Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on June 06, 2009, 12:25:22 PM
-
Not surprised.
QUEERLY BELOVED
Next frontier? Polygamists demand multi-sex marriage
Activists: New Hampshire plan embeds bigotry into state law
Posted: June 05, 2009
10:30 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A polygamy advocacy organization says the New Hampshire law that is intended to assure "equal access to marriage" for all instead specifically embeds in state statutes bigotry against polygamists.
New Hampshire's capitol
According to a statement posted on the Pro-Polygamy website, when on Wednesday New Hampshire "became the sixth U.S. State to codify the legal construction of same sex marriage," it was hailed by homosexuals as a "civil rights victory."
"Declaring that the new law advances fairness and equality for all, they proclaimed that New Hampshire had supposedly 'ended discrimination' for everyone," the statement said.
"But the law did no such thing. Rather, it intentionally 'discriminates' against consenting adult polygamists – indeed, on purpose," the organization said.
The fact that polygamists, and indeed those with other sexual proclivities, would use the same "civil rights" and "equality" arguments forwarded by homosexuals seeking "marriage" rights has been predicted for years.
"Polygamists, and those who have a polygamous 'orientation,' have been 'singled out' by these provisions for much more severe treatment than merely denial of favored status... The court's disposition today suggests that these provisions are unconstitutional; and that polygamy must be permitted in these states... – unless, of course, polygamists for some reason have fewer constitutional rights than homosexuals," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in 1996.
That came in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion quashing the decision of Colorado voters who decided there should be a constitutional provision providing, "No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation."
The court majority there decided Colorado voters were guilty of "impermissible targeting" of a "class" of people.
Learn how homosexuality has been sold to America. Get "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"
Scalia noted that the same arguments being applied to homosexuals as a class also could be applied to polygamists. Then in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state laws forbidding homosexuality. The Lawrence vs. Texas case established a "right to privacy" for consenting adults.
Once again dissenting, Scalia wrote, "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of [a] validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision…"
"This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation," Scalia wrote.
WND founder and editor Joseph Farah, who has been writing commentary on social issues for years, also cited the 2003 Lawrence ruling in writing:
"To say laws about private sexual conduct are unconstitutional, the court, in effect, opened a sexual Pandora's box," he said. "If there is a constitutional right to have homosexual sex, how can one deny there is a constitutional right to group sex? How can one deny there is a constitutional right to consensual incest? How can one deny there is a right to have sex with animals? How can one deny there is a constitutional right to polygamy?
"You can't. There is no difference," he wrote.
His conclusion was that the court was wrong: "There is no constitutional right to homosexual sex – or any other kind of sex for that matter. The word sex doesn't appear in the Constitution."
The issue came up again only a year ago, when the California state Supreme Court ruled the state could not deny the designation of "marriaged" to homosexual couples. That court opinion was tossed out last November by a vote of the people, who defined "marriage" as being between one man and one woman.
In a dissent to that court opinion, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter cited similar concerns.
"The majority … simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice. The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex," Baxter wrote at the time.
Then he issued a warning:
"Who can say that, in 10, 15, or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?"
According to the activist Pro-Polygamy, the New Hampshire plan specifically includes discrimination in its wording. It was the sixth state to "act" on homosexual marriage. Several states have voted it in through the legislative process and in several other states officials have simply imposed same-sex "marriage" plans on residents following court opinions, even though state laws have even yet to be changed.
The polygamy activists said the new law now affirms the "right" of two individuals to marry.
"However, the new law then took the matter further, with intentional 'discrimination.' The new [law] now ends with a newly added anti-polygamy provision," the group said, citing the new statement: "No person shall be allowed to be married to more than one person at any given time."
"Same sex marriage supporters had intentionally changed the combined anti-incest and anti-gay-marriage ban into a combined anti-incest and anti-polygamy ban instead. They intentionally re-directed the law to purposely 'discriminate' against consenting adult polygamists - the clearly known bigotry of equating consenting adult polygamy with the biological dysfunction of incest," the group said.
"After purposely 'discriminating' against consenting adult polygamists, the new law startlingly then allows for under-aged heterosexual marriage while it bans under-aged same sex marriage," the group said.
The state now limits heterosexual marriages to boys 14 and girls 13 and older. But those same-sex "marriages" are limited to those 18 and over.
"In truth, therefore, New Hampshire's new gay marriage law does not end 'discrimination' at all. It absolutely does not provide 'equal access to marriage' for all. Rather, New Hampshire's new same sex marriage law intentionally 'discriminates' against consenting adult polygamists," the report said.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100287
-
Bum
I don't know any polygamists
do you?
I don't really understand how this serious issue effects my life
please elucidate
thanks
-
"Elucidate"? LOL. Thanks for providing the Saturday morning comedy hour. Few things funnier than a dum dum trying to sound like an intellectual. :D
-
"Elucidate"? LOL. Thanks for providing the Saturday morning comedy hour. Few things funnier than a dum dum trying to sound like an intellectual. :D
Bum - sorry if you're confused
I know you find yourself in that situation alot of the time
let's pretend you really want to have a dialogue
why should I care if polygamist want to get married?
-
still laughing . . . . ;D
-
still laughing . . . . ;D
retards laugh alot
no disrespect to retards
-
I never understood how people get regular chicks that grew in normal places to fall for that....damn, seem nice to have 5 wives ;D
-
I never understood how people get regular chicks that grew in normal places to fall for that....damn, seem nice to have 5 wives ;D
Aw heck no. You must not be married. ;D I like being married, but I can only handle one of them.
But regarding the story, this is the logical extension of redefining marriage. The "triad" marriages are next.
-
Aw heck no. You must not be married. ;D I like being married, but I can only handle one of them.
But regarding the story, this is the logical extension of redefining marriage. The "triad" marriages are next.
If you have a couple of them than maybe can arrange them in a corporation like structure and have all the complaints go to your lieutenant :) ;)
-
Aw heck no. You must not be married. ;D I like being married, but I can only handle one of them.
But regarding the story, this is the logical extension of redefining marriage. The "triad" marriages are next.
I wasn't aware there were "triads" lingering in the shadows of society just waiting for their chance to get married
even if there were
so what?
why should I care?
-
If you have a couple of them than maybe can arrange them in a corporation like structure and have all the complaints go to your lieutenant :) ;)
Would never work. The husband would be the president and CEO, but the wives would be the board of directors and the president/CEO answers to the board. That's a surefire recipe for being whipped. :)
-
Would never work. The husband would be the president and CEO, but the wives would be the board of directors and the president/CEO answers to the board. That's a surefire recipe for being whipped. :)
so your only problem with polygamy is that it would mean perceived loss of control for the man?
-
I never understood how people get regular chicks that grew in normal places to fall for that....damn, seem nice to have 5 wives ;D
Have you seen the women that fall for it. It's not like the guy is married to Miss January, Miss February, Miss March, Miss April, Miss May.
-
Why not?
-
Have you seen the women that fall for it. It's not like the guy is married to Miss January, Miss February, Miss March, Miss April, Miss May.
Weeeellll . . . . Did you see Hugh Hefner at (I think) the Denver/LA playoff game the other day? He had three girlfriends, kissed all three when the camera focused on him, and they looked like Miss October, Miss November, and Miss December.
-
Weeeellll . . . . Did you see Hugh Hefner at (I think) the Denver/LA playoff game the other day? He had three girlfriends, kissed all three when the camera focused on him, and they looked like Miss October, Miss November, and Miss December.
Publicity, he has to keep a front, he needs to cirulate the image the mag, it's different for the average joe.
-
Weeeellll . . . . Did you see Hugh Hefner at (I think) the Denver/LA playoff game the other day? He had three girlfriends, kissed all three when the camera focused on him, and they looked like Miss October, Miss November, and Miss December.
i think that was jerry buss lol
-
Have you seen the women that fall for it. It's not like the guy is married to Miss January, Miss February, Miss March, Miss April, Miss May.
You're right, I'm more into Summer months, I will have Miss August and July ;D
-
Christians sure are scared of a lot of silly stuff
It must suck to be scared so much of the time
-
Christians sure are scared of a lot of silly stuff
It must suck to be scared so much of the time
Can you blame them?
Any second now the world might awake from it's collective slumber, see some of the glaring discrepancies in their stories, ...and the jig will be up. The only thing they got going for them is that most people are pretty tolerant of their beliefs, so the efforts to off them aren't as focussed as their efforts to wipe out everybody else. :-\
-
BTW... wtf is multi-sex marriage? Seems to me that multi-sex marriage would be the opposite of same sex marriage.
Seems to me a multi-sex marriage could have prevented guys like Jimmy Swaggart, Senator Craig, or Ted Hagee from straying outside of their marriage beds. It would lead to less adultery, less divorce, and less bathroom boinking. If you truly want to defend marriage, ...allow multi-sex marriage. ...sides, ...it's in the bible. :D
-
BTW... wtf is multi-sex marriage? Seems to me that multi-sex marriage would be the opposite of same sex marriage.
Seems to me a multi-sex marriage could have prevented guys like Jimmy Swaggart, Senator Craig, or Ted Hagee from straying outside of their marriage beds. It would lead to less adultery, less divorce, and less bathroom boinking. If you truly want to defend marriage, ...allow multi-sex marriage. ...sides, ...it's in the bible. :D
like almost every other subject in the bible, there are many contradictions which allow bible thumpers to rationize to their hearts content
-
like almost every other subject in the bible, there are many contradictions which allow bible thumpers to rationize to their hearts content
Not to mention all the stuff that was banned from the bible to begin with for purely political reasons.
How anybody could take it as the literal word of God is beyond me. Ya there's wisdom and good guidance in there, but the divine, unaltered, unadulterated word of God? ??? :-\
-
Amazing what coke can do to the brain.
-
Not surprised.
QUEERLY BELOVED
Next frontier? Polygamists demand multi-sex marriage
Activists: New Hampshire plan embeds bigotry into state law
Posted: June 05, 2009
10:30 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A polygamy advocacy organization says the New Hampshire law that is intended to assure "equal access to marriage" for all instead specifically embeds in state statutes bigotry against polygamists.
New Hampshire's capitol
According to a statement posted on the Pro-Polygamy website, when on Wednesday New Hampshire "became the sixth U.S. State to codify the legal construction of same sex marriage," it was hailed by homosexuals as a "civil rights victory."
"Declaring that the new law advances fairness and equality for all, they proclaimed that New Hampshire had supposedly 'ended discrimination' for everyone," the statement said.
"But the law did no such thing. Rather, it intentionally 'discriminates' against consenting adult polygamists – indeed, on purpose," the organization said.
The fact that polygamists, and indeed those with other sexual proclivities, would use the same "civil rights" and "equality" arguments forwarded by homosexuals seeking "marriage" rights has been predicted for years.
"Polygamists, and those who have a polygamous 'orientation,' have been 'singled out' by these provisions for much more severe treatment than merely denial of favored status... The court's disposition today suggests that these provisions are unconstitutional; and that polygamy must be permitted in these states... – unless, of course, polygamists for some reason have fewer constitutional rights than homosexuals," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in 1996.
That came in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion quashing the decision of Colorado voters who decided there should be a constitutional provision providing, "No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation."
The court majority there decided Colorado voters were guilty of "impermissible targeting" of a "class" of people.
Learn how homosexuality has been sold to America. Get "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"
Scalia noted that the same arguments being applied to homosexuals as a class also could be applied to polygamists. Then in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state laws forbidding homosexuality. The Lawrence vs. Texas case established a "right to privacy" for consenting adults.
Once again dissenting, Scalia wrote, "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of [a] validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision…"
"This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation," Scalia wrote.
WND founder and editor Joseph Farah, who has been writing commentary on social issues for years, also cited the 2003 Lawrence ruling in writing:
"To say laws about private sexual conduct are unconstitutional, the court, in effect, opened a sexual Pandora's box," he said. "If there is a constitutional right to have homosexual sex, how can one deny there is a constitutional right to group sex? How can one deny there is a constitutional right to consensual incest? How can one deny there is a right to have sex with animals? How can one deny there is a constitutional right to polygamy?
"You can't. There is no difference," he wrote.
His conclusion was that the court was wrong: "There is no constitutional right to homosexual sex – or any other kind of sex for that matter. The word sex doesn't appear in the Constitution."
The issue came up again only a year ago, when the California state Supreme Court ruled the state could not deny the designation of "marriaged" to homosexual couples. That court opinion was tossed out last November by a vote of the people, who defined "marriage" as being between one man and one woman.
In a dissent to that court opinion, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter cited similar concerns.
"The majority … simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice. The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex," Baxter wrote at the time.
Then he issued a warning:
"Who can say that, in 10, 15, or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?"
According to the activist Pro-Polygamy, the New Hampshire plan specifically includes discrimination in its wording. It was the sixth state to "act" on homosexual marriage. Several states have voted it in through the legislative process and in several other states officials have simply imposed same-sex "marriage" plans on residents following court opinions, even though state laws have even yet to be changed.
The polygamy activists said the new law now affirms the "right" of two individuals to marry.
"However, the new law then took the matter further, with intentional 'discrimination.' The new [law] now ends with a newly added anti-polygamy provision," the group said, citing the new statement: "No person shall be allowed to be married to more than one person at any given time."
"Same sex marriage supporters had intentionally changed the combined anti-incest and anti-gay-marriage ban into a combined anti-incest and anti-polygamy ban instead. They intentionally re-directed the law to purposely 'discriminate' against consenting adult polygamists - the clearly known bigotry of equating consenting adult polygamy with the biological dysfunction of incest," the group said.
