,
To avoid confusion, please do not infer that I wrote a post just because the poster you quoted used the name "RE: Mike Richards". When there is a possibility of confusion, I find it best to simply address the poster by his/her time stamp.
Re: KVC | 1:48 | 2:02 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
"...evidence for a genetic link to pedophilia as there is to homosexuality,
you should show compassion and not call them perverts. ... Why should one group
be required to bridle their passions, but another, gays, be encouraged to act on
them?"
I realize that you are just baiting everyone, but something that occurs between two consenting adults is very different from pedophilia. A child cannot "consent" to abuse, especially since the act is one of control for the abuser.
Apples to oranges comparison - but again, you post just to rile people up.
I realize that you are just baiting everyone, but something that occurs between two consenting adults is very different from pedophilia. A child cannot "consent" to abuse, especially since the act is one of control for the abuser.
Apples to oranges comparison - but again, you post just to rile people up.
Gus Talwynd | 1:59 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
There appear to be significant differences between monogamous marriage and
polygamous marriage from both a legal and economic perspective. Monogamous
marriage (either heterosexual or homosexual involves only two people with laws
already in place to safeguard the participants.
However, in a polygamous relationship, there a legal problem regarding the rights of every woman within the relationship (men, if it is polyandrous). Since the practice is primarily religously-based, in general here in the United States, many of the practices would come under state scrutiny and law would have to be made to establish guidelines for both those involved and those outside.
There is nothing to prevent a man from having a consensual relationship with several women where that relationship is accepted by the women involved. The problem appears to come when the man "marries" the various women and attempts to apply traditional concepts to those relationships.
There is much criticism of the practice of polygamy since it is a male-dominated forum. Perhaps men might consider a polyandrous community and see how they might make the system work and apply those ideas to a polygamous situation. A woman might prefer a polyandous situation with many breadwinners in the family opposed to polygamy.
However, in a polygamous relationship, there a legal problem regarding the rights of every woman within the relationship (men, if it is polyandrous). Since the practice is primarily religously-based, in general here in the United States, many of the practices would come under state scrutiny and law would have to be made to establish guidelines for both those involved and those outside.
There is nothing to prevent a man from having a consensual relationship with several women where that relationship is accepted by the women involved. The problem appears to come when the man "marries" the various women and attempts to apply traditional concepts to those relationships.
There is much criticism of the practice of polygamy since it is a male-dominated forum. Perhaps men might consider a polyandrous community and see how they might make the system work and apply those ideas to a polygamous situation. A woman might prefer a polyandous situation with many breadwinners in the family opposed to polygamy.
RedShirt | 2:09 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
To "re RedShirt 12:33pm | 12:50 p.m." your idea does not work if you
base the reason that we allow gay marriage in genetics. If you say that a
person is born gay, and that there is nothing they can do about it, then all any
group or person has to do is cite the same reasoning to justify allowing what
they want as marriage.
To say "any two unmarried consenting adults can be wed" now discriminates against situations where three or more consenting adults want to form a union. By eliminating one form of discrimination, you introduce another. Just because it feels good, that does not make it right.
To say "any two unmarried consenting adults can be wed" now discriminates against situations where three or more consenting adults want to form a union. By eliminating one form of discrimination, you introduce another. Just because it feels good, that does not make it right.
All Knowing | 2:10 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
Pologamy | 1:47 p.m.:
>>>When the LDS Church practiced this act of marriage only 5% of all the males currently in the Church practiced it. Generally an individual was called to enter into a pologamy marriage.<<<
Mormon polygamy was reportedly for the purpose of "raising up a righteous generation."
Muslims, who also practice polygamy, use it to do the same thing (though not necessarily a righteous one). And it's working. Birth rates among Muslim immigrants in European countries such as England, France, and Holland are outstripping the locals' birth rate, 3 to 1. They brag that in a dozen or so years they (Muslims) will be the majority and then will take over control of the country.
