Same-sex marriages, and then polygamy, and then…

Same-sex approval in law will lead to all sorts of aberrations from nature.  Ultimately, I think the true goal is elimination of the age of consent.  Meanwhile, the erosion continues.

For example, from Fox411:

‘Sister Wives’ family cites gay marriage ruling in polygamy case

SALT LAKE CITY – A polygamous family says the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage shows that laws restricting consensual adult relationships are outdated, even if certain unions are unpopular.

Kody Brown and his four wives argue in court documents that their reality TV show “Sister Wives” shows polygamous marriages can be as healthy as monogamous ones.

“The Browns were investigated and no crimes or harm was found in their plural family,” attorney Jonathan Turley wrote in court documents filed Wednesday in front of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. He has said the family is prepared to take the legal fight to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

The Browns are defending a legal victory they won in 2013, when a federal judge struck down key parts of Utah’s law banning polygamy. Advocacy groups for polygamy and individual liberties called the ruling a significant decision that removed the threat of arrest for the state’s plural families.

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes appealed, saying courts have long upheld laws banning polygamy because they prevent abuse of women and children.

Unlike same-sex marriage advocates, the Browns are not seeking full legal recognition of polygamous marriages. That portion of Utah’s bigamy law prohibiting multiple marriages license was left in place by U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups when he decided that a provision of the state law forbidding cohabitation violated the family’s freedom of religion.

In most polygamous families, the man is legally married to one woman but only “spiritually married” to the others.

The teaching that polygamy brings exaltation in heaven is a legacy of the early Mormon church, but the mainstream Salt Lake City-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints abandoned the practice in 1890 and strictly prohibits it today.

The next step, I suppose, is to introduce some pets into the happy fold.

Some sharing options...

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in One Man & One Woman, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Same-sex marriages, and then polygamy, and then…

  1. Dr. Edward Peters says:

    “Ultimately, I think the true goal is elimination of the age of consent.” Chilling.

  2. Tony Phillips says:

    The difference is, polygamy is quite normal, even if we don’t approve of it nowadays. We all know about the polygamous patriarchs, and though the practice fell out of favour it was practiced by some Spanish Jews as late as the 14th century. And of course it’s still practiced by some Moslems.
    Whereas homosexuality is, quite simply, a mental illness, and homosexual behaviour is very much an aberration universally condemned, and celebrated only in the most morally decadent if materially advanced cultures (eg, Nero’s Rome).

  3. Magash says:

    “Whereas homosexuality is, quite simply, a mental illness, and homosexual behaviour is very much an aberration universally condemned, and celebrated only in the most morally decadent if materially advanced cultures (eg, Nero’s Rome).”

    and Obama’s United States.

  4. anilwang says:

    Ultimately, I think the true goal is elimination of the age of consent.

    That’s definitely in the mix, but I think the true goal is more sinister and far reaching, namely:

    (1) sexual perversion of any kind is permissible including rape (i.e. forced sex is no different than forcing someone to do something they don’t like….if it’s violent, there are already laws in place for violence, but otherwise “thou protests too much, prude”)

    (2) the concept of marriage itself is a form of abuse and causes severe harm to the state and thus should be made illegal (see next two points)

    (3) Replace the “archaic idea” of marriage with “comprehensive” legal contracts between any number of legal persons (remember, corporations and registered trade unions are also persons, so expect some form of indentured service to make a comeback)

    (4) natural birth is an form of selfish abuse that needs to punished and managed by the state artificial wombs (managed for the environment, resources, “genetic fitness”, “tax burden”, and to ensure everyone is political correct and non-approved world views can be suppressed early) and each person is sterilized at birth

    The seeds of all 4 of these are already in place in various parts of the world, and it’s only Catholicism, natural religion, and technology that has stunted the growth of these seeds. But give it time. Forms of all the above already receive a non-insignificant support in academic circles and less advanced forms of the above are seeping into the world view of the entertainment world.