"After purposely 'discriminating' against consenting adult polygamists, the new law startlingly then allows for under-aged heterosexual marriage while it bans under-aged same sex marriage," the group said.
The state now limits heterosexual marriages to boys 14 and girls 13 and older. But those same-sex "marriages" are limited to those 18 and over.
"In truth, therefore, New Hampshire's new gay marriage law does not end 'discrimination' at all. It absolutely does not provide 'equal access to marriage' for all. Rather, New Hampshire's new same sex marriage law intentionally 'discriminates' against consenting adult polygamists," the report said.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100287
Wo cares?
-
Wo cares?
It seems the more christian one is the more things in life there are to be scared about.
seems weird to me since they already have their ticket to heaven (great song by Dire Straights)
Why not just chill and wait for the never ending party with Jesus and his Daddy
-
It seems the more christian one is the more things in life there are to be scared about.
seems weird to me since they already have their ticket to heaven (great song by Dire Straights)
Why not just chill and wait for the never ending party with Jesus and his Daddy
People worry about the weirdest things. The US is a strange place.
-
Not surprised.
QUEERLY BELOVED
Next frontier? Polygamists demand multi-sex marriage
Activists: New Hampshire plan embeds bigotry into state law
Posted: June 05, 2009
10:30 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A polygamy advocacy organization says the New Hampshire law that is intended to assure "equal access to marriage" for all instead specifically embeds in state statutes bigotry against polygamists.
New Hampshire's capitol
According to a statement posted on the Pro-Polygamy website, when on Wednesday New Hampshire "became the sixth U.S. State to codify the legal construction of same sex marriage," it was hailed by homosexuals as a "civil rights victory."
"Declaring that the new law advances fairness and equality for all, they proclaimed that New Hampshire had supposedly 'ended discrimination' for everyone," the statement said.
"But the law did no such thing. Rather, it intentionally 'discriminates' against consenting adult polygamists – indeed, on purpose," the organization said.
The fact that polygamists, and indeed those with other sexual proclivities, would use the same "civil rights" and "equality" arguments forwarded by homosexuals seeking "marriage" rights has been predicted for years.
"Polygamists, and those who have a polygamous 'orientation,' have been 'singled out' by these provisions for much more severe treatment than merely denial of favored status... The court's disposition today suggests that these provisions are unconstitutional; and that polygamy must be permitted in these states... – unless, of course, polygamists for some reason have fewer constitutional rights than homosexuals," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in 1996.
That came in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion quashing the decision of Colorado voters who decided there should be a constitutional provision providing, "No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation."
The court majority there decided Colorado voters were guilty of "impermissible targeting" of a "class" of people.
Learn how homosexuality has been sold to America. Get "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"
Scalia noted that the same arguments being applied to homosexuals as a class also could be applied to polygamists. Then in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state laws forbidding homosexuality. The Lawrence vs. Texas case established a "right to privacy" for consenting adults.
Once again dissenting, Scalia wrote, "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of [a] validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision…"
"This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation," Scalia wrote.
WND founder and editor Joseph Farah, who has been writing commentary on social issues for years, also cited the 2003 Lawrence ruling in writing:
"To say laws about private sexual conduct are unconstitutional, the court, in effect, opened a sexual Pandora's box," he said. "If there is a constitutional right to have homosexual sex, how can one deny there is a constitutional right to group sex? How can one deny there is a constitutional right to consensual incest? How can one deny there is a right to have sex with animals? How can one deny there is a constitutional right to polygamy?
"You can't. There is no difference," he wrote.
His conclusion was that the court was wrong: "There is no constitutional right to homosexual sex – or any other kind of sex for that matter. The word sex doesn't appear in the Constitution."
The issue came up again only a year ago, when the California state Supreme Court ruled the state could not deny the designation of "marriaged" to homosexual couples. That court opinion was tossed out last November by a vote of the people, who defined "marriage" as being between one man and one woman.
In a dissent to that court opinion, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter cited similar concerns.
"The majority … simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice. The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex," Baxter wrote at the time.
Then he issued a warning:
"Who can say that, in 10, 15, or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?"
According to the activist Pro-Polygamy, the New Hampshire plan specifically includes discrimination in its wording. It was the sixth state to "act" on homosexual marriage. Several states have voted it in through the legislative process and in several other states officials have simply imposed same-sex "marriage" plans on residents following court opinions, even though state laws have even yet to be changed.
The polygamy activists said the new law now affirms the "right" of two individuals to marry.
"However, the new law then took the matter further, with intentional 'discrimination.' The new [law] now ends with a newly added anti-polygamy provision," the group said, citing the new statement: "No person shall be allowed to be married to more than one person at any given time."
"Same sex marriage supporters had intentionally changed the combined anti-incest and anti-gay-marriage ban into a combined anti-incest and anti-polygamy ban instead. They intentionally re-directed the law to purposely 'discriminate' against consenting adult polygamists - the clearly known bigotry of equating consenting adult polygamy with the biological dysfunction of incest," the group said.
"After purposely 'discriminating' against consenting adult polygamists, the new law startlingly then allows for under-aged heterosexual marriage while it bans under-aged same sex marriage," the group said.
The state now limits heterosexual marriages to boys 14 and girls 13 and older. But those same-sex "marriages" are limited to those 18 and over.
"In truth, therefore, New Hampshire's new gay marriage law does not end 'discrimination' at all. It absolutely does not provide 'equal access to marriage' for all. Rather, New Hampshire's new same sex marriage law intentionally 'discriminates' against consenting adult polygamists," the report said.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100287
File this under the "We told you so" folder, Beach!!!
For years, gay activists have screamed that legalizing gay "marriage" would never lead to polygamy and that polygamists could not use the same arguments for their cause that gay activists use for legalizing gay "marriage".
Of course, they conveniently ignore that, in the very place where this stuff started, polygamy is already legal, for all practical purposes. Does the name "De Bruijn" ring a bell?
That is the last name of the participants of the first polygamist civil union in the Netherlands, performed in 2005. That is, Victor De Bruijn and his two "wives", Bianca and Mirjam.
Your article brings up an interesting issue: Why were gay "marriage" supporters insisting on an anti-incest law, since gay "marriage" proponents like downplaying the issue of procreation, when it comes to marriage, incest should technically be on the table. After all, two gay brothers can't procreate with each other (nor can two gay sisters).
But, that would leave the door open for opposite-sex siblings. Don't they have the "right" to procreate, even if it results in likely-deformed children?
Bottom line: The "slippery slope" that some folks claimed would never come to fruition has done just that.
-
McWay - how does it affect you if a few polygamists get married or even gays for that matter.
There are already many countries around the world that allow it and also some states in the US.
What has the effect been on your life?
-
McWay - how does it affect you if a few polygamists get married or even gays for that matter.
There are already many countries around the world that allow it and also some states in the US.
What has the effect been on your life?
No states allow this in this country, first of all.
As for the effect it has in my life, it affects my right to participate in public policy. For stating that such is wrong (depending on the circumstance), I could be charged with a "hate crime".
If something has the potential to adversely affect me, I would rather deal with it, BEFORE it becomes a problem, not after.
I think the Miss California issue put to rest the extremely-tired and woefully false canard, which you and others) keep trying to prop up, that legalizing gay "marriage" doesn't affect anyone.
Then again, this would be under the GROSS assumption that you NEVER vote on issues that don't affect you directly. ::)
-
People worry about the weirdest things. The US is a strange place.
Yep, like screaming and hollering about Someone that they don't believe to exist.
;D
-
No states allow this in this country, first of all.
As for the effect it has in my life, it affects my right to participate in public policy. For stating that such is wrong (depending on the circumstance), I could be charged with a "hate crime".
If something has the potential to adversely affect me, I would rather deal with it, BEFORE it becomes a problem, not after.
I think the Miss California issue put to rest the extremely-tired and woefully false canard, which you and others) keep trying to prop up, that legalizing gay "marriage" doesn't affect anyone.
Then again, this would be under the GROSS assumption that you NEVER vote on issues that don't affect you directly. ::)
regarding the states - I'm talking about gay marriage and you can't be charged with a hate crime for merely stating that you think something is wrong
Again, gays are already legally allowed to get married.
What has been the effect on you so far?
-
McWay - how does it affect you if a few polygamists get married or even gays for that matter.
There are already many countries around the world that allow it and also some states in the US.
What has the effect been on your life?
Isn't it obvious? It's bad enough he has a hard time pulling chicks,
...but if the Alpha males were allowed to have more than one wife,
a beta model like him would be relegated to a tub of vasoline, thumbelina & her 4 sisters for the rest of his life.
-
Isn't it obvious? It's bad enough he has a hard time pulling chicks,
...but if the Alpha males were allowed to have more than one wife,
a beta model like him would be relegated to a tub of vasoline, thumbelina & her 4 sisters for the rest of his life.
thumbelina - LOL
all jokes aside - I believe you are correct that there is certainly fear on the other side of these arguments but I'm trying to find out fear of what exactly.
-
Yep, like screaming and hollering about Someone that they don't believe to exist.
;D
The only reason people bother to do that is because people like you insist on screaming and preaching to people about talking snakes in magic gardens.
-
For the 2nd time, who fucking cares about this shit?
-
Isn't it obvious? It's bad enough he has a hard time pulling chicks,
...but if the Alpha males were allowed to have more than one wife,
a beta model like him would be relegated to a tub of vasoline, thumbelina & her 4 sisters for the rest of his life.
Well, considering that, in approximately three weeks, I'll be celebrating my SEVENTH wedding anniversary, I can safely file this under the "Jaguar: Open Mouth, Insert Foot" file (which is far too overstuffed as it is).
OOPS!! I better not say that; she might sent me another "angry buck-toothed critter" picture!!!
;D
-
Well, considering that, in approximately three weeks, I'll be celebrating my SEVENTH wedding anniversary, I can safely file this under the "Jaguar: Open Mouth, Insert Foot" file (which is far too overstuffed as it is).
OOPS!! I better not say that; she might sent me another "angry buck-toothed critter" picture!!!
;D
If it were up to you, would you force people to get married? For example, would you make children 'out of wedlock' illegal?
-
The only reason people bother to do that is because people like you insist on screaming and preaching to people about talking snakes in magic gardens.
AWWW!! What's the matter? Not enough of your buddies, bowing before the shrine of "Goo", today?
;D
-
If it were up to you, would you force people to get married? For example, would you make children 'out of wedlock' illegal?
Nope!!!
This is the part, where you go, "WHEW"!!
;)
-
AWWW!! What's the matter? Not enough of your buddies, bowing before the shrine of "Goo", today?
;D
No idea what you are talking about.
-
Well, considering that, in approximately three weeks, I'll be celebrating my SEVENTH wedding anniversary, I can safely file this under the "Jaguar: Open Mouth, Insert Foot" file (which is far too overstuffed as it is).
OOPS!! I better not say that; she might sent me another "angry buck-toothed critter" picture!!!
;D
Is this better?
I hope so, ...it'll have to do. I hear the ice cream truck coming. :D
-
next frontier? huh? lololol.... uh, beach, they've wanted and had pior polygamy rights a lot longer than gays have been making an issue of it here.
-
Wo cares?
Exactly. There are present day polygamist already.
-
Exactly. There are present day polygamist already.
BB and MCWAY represent many of the things that are wrong with the country, in particular not having their priorities straight.
-
Isn't it obvious? It's bad enough he has a hard time pulling chicks,
...but if the Alpha males were allowed to have more than one wife,
a beta model like him would be relegated to a tub of vasoline, thumbelina & her 4 sisters for the rest of his life.
I'm not arsed at all about polygamy; it doesn't effect my life. But... that said it do have overtures of male dominance which I'd have thought a "women" with an 160 IQ would protest against? If you're down with women as objects, that's fine.
-
Is this better?
I hope so, ...it'll have to do. I hear the ice cream truck coming. :D
Let me guess: You're selling supplements and that's your "Before" picture (I hope).
;D
BB and MCWAY represent many of the things that are wrong with the country, in particular not having their priorities straight.
Please enlighten us, O great Ozmo, as to what our priorities should be!!!
-
Let me guess: You're selling supplements and that's your "Before" picture (I hope).
;D
Please enlighten us, O great Ozmo, as to what our priorities should be!!!
Economy/fiscal policy, foreign policy.
-
I'm not arsed at all about polygamy; it doesn't effect my life. But... that said it do have overtures of male dominance which I'd have thought a "women" with an 160 IQ would protest against? If you're down with women as objects, that's fine.
She can't reach 160IQ even if she combine all the IQ tests scores she ever took and multiply them by 50 ;D
-
Economy/fiscal policy, foreign policy.
Check that!! That was YOUR post, not that of Ozmo (Sorry, about that!!)
As for your claim regarding foreign policy, I've made my statements about that, loud and clear, namely my concern about Obama's rump-smooching approach to such.
Ecomonic polices, that's a simple one too. Until we send Team "Tax-and-Spend" to the unemployment line (to unfortunately joins millions of other Americans), our economy is BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGG trouble.
But, neither is the topic of this thread.
-
Please enlighten us, O great Ozmo, as to what our priorities should be!!!
??
I didn't say anything about your priorities McWay.
-
??
I didn't say anything about your priorities McWay.
I did. It boggles the mind that people like MCWAY can actually care about something that goes on in a state far away from them. Don't get it and never will.
-
I did. It boggles the mind that people like MCWAY can actually care about something that goes on in a state far away from them. Don't get it and never will.
This is a politics board, 90% of what's discussed here doesn't directly affect the person.
-
This is an American politics board, 90% of what's discussed here doesn't directly affect the person.
Fixed.
-
Let me guess: You're selling supplements and that's your "Before" picture (I hope).
;D
Oh Shush! I'm not talking to you anymore. By responding to you... I missed the icecream truck. :'(
-
Fixed.
Amen...
Praises be to Wotan
-
This is a politics board, 90% of what's discussed here doesn't directly affect the person.
How many of us even know any polygamists or triads in the first place.
I live in the bay area and I don't know any
just another fake issue for social conservatives to get their panties in a knot about
-
??
I didn't say anything about your priorities McWay.
I know that. That's why I apologized.
This is a politics board, 90% of what's discussed here doesn't directly affect the person.
Exactly!!! But, the PC rule is that conservaties aren't supposed to talk or discuss the issue
I did. It boggles the mind that people like MCWAY can actually care about something that goes on in a state far away from them. Don't get it and never will.
It may boggle YOUR mind. But, those who frequently use their common sense know that things in other states can have an impact on others. Even liberals know this. After all, it was San Fran's mayor who say, "As California goes, so goes America".
Some people refer to it as being "proactive" vs. "reactive". As it relates to the issue of marriage, you don't wait until your state court rules that defining marriage as a 1M-1W union is "unconstitutional". That's what several states have done, including my favorite one, Florida.
How many of us even know any polygamists or triads in the first place.
I live in the bay area and I don't know any
just another fake issue for social conservatives to get their panties in a knot about
Wrong again, Straw Man.
As stated earlier, the big canard from gay activists was that gay "marriage" wouldn't lead to polygamy in the Western World. Again, cue the De Bruijns from the Netherlands, the very place where gay "marriage" got started (which some thought would never come to the USA).
-
How many of us even know any polygamists or triads in the first place.
I live in the bay area and I don't know any
just another fake issue for social conservatives to get their panties in a knot about
I used to do a lot of business in Utah and still have friends there. None of them are polygamists, however they have told me, they do exists and they are easy to spot.
-
I know that. That's why I apologized.
Exactly!!! But, the PC rule is that conservaties aren't supposed to talk or discuss the issue
Sorry didn't see that.
Throw PC out the window. Discuss, discuss, discuss!
-
Wrong again, Straw Man.
As stated earlier, the big canard from gay activists was that gay "marriage" wouldn't lead to polygamy in the Western World. Again, cue the De Bruijns from the Netherlands, the very place where gay "marriage" got started (which some thought would never come to the USA).
really - I've never heard that even once. Can you show me a source for this claim?
You still haven't explained to me how any type of marriage affects you personally and why I should care about your point of view
-
really - I've never heard that even once. Can you show me a source for this claim?
You still haven't explained to me how any type of marriage affects you personally and why I should care about your point of view
This is one of the reasons why I left the US.
-
Oh Shush! I'm not talking to you anymore. By responding to you... I missed the icecream truck. :'(
For that, I deeply apologize. Far be it from me to interfere with your dietary regime. After all, we have to make sure you keep that junk in the trunk (I like ‘em thick)!!!
;D
-
really - I've never heard that even once. Can you show me a source for this claim?
You still haven't explained to me how any type of marriage affects you personally and why I should care about your point of view
Actually, I did (at least, with the former). You might want to brush up on your reading.
-
Actually, I did (at least, with the former). You might want to brush up on your reading.
Translation=Christians can't mind their own business.
-
Actually, I did (at least, with the former). You might want to brush up on your reading.
you mean this silly and incorrect statement:
As for the effect it has in my life, it affects my right to participate in public policy. For stating that such is wrong (depending on the circumstance), I could be charged with a "hate crime".
If something has the potential to adversely affect me, I would rather deal with it, BEFORE it becomes a problem, not after.
I already responded remember:
regarding the states - I'm talking about gay marriage and you can't be charged with a hate crime for merely stating that you think something is wrong
Again, gays are already legally allowed to get married.
What has been the effect on you so far?
-
you mean this silly and incorrect statement:
I already responded remember:
The statement is neither, especially considering most recently (on top of the public policy issues), a family member of mine was recently fired, because someone overheard a statement made, regarding that family member's not attending "committment ceremony" celebration for a lesbian co-worker. And gay "marriage" isn't even legal in my home state.
And, yes you CAN be charged with a "hate crime" for stating that gay "marriage" (and/or homosexuality is wrong).
Here are a few examples:
Madison, Wisconsin. David Ott, a former homosexual, was arrested for a "hate crime" for sharing his testimony with a homosexual at a gas station. He faced a $10,000 fine and one year behind bars. Seven thousand dollars in legal fees later, he was ordered to attend re-education classes at the University of Wisconsin conducted by a lesbian.
St. Petersburg, Florida. Five Christians including two pastors were arrested at a homosexual rally for stepping onto the public sidewalk instead staying caged in their officially designated "free speech zone."
Elmira, New York. The Elmira police arrested seven Christians for praying in a public park where a homosexual festival was getting started.
Crystal Lake, Illinois. Two 16 year old girls are facing felony "hate crime" charges for the content of their flyers.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Arlene Elshinnawy, a 75-year-old grandmother of three, and Linda Beckman, a 70-year-old grandmother of 10 (along with nine others), were arrested for sharing their faith on the public sidewalk.
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/1540-hate-crimes-legislation-added-to-defense-bill (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/1540-hate-crimes-legislation-added-to-defense-bill)
So, yet again, another claim that "such-and-such" will never happen, if gay "marriage" gets legalized bites the dust.
Translation=Christians can't mind their own business.
When it affect public policy, it becomes MY business, as well as that of any other member of society. That's why we VOTE on issues like these.
-
The statement is neither, especially considering most recently (on top of the public policy issues), a family member of mine was recently fired, because someone overheard a statement made, regarding that family member's not attending "committment ceremony" celebration for a lesbian co-worker. And gay "marriage" isn't even legal in my home state.
And, yes you CAN be charged with a "hate crime" for stating that gay "marriage" (and/or homosexuality is wrong).
Here are a few examples:
Madison, Wisconsin. David Ott, a former homosexual, was arrested for a "hate crime" for sharing his testimony with a homosexual at a gas station. He faced a $10,000 fine and one year behind bars. Seven thousand dollars in legal fees later, he was ordered to attend re-education classes at the University of Wisconsin conducted by a lesbian.
St. Petersburg, Florida. Five Christians including two pastors were arrested at a homosexual rally for stepping onto the public sidewalk instead staying caged in their officially designated "free speech zone."
Elmira, New York. The Elmira police arrested seven Christians for praying in a public park where a homosexual festival was getting started.
Crystal Lake, Illinois. Two 16 year old girls are facing felony "hate crime" charges for the content of their flyers.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Arlene Elshinnawy, a 75-year-old grandmother of three, and Linda Beckman, a 70-year-old grandmother of 10 (along with nine others), were arrested for sharing their faith on the public sidewalk.
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/1540-hate-crimes-legislation-added-to-defense-bill (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/1540-hate-crimes-legislation-added-to-defense-bill)
So, yet again, another claim that "such-and-such" will never happen, if gay "marriage" gets legalized bites the dust.
When it affect public policy, it becomes MY business, as well as that of any other member of society. That's why we VOTE on issues like these.
were these all "Hate Crimes" or were they arrested for various other reasons.
when they were "testifying" and "sharing their faith" were they also harrassing or intimidating people?
I'd like to know the content on those girls poster, where they posted it, the circumstances, etc..
You make it sound like if you simply state that you oppose gay marriage that the police are going to come throw you in jail
btw - what exactly is your argument. Gay marriage is largely not legal yet people have already been charged for hate crimes (most likely for intimidation and threats) so what will change when it is legal. You still can't harass them or intimidate them either way
-
i think that was jerry buss lol
Nah. He usally only has one. :)
-
File this under the "We told you so" folder, Beach!!!
For years, gay activists have screamed that legalizing gay "marriage" would never lead to polygamy and that polygamists could not use the same arguments for their cause that gay activists use for legalizing gay "marriage".
Of course, they conveniently ignore that, in the very place where this stuff started, polygamy is already legal, for all practical purposes. Does the name "De Bruijn" ring a bell?
That is the last name of the participants of the first polygamist civil union in the Netherlands, performed in 2005. That is, Victor De Bruijn and his two "wives", Bianca and Mirjam.
Your article brings up an interesting issue: Why were gay "marriage" supporters insisting on an anti-incest law, since gay "marriage" proponents like downplaying the issue of procreation, when it comes to marriage, incest should technically be on the table. After all, two gay brothers can't procreate with each other (nor can two gay sisters).
But, that would leave the door open for opposite-sex siblings. Don't they have the "right" to procreate, even if it results in likely-deformed children?
Bottom line: The "slippery slope" that some folks claimed would never come to fruition has done just that.
Yep. Confusion is coming. Next thing you know people will want to marry their pets. ::)
-
next frontier? huh? lololol.... uh, beach, they've wanted and had pior polygamy rights a lot longer than gays have been making an issue of it here.
O Rly? When was the last time anyone had "polygamy rights"?
-
Exactly. There are present day polygamist already.
None of them legal.
-
None of them legal.
So?
-
None of them legal.
I'd be willing to bet that if the Sultan of Brunei showed up with his many wives, their status would be legal.
-
So?
You brought it up. Just clarifying that none of those polygamist relationships are legal.
-
You brought it up. Just clarifying that none of those polygamist relationships are legal.
Yet they still exist.
-
Yet they still exist.
Lots of illegal activities take place in the U.S.
-
Lots of illegal activities take place in the U.S.
Like the harassment of innocent private citizens practicing their professions and not breaking any laws.
-
Like the harassment of innocent private citizens practicing their professions and not breaking any laws.
Whatever that means.
-
Why stop re-defining marriage at two people?
-
Why stop re-defining marriage at two people?
The Netherlands didn't.
-
Why stop re-defining marriage at two people?
Why does anyone care?
-
Yep. Confusion is coming. Next thing you know people will want to marry their pets. ::)
And if they did, what would be the problem?
-
Lots of illegal activities take place in the U.S.
And yet the law doesn't stop them from doing it, and we still waste money trying to stop them.
-
And if they did, what would be the problem?
The pets might not be able to plead their case in divorce court.
-
And yet the law doesn't stop them from doing it, and we still waste money trying to stop them.
The same way we waste money trying to stop stealing, lying, murder, rape, robbery, etc.? Laws never completely prevent illegal activity.
-
The same way we waste money trying to stop stealing, lying, murder, rape, robbery, etc.? Laws never completely prevent illegal activity.
Not those "crimes". Stupid laws like polygamy, pot, prostitution etc..
-
Not those "crimes". Stupid laws like polygamy, pot, prostitution etc..
I guess "stupid" is in the eye of the beholder. But the fact remains that laws don't prevent illegal behavior. Criminalizing conduct deters some, but largely provides a mechanism to punish people. It also helps maintain order.
I'm going to have trouble obeying the new cell phone law here. >:(
-
I guess "stupid" is in the eye of the beholder. But the fact remains that laws don't prevent illegal behavior. Criminalizing conduct deters some, but largely provides a mechanism to punish people. It also helps maintain order.
I'm going to have trouble obeying the new cell phone law here. >:(
I already got nailed for that.....$150 >:(
-
The pets might not be able to plead their case in divorce court.
That is the first decent point I have heard in this thread.
-
I'm just about the least religious man I know and I don't believe in the marriage concept.
But it's an old concept and the government have it's reasons to motivate people to stick to it, they're trying to encourage the formation of the family cell.
That's why marriage shouldn't be touched, the government want to support it as it is and not as some arbitrary notion that everyone changes every week.
Personally I wouldn't mind giving other types of couples similar benefits but I see no obligation from the government to give it to them, they might as well let people marry animals and have the people claim it's their right and so on.
I really don't understand why people think that someone owes them that right, there are thousends of government definitions to people and situations that many don't fall into them and don't get their benefits, yet on this subject people think they can change something whenever they like.
-
I'm just about the least religious man I know and I don't believe in the marriage concept.
But it's an old concept and the government have it's reasons to motivate people to stick to it, they're trying to encourage the formation of the family cell.
That's why marriage shouldn't be touched, the government want to support it as it is and not as some arbitrary notion that everyone changes every week.
Personally I wouldn't mind giving other types of couples similar benefits but I see no obligation from the government to give it to them, they might as well let people marry animals and have the people claim it's their right and so on.
I really don't understand why people think that someone owes them that right, there are thousends of government definitions to people and situations that many don't fall into them and don't get their benefits, yet on this subject people think they can change something whenever they like.
Good post. Nice analysis.
-
I already got nailed for that.....$150 >:(
:o I would have paid the fine in pennies.
-
Good post. Nice analysis.
Thanks, check the video I posted...it's amazing!
-
I'm just about the least religious man I know and I don't believe in the marriage concept.
But it's an old concept and the government have it's reasons to motivate people to stick to it, they're trying to encourage the formation of the family cell.
That's why marriage shouldn't be touched, the government want to support it as it is and not as some arbitrary notion that everyone changes every week.
Personally I wouldn't mind giving other types of couples similar benefits but I see no obligation from the government to give it to them, they might as well let people marry animals and have the people claim it's their right and so on.
I really don't understand why people think that someone owes them that right, there are thousends of government definitions to people and situations that many don't fall into them and don't get their benefits, yet on this subject people think they can change something whenever they like.
Wasn't the original "concept" of marriage more a legal agreement and an aquisition of property (the woman)
Why would the government care if a "family cell" is man/woman, two women, two men etc..
On what legal grounds should two adults be restricted on exercising a right that is available to other adults?
-
Wasn't the original "concept" of marriage more a legal agreement and an aquisition of property (the woman)
Why would the government care if a "family cell" is man/woman, two women, two men etc..
On what legal grounds should two adults be restricted on exercising a right that is available to other adults?
Are you really that slow?
The government care because it's an ancient proved formula, not to mention that governments can support whatever they like, live wherever the laws are suitable to your living style.
And they have the legal right to do it just like they have the legal right to stop you from marrying a little girl or do millions of other actions.
You might as well ask why you can't get a tax refund for a tip you gave a stripper on the basis that it's a form of an expense ::)
-
Are you really that slow?
The government care because it's an ancient proved formula, not to mention that governments can support whatever they like, live wherever the laws are suitable to your living style.
And they have the legal right to do it just like they have the legal right to stop you from marrying a little girl or do millions of other actions.
You might as well ask why you can't get a tax refund for a tip you gave a stripper on the basis that it's a form of an expense ::)
dude - have I started out by insulting you?
I asked you simple questions
ancient proved formula?
didn't I clarify "adult"?
why should two consenting adults be restricted access to something that is available to other adults?
-
dude - have I started out by insulting you?
I asked you simple questions
ancient proved formula?
didn't I clarify "adult"?
why should two consenting adults be restricted access to something that is available to other adults?
What is so hard to understand? You can't do/get whatever you like, certain laws apply to certain people/situations/etc , marriage just got into the spotlight but it's no different than saying that you deserve a disability check because you don't like working and it's some form of handicap ;D
BTW I solved the gay marriage problem, we'll have a new thing called Gayrige,anyone who will gayrige will promise to have worse sex life with his partner, feel suffocated and adopt a child :P
-
What is so hard to understand? You can't do/get whatever you like, certain laws apply to certain people/situations/etc , marriage just got into the spotlight but it's no different than saying that you deserve a disability check because you don't like working and it's some form of handicap ;D
BTW I solved the gay marriage problem, we'll have a new thing called Gayrige,anyone who will gayrige will promise to have worse sex life with his partner, feel suffocated and adopt a child :P
no offense but your comparisons make no sense. how is not wanting to work yet wanting a disability check in any way comparable to wanting to marry someone you love? I'm not following your logic.
I don't understand anything you've written in your last sentence
-
no offense but your comparisons make no sense. how is not wanting to work yet wanting a disability check in any way comparable to wanting to marry someone you love? I'm not following your logic.
I don't understand anything you've written in your last sentence
It's very simple, there are definitions that were made by the government, if you don't fall into them than you can't do/get/etc what that definition stores, marriage and love sounds really romantic and noble but it's BS, it's just another government definition , one amongst millions.
There is no law that prevent you from being with someone, but marriage is something that is defined by law and if you don't follow the law than you can't be married.No one is preventing you with being with someone you love, than you would be right but since marriage is only a theoretical concept than the government have the right not to allow it to everyone.
Now watch the Penn and Teller video ;D
-
It's very simple, there are definitions that were made by the government, if you don't fall into them than you can't do/get/etc what that definition stores, marriage and love sounds really romantic and noble but it's BS, it's just another government definition , one amongst millions.
There is no law that prevent you from being with someone, but marriage is something that is defined by law and if you don't follow the law than you can't be married.No one is preventing you with being with someone you love, than you would be right but since marriage is only a theoretical concept than the government have the right not to allow it to everyone.
Now watch the Penn and Teller video ;D
far enough but keep in mind we've had all kinds of laws which we've later decided were unconstitutional and someday this issue may also be deemed such.
Personally, it has zero effect on my life either way. It doesn't effect me if gays can marry and it doesn't effect me if they can't marry. I'm pretty sure it's the same way for everyone else too.
I'll check out the video later but judging from their other videos they would be better off sticking with magic
-
far enough but keep in mind we've had all kinds of laws which we've later decided were unconstitutional and someday this issue may also be deemed such.
Personally, it has zero effect on my life either way. It doesn't effect me if gays can marry and it doesn't effect me if they can't marry. I'm pretty sure it's the same way for everyone else too.
I'll check out the video later but judging from their other videos they would be better off sticking with magic
I personally don't care too, but I'm just giving out the reasons why it's not the civil right atrocity some make it out to be.
And off course that some laws have been proved to be wrong, and people should question laws, I didn't say that asking to lift the gay ban should be banned I was just saying why I think that it's not some huge crime by the government.
-
O Rly? When was the last time anyone had "polygamy rights"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_the_United_States#Polygamy_and_bigamy_laws_in_the_US
This is a much older and larger issue than gay marriage, so it sure isn't right to say this is the next frontier. I mean even today, this is a crime that doesn't get prosecuted much unless there's something else illegal going on and in some states the crime of polygamy is about the same as jaywalking. They can pretty much do it and get away with it unless there is some larger federal case going on.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_the_United_States#Polygamy_and_bigamy_laws_in_the_US
This is a much older and larger issue than gay marriage, so it sure isn't right to say this is the next frontier. I mean even today, this is a crime that doesn't get prosecuted much unless there's something else illegal going on and in some states the crime of polygamy is about the same as jaywalking. They can pretty much do it and get away with it unless there is some larger federal case going on.
From the link: "Because polygamy has been illegal throughout the United States since the mid-nineteenth century, and at state level before that, sources on alternative marriage practices are limited."
In other words, it has been illegal for over 150 years. There is no "right" to do something that is illegal, particularly if it has been illegal for over a century. No such thing as "polygamy rights."
-
I personally don't care too, but I'm just giving out the reasons why it's not the civil right atrocity some make it out to be.
And off course that some laws have been proved to be wrong, and people should question laws, I didn't say that asking to lift the gay ban should be banned I was just saying why I think that it's not some huge crime by the government.
I would never call it an atrocity either. If anything it's more of an embarrassment. We are a secular country with a Constitution that provides equal protection under the law and in this case we're not (IMO) following our own standards.
The list of more serious problems in this country is mile long
-
From the link: "Because polygamy has been illegal throughout the United States since the mid-nineteenth century, and at state level before that, sources on alternative marriage practices are limited."
In other words, it has been illegal for over 150 years. There is no "right" to do something that is illegal, particularly if it has been illegal for over a century. No such thing as "polygamy rights."
yea, I knew it was a long ass time ago. What the fuck is your point? My point was to say it was issue way way before gay marriage and it's continued to be issue all along the way. So again, calling it the next frontier is odd to say the least. They once freely practiced it here just like I said. "they've wanted and had prior" Yea, no such thing as polygamy rights, I only meant that they freely practiced it. The liberty to do so was not witheld.
-
yea, I knew it was a long ass time ago. What the fuck is your point? My point was to say it was issue way way before gay marriage and it's continued to be issue all along the way. So again, calling it the next frontier is odd to say the least. They once freely practiced it here just like I said. "they've wanted and had prior" Yea, no such thing as polygamy rights, I only meant that they freely practiced it. The liberty to do so was not witheld.
My "point" is there is/was no such thing as "polygamy rights," but you've clarified your point.
Who cares if something was practiced over 150 years ago? The fact it has been outlawed for the majority of our country's existence says much more about how polygamy is viewed/treated than the relatively short period of time it was not expressly prohibited.
-
:o I would have paid the fine in pennies.
Hmmmm I haven't paid it yet.
You might read news story soon.......
-
My "point" is there is/was no such thing as "polygamy rights," but you've clarified your point.
Who cares if something was practiced over 150 years ago? The fact it has been outlawed for the majority of our country's existence says much more about how polygamy is viewed/treated than the relatively short period of time it was not expressly prohibited.
Polygamy rights? I thought people had a right to pursue happiness in this country. If being married to pets, the same sex, or multiple spouses makes them happy, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, who should give a rat's rear? (unless the you are married to a rat, in which case, what ever you do behind closed doors is up to you. :P)
-
Polygamy rights? I thought people had a right to pursue happiness in this country. If being married to pets, the same sex, or multiple spouses makes them happy, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, who should give a rat's rear? (unless the you are married to a rat, in which case, what ever you do behind closed doors is up to you. :P)
Gross! lol . . . :)
Apparently a majority of the voters care. We have a lot of freedom, but we don't have unlimited rights to do whatever we want. If a majority of the public wants to legitimize polygamy, triad relationships, bestiality, etc., then it will happen at the ballot box.
-
Gross! lol . . . :)
Apparently a majority of the voters care. We have a lot of freedom, but we don't have unlimited rights to do whatever we want. If a majority of the public wants to legitimize polygamy, triad relationships, bestiality, etc., then it will happen at the ballot box.
it could also happen in the leglislature or judiciary
-
it could also happen in the leglislature or judiciary
The real question is why there is so much religious lunacy in the US?
-
The real question is why there is so much religious lunacy in the US?
I have no problem with religious beliefs as long as they are forcibly apply to other people's beliefs.
-
I have no problem with religious beliefs as long as they are forcibly apply to other people's beliefs.
Oxymoron.
-
I have no problem with religious beliefs as long as they are NOT forcibly apply to other people's beliefs.
fixed
-
My "point" is there is/was no such thing as "polygamy rights," but you've clarified your point.
Who cares if something was practiced over 150 years ago? The fact it has been outlawed for the majority of our country's existence says much more about how polygamy is viewed/treated than the relatively short period of time it was not expressly prohibited.
you're a jackass retard sometimes... You must never pay attention to shit. If you did, you would know that the issue has been there for entire 150 years. I didn't fucking make a big deal out of that, you did. Polygamy is much bigger than gay marriage as an issue and much older. That's it!. And with religious connection! I might as well say to you right now, by your retarded stupid ass words: who gives a shit about something that happened 2000 years ago. Idiot Christians lolololol... ohhhh ha foot in mouth hahaha. doh!!!!! >:(
-
Wasn't the original "concept" of marriage more a legal agreement and an aquisition of property (the woman)
NOPE!!!
Unfortunately, man has taken the concept of marriage (a loving union between a man and a woman, ultimately designed to bring forth and nurture life) and twisted it into what you just mentioned?
Why would the government care if a "family cell" is man/woman, two women, two men etc.
I believe IFBBwannaB has explained that, at least TWICE.
On what legal grounds should two adults be restricted on exercising a right that is available to other adults?
That "right" isn't restricted to other adults. Those other adults are forfeiting that right, because they'd rather play house with someone of the same gender and/or with multiple entities.
-
you're a jackass retard sometimes... You must never pay attention to shit. If you did, you would know that the issue has been there for entire 150 years. I didn't fucking make a big deal out of that, you did. Polygamy is much bigger than gay marriage as an issue and much older. That's it!. And with religious connection! I might as well say to you right now, by your retarded stupid ass words: who gives a shit about something that happened 2000 years ago. Idiot Christians lolololol... ohhhh ha foot in mouth hahaha. doh!!!!! >:(
::)
-
My "point" is there is/was no such thing as "polygamy rights," but you've clarified your point.
Who cares if something was practiced over 150 years ago? The fact it has been outlawed for the majority of our country's existence says much more about how polygamy is viewed/treated than the relatively short period of time it was not expressly prohibited.
Also, the fact that people voted to outlaw it or didn't voted to make it legal doesn't make outlawing it right. People have the right to live that way they want to live so long as it does trespass on other people's rights.
-
Also, the fact that people voted to outlaw it or didn't voted to make it legal doesn't make outlawing it right. People have the right to live that way they want to live so long as it does trespass on other people's rights.
Not entirely true. People have the right to live the way they want so long it doesn't violate the law. We (society) determines what should or shouldn't be against the law.
-
you're a jackass retard sometimes... You must never pay attention to shit. If you did, you would know that the issue has been there for entire 150 years. I didn't fucking make a big deal out of that, you did. Polygamy is much bigger than gay marriage as an issue and much older. That's it!. And with religious connection! I might as well say to you right now, by your retarded stupid ass words: who gives a shit about something that happened 2000 years ago. Idiot Christians lolololol... ohhhh ha foot in mouth hahaha. doh!!!!! >:(
You and your Muslim apologist friends seem to like bringing up events that happened 800+ years ago. Pot meet kettle. :D
-
Not entirely true. People have the right to live the way they want so long it doesn't violate the law. We (society) determines what should or shouldn't be against the law.
The popular vote isn't always the right vote. In fact our system of government in many ways was designed to prevent 100% governing by the "popular" vote.
Our society goes as it goes, regardless of the law in many ways. Most people break the law one way or another or at one time or another, you do it, I do it etc... Laws are good, don't get me wrong, but laws designed to tell people how to live are useless IMO (when it comes to non-victimized crimes).
-
The popular vote isn't always the right vote. In fact our system of government in many ways was designed to prevent 100% governing by the "popular" vote.
Our society goes as it goes, regardless of the law in many ways. Most people break the law one way or another or at one time or another, you do it, I do it etc... Laws are good, don't get me wrong, but laws designed to tell people how to live are useless IMO (when it comes to non-victimized crimes).
I was going to say that I agree not every popular vote is the right vote, but I'm not so sure. I don't agree with every vote, but every vote represents what society or a particularly community wants. From that standpoint, it's "right." I may not agree with what society or the legislature has decided, but at the end of the day votes are what largely determine right and wrong.
We have plenty of laws that tell us how to live our lives, including seat belt, helmet, cell phone while driving >:(, etc. I wouldn't call them useless. Some may be more unenforceable than others, but they all serve a purpose (and not necessarily one you or I agree with).
For example, our legislature recently overwhelmingly approved a bill making credit history the same as race, religion, gender, etc. for purposes of employment discrimination. We’ll be the first country in the nation to do this if it survives a veto. Governor will hopefully veto, but I think that bill is ridiculous. But it may be the law and what our community wants (based on the votes).
-
Some laws are meant to reflect the society that we want.
That is why there are nudity and obscenity laws.
Marriage falls underneath these types of laws.
I for one think that marriage should be religious only and the government should only recognize civil unions.
This would take care of the gay marriage problem. It was also floated as a way to get around prop. 8.
http://cbs13.com/local/proposition.8.ruling.2.953010.html
I am against polygamy because it leads to problems with young men not finding wives.
Which tends to lead to a whole raft of social problems, including an easy source of angry men that like to blow up things.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml
What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny. By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether excluding many men from reproductive opportunities, polygyny creates shortages of available women. If 50 percent of men have two wives each, then the other 50 percent don't get any wives at all.
So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives. Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region.
However, polygyny itself is not a sufficient cause of suicide bombing. Societies in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean are much more polygynous than the Muslim nations in the Middle East and North Africa. And they do have very high levels of violence. Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from a long history of continuous civil wars—but not suicide bombings.
The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam. The prospect of exclusive access to virgins may not be so appealing to anyone who has even one mate on earth, which strict monogamy virtually guarantees. However, the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser.
It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivates many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings. Consistent with this explanation, all studies of suicide bombers indicate that they are significantly younger than not only the Muslim population in general but other (nonsuicidal) members of their own extreme political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And nearly all suicide bombers are single.
-
Marriage, a History
Long ago, love was a silly reason for a match. How marriage has changed over history.
By: PT Staff
Through most of Western civilization, marriage has been more a matter of money, power and survival than of delicate sentiments. In medieval Europe, everyone from the lord of the manor to the village locals had a say in deciding who should wed. Love was considered an absurdly flimsy reason for a match. Even during the Enlightenment and Victorian eras, adultery and friendship were often more passionate than marriage. These days, we marry for love—and are rewarded with a blistering divorce rate.
Antiquity-Renaissance
What's love got to do with it? In early history, politics and money trumped emotions.
*Ancient Greece: Love is a many-splendored (manly) thing. Love is honored—especially between men. In marriage, inheritance is more important than feelings: A woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative—even if she has to divorce her husband first.
*Rome: Wife-swapping as a career move—Statesman Marcus Porcius Cato divorces his wife and marries her off to his ally Hortensius in order to strengthen family bonds; after Hortensius dies, Cato remarries her.
*6th-century Europe: Political polygamy—The Germanic warlord Clothar, despite being a baptized Christian, eventually acquires four wives for strategic reasons, including his dead brother's wife, her sister and the daughter of a captured foreign king.
*12th-century Europe: Marriage is good for loving...someone else—Upper-class marriages are often arranged before the couple has met. Aristocrats believe love is incompatible with marriage and can flourish only in adultery.
*14th-century Europe: It takes a village—Ordinary people can't choose whom to marry either. The lord of one Black Forest manor decrees in 1344 that all his unmarried tenants—including widows and widowers—marry spouses of his choosing. Elsewhere, peasants wishing to pick a partner must pay a fee.
*16th-century Europe: Love's a bore—Any man in love with his wife must be so dull that no one else could love him, writes the French essayist Montaigne.
1600s-Victorian Era
It's a family affair: Married love gains currency, but for intimacy and passion, people still turn to family, lovers and friends.
*1690s U.S.: Virginia wasn't always for lovers—Passionate love between husband and wife is considered unseemly: One Virginia colonist describes a woman he knows as "more fond of her husband perhaps than the politeness of the day allows." Protestant ministers warn spouses against loving each other too much, or using endearing nicknames that will undermine husbandly authority.
*18th-century Europe: Love gains ground—In England and in the salons of Enlightenment thinkers, married love is gaining credibility. Ladies' debating societies declare that while loveless marriages are regrettable, women must consider money when choosing a partner.
*1840, England: Virgin lace—Queen Victoria starts a trend by wearing virginal white, instead of the traditional jeweled wedding gown. Historically thought of as the lustier sex, women are now considered chaste and pure. As a result, many men find it easier to have sex with prostitutes than with their virtuous wives.
*Mid 19th-century U.S.: Honeymoon suite for three—Honeymoons replace the older custom of "bridal tours," in which the newly married couple travel after the wedding to visit family who could not attend the ceremony. Even so, many brides bring girlfriends with them on their honeymoons.
20th Century-Today
We worship the couple. Intimacy shrinks to encompass just two, and love becomes the only reason for marriage.
*1920s U.S.: How Saturday night began—Dating is the new craze—in restaurants and cars, away from the oversight of family. Popular culture embraces sex, but critics fear that marriage is on the rocks.
*1950s U.S.: Marriage is mandatory—Marriage becomes almost universal, and the nuclear family is triumphant: Four out of five people surveyed in 1957 believe that preferring to remain single is "sick," "neurotic" or "immoral."
*1970s U.S.: All you need is love?—Self-sufficient women and changing social rules mean marriage is no longer obligatory. Quarreling couples split up rather than make do, and the divorce rate skyrockets.
*Today: Bride pride—Marriage is the ultimate expression of love, leading gays and lesbians to seek the right to marry, but also encouraging couples to cohabit until they're sure about their "soul mate." Marriage rates fall—but the fantasy of the perfect wedding is ubiquitous
Based on research from Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, by Stephanie Coontz.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20050506-000006.html
-
Love isn't a silly reason for a marriage. It just wasn't the DRIVING FORCE or ultimate rationale for marriage. Back in the day, it was financial security and family. As a verse to a well-known song goes, "Your love give me such a thrill; but your love DON'T PAY MY BILLS!!"
Part of the reason that divorce is so high is that the foolish promotion of romantic love, as being the foundation and be-all-to-end-all of marriage.
-
Love isn't a silly reason for a marriage. It just wasn't the DRIVING FORCE or ultimate rationale for marriage. Back in the day, it was financial security and family. As a verse to a well-known song goes, "Your love give me such a thrill; but your love DON'T PAY MY BILLS!!"
Part of the reason that divorce is so high is that the foolish promotion of romantic love, as being the foundation and be-all-to-end-all of marriage.
I agree. Why bother getting married these days in the first place? You can have a family and all the other things traditionally associated with marriage without the headaches without getting married.
-
I agree. Why bother getting married these days in the first place? You can have a family and all the other things traditionally associated with marriage without the headaches without getting married.
What "headaches" other than the two that seem to scare you to death: Responsibility and Accountability?
-
What "headaches" other than the two that seem to scare you to death: Responsibility and Accountability?
No, massive financial losses, disruptive, nearly unbearable emotional pain and an inability to live life in a normal fashion.
-
No, massive financial losses, disruptive, nearly unbearable emotional pain and an inability to live life in a normal fashion.
As I said, responsibility and accountabilty!!!
-
As I said, responsibility and accountabilty!!!
::)
Sometimes I think you basically have a good heart and then when I see shit like that I think you are an arsehole. I guess people who think genocide is ok must by default be arseholes.
Two friends of mine: both their wives cheated on them, despite this the wives got the kids, they have to fork over 60% of their assets over to the wives and can barely see their kids because their girl ex-wives are a bunch of evil, self-centred bitches. They both are in emotional turmoil for the loss of their children and their wives cheating on them. These are good, hard working men. Loyal to a fault, great friends and great fathers. You call that responsibility and accountablity? You are smoking crack arsehole. They did their best and their girl wives and the system fucked them. I don't want to or need to deal with shit like that. Hopefully your wife pull the same shit on you and you can eat your bs about 'accountability and responsibility'.
-
::)
Sometimes I think you basically have a good heart and then when I see shit like that I think you are an arsehole. I guess people who think genocide is ok must by default be arseholes.
Two friends of mine: both their wives cheated on them, despite this the wives got the kids, they have to fork over 60% of their assets over to the wives and can barely see their kids because their #### ex-wives are a bunch of evil, self-centred bitches. They both are in emotional turmoil for the loss of their children and their wives cheating on them. These are good, hard working men. Loyal to a fault, great friends and great fathers. You call that responsibility and accountablity? You are smoking crack arsehole. They did their best and their #### wives and the system fucked them. I don't want to or need to deal with shit like that. Hopefully your wife pull the same shit on you and you can eat your bs about 'accountability and responsibility'.
I've seen guys screw over women, too: Beat on them, cheat on them, treat them like garbage....AND snatch the kids away, despite all of that, leaving them with next to nothing.
What's your point?
Once again, when you can't make a decent argument, you resort to wishing ill on me, like the immature brat that you tend to at times.
I also know of women who did dirt on their husbands....SO WHAT? I certainly didn't let that stop me from getting married. If anything, it made me take a good long look at myself and choices I was making with regards to women.
As a result, I reduced the risk of ending up with such a shrew and instead have a lovely woman, whom I am proud to call my wife.
-
I've seen guys screw over women, too: Beat on them, cheat on them, treat them like garbage....AND snatch the kids away, despite all of that, leaving them with next to nothing.
What's your point?
Once again, when you can't make a decent argument, you resort to wishing ill on me, like the immature brat that you tend to at times.
I also know of women who did dirt on their husbands....SO WHAT? I certainly didn't let that stop me from getting married. If anything, it made me take a good long look at myself and choices I was making with regards to women.
As a result, I reduced the risk of ending up with such a shrew and instead have a lovely woman, whom I am proud to call my wife.
Because you insult my friends who are reponsible hard working people with comments like that, implying that they deserved what they got; they didn't. You don't know them and have no basis for judging them. What's more, what is the problem with having a family and relationship without being married? There is none.
-
Because you insult my friends who are reponsible hard working people with comments like that, implying that they deserved what they got; they didn't. You don't know them and have no basis for judging them. What's more, what is the problem with having a family and relationship without being married? There is none.
First of all, genius, I didn't insult your friends. In fact, my comments weren't even aimed at your friends (who weren't even in the picture, until you brought them up).
My comments were aimed at one person: YOU!!, based on YOUR statements and your statements alone.
Marriage carries with it FAR more responsibility and accountablity, than merely shacking up. That is the part that scares you most. Based on YOUR comments (not the scenarios of your friends or acquaintances), the message seems to be that, if anyone is going to be the "evil, self-centered *#)!#", it's going to be you.
-
First of all, genius, I didn't insult your friends. In fact, my comments weren't even aimed at your friends (who weren't even in the picture, until you brought them up).
My comments were aimed at one person: YOU!!, based on YOUR statements and your statements alone.
Marriage carries with it FAR more responsibility and accountablity, than merely shacking up. That is the part that scares you most. Based on YOUR comments (not the scenarios of your friends or acquaintances), the message seems to be that, if anyone is going to be the "evil, self-centered *#)!#", it's going to be you.
There is nothing that says you have to be married to have a committed responsible relationship. That is a fact.
-
I was going to say that I agree not every popular vote is the right vote, but I'm not so sure. I don't agree with every vote, but every vote represents what society or a particularly community wants. From that standpoint, it's "right." I may not agree with what society or the legislature has decided, but at the end of the day votes are what largely determine right and wrong.
We have plenty of laws that tell us how to live our lives, including seat belt, helmet, cell phone while driving >:(, etc. I wouldn't call them useless. Some may be more unenforceable than others, but they all serve a purpose (and not necessarily one you or I agree with).
For example, our legislature recently overwhelmingly approved a bill making credit history the same as race, religion, gender, etc. for purposes of employment discrimination. We’ll be the first country in the nation to do this if it survives a veto. Governor will hopefully veto, but I think that bill is ridiculous. But it may be the law and what our community wants (based on the votes).
I don't think the "majority" vote always makes it right. It may be a voice of what the majority wants, but that doesn't make it right. What do you think the majority wanted in 1830 in Alabama regarding slavery?
What is this thing about credit history? They want to make credit history a non factor for employers when hiring people? So in others words they can't pull a credit report on them?
-
There is nothing that says you have to be married to have a committed responsible relationship. That is a fact.
As is your reticence to marriage being based on your current phobia of committment and responsibility, i.e. you want the option of simply hauling tail, leaving your "baby mama" high and dry, while you are off the hook.
-
As is your reticence to marriage being based on your current phobia of committment and responsibility, i.e. you want the option of simply hauling tail, leaving your "baby mama" high and dry, while you are off the hook.
I haven't been following your conversation in detail, but shucking your responsibility as a parent is about the scummiest thing a person can do.
Marriage is not a bad thing. In many cases it's keeps a couple trying longer on their relationship/marriage because of the "piece of paper" and their vows. Many times couples work through it and stay together when they otherwise wouldn't. Their children appreciate it and are taught the value of responsibility and commitment as well as many other benefits.
Marriage is a good thing, it preserves the family unit which is one of the pillars of this country.
-
I haven't been following your conversation in detail, but shucking your responsibility as a parent is about the scummiest thing a person can do.
Marriage is not a bad thing. In many cases it's keeps a couple trying longer on their relationship/marriage because of the "piece of paper" and their vows. Many times couples work through it and stay together when they otherwise wouldn't. Their children appreciate it and are taught the value of responsibility and commitment as well as many other benefits.
Marriage is a good thing, it preserves the family unit which is one of the pillars of this country.
Nonetheless, it is not necessary to get married in order to have a family or a relationship.
-
I don't think the "majority" vote always makes it right. It may be a voice of what the majority wants, but that doesn't make it right. What do you think the majority wanted in 1830 in Alabama regarding slavery?
What is this thing about credit history? They want to make credit history a non factor for employers when hiring people? So in others words they can't pull a credit report on them?
Maybe I'm not using the word "right" in the proper context. I'm not trying to say a vote = a morally correct outcome. I'm only trying to say the vote represents what the community wants, and that what society considers right and wrong is generally contained in our laws, which are the result of votes.
The credit history bill is just dumb. Yes it prevents employers from checking a prospective employee's credit history before a conditional offer of employment has been made, with some exceptions (banks, managers, and supervisors). It puts credit history in the same category as gender, pregnancy, marital status, etc. Employers can do a post-offer check, but it must be related to the job.
-
Maybe I'm not using the word "right" in the proper context. I'm not trying to say a vote = a morally correct outcome. I'm only trying to say the vote represents what the community wants, and that what society considers right and wrong is generally contained in our laws, which are the result of votes.
Generally, but not always. I agree.
The credit history bill is just dumb. Yes it prevents employers from checking a prospective employee's credit history before a conditional offer of employment has been made, with some exceptions (banks, managers, and supervisors). It puts credit history in the same category as gender, pregnancy, marital status, etc. Employers can do a post-offer check, but it must be related to the job.
As a employer i can see the value of reading some one's credit history and using the information for decide whether or not I wan them. As a prospective employee i see it as a invasion of privacy unless the information directly relates to their job.
-
Generally, but not always. I agree.
As a employer i can see the value of reading some one's credit history and using the information for decide whether or not I wan them. As a prospective employee i see it as a invasion of privacy unless the information directly relates to their job.
I think it demeans the other "protected classes." It's also a potential nightmare for employers. I think it actually hurts employees because an employer cannot ask for explanations during an interview. Also, fiscal responsibility is arguably related to pretty much every job.
-
I haven't been following your conversation in detail, but shucking your responsibility as a parent is about the scummiest thing a person can do.
Marriage is not a bad thing. In many cases it's keeps a couple trying longer on their relationship/marriage because of the "piece of paper" and their vows. Many times couples work through it and stay together when they otherwise wouldn't. Their children appreciate it and are taught the value of responsibility and commitment as well as many other benefits.
My point exactly!! As bad as divorce is these days, couples who are married tend to stick it out more than those who are just shacking up, which is the crux of my criticism to Deicide's comments.
From what I've gathered, he basically wants to be able to flee, with little or no responsibility (especially on the financial end) to his "baby mama", and by extension, his child.
-
Just around the corner.
Slate Embraces Slippery Slope: Legalize Polygamy Too
‘Fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage.’
Published: 4/16/2013
Subscribe to Kristine MarshBy Kristine Marsh
Gay marriage advocates have frequently scoffed at conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum who say legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to the classification of other relationships as “marriage,” such as multiple spouses, incest and bestiality. Now some on the left are happily gliding down the “slippery slope.”
Slate’s April 15th article called “Legalize polygamy: Marriage equality for all,” proposes—you guessed it—legalized polygamy. The article’s author, Jillian Keenan, stated that the problems with polygamy from certain fundamentalist Mormon circles can easily be resolved with legalizing those families. Using examples of coercion and abuse, Keenan rationalized that legalizing polygamy will allow children and women to report to the police when problems occur, instead of staying in hiding because of their illegal lifestyles.
As with drugs or prostitution, this strain of liberal though holds that if we legalize something that is inherently harmful or risky, it will somehow become safer. But there is a reason some behaviors are proscribed by law: they aren’t healthy for society or individuals. That doesn’t seem to matter to Keenan, who claimed that whether or not these marriages are healthy “should have no bearing on the legal process.”
Keenan then appealed to religious freedom, arguing the rights of fundamentalist LDS members and Muslim families with multiple wives as being protected in the Constitution in the same way that same sex partners should be. Finally, Keenan invoked feminism, saying that if a woman “wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.”
What’s scariest though, is Keenan’s view of marriage in general: (hint: it’s a lot like liberals view of the Constitution). “The definition of marriage is plastic,” she wrote. “Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults.”
So marriage is a living, changing institution, subject to the fickle whims present culture. It is whatever liberals like Keenan says it is at any given moment.
She ended with a rallying cry, “So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.”
At least Keenan is honest about what she wants. If you’re objective is the bottom, you may as well own the slippery slope.
http://www.mrc.org/articles/slate-embraces-slippery-slope-legalize-polygamy-too
-
I'll be curious to see how a judge assigns assets and child support the first time a polygamist's wife wants divorce in a community property state. :)
-
ABC Preaches the 'Gospel of Polyamory' and the Saving Power of Threesomes
By Scott Whitlock | November 27, 2013
Moving past gay marriage, ABC News on Monday pushed the "gospel" of polyamory, having multiple romantic and sexual partners in an open relationship. Co-anchor Dan Harris hyped, "More couples opting to become triples or fourples. Live-in lovers spicing up the marital bed, even helping raise the children." [See video below. MP3 audio here.]
Harris opened the segment by lecturing, "Just for a minute, let's do a thought experiment. Let's set aside all of the emotion and consider whether the evangelists for open marriage might have a point." Reporter Nick Watt profiled Michael, Kamela and Rachel, a threesome "couple" that has sex with numerous people, all while raising a child. Watt described, "They're spreading the gospel of polyamory, hoping to speed up societal acceptance of this kind of set-up."
Watt could only manage the most meager criticism of polyamory. Talking to sexual psychologist Karen Stewart, he offered, "Watching your spouse having sex with somebody else is not really my bag, I've got to say."
Talking to the three sex partners, he admitted, "If my wife saw my face light up when I looked at another woman, she'd be pissed."
But mostly he offered little in the way of an opposing position. The psychologist Stewart mildly agreed that seeing her spouse have sex with other people didn't sound appealing.
This isn't the first time ABC has promoted polyamory. On January 4, 2012 Good Morning America touted the sex games of a "modern" family who date within their "species."
A partial transcript of the November 25 Nightline segment is below:
11:35
DAN HARRIS Is this the end of marriage as we know it? More couples opting to become triples or fourples. Live in lovers spicing up the marital bed, even helping raise the children. Could your marriage survive this?
...
12:52
HARRIS: Just for a minute, let's do a thought experiment. Let's set aside all of the emotion and consider whether the evangelists for open marriage might have a point. Most marriages in America do end in divorce so maybe adding other lovers to the mix could improve the odds. To test this extremely controversial theory, we went into the home of what is known as a polyamorous family.
NICK WATT: Yep. There are three in that bed and the little one says --
MICHAEL: Are you happy you came over? 'Cause we just wanted to see you more.
WATT: Michael is married to that woman.
KAMELA DEVI: When you called me and you're like we're in Jamaica and I was like oh, I miss you guys.
WATT: They have been happily married for 12 years but Michael went away on vacation, ten day Caribbean cruise, with the other lady on the left. Twenty-seven-year-old Rachel, his live in girlfriend. This loving trio are what's called polyamorous.
...
WATT: If my wife saw my face light up when I looked at another woman, she'd be pissed.
DEVI: She's probably threatened that you'd leave her for that other woman and if you're monogamous, that's your only option, right?
WATT: Crazy Californians, I hear you mutter. Maybe not. This kind of relationship is becoming increasingly common.
KAREN STEWART (psychologist specializing in sex therapy): The divorce rate in the united states is over 50%. People are not as faithful.
WATT: Really?
STEWART: Absolutely. Because the world has become a much smaller space. We can seek out connections. There is dating sites on every street corner. You can go anywhere to meet somebody new.
WATT: More open relationships might be a modern way to make it work.
...
WATT: Is this in our future? Societal acceptance of something other than monogamy?
STEWART: Polyamory is not about being swingers. It's about creating love and lasting relationships.
WATT: Taking aside the whole robes and lotions kind of, you know, side of things, I mean, everyday life?
DEVI: We share life together. I've got a son. It takes a village to raise a child and it feels really good to have that kind of support.
...
STEWART: When he goes to school in ten years, when he brings dates home, this is probably going to be a little complicated for him and I'm not sure if the parents are thinking down the road about that.
WATT: Watching your spouse having sex with somebody else is not really my bag, I've got to say.
...
WATT: They're spreading the gospel of polyamory, hoping to speed up societal acceptance of this kind of set-up.
DEVI: I really think that society in ten years is going to be, like, this is a new paradigm.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2013/11/27/abc-preaches-gospel-polyamory-touts-saving-power-threesomes#ixzz2mL2gBysN
-
Confusion.
NORTH DAKOTA TO LET MAN IN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WED WOMAN, TOO
by FRANCES MARTEL
16 Dec 2013
North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem filed a legal opinion last week confirming that the state does not recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, allowing a man married to another man to come to North Dakota and marry a woman without divorcing his husband.
While many wildly speculated that the legalization of same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy, they probably never thought it would be like this. Presented with a legal hypothetical, Attorney General Stenehjem answered three questions: whether someone in a same-sex marriage in another state can also receive a marriage license to someone of the opposite sex in North Dakota, whether they can file legal documents as "Single" when they possess a same-sex marriage license in another state, and whether this would open the individual up for prosecution under another state's bigamy laws. The Attorney General's response can be read in full PDF form here.
The answer to all these questions, essentially, is that a person can legally possess two marriage licenses in North Dakota, because a same-sex marriage license is not recognized. The Attorney General did not comment on whether such a situation would lead to a bigamy charge in another state, suggesting it was "inappropriate" to comment on laws outside of North Dakota.
North Dakota's constitution prohibits same-sex marriage since the state voted to amend it in 2004, and the state has an additional statute prohibiting same-sex unions from valid recognition. Marriages performed outside of the state are also recognized in North Dakota only when they do not violate the laws of North Dakota, which would already invalidate same-sex marriages, but the statute goes further to explicitly cite the illegitimacy of same-sex marriages in that state.
In addition to state laws permitting this activity, the Attorney General cites one of the few provisions in the Defense of Marriage Act still standing after this summer's Supreme Court decision: no state can be made to respect a same-sex marriage license from another state.
North Dakota's strict laws against same-sex unions had previously led to tax issues, as well, with the state requesting that anyone holding a same-sex marriage license in another state file their taxes as a single person, essentially eliminating the tax benefits that come with a marriage. Without even looking at the moral implications of forcing a couple with a legal marriage license to declare themselves single, this clearly looks like a recipe for tax code disaster. This opinion in particular, which allows a heterosexual union even when there previously exists a homosexual one, creates a situation in which three individuals are bound and three individuals are filing as married to each other. Because of the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, the heterosexual union from North Dakota would have to be recognized in some form in the state that provided the same-sex marriage license--whether recognized as a criminal, bigamous act or as a legal license that yields tax credits.
The opinion also creates the most explicit conflict between states on gay marriage yet. It pits North Dakota against states like New York, Massachusetts, and Hawaii that now have to choose between violating the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and upholding a marriage license they issued or acknowledging North Dakota's intransigence and violating the state's standards on gay rights. The legal opinion's uncanny timing also pairs it in headlines with the easing of polygamy laws in Utah, and provides a stark contrast between what self-proclaimed polygamists want from their government and what the individual wishing to marry twice in this case does.
The "Sister Wives" family that won the Utah suit only have one marriage license among them, and do not wish to receive any more. The man in the North Dakota case wants two marriage licenses, and the right to proclaim himself single on legal documents until he receives his second. The latter creates the bigger problem, because the parties in the case want further government involvement in their lives--not to get the government out of their lives--and this forces state governments to turn on each other.
The good news for all involved is that a case in which a man wants to marry a woman after having married a man is a genuinely unusual one, reading almost as a thought experiment designed to challenge law students on how to apply the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit and Comity Clauses. But there is at least one case--that which inspired this legal opinion, and will provide much to talk about in upcoming months, when the individuals that inspired the opinion will likely receive their marriage license.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/16/North-Dakota-Allows-Man-In-Same-Sex-Marriage-To-Also-Marry-Woman
-
Not surprised.
QUEERLY BELOVED
Next frontier? Polygamists demand multi-sex marriage
Activists: New Hampshire plan embeds bigotry into state law
Posted: June 05, 2009
10:30 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A polygamy advocacy organization says the New Hampshire law that is intended to assure "equal access to marriage" for all instead specifically embeds in state statutes bigotry against polygamists.
New Hampshire's capitol
According to a statement posted on the Pro-Polygamy website, when on Wednesday New Hampshire "became the sixth U.S. State to codify the legal construction of same sex marriage," it was hailed by homosexuals as a "civil rights victory."
"Declaring that the new law advances fairness and equality for all, they proclaimed that New Hampshire had supposedly 'ended discrimination' for everyone," the statement said.
"But the law did no such thing. Rather, it intentionally 'discriminates' against consenting adult polygamists – indeed, on purpose," the organization said.
The fact that polygamists, and indeed those with other sexual proclivities, would use the same "civil rights" and "equality" arguments forwarded by homosexuals seeking "marriage" rights has been predicted for years.
"Polygamists, and those who have a polygamous 'orientation,' have been 'singled out' by these provisions for much more severe treatment than merely denial of favored status... The court's disposition today suggests that these provisions are unconstitutional; and that polygamy must be permitted in these states... – unless, of course, polygamists for some reason have fewer constitutional rights than homosexuals," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in 1996.
That came in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion quashing the decision of Colorado voters who decided there should be a constitutional provision providing, "No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation."
The court majority there decided Colorado voters were guilty of "impermissible targeting" of a "class" of people.
Learn how homosexuality has been sold to America. Get "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"
Scalia noted that the same arguments being applied to homosexuals as a class also could be applied to polygamists. Then in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state laws forbidding homosexuality. The Lawrence vs. Texas case established a "right to privacy" for consenting adults.
Once again dissenting, Scalia wrote, "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of [a] validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision…"
"This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation," Scalia wrote.
WND founder and editor Joseph Farah, who has been writing commentary on social issues for years, also cited the 2003 Lawrence ruling in writing:
"To say laws about private sexual conduct are unconstitutional, the court, in effect, opened a sexual Pandora's box," he said. "If there is a constitutional right to have homosexual sex, how can one deny there is a constitutional right to group sex? How can one deny there is a constitutional right to consensual incest? How can one deny there is a right to have sex with animals? How can one deny there is a constitutional right to polygamy?
"You can't. There is no difference," he wrote.
His conclusion was that the court was wrong: "There is no constitutional right to homosexual sex – or any other kind of sex for that matter. The word sex doesn't appear in the Constitution."
The issue came up again only a year ago, when the California state Supreme Court ruled the state could not deny the designation of "marriaged" to homosexual couples. That court opinion was tossed out last November by a vote of the people, who defined "marriage" as being between one man and one woman.
In a dissent to that court opinion, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter cited similar concerns.
"The majority … simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice. The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex," Baxter wrote at the time.
Then he issued a warning:
"Who can say that, in 10, 15, or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?"
According to the activist Pro-Polygamy, the New Hampshire plan specifically includes discrimination in its wording. It was the sixth state to "act" on homosexual marriage. Several states have voted it in through the legislative process and in several other states officials have simply imposed same-sex "marriage" plans on residents following court opinions, even though state laws have even yet to be changed.
The polygamy activists said the new law now affirms the "right" of two individuals to marry.
"However, the new law then took the matter further, with intentional 'discrimination.' The new [law] now ends with a newly added anti-polygamy provision," the group said, citing the new statement: "No person shall be allowed to be married to more than one person at any given time."
"Same sex marriage supporters had intentionally changed the combined anti-incest and anti-gay-marriage ban into a combined anti-incest and anti-polygamy ban instead. They intentionally re-directed the law to purposely 'discriminate' against consenting adult polygamists - the clearly known bigotry of equating consenting adult polygamy with the biological dysfunction of incest," the group said.
"After purposely 'discriminating' against consenting adult polygamists, the new law startlingly then allows for under-aged heterosexual marriage while it bans under-aged same sex marriage," the group said.
The state now limits heterosexual marriages to boys 14 and girls 13 and older. But those same-sex "marriages" are limited to those 18 and over.
"In truth, therefore, New Hampshire's new gay marriage law does not end 'discrimination' at all. It absolutely does not provide 'equal access to marriage' for all. Rather, New Hampshire's new same sex marriage law intentionally 'discriminates' against consenting adult polygamists," the report said.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100287
Getbig keeps me informed like no other site can.
-
Marriage died in 2013
By Dr. Keith Ablow
Published December 31, 2013
FoxNews.com
More than a year ago, when states began to legalize gay marriage, I argued that polygamy would be the natural result. If love between humans of legal age is the only condition required to have the state issue a marriage license, then it is irrational to assert that two men or two women can have such feelings for one another, while three women and a man, or two men and a woman, cannot.
I have met would-be polygamists who cohabitate as groups and I can tell you that they seemed to be very committed to one another, to be very intimate and to be “in love.”
Gay rights groups criticized me for suggesting that their bid for marriage rights would lead to polygamy being green-lighted.
Marriage is over. It is, officially, judicially, a joke.
I received threats of being raped and being killed from gay people who didn’t like the point I was making and seemed to think I should be brutalized or die for it.
Well, now U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups has found parts of Utah’s anti-bigamy law unconstitutional. His ruling comes in a case brought by Kody Brown and his four wives, who are featured in the reality TV show, “Sister Wives.”
I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold that finding, if Utah challenges it.
As I predicted, this will officially make marriage the Wild West, in which groups of people can assert that they are married and should have all the benefits of that status, including family health plans and the right to file taxes as married people.
It will also, eventually, lead to test cases in which a few unusual sisters and brothers insist that they can marry, because they are in love and promise not to procreate, but, instead, to use donor eggs or sperm.
And, I predict, the courts will agree with them.
Given this dissolution of support for society’s vested interest in providing children with a mother and father they can point to with certainty, in households where both genders are equally represented, it is very clear that government should get out of issuing marriage licenses, entirely.
People who wish to create special partnerships of the heart and home should sign prenuptial contracts with one another and then exchange vows at their churches or temples or in front of gatherings of family or special friends.
No different status or privilege should flow to married people, whatsoever. All individuals who earn income should file taxes, separately.
The truth is that government never had a defensible role in marriage. It should always have been the exclusive domain of the individuals and institutions that choose to recognize such interpersonal unions.
Churches should be allowed to define marriage as they wish and offer marriage certificates only to those who comply with their definitions. Temples, just the same. Communes can do it, for all I care. Any organization, in fact, should be able to award the status to anyone they like. But, states and the federal government should have no part in it, whatsoever.
Only child support should be mandatory, because the state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that minors not be without financial resources.
Marriage is over.
It was always at least a little funny that a huge percentage of people swore to stay together until death, then divorced and remarried.
But, now, it is, officially, judicially, a joke.
If two men can marry, and three men can marry, and five women and a man can marry, and three men and two women can marry, then marriage has no meaning.
It’s over. Go get rings, go get lawyers, go rent a nice hall, but City Hall should bow out.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/31/marriage-died-in-2013/?intcmp=obnetwork
-
he's absolutely right.
-
he's absolutely right.
So i guess you are not married anymore?
-
So i guess you are not married anymore?
not sure you even read the article.
what i'm saying is that i agree the government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. marriage should be between the people getting married and whatever religious or spiritual affiliation they attach themselves to. it shouldn't have anything to do with government, taxes, home ownership, etc.
Do you agree?
Because pretty soon polygamous marriages ARE going to have to be recognized as marriages as well, which is going to create a huge issue with regards to taxes, health care, financial aid, etc.
Unless you don't think that polygamous marriages deserve the same rights as gay and heterosexual couples?
-
My bad i thought it was a response to the post above by Beach:
Marriage died in 2013
By Dr. Keith Ablow
Published December 31, 2013
FoxNews.com
My opimion:
I think same sex couples should be alloved to marry but at city hall.
Not that i give a fuck about the church by would you even try to get married by an institution that feels its wrong?
Polygami should not be okay. If you want to live in polygami you dont get married.
-
you do agree that the polygamists are going to create a large mess with regards to taxes, health care, and financial aid, if their marriages are accepted as valid by the federal government right?
-
you do agree that the polygamists are going to create a large mess with regards to taxes, health care, and financial aid, if their marriages are accepted as valid by the federal government right?
No i didnt but thanks for the info though.
I was already against it though look at my post above.
I dont mind people having more partners at all and how people live is their business but its so far removed from marriage that it shouldnt fly IMO
-
No i didnt but thanks for the info though.
I was already against it though look at my post above.
I dont mind people having more partners at all and how people live is their business but its so far removed from marriage that it shouldnt fly IMO
so you don't think polygamist families deserve all the rights and privileges that a gay or heterosexual couple do because their definition of marriage doesn't fit your definition of marriage? interesting. I can't help but feel like I've seen this conversation before......hmm.
-
so you don't think polygamist families deserve all the rights and privileges that a gay or heterosexual couple do because their definition of marriage doesn't fit your definition of marriage? interesting. I can't help but feel like I've seen this conversation before......hmm.
I could care less to be honest but imagine you end up at some hot womans bed one night and her 5 husbands come home. It could end badly.
-
My bad i thought it was a response to the post above by Beach:
Marriage died in 2013
By Dr. Keith Ablow
Published December 31, 2013
FoxNews.com
My opimion:
I think same sex couples should be alloved to marry but at city hall.
Not that i give a fuck about the church by would you even try to get married by an institution that feels its wrong?
Polygami should not be okay. If you want to live in polygami you dont get married.
no matter how you slice it you're no less bigoted then the Duck Dynasty guy all the libs on this board despise. and if you think what the Duck Dynasty guy said is hate speech, then what you just posted is also hate speech.
-
I could care less to be honest but imagine you end up at some hot womans bed one night and her 5 husbands come home. It could end badly.
dude she has 5 husbands. just hide inside her vagina. that thing would be taking a serious beating.
-
no matter how you slice it you're no less bigoted then the Duck Dynasty guy all the libs on this board despise. and if you think what the Duck Dynasty guy said is hate speech, then what you just posted is also hate speech.
I dont despise the Duck Dynasty guy.
Im not against same-sex marriage but thats doesnt mean he should not be alloved to have and express another opinion than mine.
I think it was BS he was fired.
-
I dont despise the Duck Dynasty guy.
Im not against same-sex marriage but thats doesnt mean he should not be alloved to have and express another opinion than mine.
I think it was BS he was fired.
LMFAO do you not see the obvious hypocrisy youre demonstrating?
by your own moronic libtard ideology youre a fucking bigot, congrats
-
LMFAO do you not see the obvious hypocrisy youre demonstrating?
by your own moronic libtard ideology youre a fucking bigot, congrats
Well thank you.
Explain my hypocrisy please.
-
dude she has 5 husbands. just hide inside her vagina. that thing would be taking a serious beating.
Good point :)
-
Well thank you.
Explain my hypocrisy please.
explain why you are ok with gay marriage but against polygamy and see if you can figure it out yourself
-
I dont despise the Duck Dynasty guy.
Im not against same-sex marriage but thats doesnt mean he should not be alloved to have and express another opinion than mine.
I think it was BS he was fired.
my bad then. i feel the same way actually.
but what mctones is saying is that liberals can't fight for the rights of gays to marry each other and redefine the definition of marriage and then in the same breath point the finger at a polygamist and outright reject their definition of marriage without being ridiculously hypocritical.
-
my bad then. i feel the same way actually.
but what mctones is saying is that liberals can't fight for the rights of gays to marry each other and redefine the definition of marriage and then in the same breath point the finger at a polygamist and outright reject their definition of marriage without being ridiculously hypocritical.
Well i never said i was a liberal but thats was your assumption so..
-
Well i never said i was a liberal but thats was your assumption so..
you lean left. nothing wrong with that. I lean right. i'm not a republican though.
-
and answer tonymctones question. "explain why you are ok with gay marriage but against polygamy"
-
and answer tonymctones question. "explain why you are ok with gay marriage but against polygamy"
please do
-
and answer tonymctones question. "explain why you are ok with gay marriage but against polygamy"
Gay marrige is one-on-one the only thing different from a traditional marrige is the sex of one of the persons involved. And it enables them to the same benefits as traditionally married couples.
Polygami would be a mess. How do you decide who inherit's who?
Its would be a mess not at least legally.
Now why are you guys against gay marrige and not gay polygami?
-
Gay marrige is one-on-one the only thing different from a traditional marrige is the sex of one of the persons involved. And it enables them to the same benefits as traditionally married couples.
Polygami would be a mess. How do you decide who inherit's who?
Its would be a mess not at least legally.
Now why are you guys against gay marrige and not gay polygami?
so what if its more than two people?
if youre ok with changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples which by the way has caused nothing but legal issues why then are you against polygamy b/c of legal issues?
-
Up next: Child marriage, bestiality and state sanctioned necrophilia= Constitutional
-
Gay marrige is one-on-one the only thing different from a traditional marrige is the sex of one of the persons involved. And it enables them to the same benefits as traditionally married couples.
Polygami would be a mess. How do you decide who inherit's who?
Its would be a mess not at least legally.
Now why are you guys against gay marrige and not gay polygami?
not against either. what i'm against is blatant hypocrisy.
and also that's what the article is about. how marriage WILL become meaningless once you allow polygamists to be married for the exact reasons you just said. that's why the author is saying that the government should no longer have anything to do with it at all. it will be a mess. and I agree.
unless you think that we should have government impose their definition of marriage and define it to only include 2 people? which a lot of people will claim is bigoted and wrong. and you won't be able to argue around the fact that your stance is very hypocritical.
-
I thought i was being practical here.
Same-sex marriage is practical. If they get divorced, someone dies etc its still 2 people.
If a man has 5 wifes and gets a divorce with one or more who gets what then? = A mess.
-
I thought i was being practical here.
Same-sex marriage is practical. If they get divorced, someone dies etc its still 2 people.
If a man has 5 wifes and gets a divorce with one or more who gets what then? = A mess.
pragmatic maybe, hypocritical? EXTREMELY!!!
-
I thought i was being practical here.
Same-sex marriage is practical. If they get divorced, someone dies etc its still 2 people.
If a man has 5 wifes and gets a divorce with one or more who gets what then? = A mess.
which is exactly why the author believes that government should no longer have anything to do with marriage. those polygamists you're so casually dismissing as ridiculous are people too. they believe that their marriage to multiple people is just as sacred as any heterosexual or homosexual marriage. In fact, a good number of them ridicule monogamy and call it something akin to slavery. the homosexual community likes to accuse conservatives as "hateful" because of the line they draw in the sand as to what marriage should be. But what they so conveniently ignore is that their line in the sand is considered just as hateful......just by a different group of people.
-
Up next: Child marriage, bestiality and state sanctioned necrophilia= Constitutional
No, next will be marrying a computer operating system, a la the academy award nominated movie "Her".
(Which I just downloaded and will watch sometime today.)
-
Be careful what you wish for.
Pro Gay Marriage Clarence Page: Polygamy a 'Legitimate' Issue Cited by Opponents
By Jack Coleman
June 30, 2015
Something you'll seldom see if the left's jingoistic victory dance over the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage is any indication -- supporters of same-sex marriage acknowledging that opponents express valid criticism that can't be ignored.
A seldom-seen example of this was on display during The McLaughlin Group over the weekend as expressed by Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page.
On the same show that Page attempted to pull off this improbable balancing act, fellow liberal Eleanor Clift predictably labeled concerns about legalized polygamy as "bizarre" --
PAGE: What astounds me is, you know, five, 10 years ago I would have said, in fact I wrote I didn't expect to see gay marriage legalized in my lifetime. Look what's happened in the last decade! It's astounding.
MODERATOR JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: What did you write?
PAGE: Well, just the fact that while I personally favor it, I don't expect the country to swing that way ...
Yes -- "swing that way." His words, not mine. Anyhoo ...
PAGE: ... but I think that's very significant, though, the fact is that this court is really following the national lead. They see, although at least the majority of this court sees that the country's attitudes have changed and are in the process of changing. And that's why while I'm concerned as Eleanor is about backlash like what we saw with Roe v. Wade, I think the Roe v. Wade decision back there in '72 (more accurately, January 1973) was a much more abrupt and shock to the system for the country nationwide, whereas I think the country's much more ready for this.
Minutes later, McLaughlin asked whether polygamy was likely in the aftermath of SCOTUS's ruling on same-sex marriage, and Page's surprising candor followed --
MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think polygamy is next in line for legitimation or polyamory?
PUBLISHER MORT ZUCKERMAN: Well, on one level I hope so because I would like to live long enough to see that happen. (laughter all around). That would add a lot to my life is all I can say. I think that would be quite an interesting thing.
PAGE: That's a legitimate argument. I mean, Scalia brought that up, way back over a dozen years ago with the Texas gay co-habitation case.
CLIFT: Judge Alito in his questioning, because they've been playing the oral arguments, I mean, he said what if two men and two women came, could they get together? And he also suggested, what if they were all lawyers? Does that make them a natural grouping? I mean, it was rather bizarre!
Lighten up, Elly, you sound so 20th century! Haven't she gotten word yet that marriage is now defined as what anyone says it is, given their mood at the moment? I've waited for a single proponent of same-sex marriage to enunciate a coherent definition of marriage in lieu of the one that has held sway around the world for millennia, that not incidentally coincides with the union necessary for procreation, and there's little doubt I'll continue to wait in vain.
Typical of the bluster from the left since the SCOTUS ruling, Clift misrepresented Alito's argument while conspicuously steering clear of challenging its merit (in contrast to Page, whose honesty was refreshing). Alito's reference to the hypothetical foursome he cited as lawyers -- in a courtroom filled with them -- was clearly in jest. Evidence of this can be gleaned from the hearty laughter exhibited by those in attendance. (Objection! Overruled.)
And just as Clift couldn't muster an argument against it, Mary Bonauto, the lawyer advocating for same-sex marriage before the court, did hardly any better. As for those four lawyers cited in Alito's hypothetical (15:45 into the oral arguments for this exchange) --
ALITO: Under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this decision, what would be the logic of denying them the same right?
BONAUTO: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you're talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we've had in marriage, which is one the mutual support and consent of two people. ...
ALITO: I don't know what kind of distinction that is because marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before. Recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it's a good one. ... So, why is that a greater break?
BONAUTO: ... Assuming it's within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there's a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues of who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis.
Does that mean the same-sex spouse of a previously divorced and now openly gay man has access to the children in his gay spouse's previous heterosexual marriage? Decisions on medical care in a crisis are resolved, regardless of the sexuality of those involved, marital status, or the head count, through health care proxy or power of attorney.
Those four attorneys, all past child-bearing age and with no interest in adoption, stating under oath that their actions are consensual -- so much for issues of consent, coercion and disruption to the young'uns.
A remarkable admission from Bonauto, lifted nearly intact from opponents of gay marriage -- "That is not the same thing that we've had in marriage." And what bracing chutzpah for her to seek the demise of any future role for the states in defining marriage, with the federal definition as decreed by the court trumping all others, while she simultaneously cites an activist role by the states in preventing polygamy.
Just a matter of time before supporters of same-sex marriage tire of painting themselves into this corner and admit what all rational adults already know whether they admit it or not -- legitimizing same-sex marriage removes any legal basis for preventing polygamy. It's the proponents' Achilles heel and they know it, which is why we'll eventually see the spectacle of them trumpeting polygamy and ardently denying that they ever thought otherwise.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2015/06/30/pro-gay-marriage-clarence-page-polygamy-legitimate-issue-cited#sthash.SBGEDmIf.dpuf
-
Fundies should be happy
Now you have a new cause to piss and moan about
BTW - no shortage of polygamy in the bible...you know the book fundies believe is the "word of god"
-
It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy
Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.
By FREDRIK DEBOER
June 26, 2015
(http://images.politico.com/global/2015/06/26/150626_deboer_polygamy_gty.jpg)
Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.”
The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.
This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.
Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.
That’s one reason why progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy often don’t really appear to have their hearts in it. They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.
In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?
Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.
Why the opposition, from those who have no interest in preserving “traditional marriage” or forbidding polyamorous relationships? I think the answer has to do with political momentum, with a kind of ad hoc-rejection of polygamy as necessary political concession. And in time, I think it will change.
The marriage equality movement has been both the best and worst thing that could happen for legally sanctioned polygamy. The best, because that movement has required a sustained and effective assault on “traditional marriage” arguments that reflected no particular point of view other than that marriage should stay the same because it’s always been the same. In particular, the notion that procreation and child-rearing are the natural justification for marriage has been dealt a terminal injury. We don’t, after all, ban marriage for those who can’t conceive, or annul marriages that don’t result in children, or make couples pinkie swear that they’ll have kids not too long after they get married. We have insisted instead that the institution exists to enshrine in law a special kind of long-term commitment, and to extend certain essential logistical and legal benefits to those who make that commitment. And rightly so.
But the marriage equality movement has been curiously hostile to polygamy, and for a particularly unsatisfying reason: short-term political need. Many conservative opponents of marriage equality have made the slippery slope argument, insisting that same-sex marriages would lead inevitably to further redefinition of what marriage is and means. See, for example, Rick Santorum’s infamous “man on dog” comments, in which he equated the desire of two adult men or women to be married with bestiality. Polygamy has frequently been a part of these slippery slope arguments. Typical of such arguments, the reasons why marriage between more than two partners would be destructive were taken as a given. Many proponents of marriage equality, I’m sorry to say, went along with this evidence-free indictment of polygamous matrimony. They choose to side-step the issue by insisting that gay marriage wouldn’t lead to polygamy. That legally sanctioned polygamy was a fate worth fearing went without saying.
To be clear: our lack of legal recognition of group marriages is not the fault of the marriage equality movement. Rather, it’s that the tactics of that movement have made getting to serious discussions of legalized polygamy harder. I say that while recognizing the unprecedented and necessary success of those tactics. I understand the political pragmatism in wanting to hold the line—to not be perceived to be slipping down the slope. To advocate for polygamy during the marriage equality fight may have seemed to confirm the socially conservative narrative, that gay marriage augured a wholesale collapse in traditional values. But times have changed; while work remains to be done, the immediate danger to marriage equality has passed. In 2005, a denial of the right to group marriage stemming from political pragmatism made at least some sense. In 2015, after this ruling, it no longer does.
While important legal and practical questions remain unresolved, with the Supreme Court’s ruling and broad public support, marriage equality is here to stay. Soon, it will be time to turn the attention of social liberalism to the next horizon. Given that many of us have argued, to great effect, that deference to tradition is not a legitimate reason to restrict marriage rights to groups that want them, the next step seems clear. We should turn our efforts towards the legal recognition of marriages between more than two partners. It’s time to legalize polygamy.
***
Conventional arguments against polygamy fall apart with even a little examination. Appeals to traditional marriage, and the notion that child rearing is the only legitimate justification of legal marriage, have now, I hope, been exposed and discarded by all progressive people. What’s left is a series of jerry-rigged arguments that reflect no coherent moral vision of what marriage is for, and which frequently function as criticisms of traditional marriage as well.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html#ixzz3eqweV2fB
-
LOL @ getbig.
"Most of my polygamist friends think this is ridiculous".
-
'Sister Wives' guests ask judge to strike down bigamy laws
Matt Volz, The Associated Press
August 28, 2015
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/26f46f871d30684428b344fb19372dcc0522d45b/c=240-0-2614-3165&r=537&c=0-0-534-712/local/-/media/2015/08/28/USATODAY/USATODAY/635763570687813485-082815colliers.jpg)
(Photo: Courtesy of Nathan Collier)
HELENA, Mont. — A Montana man is asking a federal judge to strike down the state's bigamy laws so he can marry a second wife.
Nathan Collier, his legal wife Victoria and his common-law wife Christine filed a lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Billings, Mont. They cite the U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling allowing gay marriage and reference biblical figures with multiple wives in their argument that the state is unconstitutionally preventing them from legitimizing their polygamous relationship.
Nathan Collier, 46, said he's fighting for marriage equality for polygamy.
"I'm fighting for my family's right to exist as a family," he said. "I can't imagine a greater cause to fight for."
He said he is a former Mormon who was excommunicated for polygamy and now has no religious affiliation. He and his family made their relationship public by appearing on the reality TV show Sister Wives in January.
Nathan and Victoria Collier, 40, married in 2000. He and his second wife, Christine, had a religious wedding ceremony in 2007 but did not sign a marriage license to avoid bigamy charges, he said.
“My second wife, Christine ... deserves legitimacy.”
Nathan Collier, Billings, Mont.
Combined, the trio have eight children from their present and past relationships.
"My second wife, Christine, who I'm not legally married to, she's put up with my crap for a lot of years," Nathan Collier said. "She deserves legitimacy."
Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses. But the Supreme Court's chief justice, John Roberts, said in his dissent of the same-sex marriage ruling that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.
After the Supreme Court's ruling in June, Yellowstone County officials denied Nathan and Christine Collier's request for a license.
State laws that forbid a man from marrying more than one woman denies them their constitutionally guaranteed rights to equal protection, due process, free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association, the Colliers' lawsuit said.
Nathan Collier said he wants a judge to prevent the state from enforcing those laws against consenting men and women in "plural relationships."
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Billings. It names Montana Attorney General Tim Fox, Gov. Steve Bullock, Yellowstone County Attorney Scott Twito and Yellowstone County District Court Clerk Kristie Lee Boelter as defendants.
All of the defendants declined to comment on the suit.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/08/28/polygamists-montana-bigamy/71279960/
-
NYC judge rules polyamorous unions entitled to same legal protections as 2-person relationships
By Julia Musto , Fox News
October 8, 2022
https://nypost.com/2022/10/08/nyc-judge-rules-in-favor-of-polyamorous-relationships/
-
'Sister Wives' guests ask judge to strike down bigamy laws
Matt Volz, The Associated Press
August 28, 2015
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/26f46f871d30684428b344fb19372dcc0522d45b/c=240-0-2614-3165&r=537&c=0-0-534-712/local/-/media/2015/08/28/USATODAY/USATODAY/635763570687813485-082815colliers.jpg)
(Photo: Courtesy of Nathan Collier)
HELENA, Mont. — A Montana man is asking a federal judge to strike down the state's bigamy laws so he can marry a second wife.
Nathan Collier, his legal wife Victoria and his common-law wife Christine filed a lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Billings, Mont. They cite the U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling allowing gay marriage and reference biblical figures with multiple wives in their argument that the state is unconstitutionally preventing them from legitimizing their polygamous relationship.
Nathan Collier, 46, said he's fighting for marriage equality for polygamy.
"I'm fighting for my family's right to exist as a family," he said. "I can't imagine a greater cause to fight for."
He said he is a former Mormon who was excommunicated for polygamy and now has no religious affiliation. He and his family made their relationship public by appearing on the reality TV show Sister Wives in January.
Nathan and Victoria Collier, 40, married in 2000. He and his second wife, Christine, had a religious wedding ceremony in 2007 but did not sign a marriage license to avoid bigamy charges, he said.
“My second wife, Christine ... deserves legitimacy.”
Nathan Collier, Billings, Mont.
Combined, the trio have eight children from their present and past relationships.
"My second wife, Christine, who I'm not legally married to, she's put up with my crap for a lot of years," Nathan Collier said. "She deserves legitimacy."
Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses. But the Supreme Court's chief justice, John Roberts, said in his dissent of the same-sex marriage ruling that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.
After the Supreme Court's ruling in June, Yellowstone County officials denied Nathan and Christine Collier's request for a license.
State laws that forbid a man from marrying more than one woman denies them their constitutionally guaranteed rights to equal protection, due process, free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association, the Colliers' lawsuit said.
Nathan Collier said he wants a judge to prevent the state from enforcing those laws against consenting men and women in "plural relationships."
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Billings. It names Montana Attorney General Tim Fox, Gov. Steve Bullock, Yellowstone County Attorney Scott Twito and Yellowstone County District Court Clerk Kristie Lee Boelter as defendants.
All of the defendants declined to comment on the suit.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/08/28/polygamists-montana-bigamy/71279960/
Wives look the same. If I had multiple wives I'd want a blonde, a brunette and a ginger.