Where are our favorite defenders of "alternative lifestyles" now? Why aren't Heleva and company in here vigorously defending the rights of these people to enter into the marraige contracts that make them happy? Do these people not have the same rights as gays?

For the record, I am against polygamy and gay marraige. But at least I am consistent.

I expect messages like this every time a marriage issue comes up. The lack of nuanced understanding in this argument is as fatal as it is clear. With a relationship between two homosexuals, it is a consensual relationship with no potential for exploitation beyond that which is found in any human-to-human relationship. We don't allow beastiality, for example and among other things, because animals cannot consent. Anyone can understand from a polygamy discussion, especially when one sees that 14 year old males are expelled from their own "families" and the compound on which they live, that this would only lead to more lost children and eventual wards of the state. How many homosexual relationships lead to homelessness, increased crime, increased drug and alcohol use, and children being turned out into the world?

[We don't allow beastiality, for example and among other things, because animals cannot consent.]

LOL! You're kidding right? So, I can eat a cow, but if I f*ck it I should go to jail because it can't give consent?

If that's the best argument you've got, then maybe you should reconsider your argument against bestiality.

[Anyone can understand from a polygamy discussion, especially when one sees that 14 year old males are expelled from their own "families" and the compound on which they live, that this would only lead to more lost children and eventual wards of the state.]

Well, Heleva and others have argued that a woman cannot be compelled to carry a child to term because that would constitute "involuntary servitude." So, how can a you then say that you would limit another's right to enter into a marraige contract with the persons of their choosing simply because of the potential that I might in the future create wards of the state? Isn't forcing them to care for children they don't want just as much "involuntary servitude" as forcing a pregnant woman to carry to term?

If consenting adults want to enter into multiple-this, multiple-that relationships, I'm all for it. I don't think the state has any business determining whether or not those relationships are marriages or not. In fact, I don't think the state has any business proclaiming any arrangement, including the common one man-one woman setup, a marriage. The state(s) need to get out of the marriage business and leave it to the churches, whether those churches be mainstream, fringe, cult or completely bogus. Any person or persons who want to enter into a contractual relationship with any other person or persons would be free to do so, as long as we're talking about consenting adults who are mentally competent.

The FLDS situation is a little different because some of the girls are 12 or 13 years old at the time they're forced to marry, and they're held against their will in some cases. There's also the problem of throwing out the minor boys who are not old enough to fend for themselves, being children, legally speaking. Other than that, I have no problem with a compound full of cultists who wear blue dresses and funny looking hairstyles. Eventually, the whole thing will collapse in on itself. I hope it doesn't end Jonestown style, but it probably will.

You might be right about the homelessness and crime, but from what I've seen here in California, homosexuals tend to smoke, drink, and use drugs more than average. There's a definite drug and alcohol aspect to the gay culture. Since homosexuals are a smaller population, I don't think this gets noticed as much by the media. It's easier to focus on the white trash meth labs and inner city crackheads.

I wonder who is going to come forth and argue for their religious freedom.

Those familiar with Mormonism will have understood what an insult it was to haul these people out in Baptist Church busses.

.....from what I've seen here in California, homosexuals tend to smoke, drink, and use drugs more than average.

If you are talking about young, urban gays, I wouldn't be surprised if their smoking, drinking and drugging is about the same as that of young, urban straight folks.

However, I know some gays in their 50s and 60s, and they definitely do not smoke, drink and use drugs "more than average" (whatever that means).

There's a definite drug and alcohol aspect to the gay culture.

The leap from your first sentence (that you've seen some CA gays "smoke, drink and use drugs more than average") to your second sentence (that "there's a definite drug and alcohol aspect to the [entire] gay culture") is not at all a reasonable statement. Your leap from a single specific example to a totally unsubstantiated generalization would make your logics teacher roll his/her eyes.

MaryAnn- I'm making an observation based on what I've seen, therefore Logics class has no bearing on this discussion.

Ridesq implies that homosexual relationships don't lead to drug or alcohol use. He made the blanket statement and I'm responding that I've seen ample evidence to the contrary.

You say "I wouldn't be surprised if their smoking, drinking and drugging is about the same as that of young, urban straight folks."

So you agree that there's a drug and alcohol aspect to the gay culture?

In your rush to defend the poor, helpless gay culture from the politically incorrect strereotyper, you forgot to consider if maybe I was right.

So, ridesq, and I'm not trying to start anything with you, do you think polygamy is inherently evil, immoral, and bad for society OR are you saying it's evil, immoral and bad for society as practiced by the FLDS? I've know people who practice polyamoury and polygamy (not in the patriarchal sense or sometimes even the heterosexual sense) but they do have what can be termed group marriages. I don't think there relationships lead to homelessness, pedophilia, etc.

Polygamy is a loaded term and has connotations of a biblical patriarch and Mormonism,but it's really just a man with multiple wives.. I don't think any person who can be for gay marriage can really be against polygamy between CONSENTING adults. I agree with the true conservative that its pretty intellectually dishonest. And to be honest, our Judeo-Christian tradition actually has a history of polygamy so it's really more familiar than gay marriage.

i'm just saying.

You have to wonder about the strange obsession that conservatives have with homosexuality. The Slate story in question deals with polygamy ... and yet the conservatives here twist it into a discussion of the gay lifestyle.

It's okay, conservatives. You can be a gay and proud Republican. Look at Larry Craig. And Mark Foley. And Ken Mehlman. And Ted Haggard.

castanea:

You have to wonder about the strange obsession that conservatives have with homosexuality. The Slate story in question deals with polygamy ... and yet the conservatives here twist it into a discussion of the gay lifestyle.

It's okay, conservatives. You can be a gay and proud Republican. Look at Larry Craig. And Mark Foley. And Ken Mehlman. And Ted Haggard.

Have you ever heard of the concept called the global nature of truth?

I would say homosexuals are more obsessed with Republicans than vice versa.

It's okay gay people... you can be Republican and proudly gay. Look at Larry Craig. And Mark Foley. And Ken Mehlman. And Ted Haggard.

Well, truth be told, gays and Republicans are obsessed with each other equally. But, really, who cares?

The point of the topic is valid though. If you're pro-same sex marriage because you feel that the government or religious people shouldn't be telling you who to marry, then the same logic extends without too much effort into polygamous relationships.

And stacky-ackey is right... Polygamy has fairly significant roots in the Old Testament. Solomon, anyone?

But the issue isn't polygamy as such. The issue is polygamy that involves marrying off under-aged girls to men two or three times their age with the sole purpose of breeding. You do understand the difference, don't you?

If you had women in society at large who were allowed to develop their own opinions about life by observing the marketplace of ideas, and if when they reached legal marrying age, many of them chose to marry the same fellow, that's one thing. But with the FLDS tomfoolery you have what is essentially a breeding colony in which women are raised from their mother's womb to be breeders themselves once they reached age 14 without having much of a choice in the matter, and that's another thing entirely.

I realize it is hard for conservatives to understand nuance and such, but I'm sure if you furrow your brows a bit, and if you read over what sensible people have written on the matter (feel free to move your lips when you read if it helps you understand), I'm sure that you'll see how very wrong you are.

Funny that Republicans seem to be such big supporters of free will and making one's own choices, and yet they can't see that the girls in question really don't have any choices at all.

And when I write "funny," what I mean is "pathetically sad, but not surprising."

Colage, does this sound like a Biblical endorsement of polygamy to you?

1 Kings 11:3-4 (New International Version)

3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.