  5. SummerMarigold says:

    I grew up a non-Mormon in Mormon land (I am 30) and polygamy was still common enough for me to think it was fairly normal. Several of my friends had polygamous fathers and a lot of the houses near me were built as duplexes and triplexes or with “mother in law suites” which were really just smaller abodes for the lesser favored wife. In our area it was common to have a wife a decade. Legally marry a woman when you come back from your LDS mission. Divorce her legally but stay spiritually married a decade or so later. Legally and spiritually marry wife number 2 and so on. 10 years is the magic number for Social Security benefits. Supposedly the church outlawed it but all these folks were married in the Temple and a couple of the men served as “bishops”. I now know a couple Muslim polygamist families. The families are full of jealousy even when they put up a happy front and divorce is common.

    I am a lot more comfortable with polygamy than gay marriage – no doubt as result of seeing it growing up. Praise God we are a monogamous faith! I think the age of consent is largely fiction in our society now anyways. There are some big legal shows of it and people get all scandalized when someone like the subway guy is arrested, but it is a part of us now and I don’t think we as a society are really invested in protecting minors anymore. The numbers of American children trafficked – even sold by their own relatives – are truly astounding.

  6. Giuseppe says:

    In the US, particularly among the poor and also in some African-American communities, there is a shortage of marriageable men. I see polygamy taking hold in more places than Utah.

  7. wmeyer says:

    Ultimately, I think the true goal is elimination of the age of consent.

    I really doubt that will be an end point. I suspect what is wanted is the removal of all codified constraints on any possible sexual (or other pleasure inducing) interaction. And not only among humans. Satan wants the complete ruin of souls.

  8. iamlucky13 says:

    “Ultimately, I think the true goal is elimination of the age of consent. “

    I see no evidence the overwhelming majority of those leading us through this devolution of morality have a unified long term agenda. It’s a continuous process of accommodating broader and broader “acceptance” as society progressively (pun intended) loses its ability to understand the way each falls short of the beautiful conjugal, dedicated, self-giving, creative love each of us were meant to experience (or choose to offer up in celibacy as a gift for the sake of that which is even more beautiful).

    Having forgotten why husbands and wives were supposed to be dedicated for life and could divorce without consequences, we then forgot they were supposed to be dedicated their future spouse before marriage, so extramarital relations became accepted. Then we forgot they were supposed to be dedicated not only with their bodies, but their minds, too, allowing pornography and masturbation to be considered “normal and healthy,” as many psychologists put it. Now we’ve forgotten how to understand the complementarity of men and women and see nothing wrong at all with homosexuality.

    We are in the process of forgetting the love part of it, too, and I expect the next shoe to drop in the US won’t actually be polygamy, but prostitution, as it has in several European countries. In secular discussions that frequently arise when prostitution comes up in the news, I hear a lot of criticism at the prohibitions on prostitution. Those who see sex as nothing more than consensual fun, even those who oppose prostitution, are unable to articulate responses in these discussions as to why prostitution is wrong.

    I won’t be entirely surprised if polygamy comes first, but I think prostitution is ahead in the race and polygamy has a big emotional barrier to cross. People who have been hurt by cheating partners have a very strong sense that their sexual relationship should have been exclusive (even if only serially), but they’ll see little wrong with those not in a relationship paying for the opportunity to experience a purely carnal imitation of sexual intimacy.

    I grant that those who can not find satisfaction even with all they’re allowed and even encouraged to do with the peers or themselves and instead want to look for satisfaction with the innocent will very likely eventually publicly make their case. I doubt those attempting to normalize what’s going on currently will find a logical case to deny them, except perhaps drawing the line at puberty, which will then mean in order to be open-minded they have to accept and even celebrate it.

    However, that can’t entirely happen until society starts to forget the pedophilia scandal in the Church. At the moment, the sins of some of our priests and failures of the bishops to respond effectively, even in the many cases that predated mandatory reporting laws, are too convenient of weapon to attack the Church with.

