Traditional Sow

By donar | Related entries in News

After listening to conservative religious leaders talk about preserving the 5000 years of traditional marriage between a man and a woman on NPR last week, I just had to laugh at the notion that marriage was a true reflection of family values and love.  For the most part, marriages were arranged and women were considered property to be bartered like animals or land.  Traditional Marriage link…

Marriage as we know it today is a partnership based on love and trust…or so we would like to believe. So why is it hard for some people to understand that contemporary marriage cannot extend itself to same sex couples?  Just 40 years ago we had segregated bathrooms.  There’s no doubt we have a long way to go as a society to push for equal rights for all members of the human race, I just want to set the record straight on how far we have come since the days of arranged marriages and the feudal system that in some degree still exists today.


This entry was posted on Friday, May 29th, 2009 and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

32 Responses to “Traditional Sow”

  1. kranky kritter Says:

    True, but probably a waste of pixels for the most part. At least if your goal is persuasion.

    At this point, my sense is that most of the rest of the cultural change in attitudes towards gay marriage will not come about due to persuasion, but by generational replacement.

    Every time you hear a bell ring, a homophobe dies and is replaced by a child destined to adopt the more open-minded attitudes of his or her generation.

  2. the Word Says:

    kranky thanks for the laugh on a busy day. I believe you may be quoted on this one.

    Every time you hear a bell ring, a homophobe dies

  3. Aaron Says:

    If you’re going to quote kranky, give the full quote. :P Its a good one.

  4. Tully Says:

    I would point out that celebrating the deaths of those who think differently than you do is hardly a hallmark of “more open-minded attitudes.” And that many anti-SS-marriage people aren’t homophobes–unless you accept the activists’ definition that anyone who disagrees with one jot and/or tittle of the activists’ dogmatic and doctrinal orthodoxy is automatically a homophobe.

    Marriage didn’t come to be so much about love until women were emancipated. The more emancipated they became, the more love was a prime factor rather than a secondary one. Only the poor married for love. Marriage was for the most part all about the propagation and preservation of genetic bloodlines and consolidated power. (Which for obvious reasons makes a poor argument against same-sex marriage.) And about the church’s control of sex and procreation as a tool to grow the church. And….

    I prefer to frame it another way. People WILL have sex, married or no. That includes gays. If you’re against gay marriage, then you must perforce favor non-marital sex. No? ;-)

  5. the Word Says:

    Tully-

    It was a joke. I am sure that Kranky didn’t mean it as a threat.

  6. Tully Says:

    Why, of course it was a joke. So are ethnic jokes. That doesn’t make them any less obnoxious. Or is it OK when the right people do it?

    I’ve heard this particular “joke” quite a bit from gay activists recently in the wake of Prop 8, only they weren’t joking in the least–they were grimly happy at the idea of their opponents dying, and celebrated the very idea. Nor did they limit their desire to see the “homophobes” and “hatemongers” (meaning ANYONE who did not agree with their orthodoxy 100%, literally every jot and tittle) die soon, they desired it to happen in painfully gruesome fashion.

    And if you didn’t agree with them 100% in every doctrinal dogmatic particular, even if you yourself (as I do) support letting same-sex couples suffer matrimonially along with the rest of us, then you too are a hatemonger and homophobe.

    Seriously. Recently. Pointing out that calling people hatemongers while yourself espousing vicious hatreds of The Other was somewhat contradictory was lost in that venue. As Glenn Reynolds said the other day, the drop in support for gay marriage in the polls recently probably has a lot more to do with the nasty public face of gay activism than with any real proselytizing success on the part of the anti-SS-marriage folks.

  7. the Word Says:

    Jot and tittle.

    Give me a break. Most of these anti marriage people subscribe to a religion that worships a God who is supposed to torture gays (and all others who don’t agree with their beliefs) for all eternity. No irony there at all for you I am sure.

    Were they really pro marriage it would be against the law for fundamentalist Christians to marry since they have the highest divorce rates in the US. No one on the other side has tried to stop them though since they would find it offensive to tell others how they have to live their lives. It’s antiAmerican.

    Kranky was in no way (I’ll take the stand that I know what he meant here) saying that he wanted people to die. I will say that it will be a better world when all homophobes are gone, just as it would if all racists were gone. I don’t think we will ever see that day though.

