Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Youth Pastor Watch | Wynne Greenwood at OtB »

Wednesday, April 23, 2008


posted by on April 23 at 8:47 AM

Slog reader Price makes a good point about the FLDS saga—DNA tests to determine whose kids are whose are underway—in Eldorado, Texas. These polygamists have been all over cable news and the front pages of American newspapers for weeks now. Says Price…


Where’s the outrage from the “marriage should be between one man and one woman” crowd about this nonsense in Eldorado? You’d think they would be up in arms about this. Aren’t these people DESTROYING all marraige for normal straight couples

When I was in South Carolina before that state’s primary for Real Time with Bill Maher, I asked a religious conservative—a supporter of Mike Huckabee—who was the bigger sinner: a gay man married to one man or a polygamist married to a hundred women. He didn’t even hesitate: the gay man. You hear very little from the one-man-and-one-woman shriekers for the same reason you heard so little from them during the decades straight people spent redefining marriage for themselves. After straight people redefined marriage to a point that it no longer made any logical sense to exclude same-sex couples from the institution’s rights and responsibilities, suddenly marriage had to be defended from the gays. Activists that want to “save marriage” have never been motivated by what they’re for (one man and one woman) but what they’re against (gay sex, love, desire, etc.).

RSS icon Comments


There is no outrage because polygamy is already against the law and is enforced. It's a non-issue to them. Gay marriage is a threat because it is not illegal and may be allowed. Marriage is stupid. They should give "marriage" to the religious and call everything else civil unions whether it's gay or straight.

Posted by Rye | April 23, 2008 8:51 AM

Dan ... it's all about the Christian baby factory.

Posted by OR Matt | April 23, 2008 8:53 AM

Indeed, nobody is wasting effort to defeat non-existent bills and initiatives around the country to legalize polygamy. Get 10,000 people to sign a petition to legalize group marriages and then you'll see them react.

Posted by elenchos | April 23, 2008 8:55 AM

Two things:
1) Dan loves anus so much! He loves his own, he loves other mens in bathrooms, he loves Terry's. He has loved thousands of anus's over the course of his lifetime of buggering. Anything that offends the "anui" of the world is like watching the holocaust happen in front of him. To Dan, the persecution of anus's is like watching his best friend get gassed by nazis at aushwitz.
2) I love it when arrogant and ignorant city folk encounter something from the more rural part of this country. Not that any of you have actually shot a deer. No. Yet you go the extra step and conclude that someone who does is a serial killer. BRILLIANT!!! You guys sure do know a lot about life! I mean, between preening yourselves for a trip down to the glory hole, laughing at homeless people and finding new and exciting ways to make your hair look like shit, how do you have the time to chortle at the backwards ways of the common folk?
I take solace in the fact that city will turn into virtual slaughterhouses and you assholes will become cannibals when the impending collapse happens. That is, until you die from some ungodly illness picked up because you have no idea why it's important to core out your prey's asshole.

Posted by ecce homo | April 23, 2008 9:06 AM

Of course they aren't worried about the FLDS thing. They secretly want that deal. Endless pussy and no back talk? That's their dream. Two guys fucking each other in the ass, on the other hand, is something that needs to be prevented...

Posted by Mike in MO | April 23, 2008 9:07 AM

You know e.c. if you pulled that giant stick out of your ass (talk about being anal-obsessed!), you'd be able to get rid of that humongous load of crap you carry around with you all the time.

Speaking as one who HAS shot a deer (although I was not allowed to do the blooding and dressing - I would have made a mess of it and spoiled the meat, which would have pretty much defeated the purpose of shooting the deer in the first place), I can laugh all I want at the "backwoods ways of the common folk", seeing as I spent most of my formidable years in their midst - and couldn't wait to get as far away from them as possible at the first opportunity.

And you DO know what they say about people who make ASS-umptions, no?

Posted by COMTE | April 23, 2008 9:16 AM

@1: Polygamy, or any other sexual or domestic arrangement between consenting adults, is legal. It's bigamy (fraudulent entry into more than one state-sanctioned marriage) and statutory rape that are illegal. I generally agree with the sentiment of your other comments but I'm more inclined to have "marriage" be the legal, state-sanctioned concept, broadened to extend the rights-and-responsibilities protections to whatever combinations of consenting adults desire them.

If the religious people want to limit their followers to some subset of that (i.e., one-man-one-woman) and "sanctify" or "bless" such unions within the hallowed walls of their churches/temples, fine. Let them have all the convoluted and restrictive language they want, but take it outside the boundaries of the law. Marriage should be of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Posted by rob | April 23, 2008 9:39 AM

Which sounds a whole lot like their friends the pro-lifers, who never think to hold an anti-war rally or oppose capital punishment. (Well, the Pope does, but hardly anyone in US really listens to him these days. No, not even Catholics.)

Posted by K | April 23, 2008 9:40 AM

@7: You're not describing polygamy, but polyamory. Polygamy is just as legal as bigamy. "-gamy" means marriage.

Posted by K | April 23, 2008 9:47 AM

@9: Perhaps he means polygyny?

Posted by Greg | April 23, 2008 9:59 AM

Wouldn't a more apt comparison for the FLDS thing be a gay man and a man with 100 wives, many of whom are under the age of consent? I think if you still pick the gay man in that scenario, you've got some issues.

Posted by Julie | April 23, 2008 10:02 AM

i've found that most women who claim to be bigamists in college turn out to actually be monogamists later in life.

Posted by infrequent | April 23, 2008 10:19 AM

@2 wins.

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 23, 2008 10:24 AM

@7 Bigamy is the law and polygamy is the act.

Posted by Rye | April 23, 2008 10:30 AM

bigamy is marring a person when you are already married to someone else. polygamy is being married to more than one person.

Posted by infrequent | April 23, 2008 10:36 AM

Oh Rye (@1), are you that naive? The arguments against gay marriage has never been about protecting marriage and everything about hating homosexuals.

Posted by Dan | April 23, 2008 10:38 AM

The "HATRED" of homosexuals. Yeah, you have every right to take it personally. I think it's deeper than that.

Take two sexually frustrated, young and warped teens, have them copulate (uneducated is best), then force them to marry in Christian fellowship ESPECIALLY when baby is involved. Thus a family is born, more miserable and larger is better. They stick togethor for fear of survival ... and the stystem works, and they go to church.

My theory, they don't hate you because you are gay. It's that they never get to have a planned, well thought out, loving family. They don't have satisfying careers. They get the good old fashioned fear of god forced family. And perhaps they are even jelous and resentful that you don't live with that fear.

Posted by OR Matt | April 23, 2008 10:45 AM

well, there are bible "heroes" who had multiple wives, but i can't think of one indisputably gay bible hero character. in the text, it's easier to find a repentant murderer than a homosexual believer.

so i think they dislike the homosexual behavior more. that said, gay marriage is a bigger issue right now than polygamy, so that goes a long way to explaining the disproportionate outrage. you don't see much christian action against bestiality or incest marriage equality, either.

Posted by infrequent | April 23, 2008 11:02 AM

The Samaritans are the homos


Posted by OR Matt | April 23, 2008 11:15 AM

The point made is off of the mantra "ONE man, ONE woman." All I am asking for is consistency. But I won't get consistency, will I? Just double talk. And @2, you're impassioned arguments that completely ignore the topic do nothing to prove whatever point you may be trying to make.

Posted by PJ | April 23, 2008 12:49 PM

ecce homo @ 4

Wow. That is probably the single most hateful post I've ever seen on slog. Your mother must be so proud.

Posted by montex | April 23, 2008 1:03 PM

@21 - It's a carbon copy of a comment ecce homo made in Dan's Deer Ass Remover post yesterday. I've never seen a comment from ecce homo that isn't hateful.

Posted by DanFan | April 23, 2008 1:20 PM

ecce that was poignant and beautifully written. now BUTT OUT

Posted by j-zeezer | April 23, 2008 1:40 PM

@18, consistency and logic are irrelevent when you aquire more CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL.

Why have gay sex for pleasure when you can guilt someone into having a forced family and make more babies ...

Pro-choice, what an abomination ... every child born has the potential to be a faithful Christian. Even a hypocritical christian is still a christian.

Posted by OR Matt | April 23, 2008 2:28 PM

@24, see, i don't agree with that. coming from a christian background i was indoctrinated with that certain way of thinking. you can understand them, but it might take understanding the frame of reference they are coming from.

for instance, there probably is some truth to the adage that christians just don't want anyone to have any fun. if they can't have fun, they certainly don't want other people to have fun. but in reality, one of the reasons is often that many of them actually believe that god will bless or curse america based on the behavior of the people and the laws we pass. they also believe every child is a blessing, that you can only find true fulfillment in christ, etc... even the hypocrites usually believe it, and they happen to believe they are failures as well.

so how do you deal with that? here are some examples:

do you debate with them on their terms completely: argue which is more important, free will or a legalistic code of laws? the problem with this is that you really have to understand christianity to pull it off. what may seem illogical may have been explained a certain way to a christian all their life. this is often seen when people cite examples from the old testament. christians mostly only follow the laws that were reiterated in the new testament. it's quite simple, but i keep seeing the tattoo verse or the shellfish verse brought up on slog.

do you debate with them on their turf but with different definitions: for instance, insist jesus was gay and that they have an incomplete and poorly translated text. this fails usually because to have this debate you would first have to discuss which texts to use, and why they are or are not valid. without doing that, the discussion will not connect. if you do that, you are no longer on the subject at hand.

do you insult them with the truth: you beliefs are like the FSM and we love sin! there isn't a hell, but we'd rather go there then talk any longer with you! this feels the best, and it quick and easy. plus, it gets to the point you were probably going to end up at anyways.

do you move the discussion's turf: here you would talk about democracy, and freedom of religion. ask what rights someone who is gay should have. or what rights should a american citizen who is a muslim have? what about alcohol? you might get to their truth -- which is neither inconsistent nor illogical -- that they want a theocracy. and then go from there.

there are probably as many illogical and inconsistent christians as there are illogical and inconsistent environmentalists, peace activists, democrats, etc...

Posted by infrequent | April 23, 2008 3:36 PM

infrequent ... I grew up in a VERY forced catholic family, which fell apart when I was 12. The thing that held that family togethor for those 12 years was fear of the big scary hard world if that family should fall apart.

... then here is something you can debate for HOURS about at your Univerity. What is the point of religion? I personally don't believe it has ANYTHING to do with salvation of peoples souls. Because real people USUALLY don't make decissions based on their souls. They make decissions by how they are percieved by their community, by their peers. Evidence of this? All of the brain washed youths coming out of the FLDS camps, who feel lost without their families, no matter how rotten they are. Humans are social creatures and we don't usually deal with issolation and abandonment well.

Until relatively recent, the core of the community has been the family unit. People got married, had children, and usually went to some kind of church. The church latches on to the family unit and reinforces.

Gay marriage threatens this for banal reasons, gay couples can't "naturaly" produce offspring. Encouraging gay couples could potentially disrupt the process of marriage and creating more Christian fellowship.

Posted by OR Matt | April 23, 2008 3:49 PM

by the way, in talking to many a christian about gay marriage equality, i've asked just a few questions to get them thinking. i tried to get them to wonder why being gay as a sin was treated differently from other sins. you know most of them: why wasn't it such a big deal when no-fault divorce was passed? why is it legal to get drunk? etc... rarely do it get an unreasonable person. but maybe that's just been my experience.

Posted by infrequent | April 23, 2008 3:56 PM

@27 ... because MOST people aren't unreasonable. They just, well when you are in your own community and no one is there to call them on their BS, it just kind of gets accepted as gospel.

Hell, most men will reluctantly admit they spent a good deal of their middle and early high school years as total homophobes until they started meeting people and having friends who are gay.

Posted by OR Matt | April 23, 2008 4:00 PM

Personally, I think the next FLDS president/"prophet" should be a gay man, who will expect all his male followers to dress in pastel Laura Ingalls drag (reinstating floral prints, etc.) and marry HIM. Just a fantasy of mine.

I figure, eventually what goes around comes around, even for the FLDS. Karma happens. I hear that younger women who leave the sect sometimes go hog-wild, doing drugs, dressing like punk rockers, having wild sex five nights out of six, etc. etc. So, perhaps there's hope for the rest as well. Meanwhile, where's Phoolan Devi when you need her...?!

Posted by Karen | April 24, 2008 7:24 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).