Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
August 30, 2014, 01:50:20 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Next frontier? Polygamists demand multi-sex marriage  (Read 5096 times)
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41308


« 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
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25112


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2009, 12:30:36 PM »

Bum

I don't know any polygamists

do you?

I don't really understand how this serious issue effects my life

please elucidate

thanks

Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41308


« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2009, 12:34:10 PM »

"Elucidate"?   LOL.    Thanks for providing the Saturday morning comedy hour.  Few things funnier than a dum dum trying to sound like an intellectual.   Cheesy 
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25112


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2009, 12:37:50 PM »

"Elucidate"?   LOL.    Thanks for providing the Saturday morning comedy hour.  Few things funnier than a dum dum trying to sound like an intellectual.   Cheesy 

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?

Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41308


« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2009, 12:45:14 PM »

still laughing . . . .  Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25112


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2009, 12:48:58 PM »

still laughing . . . .  Grin

retards laugh alot

no disrespect to retards

Report to moderator   Logged
IFBBwannaB
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4546


BAN stick!


« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2009, 01:05:14 PM »

I never understood how people get regular chicks that grew in normal places to fall for that....damn, seem nice to have 5 wives  Grin

Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41308


« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2009, 01:08:02 PM »

I never understood how people get regular chicks that grew in normal places to fall for that....damn, seem nice to have 5 wives  Grin



Aw heck no.  You must not be married.   Grin  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.
Report to moderator   Logged
IFBBwannaB
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4546


BAN stick!


« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2009, 01:14:43 PM »

Aw heck no.  You must not be married.   Grin  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 Smiley  Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25112


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #9 on: June 06, 2009, 01:16:55 PM »

Aw heck no.  You must not be married.   Grin  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?



Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41308


« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2009, 01:18:04 PM »


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 Smiley  Wink

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.   Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25112


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2009, 01:34:27 PM »

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.   Smiley

so your only problem with polygamy is that it would mean perceived loss of control for the man?
Report to moderator   Logged
Parker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 44649


Autobots, Transform and Roll Out!


« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2009, 03:40:45 PM »

I never understood how people get regular chicks that grew in normal places to fall for that....damn, seem nice to have 5 wives  Grin



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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Eyeball Chambers
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 13705


Would you hold still? You're making me fuck up...


« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2009, 04:42:12 PM »

Why not?
Report to moderator   Logged

S
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41308


« Reply #14 on: June 06, 2009, 04:57:28 PM »

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. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Parker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 44649


Autobots, Transform and Roll Out!


« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2009, 10:17:30 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
2ND COMING
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5097


Might is right.


WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2009, 10:21:51 PM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged

The Hand of Ron
IFBBwannaB
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4546


BAN stick!


« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2009, 11:46:30 PM »

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  Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25112


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #18 on: June 07, 2009, 12:22:01 AM »

Christians sure are scared of a lot of silly stuff

It must suck to be scared so much of the time
Report to moderator   Logged
24KT
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 24402


Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244


WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 07, 2009, 12:35:53 AM »

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.  Undecided
Report to moderator   Logged

w
24KT
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 24402


Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244


WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 07, 2009, 12:40:48 AM »

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.  Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged

w
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25112


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #21 on: June 07, 2009, 12:43:57 AM »

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.  Cheesy

like almost every other subject in the bible, there are many contradictions which allow bible thumpers to rationize to their hearts content
Report to moderator   Logged
24KT
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 24402


Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 07, 2009, 01:01:53 AM »

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? Huh Undecided
Report to moderator   Logged

w
Colossus_500
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4005


Psalm 139


« Reply #23 on: June 07, 2009, 12:21:45 PM »

Amazing what coke can do to the brain. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Deicide
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 22935


Reapers...


« Reply #24 on: June 07, 2009, 12:39:59 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

Wo cares?
Report to moderator   Logged

I hate the State.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!