Blogcritics: Comments on Trading Words for Rights

Comment by gerrard

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:25:22 EST

I'm about to head out, so I just quickly skimmed some of the contents on the other post, but I didn't see anything that includes a fact about why polyamory is inherently exploitative. The only fact I saw (which I don't have time to research, so I'll take it at face value) described how it has been harmful to people in one town in Utah. Considering the fact that that comment described what sounds to my ears like borderline pedophilia, I'm not sure I buy the argument that the experience of some rogue Mormons is proof that polyandry in parts of Tibet is Evil.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:01:46 EST

Gerrard, check out several of the comments on this post for some links and details supporting what I somewhat glibly stated here.

Comment by gerrard

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:49:07 EST

Sorry for not being precise, what about polygamy is inherently exploitative? Have you studied Tibetan societies that practice polyandry? What evidence do you have to suggest that it's inherently bad for children, society, pets, etc? Who decided that polygamy is evil? Your morals? Some religion? I'm not by any means a polygamist (I can bearly take care of the one gf i have), but I'm curious as to what facts everyone bases their hatred of polygamy on. I've yet to hear a sound argument that wasn't based on personal morals.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:37:43 EST

It is inherently exploitative, bad for children, bad for society, and, ... oh yeah... EVIL

Comment by gerrard

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:34:18 EST

"Nobody is talking about allowing this kind of thing. So don't bring it up." I'm curious, what's so inherently bad about polygamy?

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:30:48 EST

I think we should preserve the theopathy of marriage.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:25:00 EST

Mark, I wonder if Bush's back-room folk had anything to do with him using the word sanctity instead of something more obvious to a TON of people.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:15:54 EST

yes, exactly. you and others have said it before as well: the government doesn't have any business protecting the holiness of anything.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:57:21 EST

What do you mean Mark? They are saying the same thing. Do you just mean that less people know what "sanctity" means?

Comment by Mark Saleski

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:53:32 EST

it does make you wonder...would there be any different reactions to this if the president was saying that we need to protect the holiness of marriage?

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:48:56 EST

Eric, this is why whenever Bush uses the word "sanctity" I just cringe.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:43:48 EST

That's very sharp P6 - we need a neutral term. I am still trying to figure out what the big problem is with this beyond the religious prohibitions that aren't supposed to figure in our civil system anyway: separation of church and state remember? It's what we are demanding of the Islams, and rightly so, but this just doesn't make sense for a secular society. I guess it really is crap political grandstanding - no compassionate conservatism here.

Comment by P6

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:13:01 EST

There's a biological term for marriage: pair bonding. I think "bonding" would be a reasonable term. You could even be more accepting than the religious right and recognize the religious ritual as establishing a bond. If polygamy really bothers you (why it would is beyond me) then usethe whole biological term.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:55:23 EST

Please... let's keep this on target. This isn't about right vs. left. This is a specific issue in which not all people on the right agree with the president to be sure.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:50:16 EST

Mark, I believe it was most assuredly "something."

Comment by Mark Saleski

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:48:56 EST

conservatives seemed to have no problem with judicial activism when bush was 'elected'. ah, but that was probably 'jurisprudence'. or something.

Comment by Al Barger

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:43:01 EST

Issues get escalated through the system when there is sufficient public pressure. Otherwise, the system was wisely designed exactly NOT to speed things through. Activist judges are the bane of society. They are the least democratic and answerable part of the system.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:38:56 EST

There's nothing wrong with activist judges. That's the thing that people forget. How else do issues get escalated through the system?

Comment by Mark Saleski

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:35:48 EST

"activist judges"...yet another chunk of coal fallen from the talk radio bag 'o cliches.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:30:19 EST

You have to define marriage somewhere? OK. But to discriminate against a segment of the population to prop up the religious beliefs of another segment? Bottom line: GLBT people ought to leave this vile country sooner rather than later. Obviously, except for our tax dollars and fashion tips, we are not wanted here. Let's start a Lavender Freedom Train to Canada!

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:22:41 EST

I guess there is a fine line between activism and justifiable civil disobedience.

Comment by Tom

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:16:31 EST

The activists brought the heat on themselves. When you have activist judges making up law and a mayor of a left-wing town ignoring laws, you have to expect something will happen. You have to define marriage somewhere. The same arguments that gay-rights activists are using to try to get them rights are the same activists that polygamists have used.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:42:19 EST

Bush is talking out of his hat. The FMA, as presently worded, would also ban civil unions and "other legal arrangments" for same-sex couples. Here is your proof: America and the concept of legal equality for all are mutually exclusive.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:30:44 EST

Sorry about the trackbacks. I was editing my personal blog post and the trackback URL never left that field on my site. I didn't mean to trackback 4 times.