    My guess is that if a group organized against Tully’s (when Tully’s behavior would not affect them personally in any way) and kept you from having the same rights as others you might say some hyperbolic things in anger. The problem is that one side isn’t happy living their lives so they try to force others into compliance. As W once said, they hate freedom. (I think that might have been about terrorists though )

  8. kranky kritter Says:

    I’m not happy to see anyone die, but I AM happy to celebrate the death of the mean-spirited exclusionary attitude which wants homosexuals kept outside the circle of mainstream American existence. Life’s too short. That’s MY mileage.

    But I’m not interested in parsing what homophobia is or isn’t. For me, it’s close enough shorthand to describe those who oppose full civl rights for homosexuals. especially if you agree with the notion that separate is inherently unequal.

    One can always score a cheap rhetorical point about tolerance by calling out folks for being intolerant of the intolerant. But for me, that’s a point where reason breaks down. In other words, it’s probably ok to hate hate and to be intolerant of intolerance. To some extent, anyway. Also MY mileage.

    But I do see Tully’s point in the context he describes. The kind of grim satisfaction he mentions is a bit unseemly, and unchristian. Or to be more inclusive, contra to judeo-christian ideals of compassion. I have compassion for intolerant people. Especially when, as is often the case, it really isn’t that they don’t get it. Instead, it’s that they can’t get it. WWJD?

    It is enormously difficult for people to overcome deeply-ingrained static patterns of value. Such things change generationally.

    So I’ll amend the rubric. Every time a bell rings, a homophobe gets his wings. Because it’s Jesus’s heaven, where all are welcome. Wings? Worthy of celebration. That the replacement is an improvement? More good news to me.

  9. kranky kritter Says:

    Oh c’mon word. At least give usage points for jot and tittle. :-)

  10. Simon Says:

    Unless you can show that daughters were given to women or sons to men, this post is a red herring to the extent it’s anything more than snark. It says nothing to the issues actually involved.

  11. Commoner Says:

    I believe Simon is right in that this post is heavy on the snark, light on the substance. Although I view gay marriage as a perfectly legitimate enterprise, I can appreciate that there is an argument to be made by those who would say that the words “gay” and “marriage” do not belong together (I completely disagree and suspect that those people just detest homosexuality based on either religious or homophobic lines), but I can see where there can be an argument. This post seems to just lampoon that there even could be an argument.

    The big issue is that the overwhelming majority of states in this country do not even extend civil union rights to gay couples. There is no ambiguity or nuance in this situation — not extending the same legal rights to gay couples is flat-out discrimination — no different than the past denials of equal rights that we have thankfully overcome. And for those who would go out of their way to deny a particular group equal rights based on their personal biases, then good riddance when the bell rings for them, the world is a better place without them; and hopefully kranky is right that they would be replaced by someone more open-minded, or at the least less consumed by the hatred it requires to actively work against innocent people achieving equal rights.

  12. rachel Says:

    It does say one thing to the issues involved: that the nature and customs of marriage are not immutable.

  13. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    Just 40 years ago we had segregated bathrooms. There’s no doubt we have a long way to go as a society to push for equal rights for all members of the human race

    Donar, who are you kidding? Bathrooms are still segregated. They are segregated based on gender; just like marriage.

    Traditional marraige 5000 years ago was more like one man and multiple women, all aranged by the parents. Should we recognize those marraiges today as well? When are you going to grant equal rights to Muslim or Mormon Americans Donar? Wat are you, a bigot?

  14. Tully Says:

    Traditional marraige 5000 years ago was more like one man and multiple women, all aranged by the parents.

    And by capture and conquest. Yes, we are quite thankful that marriage customs are not immutable. Well, most of us are. Those who appreciate the study of history, anyway.

    Apologetics for hatemongering behavior massively fails to impress me, Word. It’s still blatant hypocrisy. “Death to the Heretic!” is despicable in a pluralistic society regardless of one’s side. Especially when the basis is pretty much “thought crimes.”

    Most of these anti marriage people subscribe to a religion that worships a God who is supposed to torture gays (and all others who don’t agree with their beliefs) for all eternity. No irony there at all for you I am sure.

    Not true, and I would defy you to quantify that with any competent and credible research. It also straw-mans the fundamentalist beliefs of the most radical of the anti’s into being the beliefs of ALL anti’s, just as the Pro-SS crowd straw-mans their own heretics into being hatemongers and homophobes. It’s about as true as saying that ALL Catholics want all women who have had abortions to burn in Hell. One can search the New Testament and find almost nothing about gays, and search the Gospels and find ZILCH, and very few modern Xians subscribe to the tender behavioral penalties demanded by, say, Leviticus.