    So removing an age of consent has to wait, and will have to come gradually. Age of consent laws usually already have “close enough” exemptions, and I’d expect cases to be made for slowly expanding those exemptions, in addition to increasingly defending specific perpetrators the way many people defended Roman Polanski.

  9. Dr. Edward Peters says:

    “The difference is, polygamy is quite normal, even if we don’t approve of it nowadays. ”

    Right on, and all that stuff from Jesus about marriage in the beginning being between one man and one woman, where did THAT come from?

  10. Jethrah says:

    I predicted age of consent laws would be abolished before polygamy, because those who have the most power have a sentimental attachment to free love for children but associate polygamy with Mormons, whom they do not like. Maybe I was wrong but I was serious.

  11. Kathleen10 says:

    About five years ago there was a conference of some kind, and many professionals from different disciplines were there, including a full fledged doctor in good standing from Johns Hopkins, who put forth a defense of the pedophile, and argued that it is really unfair to force them to be “stigmatized” and treated poorly by society. The doctor, who’s name I can’t recall but I’m sure is easily found, defended those who are “minor attracted”. Nobody jumped up and stormed out of the room, and the doctor’s opinion was heard. As far as I know he was not fired from Johns Hopkins nor suffered any of the “stigma” he should, for putting forth such utter garbage when in reality, children are greatly harmed by sexual activity and the kind of “love” that NAMBLA (National Man/Boy Love Association) promotes for innocent and vulnerable children, foisted on them by adults in their vicinity who happen to have disordered brains and diabolical lusts.
    Children are preyed upon today in so many ways, astronomical numbers of children who are compromised in various ways by demented adults. I have no doubt there are lawyers somewhere working feverishly to get to those pesky age of consent laws, probably in each state. We must never allow them to. Things are bad enough now, but if they attain that, it will be impossible to protect children at all. And corrupting innocent children, is the Grand Prize for weirdos who can’t get enough evil any other way.
    Merciful God, help the children, please. And help us, to help them.

  12. The next step is legalizing incest. The TV show Game of Thrones was a precursor to this abomination. However this idea has been in the courts already in both Australia and Germany. In both cases adult father and adult daughter claim to be . . . you guessed it: *IN L*O*V*E*

    The overused, misused, and poorly understood “love” card is going to continue being used until our religious leaders reclaim it for God, its sole and principle Author.

  13. WYMiriam says:

    Can anyone say . . . . domino effect? I am certain that all the dominoes will fall — the only question being, which one is next in line?

  14. Pingback: SATURDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  15. Chris Garton-Zavesky says:

    Polygamy is the logical extension of “anyone has the right to marry whomever he wishes”.

    I don’t think that the AGE of consent is the target, so much as the concept of consent at all: why should consent be necessary, since freely-given consent was one of those things which ooga-booga Catholics (and other people on the wrong side of history) used to require? Removing the need for consent at all creates a crimeless victim.

    I’m inclined to believe that what we need now is a St. Boniface (if I recall correctly) who chopped down the tree, instead of people to argue about the merits of anything — since the other side is clearly incapable of reasoned thought.

  16. Tony Phillips says:

    Re: Dr E. Peters (3.30 am): ‘all that stuff from Jesus about marriage in the beginning being between one man and one woman, where did THAT come from?’
    I’m no scholar of Jewish history, but clearly polygamy was sanctioned in the Torah only to gradually fall out of favour. By Jesus’s time monogamy was very much the norm in Palestine, as indeed it already was in politically and culturally dominant the Greco-Roman world. How much of that was the result of that occidental influence I couldn’t say. See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12260-polygamy.

    Re: Kathleen10 (7.46 pm): The gay activists astutely jettisoned their contacts with NAMBLA-like organisations some years back when they realised this strategy was necessary to achieve their goal of mainstream acceptance. Some months ago, echoes of the one-time strong link between paedophilia and male homosexuality re-emerged to embarrass fellow-traveller Harriet Harman (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9614516/Jimmy-Savile-Labour-faces-embarrassment-over-former-child-sex-claims.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange). Today, we’re frequently subjected to patently absurd claims like ‘most sexual abuse of young boys is committed by male heterosexuals, which is of course a contradiction in terms. Suggesting any inherent link between male homosexuality and child molestation will quickly bring the wrath of the establishment upon you.

    But here’s the issue for us. We can bemoan the collapse of Western society, but aren’t we as a church to some degree responsible for it? Why have we tolerated for so long the presence of active, practicing homosexuals in the hierarchy, to a proportion far in excess of that of the general population? The clergy, like the rest of us, are prone to mental illness, and perhaps their mode of life makes them more susceptible to some conditions (depression, alcoholism…). But it’s one thing to suffer from mental illness and another to behave in a way that’s dangerous to society.

    Pope Benedict, we’re told, was trying to do something about this. I’ve heard nothing from Francis on the issue. Being a Jesuit, it’s something he should know about first hand.

  17. taffymycat says:

    NAMBLA is demonic; all this stuff leads to pedophilia and nambla is no stranger to child prostitution. what a crime – to steal someone’s innocence and childhood, to waste a sacred human life. i am sure the devil is having a jolly time even in hell laughing at us stupid humans who fall for all his tricks

  18. Tricia says:

    It has ALWAYS been about getting to the children.

  19. frjim4321 says:

    “Ultimately, I think the true goal is elimination of the age of consent.”

    And Henny Penny thought the sky was falling down.

    [It doesn’t surprise me that you react in this way. But it is obvious that the game of incrementalism has been used all along so as to arrive at a point where their agenda might be imposed. Mark my words: I’m right about this.]

  20. YoungLatinMassGuy says:

    Ultimately, I think the true goal is elimination of the age of consent.

    Some months back I had the chance to be around several young girls, all sisters, ranging in age from a toddler to about fifteen years old.

    And I had the strangest, best described as a “paternal protective instinct”, feeling come over me:

    “If anyone tries to hurt ANY of these girls, two things are going to happen at the same time:

    1. I’m going ****-up their ****!! 2. I’m gonna look damn-good while doing it.”

    Explaining that to family member, I was told “That feeling doesn’t make you strange at all. It makes you obnoxiously normal.”

    My line is at Children.

    One crosses that line at their own peril.

  21. frjim4321 says:

    [It doesn’t surprise me that you react in this way. But it is obvious that the game of incrementalism has been used all along so as to arrive at a point where their agenda might be imposed. Mark my words: I’m right about this.]

    I find that most slippery slope arguments don’t hold up under scrutiny. It is a well know logical fallacy. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html).

    Also known as “the camel’s nose.”

  22. Dr. Edward Peters says:

    Tony P, yes, we all know all about that. The Christian tradition regards the OT’s polygamy toleration as a concession to deep-seated moral weakness, and NOT as a recognition that polygamy is “quite normal”. Good grief. Jesus either means what he said or he doesn’t.

  23. SaintJude6 says:

    frjim,
    It’s pretty laughable that you try to show off your knowledge of logical fallacies to the readers of this blog. I have elementary-aged children being homeschooled who can identify most of the common fallacies. You’re going to have to dig a lot deeper to impress.
    Pointing out the tendency of those who have forsaken the teachings of Christianity to be constantly pushing the envelope, ever searching for the next perversion to normalize, is not the same as a slippery slope fallacy. From marriage and procreation being the norm to divorce, marriages of contraception, shacking up, blended families, same-sex couples adopting, same-sex (not really) marriage, gender fluidity, transgender rights, etc… We’ve had rainbow lights at the White House and male soldiers being forced to parade in high heels. You really think lowering the age of consent hasn’t been a goal all along? I suggest you look up the term “chicken hawk.”

