Quantcast

Comments about ‘A day later, same-sex marriage advocates make a 5-year prediction’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, June 27 2013 5:55 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
plainbrownwrapper
Nashville, TN

@RedShirt --

"it does not say that polygamy is bad."

Judge Bauman specifically stated: "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

Keep trying, Red.

"According to National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center, up to 45% of lesbians are abused by their partners."

PARTNERS. That can mean opposite-sex partners as well as same-sex.

From their paper "Violence in Lesbian and Gay Relationships":
-- "In a study asking about whether a same-sex relationships had suffered from physical abuse, 7% of 706 lesbian couples and 11% of 560 gay men couples indicated physical abuse had occurred."
-- "Sexual abuse by a woman partner was reported by 1% of lesbians, but 20% of lesbians indicated having been sexually abused by a male partner. "
-- "Design flaws in many studies also may exaggerate prevalence rates, e.g., when asking lesbians about abuse in previous relationships, some fail to distinguish between same- sex violence and previous violence by a male partner."

Please try not to misrepresent the facts, Red.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "amazondoc" that is in the FLDS culture. Again, outside of the FLDS culture, you don't have the child bride issue or the hyper male dominance problems so the abuse, violence, and neglect problems don't exist.

Justice Bauman doesn't know much about polygamy or people that have lived in it. His comments, like yours, show that you only know the FLDS and similar sects use of polygamy.

Read Psychology Today's article "The paradox of polygamy II: Why most women benefit from polygamy and most men benefit from monogamy" There are also many other first person histories written about women in polygamy, and they report non of the problems that the judge claims.

The biggest question is this. With nearly 50% of gay relationships experiencing violence and abuse, why were those legalized when the violence rate is less in plural marriages?

plainbrownwrapper
Nashville, TN

@RedShirt --

"outside of the FLDS culture..."

Sorry, Red, but your personal beliefs are not what matter in Constitutional issues. Facts, expertise, and law are the things that matter.

Supreme Court justices -- whether American or Canadian -- do a heckuva lot of legal and factual research on these issues before they make their court decisions. If you disagree with them, take it up in court.

"With nearly 50% of gay relationships experiencing violence and abuse"

This simply isn't true, Red, as I've already shown you in a very recent post. Please stop misrepresenting the facts.

Oh, I did manage to find one paper, nearly 20 years old, that claimed a 47% "victimization" rate for lesbian couples. Of course, they counted PUSHING as "victimization", so it's no wonder they found such a huge percentage.

Facts, Red. Let's try for FACTS -- not hype.

jeanie
orem, UT

Contrarius, my friend -

You are basing your opinion about polygamy on fringe groups and legal cases involving them, something you bristle at when it comes to the gay issue.

Where I live there are many thousands of decendants from polygamists who are contributing citizens to our society, my husband and I being among them. You are showing your ignorance to assume polygamy is inherently dangerous when there are many written histories that prove otherwise and healthy, functioning decendants as evidence. Polygamy has a history upon which to base decisions, gay marriage does not.

I do not condone polygamy. I bring it up as the next natural step in defining marriage if we continue this course. If it's not about gender, then why should it be about a specific number?

If two loving parents are good for kids wouldn't three or four loving parents be better? Why humiliate the children who currently live in a polygamist home? There are thousands. Why punish them for what you see as the shortcomings of their parents? What have they done to deserve that? Marriage equality for all, or does your line get drawn just after your issue is deemed acceptable?

Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ

@plainbrownwrapper
@RedShirt

I agree with both of you to a certain degree. Let the facts and studies be reflected accurately and without bias on either side. That said, the several points that RedShirt is arguing, while important, are not the foundation for the disagreement. Rather, these studies and their resultant conclusions are ancillary to the real issue, which is that same-sex marriage proponents want society to validate their actions, choices and feelings by allowing SS marriage to stand on equal footing with traditional marriage.

Let me put it this way: I don't pay my tithing because I get a tax break. I pay my tithing because God commanded it. Similarly, I did not marry so I could check the "MFJ" box on my taxes. I got married because God commanded it. If SS couples want tax breaks, fine. The LDS church has always been in favor of benefits for committed same-sex partnerships. But please don't expect me to condone your actions on a moral or religious level, and certainly don't ask me to view your marriage in the same way as mine.

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

plainbrownwrapper
Nashville, TN

@jeanie --

Hiya, Jeanie. :-)

"fringe groups and legal cases involving them..."

Nope.

Read Bauman's statement again. He's the Chief Justice of British Columbia's Supreme Court. As he specifically found, polygamy's harms occur regardless of religion or cultural group.

"Where I live there are many thousands of decendants from polygamists...."

I have no personal animosity towards polygamists or their descendants. I knew quite a few descendants of polygamists when I lived in SLC. Fine folk.

I have *only* been setting down the societal and legal reasons that explain why polygamy is not bound to homosexuality in these constitutional debates -- not condemning the people who have practiced or continue to practice polygamy.

"Polygamy has a history upon which to base decisions"

Right -- and that history clearly demonstrates those dangers, as elucidated by Bauman and others.

Remember, polygamy has been practiced by many religions and cultures -- and it is **never** found in truly egalitarian societies. That tells you something very important.

"does your line get drawn just after your issue is deemed acceptable?"

The line gets drawn at the point of public safety -- significant risk of harm to others. And polygamy is on the wrong side of that line.

steeleute
Sandy, UT

Gay marriage is not good for children. It is wrong for adopted children to be forced to have two mothers and two fathers. A child nurtured by a MOTHER and a FATHER is the best situation for a child to be raised.

steeleute
Sandy, UT

It's sad what our country has come to. Thank goodness the founding fathers aren't around to see this day. Whether you're a gay supporter or not just mark my words: This country will not prosper as our morals decline. I don't want arguments I just want people to OBSERVE how un-prosperous our nation will become.

ParkCityAggie
Park City, Ut

I love reading the weak arguments against allow two consenting adults who love each other from being married, all antiquated and non-sequitur arguments akin to moral superiority and ignorance I might add. So here is an idea for those bent out of shape with the recent rulings, work on strengthening your marriages (if you are married) work on that, and mind your own business. Don't worry about what others are doing, if you have strong moral objections to various social issues, live your life as an example of those strong moral leanings, and don’t go wagging and pointing your finger at others.

Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ

@ParkCityAggie

Whoever said we're worried about what other people are doing? This isn't about same-sex acts that occur in the privacy of one's home, this is about defining marriage for our society. This is about setting the precedent that society must recognize SS marriage as a legal AND moral equivalent to traditional marriage. Prop 22 and Prop 8 were never designed to criminalize same-sex acts. Any two consenting adults may do as they please in the privacy of their own home.

When I hear comments like yours, it makes me think back to the several times I've been called a bigot. You know what the definition is? A person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. Take a second to read that, then read your last post.

"Equality" in our nation comes in 2 forms -- legal and social. You can mandate one but not the other. If it's legal rights you want, I'm all for it. But you cannot legislate social acceptance of one's behaviors (religious or otherwise), and you cannot deny my right to free speech simply because it is inconsistent with your views on same-sex marriage.

jeanie
orem, UT

Hi Contrarius -

The opinion of a Supreme Court judge in British Columbia does not counter the overwhelming evidence that polygamy itself is not problematic to society. How it is practiced - like any union, gay, straight or polygamist - can create significant harm to others. The descendants of polygamists in Utah have demonstrated that polygamy can be lived successfully and produce healthy, happy, successful citizens - as you are aware.

If gay marriage is ok, then polygamy should be too as long as it is between consenting adults, as required by any marriage.

Since I have no other screen name this is all I have to say.....here. :)

plainbrownwrapper
Nashville, TN

@jeanie --

"overwhelming evidence that polygamy itself is not problematic to society."

I dispute that there actually *is* overwhelming evidence to that effect -- and Bauman found what he considered "overwhelming" evidence to the contrary.

The simple fact that we constantly hear about the mistreatment of both women and children in polygamous societies -- both in the US and around the globe -- would strongly speak against your supposed evidence.

"polygamy should be too as long as it is between consenting adults, as required by any marriage."