    One could just as well say that ALL pro-SS-marriage people want ALL anti’s to die in gruesome painful fashion. Which is also not true. The extremes do not really represent the bulk of even their own sides in that regard. But the extremes are quite happy to demonize the Other in their dogmatic squawking, even when the Other is otherwise substantively on their side. And in doing so, they work actively against their own causes by alienating the undecided and/or wavering, and demotivating their own heretics. The polling on Prop 8 shows clearly the decline in support as the pro-SS folks got rolling with their demonization of the other side, and I’ve seen it happen previously up close and personal in states with DOMA’s on the ballot.

    As I said, activists are so often their own worst enemies. Had the anti-8 people managed to get the most rabid and vicious of the pro-8 people in the public eye and keep them there, they likely would have won the vote. Instead it happened the other way around, and they lost. As it stands now they have already won all the substance they wanted under California law, leaving the pro-8 people with just their cherished label. So the solution is, of course, to continue waging war to get the label, one they would eventually get anyway without doing a damn thing but letting societal evolution take its course, as it has in Vermont and Maine.

  15. the Word Says:

    Tully-
    If you are not familiar with the concepts of purgatory and hell, I am sorry to have taken your virginity. My neighbor who is the son, grandson and nephew of ministers told me I was similarly wrong so I wrote the head of their church (Methodists – not the Southern variety) and they informed me that there is only one way…. or the highway to hell. He’s not arrogant, many Christians aren’t but that is the actual motto of Christianity. The head guy said it himself. No need to make it up. Many Christians may not swallow everything but they do use the book to support their bigotry which does seem counter to your argument. Not ALL anyone of any group believes ALL anything from that group. Of course not. but then if they take what they want and disregard that which they don’t want to accept, what is the point of calling yourself a Christian. I can find many things in many religions to admire but I am an atheist. The only difference is the dishonesty of feeling morally superior to everyone else on the planet who arrived at what made sense to them from their search for the truth.

    That said, I think you would be disingenuous to claim that the Christian community were not prime movers in the anti marriage debate however.

    As to Catholic belief, hard to say what excommunication actually means in reality. Whether or not one “wants” something to happen is really irrelevant if they actually believe what they profess to believe. (e.g. You are actually a cannibal or you don’t believe a central tenet of the faith and what you say you believe. Hard to find middle ground there in the real world either)

    At the end of the day, a group with beliefs is trying to force them on everyone else including people who have not joined their club. I think that is always wrong. Legitimate arguments are based on facts. There seems to be no evidence that gay marriage is harmful to marriage since there are more divorces in the states without it and more divorces by the very group most adamantly against it. Some see that as small minded bigotry. Give me a coherent argument better than I or my God doesn’t like it and I will listen.

  16. Simon Says:

    The word says:

    At the end of the day, a group with beliefs is trying to force them on everyone else including people who have not joined their club. I think that is always wrong.

    I didn’t realize you were against gay marriage, a change that a group with beliefs is trying to force … on everyone else….”

  17. Simon Says:

    The word says:

    At the end of the day, a group with beliefs is trying to force them on everyone else including people who have not joined their club. I think that is always wrong.

    I didn’t realize you were against gay marriage, a change that “a group with beliefs is trying to force … on everyone else….”

  18. the Word Says:

    Nice try Simon.

    No one is trying to force anyone into a gay marriage. Were you trying to be obtuse, clever or just totally missing the point?

    Only one side tries to force others into changing THEIR behavior totally because of their beliefs. Until you can find liberal groups trying to tell people on the right what they can legally do by say closing churches, forcing suffering on those at the end of their lives, forcing teenagers to have sex, telling someone that a blastocyst has more rights to existence than someone alive has a right to hope for a cure, ending marriage between fundamentalists, determining what religious people can drink or ingest or when they can do such things even when legal etc etc. (Imagine making communions illegal for instance) Then you would have a point.

    The part that is offensive is that the base of the GOP tries to enforce their beliefs on behavior that does not directly affect their lives at all. Schiavo is the logical extension to all of the moralists out there who think they have a God given right to decide for others how to live their lives (even when they often fail miserably to live their own) Again, base it on facts. I’d oppose any rule by anyone that wasn’t logically constructed.

  19. Chris Says:

    Also Simon, this isn’t about forcing someone to change their beliefs about whether gay marriage is morally right, it’s about the constitutional right of everyone to be treated the same under the law.

