Correct me if I am wrong but it appears that the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases are being argued by opponents on the basis of a supposed absolute right to marriage contained somewhere in the constitution of the US.
This is quite different from a challenge that could have been made on basis of the "normality" of such marriages.
If the argument that people have a right to marry whom they please without government interference is successful, it would seem inevitable that laws banning polygamy will be challenged.
What is the social benefit derived from laws against polygamy? As a libertarian constitutionalist I do not understand the laws against polygamy as being other than derived from Judeo-Christian tradition. pl
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-case.html?_r=0
ked
I am a Virginia liberal like Madison and Jefferson. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 27 March 2013 at 04:07 PM
nancy k
"The John Jay report found that 81% of the victims were male. 22% of victims were younger than age 10, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages 15 and 17 years."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_the_United_States#Profile_of_the_victims
I have never met a female victim of this. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 27 March 2013 at 04:20 PM
He's talking about pederasty, you bring up pedophilia. Slick. "Damaged men"? I think the latest science indicates they're born that way. Hmmm, perhaps new rights are in the offing Ben?
Men who are attracted to adolescent boys - i.e., pederasts - are homosexual. Men attracted to adolescent girls - call them ephebophiliacs if you want - they're heterosexual.
Posted by: RJH | 27 March 2013 at 04:27 PM
rjh
"...the latest science indicates they're born that way." Citation? pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 27 March 2013 at 04:31 PM
Pedophilia not being equated to homosexuality was the great media shield to defend homosexuals from charges that they were preying on boys (and giving credence to the argument that homosexuals shouldn't be priests).
Homosexuals, one to two percent of the population, make up about a third of all cases involving child sex crimes. NAMBLA marched with in the gay pride parades in the 70s until someone wised up to the fact that the norms weren't cool with leather daddies wanting to bugger their young sons.
Posted by: Tyler | 27 March 2013 at 04:36 PM
Col.,
See this LA Times piece:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115
Quote:
"Like men attracted to adults, nearly all pedophiles respond most strongly to one gender or the other — females far more often than males.
In searching for causes of pedophilia, researchers have largely dismissed the popular belief that abuse in childhood plays an important role. Studies show that few victims grow up to be abusers, and only about a third of offenders say they were molested.
Scientists at the Toronto center have uncovered a series of associations that suggest pedophilia has biological roots."
Posted by: RJH | 27 March 2013 at 04:40 PM
Conservatives are for liberty with restraint. What you want is unchecked hedonism with no consequences.
Its amazing how liberals are all about free speech until someone says something they don't like, then its "hate speech".
Posted by: Tyler | 27 March 2013 at 04:42 PM
They have the right to civil unions. They want to redefine marriage for their own purposes. This is just another battle in a series of them by cultural marxists to tear down the family.
Posted by: Tyler | 27 March 2013 at 04:44 PM
Sir,
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115
The overton window/slippery slope is moving. We're already seeing calls for trannsexuals to be able to join the military. Soon we'll be doing this song and dance with pedophiles screaming in front of the SCOTUS about how they should be able to marry an 11 y/o because their relationship is about 'love'.
I weep for my country.
Posted by: Tyler | 27 March 2013 at 04:48 PM
Teachers are 100X more likely to sexually abuse students than priests are.
Also, you never hear about the sexual abuse occuring in the Jewish communities in the NYT & ilk. Funny, that.
Posted by: Tyler | 27 March 2013 at 04:50 PM
Col.,
Tried to post this earlier, but it appears not to have gone through. See this recent LA Time article.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115
Posted by: RJH | 27 March 2013 at 07:03 PM
No, I think they'll wonder at how quickly a civilization that could touch the moon destroyed itself in the name of cultural relativism and unchecked hedonism.
Posted by: Tyler | 27 March 2013 at 07:26 PM
General Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.
Posted by: Stephanie | 27 March 2013 at 07:37 PM
So those of us who don't conform to the dogma of the bell curve can be discriminated against?
Posted by: Fred | 27 March 2013 at 08:17 PM
I believe you are correct that many are looking for 'sanctification' from society and not a universal right. They are not like to get sanctification from many religious denominations and will thus be agitating for conformity to 'public opinion' amongst the non-believers (in gay marraige).
Posted by: Fred | 27 March 2013 at 08:29 PM
I don't know whether pedophiles, whether attracted to members of the same or opposite sex, are born that way. I had thought that most were pedophiles because of childhood abuse. I'm open to reading whatever scientific research you suggest.
It seems ridiculous to me to tar all heterosexuals or all homosexuals with the pedophile label, just because of the actions of a few same-sex/opposite-sex pedophiles.
Posted by: Ben | 27 March 2013 at 08:31 PM
It's not something I've studied but a quick google search shows higher #s of girls vs boys molested as children. http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#United_States_and_Europe
Studies show numbers like 47% of abusers as fixated solely on children, 40% as "regressed adult heterosexuals" and 13% "regressed adult bisexuals". http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Posted by: Ben | 27 March 2013 at 08:57 PM
Straight as a board. Where I come from, you ask that w/a smile, pardner. Evidently not in your neck of the woods. 11A and 12B. OR and WA Army NG: A Co, 1-249th INF (Hood River, OR)1991-1993; 162nd EN Co (Camp Withycombe, OR)1997-1998; A Co (B Team)1/19th SFG (Buckley, WA)1999-2000. If you want my entire DD214, message me.
Posted by: Ben | 27 March 2013 at 09:18 PM
Ben
"It seems ridiculous to me to tar all heterosexuals or all homosexuals with the pedophile label, just because of the actions of a few same-sex/opposite-sex pedophiles" Straw man. I didn't. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 27 March 2013 at 09:25 PM
Ben
Don't get your bowels in an uproar. I asked you a question. if you don't want to answer questions don't, but don't feed me a ration of s--t. you know damned well that you wouldn't talk to me like that if we were in the same SF unit, or at least you would not have in my time. If you want to send me your DD 214, there is a button no the blog for my e-mail. I've never seen a reserve component DD 214. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 27 March 2013 at 09:26 PM
ben
Your citation deals with child abuse in general, not in the Catholic Church. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 27 March 2013 at 09:27 PM
From what I read in the papers the fundamentalist LDS is a bunch of middle-aged men forcing barely-legal girls to marry them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs
And kicking most of the young men out of paradise before they could grow up to be competition. Or, even better, kicking dissidents out and reassigning their wives to the faithful. http://www.religionnewsblog.com/5630/mayor-others-ousted-from-flds-church
Posted by: Ben | 27 March 2013 at 09:30 PM
Ben
I see. your "knowledge " of Mormon dissidents qualifies you to have opinions about polygamy all over the world. you must have been a lot of fun in Reserve SF. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 27 March 2013 at 09:34 PM
Ked, Fairness of the tax code? Are you really saying that is what this is all about? The tax code favors or disfavors myriads of different types of individuals, entities, personal and business arrangements and so on and so forth.
Red herring.
If fairness of the tax code is the issue then we should be discussing a flat tax. That's an entirely different topic.
Projection? Give me a break, please. You don't even know me.
Posted by: no one | 27 March 2013 at 09:43 PM
Not sure why you find unmarried gays having multiple sex-partners preferable to monogamous gays making breakfast for the spouse and changing diapers in wedded bliss.
Personally, I think that the unchecked hedonism of a 1990s Speaker of the House committing adultery with a staff member while impeaching the President for lying about the same offense is far more destructive. But, after 5 years of adultery, the Speaker asked his wife for an "open marriage", so maybe that's a sign for hope?
Posted by: Ben | 27 March 2013 at 09:47 PM