>>>When the LDS Church practiced this act of marriage only 5% of all the males currently in the Church practiced it. Generally an individual was called to enter into a pologamy marriage.<<<
Mormon polygamy was reportedly for the purpose of "raising up a righteous generation."
Muslims, who also practice polygamy, use it to do the same thing (though not necessarily a righteous one). And it's working. Birth rates among Muslim immigrants in European countries such as England, France, and Holland are outstripping the locals' birth rate, 3 to 1. They brag that in a dozen or so years they (Muslims) will be the majority and then will take over control of the country.
Dobby | 2:11 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
The fundamental principle of ethics and liberty in this nation and in Western
civilization is INDIVIDUALITY and EQUALITY.
Marriage is a legal union of two individual heterosexuals. They remain equal in this union. It SHOULD be a union of any two individuals.
Polygamy violates the principle of idividual equality by placing many women in an inferior legal position viz-a-viz a man. In other words, it is another form of slavery of women.
This is one reason why same-sex marriage is fundamentally different than polygamous marriage.
Marriage is a legal union of two individual heterosexuals. They remain equal in this union. It SHOULD be a union of any two individuals.
Polygamy violates the principle of idividual equality by placing many women in an inferior legal position viz-a-viz a man. In other words, it is another form of slavery of women.
This is one reason why same-sex marriage is fundamentally different than polygamous marriage.
To mikie | 2:12 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
You wrote: "The common defense given by homosexual activists is to say
that not all sex between a man and a boy should be classified as a
crime."
Now you quote NAMBLA as your source. NAMBLA is about as close to homosexual activists as FLDS are to the Mormon Church. If you want to equate them, we will feel free to equating your two groups.
Can you understand that you have fabricated something that just isn't true.
The truth is that gay activists believe that man/boy relationships are illegal and should remain so.
Now you quote NAMBLA as your source. NAMBLA is about as close to homosexual activists as FLDS are to the Mormon Church. If you want to equate them, we will feel free to equating your two groups.
Can you understand that you have fabricated something that just isn't true.
The truth is that gay activists believe that man/boy relationships are illegal and should remain so.
Mike Richards | 2:29 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
To 1:32,
Since you are having trouble with my figures, let's use your figures. We'll use your example of 10,000 simply to keep things from getting complicated.
Given: 10,000 convicted sexual criminals
Given: 3% of the population is thought to be homosexual
Given: 25% of the victims are boys (20% to 33% actual)
Given: 2,500 boys had sex performed on them by another male
Given: 2,500 crimes committed from a pool of 10,000 is 25%.
Given: 3% of 10,000 is 300
Conclusion: Homosexual acts were eight times more numerous than accounted for by the 3% homosexual content of the general population. Every boy that was violated by a male was subjected to an illegal homosexual act. By definition, those who engage in homosexual acts, whether legal or illegal are practicing homosexuals.
Conclusion: Using your example, 2,200 more boys were sexually assaulted than would be expected, given the fact that less than 3% of the general population is homosexual, practicing or non-practicing.
Since you are having trouble with my figures, let's use your figures. We'll use your example of 10,000 simply to keep things from getting complicated.
Given: 10,000 convicted sexual criminals
Given: 3% of the population is thought to be homosexual
Given: 25% of the victims are boys (20% to 33% actual)
Given: 2,500 boys had sex performed on them by another male
Given: 2,500 crimes committed from a pool of 10,000 is 25%.
Given: 3% of 10,000 is 300
Conclusion: Homosexual acts were eight times more numerous than accounted for by the 3% homosexual content of the general population. Every boy that was violated by a male was subjected to an illegal homosexual act. By definition, those who engage in homosexual acts, whether legal or illegal are practicing homosexuals.
Conclusion: Using your example, 2,200 more boys were sexually assaulted than would be expected, given the fact that less than 3% of the general population is homosexual, practicing or non-practicing.
D | 2:46 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
SOURCE OF PARODY
Reader comments: Don't legalize polygamy
PARODY
Reader comments: Don't legalize anti-polygamy FALLACIES.
NOTICE OF MORAL RIGHTS AND OTHER CREDITS AND ATTRIBUTIONS AS PREVIOUSLY STATED.
Linguist | 2:44 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
To Mike Richards,
By your own figures, the vast majority of gay people are completely innocent of any wrongdoing when it comes to attacking children. The vast majority. By your own figures.
So please tell me the relevance of your repeatedly your statistical claims. What is the relevance to: (1) allowing same-sex couples to marry and (2) the majority of gay people, who are guilty of absolutely nothing.
Thanks.
By your own figures, the vast majority of gay people are completely innocent of any wrongdoing when it comes to attacking children. The vast majority. By your own figures.
So please tell me the relevance of your repeatedly your statistical claims. What is the relevance to: (1) allowing same-sex couples to marry and (2) the majority of gay people, who are guilty of absolutely nothing.
Thanks.
Re: Mike | 2:29 | 2:52 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
I don't know why you are so focused on homosexual acts.
No one said that having sex with a person of the same gender is not a homosexual act. What has been stated is in reference to a person's sexual self-identification. The majority of abusers identify as heterosexual, regardless of the gender they abuse.
In relation to "percentage of the public-at-large" - unfortunately most abuse is not reported since it often involves a familial relationship and it is harder to report a family member. The realization that reporting someone carries the possibility of destroying your own family makes it a very tough decision to make.
Just because someone has a different view based on their own experience, study or observation does not make it "lame or undignified." It is just unfortunate that you can't wrap your head around that idea.
No one said that having sex with a person of the same gender is not a homosexual act. What has been stated is in reference to a person's sexual self-identification. The majority of abusers identify as heterosexual, regardless of the gender they abuse.
In relation to "percentage of the public-at-large" - unfortunately most abuse is not reported since it often involves a familial relationship and it is harder to report a family member. The realization that reporting someone carries the possibility of destroying your own family makes it a very tough decision to make.
Just because someone has a different view based on their own experience, study or observation does not make it "lame or undignified." It is just unfortunate that you can't wrap your head around that idea.
Arthur | 2:54 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
""Polygamy violates the principle of idividual equality by placing
many women in an inferior legal position viz-a-viz a man. In other words, it is
another form of slavery of women.""
Inferior how?? I'm sure theres going to be some legal knots to work out but hey we're going to go through them anyhow for same sex marriage. And how is a mistress, or a girlfriend with child more entitled legaly to the man or his assets than a wife would be? Last time I checked 1/3 of a marriage is SUPERIOR to 0/1.
A large group of people in the US are already breeding and or living with multiple partners? Are you telling me that the only difference between that great situation and slavery is a promise to be responsable and financially care for each other????
Inferior how?? I'm sure theres going to be some legal knots to work out but hey we're going to go through them anyhow for same sex marriage. And how is a mistress, or a girlfriend with child more entitled legaly to the man or his assets than a wife would be? Last time I checked 1/3 of a marriage is SUPERIOR to 0/1.
A large group of people in the US are already breeding and or living with multiple partners? Are you telling me that the only difference between that great situation and slavery is a promise to be responsable and financially care for each other????
@pike | 2:58 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
polygamy is against the law. Well, Homosexuality is against nature.
I think if the people want change. And, we know they do by the way they voted a couple of months back. Then lets just change everything. Lets start with the family, no rules, just whatever feels good. Marry someone of the same sex, of a different species, multiple partners, etc...
I think if the people want change. And, we know they do by the way they voted a couple of months back. Then lets just change everything. Lets start with the family, no rules, just whatever feels good. Marry someone of the same sex, of a different species, multiple partners, etc...
realitycheck | 3:09 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
re mike richards 2:@9pm
your entire conclusion is based on the assumption that if a man abuses a boy, he is a homosexual.
that is in fact fallacious. most perverts are married with children. yes - they are perverts - no they are not gay. Pervert does not equal gay, regardless of your religious zealotry.
your entire conclusion is based on the assumption that if a man abuses a boy, he is a homosexual.
that is in fact fallacious. most perverts are married with children. yes - they are perverts - no they are not gay. Pervert does not equal gay, regardless of your religious zealotry.
re D 2:46pm | 3:12 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
dude you crack me up - you always find these articles and post things that no
one understands.
If you're going to post things that make no sense, could you pls at least not use caps?
thx
If you're going to post things that make no sense, could you pls at least not use caps?
thx
Linguist | 3:10 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
@pike wrote, "...Well, Homosexuality is against nature."
I am not sure of the meaning, the relevance or the accuracy of this claim.
Wearing clothes is "against nature", but, well, I hope you aren't proposing laws prohibiting wearing winter coats! ;-)
I am not sure of the meaning, the relevance or the accuracy of this claim.
Wearing clothes is "against nature", but, well, I hope you aren't proposing laws prohibiting wearing winter coats! ;-)
To Mike Richards | 3:59 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
You know, if you are going to purposefully misunderstand not only my statements
but your own, there is really no point carrying on this conversation.
Adios, Auf Wiedersehen, Arevaderche, and Ciao!
Adios, Auf Wiedersehen, Arevaderche, and Ciao!
anonymous coward | 4:10 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
@ roger brown (if that is your real name)
i'm glad you like to simplify things for your own comprehension, but this isnt a football game. sorry, its a civil liberties issue. there are no downs or time outs or quarters.
I'm flattered you're worrying about others salvation but some might say your assessment borders 'judging.' and we all know what happens when you judge: you lose.
re: the topic at hand: its a civil, not a spiritual one. and, yes, you're going to lose.
in addition, i never said i participated in any of the issues mentioned. but you rendered a verdict for me, among others, as though i had. should i tack that up for judging again, or could it be pride? either way, you lose.
You say God will judge us, i agree; but, 'in the end' (your favorite phrase) i'll be able to say i treated all others as i would have them treat me. and you wont be able to say the same. so, who wins? not sure, but i know who loses = you.
i'm glad you like to simplify things for your own comprehension, but this isnt a football game. sorry, its a civil liberties issue. there are no downs or time outs or quarters.
I'm flattered you're worrying about others salvation but some might say your assessment borders 'judging.' and we all know what happens when you judge: you lose.
re: the topic at hand: its a civil, not a spiritual one. and, yes, you're going to lose.
in addition, i never said i participated in any of the issues mentioned. but you rendered a verdict for me, among others, as though i had. should i tack that up for judging again, or could it be pride? either way, you lose.
You say God will judge us, i agree; but, 'in the end' (your favorite phrase) i'll be able to say i treated all others as i would have them treat me. and you wont be able to say the same. so, who wins? not sure, but i know who loses = you.
G | 4:25 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
It is enjoyable watching people squirm in their desperation to justify same-sex
marriage while condemning multiple-wife marriage. Such hypocrisy is rarely so
obvious.
How about the fact? Polygamy, EXACTLY like same-sex marriage, was made illegal ONLY because the moral majority didn�t approve of what the unwelcome minority group desperately wanted to do. All the other reasons given for condemning either of these practices, are just after-the-fact musings designed to justify the bias.
Underage marriages, forced marriages, and domineering fathers are obviously unacceptable. These behaviors create victims. But if we are condemning all polygamists because some of them behave unacceptably, we might as well condemn all humans because some of them are serial killers.
That being said, since society gains nothing from adding wives to a marriage or from conjoining people of the same sex, neither type should be legally approved of by the government. Opposite sex marriages with people who are denied their normal ability to have children are the unanimously approved exception. We don�t need to add more exceptions.
How about the fact? Polygamy, EXACTLY like same-sex marriage, was made illegal ONLY because the moral majority didn�t approve of what the unwelcome minority group desperately wanted to do. All the other reasons given for condemning either of these practices, are just after-the-fact musings designed to justify the bias.
Underage marriages, forced marriages, and domineering fathers are obviously unacceptable. These behaviors create victims. But if we are condemning all polygamists because some of them behave unacceptably, we might as well condemn all humans because some of them are serial killers.
That being said, since society gains nothing from adding wives to a marriage or from conjoining people of the same sex, neither type should be legally approved of by the government. Opposite sex marriages with people who are denied their normal ability to have children are the unanimously approved exception. We don�t need to add more exceptions.
CW | 4:33 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
Dobbi said:
�Polygamy violates the principle of idividual equality by placing many women in an inferior legal position viz-a-viz a man. In other words, it is another form of slavery of women.
This is one reason why same-sex marriage is fundamentally different than polygamous marriage.�
Without the consent of the women, polygamy does not happen. Think about it logically, why would a woman want to be with another man and his wife when she could have a husband of her own? It is religious belief that a woman chooses to share her husband with other women. There may be women that are forced into polygamy, but the majority of women in polygamous unions do it on their own free will. The problem is we only hear about the negative examples. To begin with, if the lawful wife says no, that usually puts an end to the subject. If polygamy were as bad as the media wants you to believe, it would have vanished long ago
�Polygamy violates the principle of idividual equality by placing many women in an inferior legal position viz-a-viz a man. In other words, it is another form of slavery of women.
This is one reason why same-sex marriage is fundamentally different than polygamous marriage.�
Without the consent of the women, polygamy does not happen. Think about it logically, why would a woman want to be with another man and his wife when she could have a husband of her own? It is religious belief that a woman chooses to share her husband with other women. There may be women that are forced into polygamy, but the majority of women in polygamous unions do it on their own free will. The problem is we only hear about the negative examples. To begin with, if the lawful wife says no, that usually puts an end to the subject. If polygamy were as bad as the media wants you to believe, it would have vanished long ago
realitycheck | 5:43 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
re G 4:25pm
actually, polygamy vs same-sex marriage has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with civil rights.
A couple getting married have equal rights under the partnership, regardless of the sexes of the participants. A polygamist marriage provides many more rights to the man than are afforded to the woman.
That is why polygamy is accepted in societies where the women already have reduced rights, and not accepted in societies striving for equality for all.
Outlawing polygamy wasn't a morals issue. It was one of the first steps in the womens rights movement.
And you state that society gains nothing from conjoining people o the same sex... Why does everything have to be a societal gain? If there is no societal HARM then the action should be approved. Same-sex marriage hurts no one. Polygamy hurts the women. what don't you get?
And the ability of couples to have children is immaterial. Marriage is not about children (although it certainly benefits them). Marriage is a civil union between two people to allow them to legally share resources, just like any other contract.
I'm fully prepared to support polygamy if a decent contract can be written.
actually, polygamy vs same-sex marriage has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with civil rights.
A couple getting married have equal rights under the partnership, regardless of the sexes of the participants. A polygamist marriage provides many more rights to the man than are afforded to the woman.
That is why polygamy is accepted in societies where the women already have reduced rights, and not accepted in societies striving for equality for all.
Outlawing polygamy wasn't a morals issue. It was one of the first steps in the womens rights movement.
And you state that society gains nothing from conjoining people o the same sex... Why does everything have to be a societal gain? If there is no societal HARM then the action should be approved. Same-sex marriage hurts no one. Polygamy hurts the women. what don't you get?
And the ability of couples to have children is immaterial. Marriage is not about children (although it certainly benefits them). Marriage is a civil union between two people to allow them to legally share resources, just like any other contract.
I'm fully prepared to support polygamy if a decent contract can be written.
@realitycheck | 5:49 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
If I recall correctly, earlier I read an individual mention how his brother was
gay. He was married with 8-children before leaving his family. You keep saying
that since many of these pedophiles against boys are married men, they are
therefore not gay. So by your logic, since he was married with kids he must not
have been Gay until leaving his family. Does that mean he turned gay?
I am curious, are some gay men married with children, or can they turn gay later. I know of many instances where men left their families and announced being gay, so gay married men do not seem to be super rare.
I am curious, are some gay men married with children, or can they turn gay later. I know of many instances where men left their families and announced being gay, so gay married men do not seem to be super rare.
re CW 4:33pm | 5:51 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
re CW 4:33pm
do you actually believe what you just wrote? that if the lawful wife said no then the subject would be over?
you don't think the man would just leave the lawful wife and take on the new wife? And what would be the rights of the old wife versus the new wife if she accepted the new arrangement? would all properties become joint, or would the old wife get to retain those items aquired prior to the second union?
And why is it that the ONLY people that practice polygamy consider it part of their religion? if it's such a benign practice, why are no regular people practicing it? Every polygamist seems to think it's a mandate from God. You don't think that's a little pressure to comply?
like I said before - if a decent contract (similar to the marriage contract) can be drawn up that provides safety for all participants, then I could see polygamy being acceptable. But since it's such a religious practice, and religion isn't known for caring about peoples rights. I just don't see that happening.
do you actually believe what you just wrote? that if the lawful wife said no then the subject would be over?
you don't think the man would just leave the lawful wife and take on the new wife? And what would be the rights of the old wife versus the new wife if she accepted the new arrangement? would all properties become joint, or would the old wife get to retain those items aquired prior to the second union?
And why is it that the ONLY people that practice polygamy consider it part of their religion? if it's such a benign practice, why are no regular people practicing it? Every polygamist seems to think it's a mandate from God. You don't think that's a little pressure to comply?
like I said before - if a decent contract (similar to the marriage contract) can be drawn up that provides safety for all participants, then I could see polygamy being acceptable. But since it's such a religious practice, and religion isn't known for caring about peoples rights. I just don't see that happening.
realitycheck | 5:57 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
re 5:49pm
I have absolutely no idea. I'm merely saying that most pedophiles are not gay (or if they are, they will never admit it.)
I am not gay nor a pedophile, so I'm the last person you should ask...
The same-sex marriage issue has to do with two consenting adults that want to form a union. It really has nothing to do with perverts. People just like to throw that in to muddy the waters.
I really don't think the pedophiles (whether gay or not) are going to request a same-sex marriage.
I have absolutely no idea. I'm merely saying that most pedophiles are not gay (or if they are, they will never admit it.)
I am not gay nor a pedophile, so I'm the last person you should ask...
The same-sex marriage issue has to do with two consenting adults that want to form a union. It really has nothing to do with perverts. People just like to throw that in to muddy the waters.
I really don't think the pedophiles (whether gay or not) are going to request a same-sex marriage.
Linguist | 6:02 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
G wrote, "That being said, since society gains nothing from adding wives to
a marriage or from conjoining people of the same sex, neither type should be
legally approved of by the government."
With respect, I don't believe that society "gains nothing" from treating its citizens fairly.
Heterosexuals form committed relationships, and it's in society's interest to foster the stability that comes from such relationships as well as for the clarity that it provides in the law.
My partner and I have also formed a committed relationship. It's in society's interest to foster that stability as well. We share a mortgage, a house, a home, a life. But, despite wills and other legal documents, we remain complete legal strangers to one another. Any of our documents could be contested in court. Any "legal" family member would at least stand a chance of contesting our relationship and our wishes in court. Often, family members win over gay partners on technicalities or biases in court.
That's certainly bad for us. And that makes it bad for society and its justice system.
And it eats away at the very basic right to equal protection under the law. And that is bad for everyone.
With respect, I don't believe that society "gains nothing" from treating its citizens fairly.
Heterosexuals form committed relationships, and it's in society's interest to foster the stability that comes from such relationships as well as for the clarity that it provides in the law.
My partner and I have also formed a committed relationship. It's in society's interest to foster that stability as well. We share a mortgage, a house, a home, a life. But, despite wills and other legal documents, we remain complete legal strangers to one another. Any of our documents could be contested in court. Any "legal" family member would at least stand a chance of contesting our relationship and our wishes in court. Often, family members win over gay partners on technicalities or biases in court.
That's certainly bad for us. And that makes it bad for society and its justice system.
And it eats away at the very basic right to equal protection under the law. And that is bad for everyone.
Linguist | 6:30 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
realitycheck wrote, "...Why does everything have to be a societal gain? If
there is no societal HARM then the action should be approved. Same-sex marriage
hurts no one."
While I agree, I would point out that denying same-sex couple marriage does do harm, both to those couples who are effected directly, but also, in a more indirect way, to others.
It sends a very real and very harmful message to its gay citizens, especially to those who are young and trying to come to grips with the realization that they, through no fault or decision on their part, belong to a group that society views as "other" and as outside the pale.
I know. I was one of those young people struggling, trying to come to grips with the reality that I was never going to fit in, never going to marry or be accepted.
That was the wrong message to send to me then. It was worse than hurtful, and it almost did me in. Fortunately, I found enough inner strength (and faith) and, eventually, love and support, to overcome the harm that the societal stigma against innocent gay people does to them and to their loved ones.
While I agree, I would point out that denying same-sex couple marriage does do harm, both to those couples who are effected directly, but also, in a more indirect way, to others.
It sends a very real and very harmful message to its gay citizens, especially to those who are young and trying to come to grips with the realization that they, through no fault or decision on their part, belong to a group that society views as "other" and as outside the pale.
I know. I was one of those young people struggling, trying to come to grips with the reality that I was never going to fit in, never going to marry or be accepted.
That was the wrong message to send to me then. It was worse than hurtful, and it almost did me in. Fortunately, I found enough inner strength (and faith) and, eventually, love and support, to overcome the harm that the societal stigma against innocent gay people does to them and to their loved ones.
Anon | 6:59 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
So, men should be prohibited from fathering more than one child? The logic of
the letter-writer assures us this is so.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Sp. Fork man arrested in thefts 4:17 p.m.
- Nurse charged with abuse of teens 4:15 p.m.
- Downtown plans three-day ""Eve"" 3:44 p.m.
- Small-business conditions improve 3:41 p.m.
- Pair arrested in Provo burglary 3:36 p.m.
- Summit Co. appoints first manager 3:24 p.m.
- Man sentenced to 7 years in death 3:21 p.m.
- Senate Dems at odds over insurance 3:20 p.m.
- U.S.: $3B to end tribe royalty dispute 3:09 p.m.
- Police seek missing WVC woman 3:06 p.m.
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall
- Yet again, we learn BCS is a big joke
- Witness: Mitchell stalked victims
- Williams' late jumper tops Spurs
- Storm pounds Utah for 2nd day
- Cougars in better mood about bowl
- Ranking the bowl games
- $2M error could mean layoffs
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax
- BCS reform still needed
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
274 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl203
- Letters: Global warming a lie199
- Cougars going back to Vegas147
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall144
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil141
- George lost in rivalry hatefest119
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony101
- Harpring's NBA career is over98
- Revive full food tax?86
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
Wrong about freon causing holes in the ozone? Where do we get these morons?...
Thanks to the U.N. for providing this "global warming" information....
It's a sad day when we are all judging a book by its cover. It's truly a...
Dub J! Hit your free throws and beat 3 straight!
How many of these people arrived at the conference on a private jet or in a...
I don't see how a .500, 2-2 record in the Vegas Bowl constitutes almost...
again you guys forget cj has been out 2 months and Matthews may not even be...
Yes, free market is the answer for most people. Especially those with...
You know this whole anti-global warming effort must be valid. After all if...
It's not just air temperatures, but land and ocean temperatures that have...
Advertisements