    Also, a subject I’ve wanted to bring up is that I think this is all about sex. Gay sex. I think that’s the heart of the issue, and why so many people are opposed to gay marriage. America is obsessed with sex. You can see this with the allegories people draw saying that What’s next, people marrying animals? What’s implied with that statement is that people then will be having sex with animals. Which of course is completely different, since the animal can never give consent.

  20. Simon Says:

    The Word, the bottom line is that there’s a group – you’re part of it, I fancy – trying to force a change in the nature of the institution of marriage on an unconsenting society. When that society fights back, you brand them bigots and people like Chris jump up and down, theorizing that all this is irrelevant because the issue was actually already settled in 1868 by passage of the 14th amendment, even though no one believed it did any such thing until the last fifteen years or so. The equal protection theory is a hook – it comes after the need to find something to hang one’s hat on. Your side is trying to impose a change on society, by force in most instances. Whether that change is for good or ill I do not say, but to pretend you’re not doing what you’re doing in plain sight is childish and silly.

  21. Tully Says:

    Chris, everyone IS treated the same under the law. Gays want a new right that has not previously existed. I’m in favor of that right, but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize that it calls for the creation of a new right, that the “equal rights” argument is IMHO a hollow rhetorical device, not an accurate representation of the law as is, however anxious some judge are to use it as a hook to hang their opinions on. IMHO the path to achieving that new right is through the legislative process, not through judicial activism that undermines the foundations of the law, however good the intentions.

    And yes, tWord, saying that Vermont and Maine were doing it right and that in-your-face viciousness and judicial activism was strategically counterproductive (a demonstrable fact, both from objective research and from my own decade of experience trying to keep a DOMA off of my state ballot) got me called a hatemonger and a bigot and a homophobe by gay activists, simply for dissenting from their doctrinaire dogmatic GroupThink. Disagree in any particular, and you automatically become a heretic, even more loathsome than an actual opponent.

    Now, what I find grossly offensive is that you are conflating all of Xianity with a subset of same. News flash to bust out YOUR viriginity: A large part of the “Xian community” is quite liberal and actively on the “pro” side, and has been for years. I can name half a dozen or more Xian churches and church alliances off the top of my head that allow same-sex unions, including the US Episcopalian church, the Alliance of Baptists, the Church of Scotland, and so on.

    Yet you ignore the huge diversity of opinion, doctrine, and behavior in Xianity to lump all Xians together as “THE Xian community” and disparage that mythically monolithic “Xian community” as “subscrib(ing) to a religion that worships a God who is supposed to torture gays (and all others who don’t agree with their beliefs) for all eternity.”

    Sorry, hatemongering and bigotry runs both ways, and you openly committed it. Just as the pro side is not remotely accurately represented the screeching idiots of the activist crowd, the anti side is also not accurately represented by the obvious noisy targets.

    And no, I don’t call myself a Xian. I’m an agnostic.

  22. michael reynolds Says:

    A “new” right. Similar to the “new” right of black people to vote. Which they “forced” on an unwilling society.

    I prefer to do it in legislatures because it will cause less problem in the long run. But right now gay men and women have a right to marry that is being actively denied to them by government. Government is forcing them to accept second-class status, a status that has no basis in reason. Just as black Americans had an inherent right to all the privileges and responsibilities of white citizens.

    We do after all hold that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with rights, not granted rights by government. So why should two men of legal age not be entitled to form a civil contract of marriage?

    The “force” is that of some groups of citizen who wish to continue imposing second-class status on certain of their fellow Americans.

  23. the Word Says:

    Chris wrote in what I think sums up my thinking
    This isn’t about forcing someone to change their beliefs about whether gay marriage is morally right, it’s about the constitutional right of everyone to be treated the same under the law.

    Then Simon wrote
    The bottom line is that there’s a group – you’re part of it, I fancy – trying to force a change in the nature of the institution of marriage on an unconsenting society.

