Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 23, 2014, 02:49:50 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Next frontier? Polygamists demand multi-sex marriage  (Read 4869 times)
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24815


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #100 on: June 08, 2009, 03:33:26 PM »

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  Grin

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


BAN stick!


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: June 08, 2009, 03:36:20 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Hugo Chavez
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31873


View Profile
« Reply #102 on: June 08, 2009, 03:36:31 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40735


View Profile
« Reply #103 on: June 08, 2009, 03:41:55 PM »

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."     
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24815


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #104 on: June 08, 2009, 03:43:07 PM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Hugo Chavez
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31873


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: June 08, 2009, 03:48:53 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40735


View Profile
« Reply #106 on: June 08, 2009, 03:57:16 PM »

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. 
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20496


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #107 on: June 08, 2009, 04:05:12 PM »

Shocked  I would have paid the fine in pennies. 

Hmmmm  I haven't paid it yet.

You might read news story soon.......
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20496


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #108 on: June 08, 2009, 04:08:06 PM »

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.  Tongue)
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40735


View Profile
« Reply #109 on: June 08, 2009, 04:12:25 PM »

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.  Tongue)

Gross!  lol . . .    Smiley 

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.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24815


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #110 on: June 08, 2009, 04:17:55 PM »

Gross!  lol . . .    Smiley 

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Deicide
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 22937


Reapers...


View Profile
« Reply #111 on: June 08, 2009, 04:23:44 PM »

it could also happen in the leglislature or judiciary

The real question is why there is so much religious lunacy in the US?
Report to moderator   Logged

I hate the State.
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20496


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #112 on: June 08, 2009, 04:51:28 PM »

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. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Deicide
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 22937


Reapers...


View Profile
« Reply #113 on: June 08, 2009, 04:53:59 PM »

I have no problem with religious beliefs as long as they are forcibly apply to other people's beliefs. 

Oxymoron.
Report to moderator   Logged

I hate the State.
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20496


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #114 on: June 08, 2009, 05:24:39 PM »

I have no problem with religious beliefs as long as they are NOT forcibly apply to other people's beliefs. 

fixed
Report to moderator   Logged
Hugo Chavez
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31873


View Profile
« Reply #115 on: June 09, 2009, 12:42:39 AM »

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!!!!! Angry
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15738


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #116 on: June 09, 2009, 05:05:21 AM »

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.

Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40735


View Profile
« Reply #117 on: June 10, 2009, 10:43:07 AM »

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!!!!! Angry

 Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20496


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #118 on: June 10, 2009, 05:18:20 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40735


View Profile
« Reply #119 on: June 10, 2009, 05:23:10 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21035


All aboard the USS Leverage


View Profile
« Reply #120 on: June 10, 2009, 05:25:36 PM »

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!!!!! Angry

You and your Muslim apologist friends seem to like bringing up events that happened 800+ years ago. Pot meet kettle.  Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20496


Take Money Out of Politics!


View Profile
« Reply #121 on: June 10, 2009, 06:46:08 PM »

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).     
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40735


View Profile
« Reply #122 on: June 10, 2009, 09:07:06 PM »

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  Angry, 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). 
Report to moderator   Logged
a_joker10
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1928


View Profile
« Reply #123 on: June 10, 2009, 09:22:39 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged

Z
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24815


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #124 on: June 10, 2009, 09:36:50 PM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!