Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Equality debate

Comments

Return To Article
  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Nov. 24, 2013 12:56 a.m.

    Drew - A few points

    1 - Your quote is not from the U.S. Constitution, but from from the Declaration of Independence. Big difference.

    2 - The marriage equality debate is focused around the religious issue because, if the government can force churches to fund birth control, what would stop them from forcing churches to marry same-sex couples?

    3 - Many editorial writers have expressed the sentiment that true marriage equality will not take place in the U.S. until all churches perform them.

    3 -

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Nov. 24, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    I am a full supporter of marriage equality, but it makes me cringe when people mis-attribute that line to the Constitution. It's from The Declaration of Independence.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 24, 2013 9:11 a.m.

    The religious freedom angle is just another angle to play in this debate. Religion is very good at claiming victimhood, but I think we're starting to hear it more as crying wolf.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Nov. 24, 2013 9:49 a.m.

    Marriage is wholly secular in the US, there is no religious litmus test to be married and your marriage certificate originates from the State, not a Church. If the couple chooses, they may also be married within a religion but their religious ceremony is not the driving factor in determining their standing under the law.

    ClarkHippo

    Which religions have been forced to fund birth-control? Before you answer, please note that listing organizations (not churches) that are founded by people who happen to be religious are not churched and do not enjoy the same protections as a Church.

    Further, the COTUS and heaps upon heaps of case law stop the government from forcing Churches to perform SSM. Your fear of SSM in the Temple is no more rational than to think that a Lutheran couple could sue the LDS Church for discrimination and get married in our Temple. So, following your logic, only Mormons should be allowed to marry lest "others" sue for not having access to our Temple.

    Finally, just to make sure, your last point is "editorials say it, so it must be true", correct? Comparing legal arguments: fundamental right per the COTUS vs "editorial says so". Hmm.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 24, 2013 11:54 a.m.

    Since when was the Catholic Church not an establishment of religion? Since when were the hospitals and schools run by the Catholic Church not part of their establishment? Since when was the Constitution modified to allow government to tell us what constituted an "establishment of religion"?

    Lincoln believed in God, he spoke of God, he worshipped God. He did not persecute establishments of religion. He would not have allowed government to spend one penny on destroying the unborn or of preventing conception. On January 2, 1863, Lincoln wrote: "But I must add that the U.S. government must not, as by this order, undertake to run the churches. When an individual, in a church or out of it, becomes dangerous to the public interest, he must be checked; but let the churches, as such take care of themselves. It will not do for the U.S. to appoint Trustees, Supervisors, or other agents for the churches."

    Obama compared himself to Lincoln. Obama is no Lincoln.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Nov. 24, 2013 3:33 p.m.

    It isn't a debate about "marriage equality," either. It's a debate about changing the definition of marriage. If you reframe it as an equality issue, you are forced to equate and legalize all forms of marriage, including polygamy and polyamory.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Nov. 24, 2013 3:51 p.m.

    Drew, you are absolutely right in saying: "In reality, the issue orbits around the ideals espoused by our Constitution . . . "

    The correct part of the Constitution that should be referenced is the 14th Amendment, which states: " . . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Notice the similarity in wording with the Declaration of Independence.

  • ConservativeCommonTater West Valley City, UT
    Nov. 24, 2013 6:02 p.m.

    When a church or religion enters the business of business, it enters the secular world. Claiming religious exemptions for a business enterprise crosses the line.

    Government cannot dictate religious beliefs unless those beliefs and practices are in violation of state and Federal law or present a threat to the public.

    That is why Warren Jeffs was arrested, tried and jailed. His religious beliefs violated state and Federal laws.

    In Utah, Catholics cannot have their well known Bingo games because it violates Utah state law.

    Business or Church, take your pick, but you don't get both.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 24, 2013 6:44 p.m.

    Re: "In reality, the issue orbits around the ideals espoused by our Constitution that "all men are created equal . . . ."

    Well, Declaration of Independence, but, OK, the sentiment is correct.

    This issue really does orbit about the equality ideal, and the LGBT side of it is pushing making LGBT Americans -- as Orwell put it -- "more equal than others."

    LGBT already have every single legal right I do. Their activists, however, want to make up new "rights," and imbed them in law, to the detriment of those of us that espouse traditional family values. And most of us are, indeed, religious.

    LGBT activists bully and bellyache to advocate laws that produce "rights" and privileges for them that have a disparate impact on religious people. That kind of thing has been held unconstitutional by every Supreme Court that has heard such as case since the mid-50s.

    It still is.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    Nov. 24, 2013 7:06 p.m.

    The clergies need to ask themselves why they are not against all "sin" equally. Isn't shacking up just as bad? Yet we all know and work with people that live together without being married and don't have any problem socializing with them. Nobody is trying to pass laws to enforce all the cohabitation laws still on the books.

    It's just so much easier to single out small minorities isn't it?

    If we lived in a theocracy I would live by it's rules as long as it was MY religion. But this isn't a theocracy.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 24, 2013 7:40 p.m.

    Both states and churches are immunized from the national government. But because the states were limited by their borders they did not need further protection from the national government. Churches do not have borders and thus needed the extra protection. Thus the words in the First Amendment.

    It should be noted that the part of the First Amendment pertaining to religion does not give freedom of religion to individuals

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 24, 2013 7:50 p.m.

    churches and those of faith have never been immune for civil laws when they choose to enter into business outside their ecclesiastical duties. This i nothing but the last breaths of a dead debate.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Nov. 24, 2013 10:50 p.m.

    Long before there was a Declaration of Independence, or The Constitution, churches were performing marriages, as were Native Americans performing marital unions by their own label and traditions in this country. The government sought to have records of such marriages, and then regulated them and endorsed them. The churches didn't fight this invasion into their religious unions because the laws were consistent with the predominant religious beliefs. Now we see the laws diverging from those beliefs.

    Marriage should be given back to the churches. There should be no laws governing marriage at all. There should be no difference in how people are taxed by virtue of marriage. There should be no death taxes whatsoever, so everyone can leave anything they have left when they die to whomever they want, and the government cannot impoverish a grieving widow, or children, or best friend. The money and assets one accumulates are taxed as they accumulate, so there is not excuse for taxing them again upon death.

    This is a religious freedom issue completely, and really nothing else.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Nov. 24, 2013 11:41 p.m.

    Don't bother talking about how some churches will perform marriages that others will not. That is okay with me. The real issue is that the government shouldn't be regulating those marriages/churches, not by penalties or perks. Government should be completely neutral.

    This allows freedom for everyone, those seeking non-traditional marriage and those seeking to honor traditional marriage alike.

    No straw man argument about marrying children either. We are talking about consenting adults. There are standards of decency we can all agree on.

    The only people who would oppose this freedom and respect for others are those who seek to inflict their values on everyone else via the government. They seek control and domination over everyone else, and there is definitely a very vocal minority trying to do just that. They don't seek equality. The equality argument is a front for what they really want, which is control over others.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 12:11 a.m.

    Re: "It should be noted that the part of the First Amendment pertaining to religion does not give freedom of religion to individuals"

    Huh?

    Well, if you mean it simply restates natural law and embeds in our founding documents the rights God gave us, OK, I'm with you.

    But to suggest that the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." does not guarantee the American individual a right to keep bloated, unaccountable government out of his religion, leaving religion a matter of individual free choice, simply makes no sense.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 5:15 a.m.

    @procuradorfiscal;

    Point 1: Heterosexual is also a sexual orientation. This does not make LGBT individuals "more equal than others".

    Point 2: Homosexuals absolutely do not have all the same rights you have. For starters look at the over 1100 benefits that you receive from the government simply for having a legal note declaring that you are "married".

    Point 3: "I'm afraid of the big, bad LGBT bullies" is still not reason to deny equality under the law.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Nov. 25, 2013 7:22 a.m.

    @Mike Richards --

    Mike, notice this part of Lincoln's quote: "When an individual, in a church or out of it, becomes dangerous to the public interest, he must be checked".

    Well, guess what -- discrimination IS dangerous to the public interest. Therefore, according to Lincoln's own words, it must be checked even when committed by religious individuals.

    @procurador --

    "LGBT already have every single legal right I do. "

    Baloney. In many states they still don't have the legal right to marry the person of their choice. In many states, they don't have the legal right to live free of workplace or other discrimination. In many states, they don't have the ability to walk down the street holding hands without fear of getting beaten or killed for who they are.

    @Badgerbadger --

    "The government sought to have records of such marriages, and then regulated them and endorsed them."

    Actually, originally marriages were civil affairs. Religion didn't enter into it until much later, in historical terms. And there wasn't any such thing as a standard Christian church wedding until the Middle Ages.

    Hmmm. Maybe *churches* should get out of the wedding business?....

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 25, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    Badgerbadger..if there are no laws governing marriage (the state has no involvement in or influence over marriage) and only churches marry people does that mean atheists just shack up and call it what they will. And what happens when the union falls apart and the provider just takes off and leaves the others including children destitute? It's just too bad so sad.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 10:03 a.m.

    Your religion starts with yourself.

    And ends, at other people.

    Beliefs, should not be forced to dictate the actions of others.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    Procuradorfiscal.

    Just where in natural law do you find any reference to religion and or the notion of god giving anything more than life?

    Just where in the First Amendment do you find any reference to the individual?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    Re: "'LGBT already have every single legal right I do.' Baloney. In many states they still don't have the legal right to marry the person of their choice."

    Nor do I.

    It should be said, I'm already married to the person of my choice. But, if another were to come along, besides being evil, it'd be illegal to marry that one.

    Even for those not already married, however, if the choice were too closely related, too young, too mentally challenged, or too far removed on the evolutionary chart, there would be no legal right to marry then, either.

    These limitations are called societal limits. Real people recognize them and their benefits to society. LGBT activists don't. And, that's OK, they're not required to. But they ARE required to make their case to the rest of us if they want our support.

    Which they refuse to do.

    Rather, they disingenuously cite some illusory entitlement, then engage in bluster, bullying, and conniving with disingenuous vote-buying liberals to steal unentitled benefits the democratic process would never permit them.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal;

    "These limitations are called societal limits."

    In order to violate the Constitutional Right to equal treatment, your "societal limits" must have a valid necessity; discrimination because you don't like something, or your "god" says so, is not a valid reason.
    "But they ARE required to make their case to the rest of us if they want our support.

    Which they refuse to do."

    We've made our case, over and over, you're willingly blind because you don't want to see. And, actually, we DO NOT NEED your "support" in order to be treated equally by our government. It IS ALREADY our Constitutional Right (whether you like it or not).

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 25, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    First of all, lets get this clear. The debate is not about gays being able to marry or not. The debate is about gays obtaining legal marriage benefits from marriage.

    Now, if you believe that gays should have all of the same benefits that straight people have when they get married, what about polygamists.

    By saying that you can receive all of the legal benefits of marriage regardless of the gender of the person you marry, what about people that want plural marriage?

    What if 1 man and 4 women want the same legal protections, are you going to deny them equality and fairness? What about 5 men that want to be married, or 3 women, or a group of 2 men and 2 women? At what point do you draw the line?

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 1:36 p.m.

    @redshirt
    Since you see fit to ask the same question over and over again I will give you the same response. You draw the line were those that appose such marriage's can show that there is a significant harm to others or society, something that hose that appose gay marriage were never able to do. Does such risk exists in plural marriages, I don't honestly know but if people want plural marriages recognized by the state they have a right to petition to do so and those that appose it will need to prove why it should be blocked.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 1:56 p.m.

    those not hose sorry

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 2:04 p.m.

    The notion of freedom for the individual adult American should be that he/she can do as they please so long as their actions do not interfere with the rights and freedoms of others. Any type of group marriage should be acceptable so long as the rights of the individuals are not taken below the standard rights of adult Americans. It is the society/governments to require written documentation and to enforce the agreement just like any other contract.

    Children and non-adults do not have this freedom. Therefore society/government can and should protect children from harm from certain marriage groups that are deemed by society/government to be counter productive to allowing children to grow up with the ability to utilize and enjoy the rights and freedoms of an adult American.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 2:23 p.m.

    Re: "It IS ALREADY our Constitutional Right (whether you like it or not)."

    Fortunately, just saying, no matter how shrill, don't make it so.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 2:45 p.m.

    Redshirt --

    I can't follow you.

    Are you saying you support Gay marriage for the same reason you support polygamy?
    or
    Are you saying you oppose Gay marriage for the same reason you oppose polygamy?

    Because, by your comments, I get the feeling you have a hidden agenda and secretly want Gay marriage to pass, so you can legally be a polygamist.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    Pag
    Your anti-religion starts with yourself.

    And ends, at other people.

    Beliefs, should not be forced to dictate the actions of others.

    Contra - you are factually on the origins of marriage. Marriage originated in religion, not in the government. Marriage predates organized government. It was happening long before there was enough people to need any kind of government.

    Pragmatist - Children should have legal claim on their parents for support, with or without marriage. Heck, half our kids today are born to unmarried parents. The half that are married are mostly the ones who marry for religious reasons. Government regulation of marriage is letting our kids down now. Getting the government out of marriage won't hurt things at all.

    Scoundrel - so you want to suppress people who hold Judeo-Christian values because you feel they have had too much influence in the past. That is not equality. That is seeking revenge.