    Some of society doesn’t consent some do. As someone who has been married to the same woman for 23 years, my marriage is not threatened in the least by allowing others to have the same legal remedies as I have. I would think that would fit the definition of tolerance. People who are intolerant are called bigots. It’s the English language you have an argument with. They could be intolerant because they are enlightened or because they are ignorant. I didn’t make any pronouncement either way, but they are clearly intolerant of gays right to marry.

    you then said
    people like Chris jump up and down, theorizing that all this is irrelevant because the issue was actually already settled in 1868 by passage of the 14th amendment…

    Sorry Simon but can’t agree with you here either. The law as written says you can not deny equal protection under the law. It has been used to say that laws where they do not provide equal protection are unconstitutional. I would say that discriminatory laws were never in compliance with the law (or the spirit of the law) You would likely say that you can read into them that they only apply to black civil rights (which is not what they expressly say) Applying what you prefer to think it says seems to be a rather activist view of the law. If the 14th were written just for blacks it was poorly written but I would think to be consistent you would say it is not for the court to take an activist stand but rather apply what was written. I’m guessing that you have an out there too but equal seems pretty clear to me. Is there equal protection under the law now? I’d say no—and you?

    Your side is trying to impose a change on society, by force in most instances.

    How is it by force? People are petitioning their representatives to follow the law. They are in some cases asking that they write a new law since the existing Constitution is being ignored. If you want to take the state completely out of the marriage business, I would say I have no major issue with that. You just have to treat everyone the same.

    Then Tully wrote
    Chris, everyone IS treated the same under the law.

    That is not a tenable argument IMO. You could say that marriage rights in general are special rights. Perhaps the State should not have any say in marriage but instead should define partnerships for legal rights. Perhaps, those people who have been divorced should be regarded as not respecting the sanctity of marriage and should be forced to reimburse society for all of the benefits they received in a marriage that they did not honor. Check in with Newt, McCain and Limbaugh on that one and let me know what they think. After all, they are affecting my marriage by taking their oaths so lightly aren’t they?

    He then said
    Gays want a new right that has not previously existed.

    Rights always exist. They are often not recognized by governments. That is why they are rights. Many rights did not previously exist in our history but when the courts reviewed the Constitution they came to the conclusion that the words were worthless unless in fact the rights became recognized. Women’s right to vote, end to separate but equal etc.

    Tully wrote
    I’m in favor of that right…

    For that I’d applaud you.

    So if the law stated that all people had equal protection under the law and people named Tully and Simon had not been afforded the same rights as all other citizens in the US, it would take special legislation to give you equal protection under the law? If it is judicial activism to apply the law in a logically consistent fashion I guess I am for judicial activism.

    There is plenty of viciousness on both sides of almost any debate. I think anyone who called you a homophobe was wrong. I get that there are high emotions. Doesn’t make it right and it is really a sideshow. Isn’t it a bit more understandable that tempers would be higher when one side is trying to prevent you from having a right the other has when to paraphrase Jefferson —it does me no injury for my neighbor to say “they are married or have a civil union”. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Imagine your outrage if with nothing personally at stake that would take anything from me I restricted your rights because I just didn’t like you having that right. I get it. It doesn’t excuse it but I get it.

    Tully then wrote
    Now, what I find grossly offensive is that you are conflating all of Xianity with a subset of same

    You are totally misconstruing my point
    I get that there are many thoughtful Christians and many who support gay rights. The fact remains. I know of no Christian church that does not believe in hell or that at the very least that heaven is for Christians…. no others need apply. If that is not at it’s core the very thing you are arguing against, (extremist and exclusionary) I don’t know what you are thinking. Again I know some people don’t believe what they say they do but that is church policy for every Christian church I am aware of.

    You closed with
    And no, I don’t call myself a Xian. I’m an agnostic.

    Ask the head of any Christian friends church what happens to you in their churches doctrine for all eternity if you die an agnostic and then get back to me. You choose to be offended with people in the real world who use hyperbole (which I think almost every living being is guilty of) and give a pass to a belief system that says everyone who doesn’t toe their line is condemned to hell for all eternity. Which is it that seems less understandable? Or divisive? Dividing the world into the saved and unsaved makes it pretty clear to me. Perhaps you know thoughtful Christians who think that is a ridiculous and divisive belief but they aren’t toeing the party line then. I was just stating what is.

  24. Simon Says:

    TheWord, when you argue that a constitutional provision requires a result that no one has ever thought it required since it was ratified, one of two things is true. Either you happen to be more perspicacious than generations on generations of constiutional lawyers and scholars, or you’re wrong. Bet on the latter every time. States may permit gay marriage if they like, but the federal equal protection clause does not require them to do so.

    But why am I arguing with you? You don’t seem to even comprehend the subject at issue. You repeatedly state the issue in terms that fail to recognize that this isn’t about witholding a right to marry from a particular group, but rather, making a fundamental change to the existing insitution of marriage in order to pound the proverbial square peg into a round hole.

    As to how it is force, when it is done by judicial force of will, that is by force. It is possible that some state constitutions do require same-sex marriage, so I do not suggest that any court decision so holding is sheer force, but in the mine run of cases, that is what it is. Your reply to Tully is similarly misguided; you seem to have adopted the view of equal protection suggested by Prof. Seidman, that equal protection ought to mean that government must not only treat similarly-situated people the same to the extent they are the same, but also, that it must treat differently-situated people differently to the extent that they are different. That is an attractive normative principle, but it is not the view apparent on the face of the equal protection clause, and I don’t know of any case that holds that equal protection analysis should follow that approach.

  25. the Word Says:

    Simon-
    I believe that equal protection is precisely where this will turn when it does and it will. We’ll wait and see.

  26. Simon Says:

    The Word, if you mean that the Supreme Court will decide this issue on the basis that same-sex marriage is required by the Constitution, I have said many times that I agree with that. As Justice Scalia warned in Lawrence, that case telegraphs an unmistakably clear message that they’re going to do precisely that, probably in the Olson case that Justin reported recently, either by equal protection, substantive due process, or both. Even Robert Bork agrees with that. But to describe the verbal smokescreen the court will use as camouflage for their exercise of raw judicial power and will (cf. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 222 (White, J., dissenting)) is far from saying that the analysis will be anything more substantial than a smokescreen.

  27. Ben Says:

    trying to force your beliefs onto someone else imho is a form of terrorism. Imagine if you will a group of people that force you to eat your brocolli, yes I agree it is an absurd idea. Imagine for a moment that they use guns to force you to eat brocolli, imagine they use government to do it or religion or anything. Now you may give in and eat the brocolli all the while hating it and hating those that are forcing you to eat it. Now imagine instead of brocolli it is a different religion, culture, sexuality or anything else you can think of.

    Now all of this talk about civil liberties and what not. Everyone has the same civil liberties when it comes to Marriage. You know marriage what the MORAL majority claims is a legal union of man and woman.

    I guess next people will want to get married to an animal or object or plant. Should we allow it? Is the person not in the norm as defined by the moral majority? Is the person sane? Is the person in there right mind?

    Now I am not professing hate at all only that I should have the right to eat brocolli in my home,keyword here is HOME, but I should not have the right to FORCE it down someone elses throat. Yes I should have freedom of (religion,culture,sexuality, you get the idea) but NOT the ability to cram it down someones throat. America strives for freedom not thought control ( well in theory at least – if you believe that piece of paper in the capital). America strives for equality, not oppression of those that do not think like me.

    I dont care what you wear, say, do etc as long as I have the ability to tell you to piss off and leave me alone if you bother me. It is a good thing that millions of people died for Americans to be free. I would hate to be forced to think or act a certain way because of the acts of MORAL minority terrorist that uses liberal groups in washington to do there thought control.

    In hindsight please realize that politicians vote for the moral majority and if you want to influence the politicians that make laws then contact them and advise them of what you want and how you will vote come reelection if they go agaisnt the moral majority.

    SO there is absolutely no confusion I agree with the marriage of a man and woman as it will help to continue the species

  28. the Word Says:

    Now Ben- Eat your broccoli

    Thought for you- What about couples who don’t have kids?

  29. Simon Says:

    Ben Says:

    I guess next people will want to get married to an animal or object or plant.

    No, next is that people want to marry more than one person. It’s already happening. And the difficulty is, if we decide that tradition no longer defines marriage, we have no credible defense against the polygamists’ claims. We’re left with “my morality is better than your morality,” and that won’t be enough.

  30. the Word Says:

    Your conservative friends out west have been de facto allowing this for decades Simon.

  31. Tully Says:

    No, next is that people want to marry more than one person. It’s already happening.</i.

    Yep, and I know some of them, and I have no problem with that if we’re talking about consenting ADULTS making their own arrangements.

    Our legal system may have some trouble coming up with equitable ways to deal with it, though.

  32. the Word Says:

    The consenting adults part is the hard one since it it appears that is often not the case. That and the kicking out of the competition of the young men. I’d be more comfortable with adults who chose that way of life rather than people who have been indoctrinated into it since birth but we don’t live in that perfect world. My major issue is the kids. That said, with the indoctrination issue most of them would likely say they didn’t want our protection either.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: