I consider myself a conservative; most people who are classified with that label are not. To be conservative is to believe that government should get involved with people’s lives only to protect people’s basic rights (“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”; or as I count them: health, freedom, and the right to be let alone). No, I’m not a libertarian.

A true conservative would not want to see any Constitutional amendment that has the effect of removing personal freedom. A true conservative would understand that it’s not the government’s business who I sleep with or fall in love with, or whom I form a contract with (save that said person must be willing and capable of understanding the contract). Marriage is a contract, so the government shouldn’t care who I marry, so long as everyone is consenting.

Keep your damned laws out of my bedroom, and off my body.

I suppose a better way to put it would be to say that any GROUP that professes belief in polygamy based on a commandment from God would be againts homosexuality. Again, there might be some small small faction somewhere that doesn’t fit that mold, but they will have broken off from a larger group that does.

I had made the incorrect supposition that, since the topic was based on religous beliefs, the arguments set forth would be viewed in that light and with that premise. If the God factor is taken out, then yes, I would bet that there are lots of groups that profess plural marriage, as well as sanction homosexual rights.

apestench, yes, many people would make that argument.

Sfurules said:
“Anyone who believes in polygamy will do so because of a belief that God has sanctioned said unions. That belief will also carry with it the belief that God has condemned homosexual relations. ”

That’s just not true. There are many reasons people might accept polygamy. Even religious basis for acceptance of polygamy does not require one to accept religious bias against homosexuality. I will accept that the preponderance of those using the religious justifications for polygamy stated in this thread would also be against homosexuality because of the religions involved, but it’s not 100%.

However, I will agree with this statement: “Furthermore, polygamy is not a sexual preferance, it is a way to EXPRESS a sexual preferance. ” Multi-partner unions can be structured with and without homosexual components.

And that’s exactly the kind of attitude some people don’t want you to have. Accident? Defect? Those terms carry a certain air that they don’t want applied to the term. It’s why some homosexuals frown on research into what causes homosexuality – the idea that they may be labeled as defective, or worse, that they must be cured.

Apestench, that’s a muddy topic. The initial laws were a clear violation of the First Amendment – actions taken by the government against Mormons for their religious beliefs. However, current unsanctioned* Mormon polygamies are a different situation, because they’re often not among consenting adults, but rather adult men and teenage girls.

But the question was about my reason for bringing them up.

*The LDS Church does not currently officially practice or sanction polygamy. Some self-proclaimed Mormons (LDS offshoots, sects) do.

Before the Berlin Wall came down, I saw a report on the evening news about an East German doctor who wondered why there was a spike in the percentage of homosexuals born to German women during and just after World War II. He theorized it might have something to do with stress-induced hormonal imbalances in the mother affecting the development of the foetus. He modeled his theory with pregnant rats, forcing them to swim in tanks to near-exhaustion and squeezing them into claustrophobic containers. The resulting litters showed homosexual behavior significantly exceeding the norm.

It’s strange, but since that report in about 1988, I haven’t heard the doctor’s findings discussed in any medium or forum. People seem to be extremely polarised in their opinions — believing that homosexuality is a “lifestyle” a “sin” or a genetic aberration. The scientific evidence indicates that it is none of these. Once one understands the underlying cause, it is seen simply as an unfortunate accident, like any other kind of congenital defect.