Utah Polygamist (NOT A MORMAN!) uses gay sex ruling as defense

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Originally posted by jlabsher
He still is a scumbag for sleeping with a 13 year old.

Exactly. I have no problem with polygamy or polyandry among consenting adults. In practice, though, most cases of "polygamy" in the US are like this. The young "wives" are practically sex slaves.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Welcome to The Slippery Slope folks! A lot of people were saying this was going to happen and I'm damn glad to see it come to the fore. Time for the Friends of Incest and NAMBLA to start getting their legal challenges ready.:biggrin:
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Originally posted by Bruzilla
Welcome to The Slippery Slope folks! A lot of people were saying this was going to happen and I'm damn glad to see it come to the fore. Time for the Friends of Incest and NAMBLA to start getting their legal challenges ready.:biggrin:

I don't think so. That scumbag's case will be thrown out faster than an Orioles manager. Even a kiddie laywer could prove that he married all his wives when they were minors.

Plus, pedophilia and statutory rape are illegal not necessarily for moral reasons, but because they cause harm to people who cannot reasonably protect themselves. These are based on the concept of knowledgable consent, I believe. Ken, do you know more about the legal basis for this stuff?
 
J

justhangn

Guest
Originally posted by *archimedes*
Does anyone have any good links to informative Mormon web sites? If it's good enough for Tigger, I might try it.

:cool:
 

aps45819

24/7 Single Dad
I'm still trying to figure out WHY anybody would want more than 1 woman telling them to put the F*ing seat down :confused:
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Originally posted by Tonio
I don't think so. That scumbag's case will be thrown out faster than an Orioles manager. Even a kiddie laywer could prove that he married all his wives when they were minors.

Plus, pedophilia and statutory rape are illegal not necessarily for moral reasons, but because they cause harm to people who cannot reasonably protect themselves. These are based on the concept of knowledgable consent, I believe. Ken, do you know more about the legal basis for this stuff?

I gotta disagree with you. His case is based on overturning the bigmay conviction, not the rape, child molestation, or other charges. A lot of folks on the old religious right said that once you say that government cannot legislate what happens between two consenting adults as a means to appease the Gays, you were opening the door to every deviate out there. And what do you know... for once they were right.

The Law of Unintended Circumstances strikes again!
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Bru, I happen to believe that the government has no business legislating private moral issues. I simply don't see a compelling reason why homosexuality or bigamy should be illegal. These aren't the same as incest and pedophilia and statutory rape and bestiality.

As I see it, the guiding principle behind sexual laws is preventing harm to others. (Incest qualifies because I've read that incest, by definition, involves rape or statutory rape.) As long as the courts adhere to that principle, I don't see much danger of a "slippery slope" in either direction. Once you start illegalizing "deviancy" (whatever the hell that means), where do you stop? Could the slippery slope involve convictions for teenagers pleasuring themselves in private?
 
Top