    I am a person of Judeo-Christian values who is advocating for equality and freedom for everyone. Clearly others here are advocating for inequality and special rights at the expense of freedom and equality for everyone.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 25, 2013 4:01 p.m.

    To "spring street" then you oppose gay marriage? Studies show that there is a higher likelyhood of violence within gay relationships.

  • Contrariusest mid-state, TN
    Nov. 25, 2013 4:10 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal --

    "Nor do I."

    Of course you do.

    The limits on everyone's right to marry are set by the harm principle (bigamy, polygamy, incest) and the inability of some partners to give informed consent (underage, mentally challenged, other species).

    The limits on the right of gay people to marriage are set only by sexual orientation. But you have no limit on marrying that is based on your sexual orientation. That is called discrimination.

    "LGBT activists don't. "

    Again, baloney.

    Polygamy, incest, etc. cause harm to others. Gay marriage doesn't.

    "But they ARE required to make their case to the rest of us...."

    Which they already have, in court, successfully, multiple times.

    @Redshirt --

    "what about polygamists."

    This question has already been answered ad infinitum.

    Once again: polygamous marriages convey a significantly increased risk of harm to women and children, compared to other forms of marriage.

    Gay marriages don't.

    It's a very simple distinction.

    @Ultrabob --

    "society/government can and should protect children from harm from certain marriage groups...."

    Right.

    And it is well known that polygamy significantly increases the risk of harm to women and children, compared to other forms of marriage. Gay marriage doesn't.

  • Contrariusest mid-state, TN
    Nov. 25, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    @Badgerbadger --

    " Marriage originated in religion"

    Sorry, but you are very mistaken.

    The first recorded marriages in the West were in Ancient Rome -- "...the lower classes (proletarians) had "free" marriages. The bride's father would deliver her to the groom, and the two agreed that they were wed, and would keep the vow of marriage by mutual consent. Wealthy Romans, though, would sign documents listing property rights to publicly declare that their union was legalized..." Civil marriages.

    In ancient Greece -- the only requirement was "mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly." Civil marriage.

    The earliest recorded Jewish wedding was a CIVIL contract. -- "During the period of the return from the Babylonian exile ... --the oldest marriage contract in Jewish history....As-Hor paid Machseiah, the father, five shekels, Persian standard, as a mohar for his daughter....." Civil marriage.

    In Jesus' time -- "From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required." Civil marriage.

    Priests didn't become an essential part of Christian wedding ceremonies until the Middle Ages.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 6:25 p.m.

    @redshirt
    really? I have yet to see one piece of research you have ever referenced actually claim what you say it does and have any scientific validity. Please provide the "research" that proves that seeing as no one else in more then two decades has seemed to have that research. So please do enlighten us to this secret valid research only you seem to know about.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 7:42 p.m.

    @proc;

    Fortunately, I'm not "just saying it". Here it is in Black and White. The US Constitution Amendment 14:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

    @Redshirt1701

    " Studies show that there is a higher likelyhood of violence within gay relationships." (Sources please)

    Do we prevent men/women who abuse a spouse the privilege of re-marrying? No? Then your argument is not valid anyway.

  • Mykelb WASHINGTON, DC
    Nov. 25, 2013 8:09 p.m.

    First off, our government has no Constitutional authority to protect religion. The mandate it has is to prohibit the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion and ensuring that the government doesn't impede on the free exercise of religion. This doesn't include protecting anyone's religious freedom from private sources.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 11:01 p.m.

    Mykelb

    "...ensuring that the government doesn't impede on the free exercise of religion. This doesn't include protecting anyone's religious freedom from private sources."

    So you are advocating that private people can discriminate against the free exercise of religion all they want. If a person discovers that someone prays to God, they can refuse to serve them at their business, or insult them, or even beat them up.

    Even by your weird interpretation of the 1st Amendment, when government forces religions/churches, and their members, to accept marriages that are outside their religious tenets, THE GOVERNMENT IS impeding the free exercise of religion/church.

    Scoundral - those who mock religion, require, by law, that people who don't believe in SSM provide such ceremonies with flowers, and cakes, and facilities, and children (and soon ministers). Yet they would be incensed if the law required them to provide their property for a church meeting or activity.

    Contra - You are omitting 4000+ years of history of marriage prior to the Romans. Convenient for your cause, but not truthful.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 5:45 a.m.

    'Redshirt1701

    " Studies show that there is a higher likelyhood of violence within gay relationships."

    Wow.

    People are just allowed to lie on this paper, aren't they?

    What did Jesus say about False witness?

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 7:15 a.m.

    From an entirely secular point of view - Marriage was designed to protect women and children. Once the gender component is lost - it is not marriage any more

    And the idea that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are equal is blatantly false

    Marriage equality supporters merely want to silence anyone who is not willfully blind to reality

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 26, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    To "spring street" read "A Same-Sex Domestic Violence Epidemic Is Silent" in the Atlantic or read "An Overview of 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation" by the CDC. There we find that for gay men, they experience rape nearly twice as often as hetersexual men. Even in that study they admit that little is known because the victims are not willing to come out.

    If you read "Lesbian Partner Violence Fact Sheet" by the University of Missouri at St. Louis they find that 50% of lesbians experience sexual violence. If you compare that to the CDC report, you see that again, lesbians experience more violence.

    Or is the CDC and a women's studies group not good enough for you.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 26, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    @ Redshirt: Every article you mention states that intimate partner violence (IPV) in the LGBTQ community occurs at about the same rate as in the heterosexual community.

    Spring's original comment to you was in reference to the harm principle. You claim that IPV within the LGBTQ community is a harm and a valid reason to deny same-sex marriage.

    While it is true that violence is a harm, it is also true that the harm exists across the spectrum - married, unmarried; gay, straight - and as such is not created by same-sex marriage. Since no harm is created by same sex marriage, the harm principle is not a valid reason to deny same sex marriage.

    On the other hand, we know that polygamy creates harms that do not exist outside of polygamous communities. Would these harms go away if polygamy were legalized? We don't know - legal polygamy has never existed in a culture with equal power between the sexes.

    We know that legal benefits - property division, inheritance, medical decisions, etc. - are affected by the number of people involved. This would need to be addressed as well as any potential for harm.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    @redshirt
    once again redshirt it does not say what you think. This is straight from the CDC report you sight above "the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) indicates that 13.1% of lesbian women and 17.4% of heterosexual women experience intimate partner violence." they also found no significant difference between heterosexual men and homosexual men. So the question is does this present a significant enough risk of social harm to ban gay marriage. Obviously the courts have decided no over and over again.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 26, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    To "RanchHand" the prevalance of violence within a group was never a marriage criteria of mine. That is a policy that "Contrariusest" and "spring street" believe in, not me.

    Both of those liberals believe that certain types of marriages should be banned because of violence within their cultures. I have only pointed out that if you ban one group because of violence, then that should apply equally to other groups that are known to be violent towards their spouses.

    I am for fairness and equality. Apparently "Contrariusest" and "spring street" are not.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Nov. 26, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    When I read the commentary against SSM I get a sense of desperation coming from those in opposition. It is almost a "throw everything against the wall to see what sticks" approach. However, none of them seem to recognize that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the COTUS so, if society is going to deny that right to LGBTQ citizens, there is a very high legal bar that must be met in order to withhold the right of marriage from a sub-group of people.

    Thankfully, none of the specious arguments against SSM hold any water in the legal realm. In fact, most are laughed out of court. So, at the end of the day, we should all admit that SSM is inevitable and will be the law of the land soon.

    Conservatives, you've lost; you're ability to inject your moral convictions into other people's relationships is doomed to fail. Perhaps, you all should begin to actually practice what you preach by treating everyone equally. That way, you can begin to work on true social issues, rather than continually impeding progress. The longer you deny reality, the more discredited you become as a political party.

  • Contrariusest mid-state, TN
    Nov. 26, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    @Badgerbadger --

    "Contra - You are omitting 4000+ years of history of marriage prior to the Romans. Convenient for your cause, but not truthful."

    Badger -- I have provided you with summaries of some of the earliest recorded marriages in the western world. If you have somehow magically gained knowledge of earlier NONrecorded marriages, please provide it to us -- and let us know how you came by such knowledge, since they weren't recorded!

    (Speaking of earlier, though, I did leave out a couple of earlier Assyrian marriage *laws* that we know about -- again, they were civil laws -- because AFAIK we don't have any individual records of them)

  • Contrariusest mid-state, TN
    Nov. 26, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    Red: "read "A Same-Sex Domestic Violence Epidemic Is Silent"

    This article specifically states: 46% of lesbian women, 43% of straight women, 40% of gay men, and 21% of straight men had been with violent partners.

    The only difference here is that straight women don't beat up on straight men.

    Also: "Valentine, from The Network/La Red, said that in his experience, the rates of violence in the LGBTQ community seem comparable to those in the straight community."

    Red: "An Overview of 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation"by the CDC."

    This again specifically says that 44% of lesbian women, 35% of straight women, 26% of gay men, and 29% of straight men experience rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by a partner at some point.

    Again, no statistical differences between gay and straight.

    Red: "There we find that for gay men, they experience rape nearly twice as often as hetersexual men."

    That isn't intimate partner violence, Red. It has nothing to do with gay marriage whatsoever.

    Red: "Lesbian Partner Violence Fact Sheet"

    This fact sheet specifically states: "Violence appears to be about as common among lesbian couples as among heterosexual couples".

    Keep trying, Red!

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Nov. 26, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    To "Kalindra" go back and read the articles. The one from the University of Missouri doesn't even mention the rate of violence among hetersexuals, and the article from the CDC they break things down much more.

    Would you consider that 46% of bisexual women have been raped to be equal or greater than the 17% of hetersexual women?

    Would you consider 40% of gay men being raped or 47% of bisexual men being raped greater than or equal to the 21% of hetersexual men?

    The interesting thing is that the CDC and the UM study both admit that the reports of violence in the gay an bisexual community are UNDERREPORTED. That means that the numbers presented are LOW compared to what the prevalence really is.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    Unless you traded 5 head of cattle for your wife…

    the definition of marriage has already changed.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    @redshirt
    I have read the articles and the CDC reports Kalindra and spring street are right your claims are flawed as usual. There is a reason that this claim has never held water in the courts and its not because of liberal activist judges.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Nov. 26, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech --

    "go back and read the articles."

    It seems that you need to read them yourself, Red.

    Check my previous post. Not a single one of those reports actually states that violence is higher in gay couples than in straight couples, despite your claims to the contrary.

    Keep trying, Red!

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 26, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    @ Red: Directly quoted from the University of Missouri article you mention: "How is lesbian partner violence different from heterosexual partner violence? There are several similarities between lesbian and heterosexual partner violence. Violence appears to be about as common among lesbian couples as among heterosexual couples (1,5)."

    As for bisexual women being victimized more - bisexual women are with both men and women. To claim their higher rates of victimization are related solely to their being with other women, you would first need to know who the perpetrators are. There is no indication that the perpetrators were also bisexual women, nor is their any indication that it was an intimate partner.

    One of the things we do know is that lesbian and bisexual women are often raped in an effort to turn them straight. It is logical to consider that this would occur more often to women who are known to like both men and women as sexual partners.

    The information you provided proves harm occurs, but nothing you provided proves any harm directly caused by same sex marriage.

    If, as you suggest, we ban marriage for all groups where violence occurs towards spouses, heterosexual marriage must be banned also.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Nov. 26, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    To "Contrarius" and "Kalindra" please go back and read the reports, pay close attention to the CDC report. You will see that when it comes to violent acts committed against a homosexual partner, that the LGBT community has higher rates of violence. (stalking is not violence, just creepy). When you separate the bisexuals from the homosexuals, the rate of actual violence among the bisexuals is double that of hetersexuals.

    Keep in mind that they found that "[LGBTQ people] have not had a very good relationship with police and law enforcement, so folks may not be reporting it." That means that the data in those reports represents a small portion of a larger problem.

    So, using the reasoning that "Contrarius" and "spring street" want to use for prohibiting people from getting married, gays, especially bisexuals, should not be allowed to get married because of abuse.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 2:07 p.m.

    @redshirt
    actually not only are you know trying to misrepresent the research you are actually misrepresenting spring street. At no point does spring street mention domestic violence or advocate against polygamy. In fact they clearly state that polygamist have the right to demand marriage and that it is on those that appose it to prove why it should not be allowed. The pressure is on the those apposing access to rights not those demanding their rights.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 2:57 p.m.

    now trying not know trying

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Nov. 26, 2013 3:55 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech --

    " please go back and read the reports"

    I've got the complete CDC study right here.

    Here are some more results from that study.

    1. The 85% of lesbian victims of sexual violence, and 87.5% of bisexual victims, reported having only male perpetrators.

    2. The lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner was 43.8% for lesbians, 35.0% straight women, 26.0% for gay men, and 29% for straight men.

    3. The lifetime prevalence severe physical violence by an intimate partner was 29.4% for lesbians, 23.6% for straight women, 16.4% for gay men, Band 13.9% for straight men.

    The results just plain don't say what you keep claiming they do, Red. They did NOT find any significant difference in the overall rates of violence between gay couples and straight couples. They only found overall significant increases with violence to bisexual women, and most of that violence was perpetrated by men.

    Please stop saying things that aren't true.

    You have not provided a single iota of evidence that gay marriage conveys a significantly increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

    And you know why you've failed?

    Because it doesn't.

  • LelandTC West Valley City, 00
    Nov. 26, 2013 5:16 p.m.

    What is the issue with "marriage"? It is a personal thing. Much like a person's sexuality. The issue is not so much with marriage as it is with how the government awards or penalizes it. This should be fixed. At the same time why invade a person's belief system? From a Judeo-Christian point of view, the first man and woman were married by God. Gnash your teeth atheists. If you are not a religious person or if you belong to a religion that teaches differently than your views, why are you subjecting yourself to that belief system? If you want to live together and you don't have a conscience that objects to it, then live together and fight for rights under the law for that situation. If you want to make marriage, your casualty, then you have to consider the rights of groups who find it objectionable and exclude them from any mandates that sear their consciences, but why make marriage the victim? It is not necessary in this fight and is it not a proof of selfishness, intolerance, and bigotry?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 6:48 p.m.

    @LelandTC;

    "If you want to make marriage, your casualty, then you have to consider the rights of groups who find it objectionable and exclude them from any mandates that sear their consciences, ...,"

    That's nonsense. You have no right to not be offended. If we have to consider your tender feelings about OUR marriages, then you should have to consider what we find objectionable before doing it yourself, which creates nothing but difficulty and is, once again, nonsense.

    If you don't approve of something, refrain from doing it.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 26, 2013 11:45 p.m.

    @ Redshirt: Having re-read your posts, it has become clear that you do not understand the harm principle.

    The harm principle is that laws should limit actions of individuals only to the extent those actions cause harm to others and/or to society in general. Harm is not limited to physical injury but also includes lack of access, deprivation of liberty or property, phsycological harm, emotional harm, etc.

    Some people act in ways that cause harm to others. We have laws prohibiting those harms - such as laws against intimate partner violence. It is unnecessary - and arguably unethical - to have broad based laws against an entire group when more finely tuned laws address the issue more effectively. Using your examples of IPV, it is overreach to try to prevent LGBT IPV by preventing same sex marriage when laws against IPV already serve that purpose.

    Polygamy has caused societal harms - eviction of young men, child marriages, etc. - due to competition over eligible females. There are also documented cases of welfare fraud. These things are already illegal - would legalizing polygamy make it easier to prosecute these other illegal activities? This is the discussion needed before polygamy is legalized.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Nov. 27, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    @Kalindra --

    "Polygamy has caused societal harms"

    That's a good point.

    There is NO evidence that gay marriage conveys any significantly increased risk of violence. There is plenty of evidence that polygamy does.

    But that isn't the whole story, as you pointed out.

    Polygamy correlates with significantly increased risks of several types of harm -- including physical, psychological, and societal.

    As Justice Bauman noted in that Canadian decision on their polygamy ban:

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

    -- "Polygamy (also) has negative impacts on society flowing from ... poverty associated with the practice. It generates a class of largely poor, unmarried men who are statistically predisposed to violence and other anti-social behaviour..."

    -- "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."

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 27, 2013 3:04 p.m.

    To "Kalindra" if you want to look at both societal harm along with physical harm, then again, gay marriage should be banned.

    There are several studies out there that show that children raised in households where there is a gay marriage or gay parents co-habitating, that the children are MORE likely to experiment with risky sexual behavior. That means more STDs, teen pregnancies, and other problems that come with risky sexual behavior.

    You can also argue that if it is psychological harm and physical harm that should prevent some types of marriage, then this would also mean that you are opposed to Muslims getting married. There are many studies that show that withing the islamic cultures that women and children are abused more than the general population.

    You would also have to say that once parents get divorced they should not be allowed to re-marry or co-habitate since that increases the likelyhood of abuse also.

    Where does it end? If your justification for banning marriage is abuse, then show us where the risk of abuse is 0.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 27, 2013 3:30 p.m.

    Actually religion is at the heart of this debate. America is a Christian nation and Christianity identifies homosexual behavior as a sin. In a free republic the majority of the people must have the right to choose how they live and if they want their towns and neighborhoods protected from homosexuality then they have the right to vote that way. There is always a percentage who hate any law. If you don't like the laws then leave.

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Nov. 27, 2013 4:49 p.m.

    @redshirt

    why is it that you continually think you have access to or are the one person that can find some gem in the research that supports opposition to gay marriage? Your sources never turn out yet you continue to think you have access to research that everyone else has missed over the last 20 plus years of this debate. Let me just cut to the chase with your latest claim. There is no research out there that shows what you claim and you are not smarter then all the people that have opposed gay rights that have come before you.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 27, 2013 7:30 p.m.

    @patriot;

    The USA is not a "Christian nation". It is a religiously diverse nation. If you want to live in a theocracy then YOU are the one who should leave. The USA is absolutely not a theocracy and will never be one.

    If you think homosexuality is a sin, big deal, don't do it. You have no right to dictate what other people should do, nor how they should live their lives.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 27, 2013 7:39 p.m.

    @ Redshirt: the studies you claim show harm to children raised by same sex parents have been thoroughly debunked. But your last comments are exactly right - all relationships have some potential for harm and therefore either all of them should be banned on that principle or none of them. Picking and choosing based on your feelings alone is wrong.

    For the polygamy discussion we still need to figure out how to address divisions among multiples as opposed to divisions among duos.

    @ patriot: America may be a nation of Christians, but it is not a Christian nation. And the Constitution prohibits the majority from infringing on the rights of minorities. You cannot ban same sex marriage just because you want to. And if you don't like living in a secular country, perhaps you should follow your own advice.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Nov. 28, 2013 10:22 a.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "children raised in households where there is a gay marriage..."

    Red -- studies have never shown that kids in married gay families are worse off than kids in married straight families. You have to compare apples to apples in order to get meaningful results.

    "you are opposed to Muslims getting married. "

    Nope. Remember -- religion is a protected class. We can't ban marriages based solely on religion.

    And before say that Muslims tend to be polygamous, so we shouldn't ban polygamy -- it doesn't work that way. Remember, polygamy's harms cross religions and cultures, so we can ban it independently of religion just the same as we can ban human sacrifice independently of religion. But we can't deny the right to marry at all based solely on religion.

    "If your justification for banning marriage is abuse"

    You're still not understanding. The justification is the significantly increased risk of harm **compared to other forms of marriage** -- NOT just "abuse" in general.

    Refer back to drunk driving. Both sober driving and drunk driving carry the risk of accidents. But accidents are much MORE likely when you drive drunk -- so drunk driving is illegal, while sober driving is not.

  • wendell provo, UT
    Nov. 28, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    @patriot
    "America is a Christian nation and Christianity identifies homosexual behavior as a sin".
    Actually America is a nation based on the principles of "freedom of religion", and not all Christians identify homosexuality as a sin.

    "In a free republic the majority of the people must have the right to choose how they live and if they want their towns and neighborhoods protected from homosexuality then they have the right to vote that way".
    So...when the majority of people do not want their towns ane neighborhoods protected from homosexuality, then I assume you will support gay marriage? This is happening very rapidly, by the way.

    "There is always a percentage who hate any law. If you don't like the laws then leave".
    I assume since you are still here that you support Obamacare and the federal recognition of gay marriage.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    Nov. 28, 2013 10:00 p.m.

    If Gay Marriage does become the law of the land, then the flood gates will be opened. If the law indicates that two men who engage in one of the most perverse and vile acts known to man ($odomy) can have their relationship deemed worthy of being called a “marriage”, well then, anything goes. What about a polygamist? What about a pedophile? I’m sure you folks can come up with many others.

    You know a society is going down the tubes when it embraces and celebrates the ultimate perversion and tries to make it normal.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Nov. 29, 2013 2:06 p.m.

    @Sven --

    "one of the most perverse and vile acts known to man ($odomy) "

    Actually, the word "sodomy" refers to acts which can just as easily be enjoyed by straight couples as by gay couples. Do you believe these acts are only perverse when same-sex couples do them? Or should we be policing the bedrooms of straight couples to make sure they don't practice these "perversions" as well?

    "What about a polygamist?... "

    Here we go again.

    TWO facts are necessary in order to justify the legalization of gay marriage:

    1. Marriage is a civil right;

    AND

    2. Gay marriage in particular does not cause a significantly increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

    Now, marriage in general clearly IS a civil right, as established by the US Constitution and reaffirmed by multiple SCOTUS decisions.

    AND nobody has ever been able to show that gay marriage causes a significantly increased risk of harm to anyone.

    In stark contrast, polygamy and pedophilia are very well known to convey a significantly increased risk of harm to women and children in particular.

    Therefore, polygamy and pedophilia both fail to qualify under the harm principle.

    It's a very simple distinction.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    Nov. 29, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    @Contrariusier:

    $odomy DEFINES the sexual relationship between Gay men.

    "In stark contrast, polygamy and pedophilia are very well known to convey a significantly increased risk of harm to women and children in particular."

    So let me get this strait; you don't want people making judgments on homosexuals and their desire to be married to one another, but have no problem making judgments on others whose lifestyle you might disagree with? If the polygamist loves his wives, and they love him, who are you to judge that relationship? Ditto the adult child marriage. Aren't you now engaging in the same intolerance that you and other gay activists accuse heterosexuals of? BTW, there are arguments that have been made, that Gay men have a far greater likelihood to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. Ever wonder why the militant homosexuals worked to make the Boy Scouts accepting of the Gay lifestyle?

    The way you see the polygamist and the pedophile, is the same way many used to see the LGBT types. It's interesting watching you defend and justify one type of perverse/deviant lifestyle, while condemning other equally perverse lifestyles.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Nov. 30, 2013 8:11 a.m.

    @Sven --

    "$odomy DEFINES the sexual relationship between Gay men. "

    No it doesn't. In fact, by some estimates roughly 1/4 of gay men never even engage in that particular act. And roughly 1/4 of straight couples DO engage in it.

    "you don't want people making judgments on homosexuals..."

    I am very happy to judge them all by the same criterion, actually. Gay marriage does not cause significant risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage; polygamy and pedophilia do.

    "If the polygamist loves his wives..."

    I don't judge the relationship. I judge its overall risk of harm, which is very well documented for both polygamy and pedophila.

    "Aren't you now engaging in the same intolerance...?"

    Nope. I am recognizing a factual distinction.

    Compare to drunk driving.

    Both sober and drunk driving carry some risk of accidents. But drunk driving carries a much higher risk, so it is illegal.

    Similarly, polygamy and pedophilia carry a much higher risk than other forms of marriage. Therefore they remain illegal.

    "Gay men have a far greater likelihood to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. "

    And those rumors are plain lies.

    Don't believe everything that homophobic crazies try to shove down your throat.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Nov. 30, 2013 9:49 a.m.

    @Sven --

    "...Gay men have a far greater likelihood to be pedophiles..."

    I wanted to expand on this offensive and untrue claim with a few actual facts.

    Nicholas Groth wrote entire textbooks about sexual predators, and did years of research on them. His studies are classics in the field.

    As Groth specifically states:

    -- "in over 12 years of clinical experience working with child molesters, we have yet to see any example of a regression from an adult homosexual orientation";

    -- "Homosexual males pose LESS risk of sexual harm to children (both male and female)--from both an absolute and a percentage incidence rate--than heterosexual males...".

    -- In one study of 175 men who had been convicted of sexual assaults against (male) children, he found that NONE of the offenders showed any preference for adult homosexual relationships.

    Additionally:

    From the Child Advocacy Center -- "only about 4 percent of same-sex abuse involves homosexual perpetrators".

    And:

    From the Archives of Sexual Behavior -- "sexual orientation was not related to the sex of the victim targeted" .

    You asked: "Ever wonder why the militant homosexuals worked to make the Boy Scouts accepting of the Gay lifestyle?"

    Because gay boys deserve the same opportunities as straight boys, of course.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    Nov. 30, 2013 8:10 p.m.

    @Contrariusiest:

    Consider these stats from the CDC:

    "In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 2008."

    "Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections. MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available."

    So yes, $odomy does indeed define the sexual relationship of gay men.

    "I don't judge the relationship. I judge its overall risk of harm..."

    Obviously you only judge the "overall risk of harm" in other destructive relationships, while ignoring the risks which are part of the homosexual relationship.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    Nov. 30, 2013 10:09 p.m.

    @Contrariusiest:

    You said:

    "I wanted to expand on this offensive and untrue claim with a few actual facts."

    You go on to quote Nicholas Groth:

    "Homosexual males pose LESS risk of sexual harm to children (both male and female)--from both an absolute and a percentage incidence rate--than heterosexual males."

    The Journal of Sex Research noted that homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses. So, about 3% of the total population, commit 1/3 of the total child sex offences!

    I asked you:

    "Ever wonder why the militant homosexuals worked so hard to make the Boy Scouts accepting of the Gay lifestyle?" You said: "Because gay boys deserve the same opportunities as straight boys, of course." Please tell us, what does homosexuality have to do with being a part of the BSA? NOTHING! It has nothing to do with camping, earning merit badges, or food drives. This topic should never even come up. But to homosexual activists, children must be indoctrinated as early as possible. No wonder many parents pulled their kids out of the BSA.

    I haven’t even touched on NAMBLA’s history with the Gay movement. No stomach for that tonight.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 1, 2013 1:45 p.m.

    @Sven --

    "Consider these stats from the CDC: "

    AIDs is spread by **promiscuity**. Marriage encourages **monogamy**. Therefore, gay marriage actually DECREASES the risk of harm from HIV.

    "$odomy does indeed define the sexual relationship of gay men."

    Nope. Straight couples engage in the very same activities that gay ones do. Denying the facts won't make them magically disappear.

    "while ignoring the risks which are part of the homosexual relationship."

    Nope. You are confusing promiscuity with monogamy.

    "The Journal of Sex Research noted that homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses."

    This is an outright lie posted on the FRC site, not an actual finding from that journal. It's a gross misrepresentation of the actual data from that journal. In fact, the author of the referenced study (Freund) himself says that "homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to be attracted to children".

    Don't swallow everything that homophobic crazies try to shove down your throat, Sven.

    "Please tell us, what does homosexuality have to do with being a part of the BSA?"

    That's a good question, Sven. Why did the BSA feel the need to ban gays in the first place?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 2, 2013 4:36 p.m.

    To "Contrariusier" so what you are saying is that you want to ban marriage to certain groups of people because there is a perception of potential harm.

    So, since you are against marriage for a certain group based on risk, then you are opposed to allowing Muslims to marry since they are at risk for violence against women and children.

    You will also be setting up a system to prevent people who were abused as children from getting married since they are more likely to abuse their spouse and children.

    Are you also going to prevent drug addicts from getting married?

    How many other groups are you going to deny equality to, simply because of risk?

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 2, 2013 6:25 p.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "...because there is a perception of potential harm."

    Nope.

    We've been over this many times already, Red.

    1. The issue has nothing to do with "perception" -- it has to do with fact.
    2. The issue isn't absolute "potential harm" -- it is a significantly increased risk of harm **compared to other forms of marriage**.
    3. The issue isn't banning forms of marriage which are currently legal in this country -- it is in keeping forms illegal which are **already** illegal.

    "...allowing Muslims to marry"

    We've been over this already, Red.

    Again -- religion is a protected class. We can't ban marriages based solely on religion.

    And before you say that Muslims tend to be polygamous, so we shouldn't ban polygamy -- it doesn't work that way. Remember, polygamy's harms cross religions and cultures, so we can ban it independently of religion just the same as we can ban human sacrifice independently of religion. But we can't deny the right to marry at all based solely on religion.

    And again -- the issue isn't banning forms of marriage which are currently legal in this country. The issue is in keeping forms of marriage illegal which are **already** illegal.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 3, 2013 7:44 a.m.

    To "Contrariusier" now you contradict yourself. You say we can't ban marriages based solely on relgion, then you say that polygamy is bad and should be banned.

    So, with Islam and the FLDS, it is acceptable within those religions to harm women and children AND engage in polygamy.

    If polygamy harms across all religions and cultures, then prove it. Show me a study that looks at religions other than Islam and FLDS. Prove it. So far you and the sociologists have yet to prove that polygamy harms across religions and cultures.

    Look at it this way. If I am part of a religion that has no problem with harming women and children, and also permits polygamy, what is the cause of harm towards women and children? Is it polygamy or the religion?

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 3, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "You say we can't ban marriages based solely on relgion, then you say that polygamy is bad and should be banned."

    Polygamy is not a religion, Red. We can ban polygamy just as we can ban human sacrifice. Both are harmful independent of the specific religion practicing them.

    "it is acceptable within those religions to harm women and children AND engage in polygamy."

    Nope. Refer back to human sacrifice.

    "If polygamy harms across all religions and cultures, then prove it. "

    Been there, done that.

    Again -- we don't have to prove that it harms across ALL religions and cultures. We already know that it significantly increases risk in the vast majority of cases. We don't need to prove that each and every instance of polygamy is harmful any more than we need to prove that each and every instance of drunk driving is harmful.

    "So far you and the sociologists have yet to prove that polygamy harms across religions and cultures."

    That's not true at all. You've already seen data about the harms of polygamy in multiple cultures. You may try hard to ignore all that data, but it exists nonetheless.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 3, 2013 12:21 p.m.

    To "Contrariuserer" really? I have seen the data for FLDS and Muslim cultures, but that is it. Please provide a verifiable study that does not include the FLDS and muslim cultures. I have yet to see one of those from you. NAME YOUR SOURCES, the UN studies that you love only look at Muslims and FLDS, nothing else. That is 2 out of hundreds of cultures.

    You still have not actually shown that I have said anything wrong. I never said that the abuse that was comitted was legal or not, just that the culture and religion allows it.

    So again, you believe that Muslims should not marry, people who were abused as children, and anybody with a potential for abuse should not be allowed to marry. How do you plan on enforcing that?

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 3, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "Please provide a verifiable study that does not include the FLDS and muslim cultures."

    I'm not gonna spend a lotta time looking right now, but you can start with these --

    For Hinduism:

    Start with

    Srinivasa v. Saraswati Ammal A.I.R. 1952 Mad. 193

    and

    State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali A.I.R. 1952 Bom. 84 (two Bombay High Court decisions upholding Hindu polygyny bans)

    Then proceed to

    Dhar, P.M. "Polygamy Among Hindus: A Survey in Retrospect" (1985) 5 Islamic and Comparative Law Quarterly 147.

    Of course, polygyny has been banned for most Hindus for more than 50 years now -- so it's difficult to find a lot of recent data.

    For Tribal religions, try

    Sheleff, Leon. "Human Rights, Western Values and Tribal Traditions: Between Recognition and Repugnancy, Between Monogamy and Polygamy" (1994) 12 Tel Aviv University Studies in Law 237

    "So again, you believe that Muslims should not marry"

    So again, no I don't. Please stop lying, Red.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 3, 2013 4:03 p.m.

    To "Contrariuserer" those are nice court cases, but they are not studies. Plus, none of them say that violence is prevalent.

    For example "State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali" says that polygamy is not part of the Hindu religion. It has nothing to do with violence as you claim. This is the same as "Srinivasa v. Saraswati Ammal"

    In "Human Rights, Western Values and Tribal Traditions: Between Recognition and Repugnancy, Between Monogamy and Polygamy" it is a discussion of why different cultures do not like polygamy, but does not state that it is a cause of violence.

    Try again, stop lying and calling court cases studies. Next time read them.

    So, again, you are looking for a STUDY (not court case, opinion artices, or stories) showing that Polygamy in cultures other than Muslims (Islamic) or FLDS are harmful.

    Try again. If you have nothing, be a man, admit that you have nothing.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech--

    "Try again, stop lying"

    Now now, Red. I never claimed that those court cases or studies said a single word about violence. I can't possibly have lied about something I never said.

    And btw -- you keep fixating on the idea of violence, but that is far from the only harm conveyed by polygamy.

    For just one small example, polygamy is known to increase the transmission of AIDS (see White 2004, Dixon 2005, Laurance 2004, and Eilperin 2003). And there are many other harms as well, as I've mentioned previously.

    In case you're actually interested in those Indian cases, one of the most important parts was that they reaffirmed the bans on polygamy for multiple different religions. They were covering in addition to Hindus "Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists followers of the Arya or Brahmo Samaj".

    Also, the grounds of the ban were that "subject to public order, morality and health...the right to profess, practise and propagate religion can only be exercised without contravening any of the fundamental rights embodied in Part III of the Constitution. ...and it is further subject to the right of the State to provide by legislation for social welfare and reform..."

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 4, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech--

    "Try again, stop lying"

    Now now, Red. I never claimed that those court cases or studies said a single word about violence. I can't possibly have lied about something I never said.

    And btw -- you keep fixating on the idea of violence, but that is far from the only harm conveyed by polygamy.

    For just one small example, polygamy is known to increase the transmission of AIDS (see White 2004, Dixon 2005, Laurance 2004, and Eilperin 2003). And there are many other harms as well, as I've mentioned previously.

    In case you're actually interested in those Indian cases, one of the most important parts was that they reaffirmed the bans on polygamy for multiple different religions. They were covering in addition to Hindus "Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists followers of the Arya or Brahmo Samaj".

    Also, the grounds of the ban were that "subject to public order, morality and health...the right to profess, practise and propagate religion can only be exercised without contravening any of the fundamental rights embodied in Part III of the Constitution. ...and it is further subject to the right of the State to provide by legislation for social welfare and reform..."

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 4, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    To "Contrariuserer" where is the study of cultures outside of Muslims and FLDS that show that polygamy is harmful? You say that you have some, yet have yet to provide one.

    If you want to ban polygamy because of AIDS risk, then you will also have to ban gay marriage because gays that are sexually active are at greater risk for getting and spreading AIDS. See "HIV Among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men" produced by the CDC.

    Where is your study showing that across all cultures where it has been practiced that polygamy is harmful? FYI, you are running from your previous statement that it is harmful.

    I asked for a study that shows that polygamy is harmful outside of FLDS and Muslim groups, and the best you have is court cases citing religious beliefs. Where is your proof that polygamy is actually harmful across many cultures?

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 4, 2013 2:07 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech --

    "You say that you have some, yet have yet to provide one."

    I've already provided multiple. Ignoring them won't make them disappear.

    "then you will also have to ban gay marriage because gays that are sexually active are at greater risk"

    Nope. Remember, AIDS is spread by having multiple partners. Gay marriage encourages **monogamy**. Therefore gay marriage actually DECREASES the risk of disease transmission.

    "Where is your study showing that across all cultures where it has been practiced that polygamy is harmful?"

    Again -- we don't have to prove that it harms across ALL religions and cultures. We already know that it significantly increases risk in the vast majority of cases. We don't need to prove that each and every instance of polygamy is harmful any more than we need to prove that each and every instance of drunk driving is harmful.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Dec. 4, 2013 3:59 p.m.

    To "Contrariusiest" but nobody has actually proven that it is polygamy that is harmful. The confounding factor that destroys the credibility of the studies that you quote is the groups of people that are studied which are known for the harm they cause to women and children.

    You also said that "The issue isn't banning forms of marriage which are currently legal in this country -- it is in keeping forms illegal which are **already** illegal." So, then why are you fighting for Gay marriage, since that has recently become a legal practice?

    Right now there are not any studies out there that show that it is polygamy that is the cause of harm in polygamous marriages, only that within harmful cultures it increases the risk of harm.

    You are really good at twisting words. I was very careful to state that you needed to show that polygamy is harmful in all cultures where it has been practiced.

    To be clear, since you still don't comprehend.

    Where is your study that shows that polygamy is the cause of harm in polygamous marriages, that contains safeguards to prevent confounding factors such as violent cultures from giving false positives?

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 5, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    @RedShirtMIT --

    "nobody has actually proven that it is polygamy that is harmful."

    So what?

    The most essential point here is that polygamy consistently covaries with a significantly increased risk of harm.

    Compare: does drug paraphernalia (bongs, roaches, and so on) cause drug addiction? Of course not. Yet it is illegal to possess them. Why? Because that paraphernalia consistently covaries with illegal drug usage. Similarly, polygamy consistently covaries with harm.

    "the groups of people that are studied which are known for the harm they cause..."

    Two words: controlled studies. You keep ignoring that fact, but putting your fingers in your ears doesn't make the facts go away.

    "why are you fighting for Gay marriage...?"

    That doesn't even make sense.

    "you needed to show that polygamy is harmful in all cultures ...."

    Yet again -- we don't have to prove that it harms across ALL religions and cultures. We already know that it significantly increases risk in the vast majority of cases. We don't need to prove that each and every instance of polygamy is harmful any more than we need to prove that each and every instance of drunk driving is harmful.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Dec. 5, 2013 8:30 a.m.

    To "Contrariusiest" ok, now you are just confusing.

    You have agreed that there is no proof that polygamy is harmful, yet you still claim that it is harmful.

    You can't have it both ways.

    Using your drug analogy for clarity. Since "bongs" have not been proven to be harmful, we don't ban them. However, the drugs used in the "bongs" are proven to be harmful and have been banned.

    You keep claiming controlled studies, but you have yet to get a study that controls for harmful cultures. If polygamy is harmful, then it must be harmful in all cultures where it is practiced. Give me a reference to a study that DOES NOT include muslims or FLDS.

    If you go off discussing controlled studies again, I will know for certain that there are not any studies that control for harmful cultures, and that you have absolutely no evidence to support your position.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Dec. 5, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    @RedShirtMIT --

    "You have agreed that there is no proof..."

    Nope.

    I have explained to you that the root cause of the harms conveyed by polygamy are irrelevant to the fact that polygamy conveys a significantly increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

    If you're still confused, look up the meaning of the word "convey". I've been using it throughout this discussion.

    "Since "bongs" have not been proven to be harmful, we don't ban them. "

    Guess again. It is illegal to own drug paraphernalia with intent to use, even though the paraphernalia itself is not the cause of the harm. Look up Utah criminal law.

    "...a study that controls for harmful cultures."

    I have shown you many studies which control for culture. Your refusal to acknowledge them does not affect the facts.

    Yet again -- we don't have to prove that it harms across ALL religions and cultures. We already know that it significantly increases risk in the vast majority of cases. We don't need to prove that each and every instance of polygamy is harmful any more than we need to prove that each and every instance of drunk driving is harmful.