But all you have offered is personal opinion -- and personal opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight in a court of law.

In a perfectly egalitarian society, I myself wouldn't have any moral objection to polygamy. Unfortunately, humanity has never (yet) created a truly egalitarian culture -- at least not to any large scale or long-lasting effect -- and in our current unbalanced systems, polygamy just presents too many risks to those women and children (both according to MHO and according to the facts and legalities found by Bauman and others).

Maybe in the future, when women are actually treated as true equals, we can give both polygyny and polyandry another shot. :-)

Wingnut1
USA, UT

When someone asks why you have to take history class, the teacher always says because we have to learn from history, or we will repeat it. Correct? For those who believe in the bible, Sodom and Gomorrah embraced homosexuality, and they were destroyed. Now for those who don't believe in the bible, Rome embraced homosexuality, and their society fell apart. Greece embraced homosexuality, and their society fell apart. Now America.... Just fill in the blanks :) I can tolerate someone who is homosexual, but I cannot tolerate homosexuality. I should not be asked to tolerate something that will destroy my freedom of Religion which was the right that our country was founded upon.

jeanie
orem, UT

Contrarius - You are talking about polygamy the same way gays were talked about not too long ago. It will only be a matter of time (and a good PR machine) for other combinations to win their "civil rights".

Just to be clear, I support marriage between only one man and one woman - unequivocally. But if society is willing to change the definition for one minority, why should it prohibit another?

I guess I had one comment left!

zoar63
Mesa, AZ

FDRfan

Advocates for same-sex marriage predicted Thursday that in five years, "we will bring marriage equality to all 50 of our states."

I predict we will see a more serious secession movement than ever before. The Federal Government is becoming more tyrannical than the King of England ever was.

The rhetoric we are having today mirrors what was taking place in 1861. The only difference is the subject being contended. Once again States and the Federal government are arrayed against each other In the past Blue VS Gray today Blue VS Red

DN Subscriber 2
SLC, UT

I predict that in five years the left will have succeeded in tearing down much of the remaining, weakened, moral fiber of our society.

They will continue to mock, belittle, and attack religion and traditional moral values, destroying as much as they can.

It will be a more dangerous country to live in, for many reasons.

But, on the marriage front, why NOT have more than one truly loved spouse, of any gender, or species for that matter. Why all the hatred for people who love their pet cats and dogs? Why deprive them of the right to visit, and inherit property, etc?

zoar63
Mesa, AZ

Polygamy in the United States still exists and has for over a hundred years notwithstanding all the anti-polygamy laws that the government has passed. The men still have multiple wives some of them minors yet the government just seems to look the other way in all but the most extreme cases. If same sex marriage is now legal in some states why should multiple Consenting Legal age individuals be denied those same rights? Now that the court has ruled, this will not go away. Heterosexual marriage made it an open and closed case. Now things have changed. When all the states legalize same-sex marriage, expect the anti polygamy laws to be overturned

Contrariusest
Nashville, TN

@zoar --

" Now things have changed. When all the states legalize same-sex marriage, expect the anti polygamy laws to be overturned"

Canada has already proven that the issues aren't inextricably linked together. Remember, they've had gay marriage for years.

Several other countries also have gay marriage without polygamy.

"why should multiple Consenting Legal age individuals be denied those same rights?"

Same reasons as always. Significant risks to women and children.

From Chief Justice Bauman's decision:

-- "The prevention of [the] collective harms associated with polygamy to women and children, especially, is clearly an objective that is pressing and substantial,"

-- "Women in polygamous relationships are at an elevated risk of physical and psychological harm. They face higher rates of domestic violence and abuse, including sexual abuse" .

-- "Children from those marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems."

-- "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

Wonder
Provo, UT

It's always amusing to me when good Latter Day Saints argue against gay marriage by exclaiming (gasp!) that the next horrible thing will be that POLYGAMY will be legal!! Just a bit of denial of history there I believe.

Rikitikitavi
Cardston, Alberta

you can try all kinds of verbal dance moves you choose. The plain truth remains: sodomy is still sin!!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments