Monday, March 07, 2005


Responding to Jon Rowe

Jon Rowe writes:

My statement refers to the main policy reason why we presently keep polygamy outlawed.

No, it refers to why you think polygamy ought to be outlawed. It has nothing to do with why it is presently outlawed (I am confident that it remains outlawed because it does not comport with the moral sensibilities of the folks in government and the average American).

If all we had to go upon was religious superstition of a bygone era that viewed polygamy as a "relic of barbarism," then such laws rightly should be repealed.

There is no "religious superstition" involved in viewing polygamy as a relic of barbarism; that is exactly what it is, and proscribing it is a mark of evolved sensibilities.

This is why we bring up the miscegenation analogy, because the same logic to which you refer -- a "relic of barbarism" that offended the Christian sensibilities of the Congress, the President, and the average American -- also criminalized interracial couplings.

Reference to miscegenation laws is a red herring.

To repeat: My rationale goes to why we presently ought not to repeal anti-polygamy laws.

Right, but your rationale has nothing to do with the reality of anti-polygamy legislation, past or present.

"...the Christian ethos that inspired anti-polygamy legislation also exalts chastity/celibacy...."

Talk about an unnatural lifestyle!

Yes, unnatural in a good way (i.e., not yielding to one's visceral urges). By way of contrast, homoeroticism is antithetical to Natural Law and beneath human dignity.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by