  24. rafferju says:

    thanks Saintjude6 saved me from having to reply along the same lines. frj seems to think because he has the word logic in his post he plays a trump card. spirit of Vatican 11 is the ultimate slippery slope. I suppose that’s an illusion as well

  25. frjim4321 says:

    “You really think lowering the age of consent hasn’t been a goal all along? I suggest you look up the term ‘chicken hawk.'” – SJ6

    No, I really don’t think that gay persons who have advocated for marriage equality have done so principally – or at all – in order to legalize child rape. It’s rather offensive if not flat out bigoted to suggest so.

    There is no data-driven peer-reviewed research that indicates any significant correlations between sexual orientation and propensity for sexual predation.

  26. SKAY says:

    Tricia said-
    “It has ALWAYS been about getting to the children.”
    Exactly.

    Kevin Jennings(founder of GLSEN-GayLesbianStraight Education Network) was appointed by Barack Obama to be part of the Department of Education during his first term. The objective was supposed to be about teaching anti-bullying skills in schools but it was really about normalizing homosexuality through literature and other means in public schools.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/12/glsening_young_children.html

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/get-em-theyre-young-promoting-homosexuality-public-schools/
    “In 2011, President Obama awarded Kevin Jennings $410 million to promote homosexuality in the public schools. National recession? No problem; this was important! Jennings received an increase of $45 million for his work to push through his agenda on school children regardless of the fact that America has massive federal budget deficits.”
    Kevin left the administration after the first term ended. He said he had accomplished what he intended to do. I think he is probably right.

    http://www.thefamilyleader.com/governors-conference-on-lgbtq-youth-not-what-you-think/
    Parents thought their children were going to an anti bullying conference.

    polygamous marriages–I wonder how Justices Kennedy or Roberts will vote on this?

  27. The Cobbler says:

    If you assume that one thing will follow another without any sound reason, it’s a slippery slope “fallacy”. If you make a legitimate argument that one thing will follow another, it’s no more fallacious than anything else you can make a legitimate argument for. Such a conclusion may still be incorrect not because the argument isn’t legitimate but because of some other error going into it, but that isn’t a fallacy, just a mistake. Personally, I wish people would stop referring to “XYZ fallacies” where XYZ is just whatever fact happens to be assumed as a bad premise, which gives the rather silly impression that somehow it’s the content of the argument that’s fallacious, rather than focusing either on refuting the content factually or actually finding a problem with the form of the logic (even if that problem is that they assumed something that shouldn’t be assumed). It would make it a heck of a lot clearer just what exactly is under debate.

  28. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    [It doesn’t surprise me that you react in this way. But it is obvious that the game of incrementalism has been used all along so as to arrive at a point where their agenda might be imposed. Mark my words: I’m right about this.]

    I find that most slippery slope arguments don’t hold up under scrutiny. It is a well know logical fallacy. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html).

    Also known as “the camel’s nose.”

    Fr Z is not making an argument that something necessarily happens because of a previous event. Rather, he’s referring to a social/political agenda which is only revealed incrementally. Some years ago homosexuals were pushing for non discrimination laws/regs in employment. At the time there was no mention of the bizarro world of gay “marriage”, but does anyone not think it was on the list?

  29. frjim4321 says:

    “Some years ago homosexuals were pushing for non discrimination laws/regs in employment.” Robert

    And that’s bad, why?

  30. Tony Phillips says:

    Frjim4321:
    I can only speak for myself, but yes, I think it’s wrong for any government to ban discrimination on the grounds of sexual behaviour. This isn’t the same as race (which is the analogy gay activists have repeatedly used). It’s about aberrant behaviour that’s harmful to individuals and to society.

    Your statement ‘There is no data-driven peer-reviewed research that indicates any significant correlations between sexual orientation and propensity for sexual predation’ is simply false. What is true is that you’d be hard pressed to get any such data published in today.

