Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Happy Ninth Anniversary!
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Dänk 42Ø
May 19, 2013, 11:34:11 PM5/19/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 01:45:50 +0000, quack:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 23:04:45 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> "BeeSting Alergy" <bees...@harvard.edu> wrote in
>>> news:xn0ii7rfl4s3lhc006 @news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> >> Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S. 05/17/2013
>>> >
>>> > "Happy", sometimes, yes - other times, no. "9th Anni" - sure.
>>> >
>>> > Marriage is a day to day struggle for straight couples. The pressure
>>> > on homosexuals has to be a little more.
>>> >
>>> > Just a little, wouldn't you say?
>>> >
>>> >> Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage
>>> >> nine years ago on Friday, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
>>> >> Court ruled that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits
>>> >> and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of
>>> >> the same sex who wish to marry."
>>> >
>>> > Is it such a strech that Massachusetts was the first?
>>> >
>>> > I mean, isn't this the same state that housed Ted "Mary Jo" Kennedy
>>> > (circa 1960's) & Dhokar/Tamerlan Tsarnaev (circa NOW)?
>>>
>>> Also the state that elected Scott Brown
>>> and Mitt Romney. How very liberal of them.
>>
>> OK, OK -- mine was a cheap shot. Fact is, the genie is already out of
>> the bottle when it comes to gay marriage. But the fear is -- that NYU
>> professor chatting up polygamy.
>>
>> Two questions (one repeat) -- why are you so hung up on gay marriage,
>> Mitch? Is legalized polygamy ok with you?
>>
>> Just asking.
>
> I have no problem with polygamy as long as they're all consenting
> adults.
>
> Why do you?
Same-sex marriage advocates insulted polygamy during the Proposition 8
campaign, calling it "offensive" that gay marriage should be compared to
it, and poo-poohing suggestions that legalization of one would lead to
legalization of the other. (Rather like the "medical" marijuana debate,
with proponents dismissing suggestions that legalization of pot for
terminal cancer patients would lead to half the people in California
getting prescriptions for it for "back pain," baldness, etc.)
During the Prop. 8 protest rally I attended in San Francisco on 15 Nov
2008, I saw many placards insulting the Mormon cult for its practice of
polygamy in the past (e.g. "You have TWO wives, why can't I have ONE
husband?).*
Of course, the "mainstream" LDS Mormon faction officially renounced
polygamy in 1890, as a condition for Congress granting statehood to Ut*h.
This led to a theological schism, with the "heretical" polygamous FLDS
sect splitting off, and which still continues to practice polygamy today.
Due to the collapse of the California economy, I currently occupy space
in Southern Ut*h, and regularly encounter polygamists while shopping.
(The men and boys always wear button-down long-sleeved shirts and jeans
-- even when performing manual labor in sweltering heat -- and the women
and girls always wear 19th-century style prairie dresses.)
The heretical FLDS sect is viciously persecuted by the mainstream LDS
sect, though attempts to enforce the state "bigamy" law ended after a
bloody confrontation in the 1950s. Members of the FLDS are suing to have
the anti-polygamy law overturned by the courts, cleverly using "Lawrence
v. Texas" (the SCOTUS ruling that said that anti-sodomy laws were
unconstitutional) in their legal argument. If this approach fails, they
will certainly be able to use the inevitable SCOTUS ruling against
heterosexual-only marriage laws.
Gay marriage advocates COULD have found a useful ally in Mormon FLDS
polygamists, but they chose to insult them instead. And the reason the
"mainstream" LDS sect is so hellbent on stopping same-sex marriage is
because they know that it will set a precedent for legalization of
polygamy!
The LDS' moral authority over the FLDS stems from the fact that polygamy
is ILLEGAL. Legalize polygamy, and the moral authority vanishes, with
FLDS followers permitted to participate in "mainstream" Ut*h society and
politics. The LDS is less concerned about homosexuality and much more
concerned with preventing a heretical rival sect from gaining influence
in Ut*h -- and this is why it spent so much money supporting Proposition
8 in California.
*
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/20081115190709.jpg/
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 23:04:45 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:
>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> "BeeSting Alergy" <bees...@harvard.edu> wrote in
>>> news:xn0ii7rfl4s3lhc006 @news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> >> Happy Ninth Anniversary To Gay Marriage In The U.S. 05/17/2013
>>> >
>>> > "Happy", sometimes, yes - other times, no. "9th Anni" - sure.
>>> >
>>> > Marriage is a day to day struggle for straight couples. The pressure
>>> > on homosexuals has to be a little more.
>>> >
>>> > Just a little, wouldn't you say?
>>> >
>>> >> Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage
>>> >> nine years ago on Friday, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
>>> >> Court ruled that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits
>>> >> and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of
>>> >> the same sex who wish to marry."
>>> >
>>> > Is it such a strech that Massachusetts was the first?
>>> >
>>> > I mean, isn't this the same state that housed Ted "Mary Jo" Kennedy
>>> > (circa 1960's) & Dhokar/Tamerlan Tsarnaev (circa NOW)?
>>>
>>> Also the state that elected Scott Brown
>>> and Mitt Romney. How very liberal of them.
>>
>> OK, OK -- mine was a cheap shot. Fact is, the genie is already out of
>> the bottle when it comes to gay marriage. But the fear is -- that NYU
>> professor chatting up polygamy.
>>
>> Two questions (one repeat) -- why are you so hung up on gay marriage,
>> Mitch? Is legalized polygamy ok with you?
>>
>> Just asking.
>
> I have no problem with polygamy as long as they're all consenting
> adults.
>
> Why do you?
Same-sex marriage advocates insulted polygamy during the Proposition 8
campaign, calling it "offensive" that gay marriage should be compared to
it, and poo-poohing suggestions that legalization of one would lead to
legalization of the other. (Rather like the "medical" marijuana debate,
with proponents dismissing suggestions that legalization of pot for
terminal cancer patients would lead to half the people in California
getting prescriptions for it for "back pain," baldness, etc.)
During the Prop. 8 protest rally I attended in San Francisco on 15 Nov
2008, I saw many placards insulting the Mormon cult for its practice of
polygamy in the past (e.g. "You have TWO wives, why can't I have ONE
husband?).*
Of course, the "mainstream" LDS Mormon faction officially renounced
polygamy in 1890, as a condition for Congress granting statehood to Ut*h.
This led to a theological schism, with the "heretical" polygamous FLDS
sect splitting off, and which still continues to practice polygamy today.
Due to the collapse of the California economy, I currently occupy space
in Southern Ut*h, and regularly encounter polygamists while shopping.
(The men and boys always wear button-down long-sleeved shirts and jeans
-- even when performing manual labor in sweltering heat -- and the women
and girls always wear 19th-century style prairie dresses.)
The heretical FLDS sect is viciously persecuted by the mainstream LDS
sect, though attempts to enforce the state "bigamy" law ended after a
bloody confrontation in the 1950s. Members of the FLDS are suing to have
the anti-polygamy law overturned by the courts, cleverly using "Lawrence
v. Texas" (the SCOTUS ruling that said that anti-sodomy laws were
unconstitutional) in their legal argument. If this approach fails, they
will certainly be able to use the inevitable SCOTUS ruling against
heterosexual-only marriage laws.
Gay marriage advocates COULD have found a useful ally in Mormon FLDS
polygamists, but they chose to insult them instead. And the reason the
"mainstream" LDS sect is so hellbent on stopping same-sex marriage is
because they know that it will set a precedent for legalization of
polygamy!
The LDS' moral authority over the FLDS stems from the fact that polygamy
is ILLEGAL. Legalize polygamy, and the moral authority vanishes, with
FLDS followers permitted to participate in "mainstream" Ut*h society and
politics. The LDS is less concerned about homosexuality and much more
concerned with preventing a heretical rival sect from gaining influence
in Ut*h -- and this is why it spent so much money supporting Proposition
8 in California.
*
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/20081115190709.jpg/
0 new messages