    On the other hand, it’s entirely possible that your belief that ‘gay persons who have advocated for [so-called ‘gay marriage’] have done so principally – or at all – in order to legalize child rape’ is true. Just as there are homosexuals who recognise that homosexuality is a disorder, just as there are homosexuals who oppose the notion of ‘gay marriage’, there are undoubtedly homosexuals who fall for the canard of ‘gay marriage’ without any further hidden motive. But the current moral crisis wasn’t driven by the bulk of homosexuals, who are no more united in any grand conspiracy than schizophrenics or manic-depressives. It’s small groups of zealots who drive these things–I’d suggest you read R E Masters’ The Homosexual Revolution, which was published way back in the early 1960s.

    That said, it’s nice to actually be able to discuss these things with someone like yourself–on some blogs I can think of, any ‘outside views’ are binned, so kudos to Fr Z. I would suggest you think again about telling people their opinions are ‘offensive’ or ‘bigoted’–those are the very techniques gay activists use to censor ideas they don’t like and to suppress free speech. Heck, I get offended every day, just by turning on the radio. Some people speak their minds; get over it.

    To Dr Peters: I have no doubt Jesus meant what He said. My point simply is that polygamy is normal, in that it has been practiced by many human cultures. (So, I suppose, has slavery.) Occasionally, even Christian theologians have defended it, including Martin Luther, who’s going to have a piazza in Rome named after him. Whether it’s inferior to monogamy in a moral sense is another question.

    It’s rather offensive if not flat out bigoted to suggest so.

  31. Tony Phillips says:

    PS…sorry, that last non-sequitur of a line was a cut-and-paste duplication, not a comment on monogamists!

  32. frjim4321 says:

    “Your statement ‘There is no data-driven peer-reviewed research that indicates any significant correlations between sexual orientation and propensity for sexual predation’ is simply false.” – Tony Phillips

    Citations, please.

  33. SKAY says:

    Thank you for the link Michael St Michael.
    It is very informative and not surprising. I did not know what the term “chicken hawk”
    meant in this context until reading about this study.
    As Kathleen10 said”Merciful God, help the children, please. And help us, to help them.”

  34. Tony Phillips says:

    Thanks St Mike, interesting review. I remain concerned that the hierarchy does so little to address this problem, probably because a fair number of them are up their eyeballs in it themselves.

    FrJim, I don’t think the internet is the place to have a rational discussion of the psychological literature. I’ve seen so many studies cited by people who clearly don’t understand them, it’s all a bit wearying. Suffice it to say, as one would expect, the ‘homophobes’ cite studies that support their cause (eg, http://www.frc.org/?i=IS02E3), the heterophobes cite those that support theirs (eg, http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html), and each trashes the others’. And they’re easy to trash, since it’s a rare psychological study that doesn’t have significant methodologic or statistical flaws and various biases.

    What you will see is a fairly clear temporal demarcation between studies that confirmed a connexion between child molestation and male homosexuality and those that ‘disprove’ it. Publishing bias is so strong now anything that doesn’t support the prevailing orthodoxy won’t even be looked at, let alone make it into print. But let’s be honest: most of us aren’t swayed by ‘evidence’ on issues like this: we believe what we’ve already decided we’ll believe. Given the quality of much psychological research, that’s not an unreasonable position.

    I should mention that before I went to medical school my background was in social anthropology, so I’ve got a fair sense of what passes for research in the social sciences, the natural sciences, and the pseudo-sciences (ie, psychiatry and psychology). From what I’ve seen on internet comboxes, there’s an incredible naïveté concerning how scientific research really works, and of how limited even objective studies of non-controversial topics (eg, effect of antihypertensives) can be. When I hear people talking about how our ‘scientific understanding’ of human sexuality has progressed, I’m reminded of Karl Marx’s ‘scientific’ study of history. And we all know how accurate that was.

    Do read the Masters book, if you haven’t already, which gives a pretty objective view of the homophile movement’s aims as of the early 1960s.

  35. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    “Some years ago homosexuals were pushing for non discrimination laws/regs in employment.” Robert

    And that’s bad, why?

    The point was not whether it was bad or good–rather that it was the first step in a political agenda.

  36. Uxixu says:

    Indeed. Slippery slope is not a fallacy with the atheistic Left, it’s their modus operandi.