Mormons are for it.
Muslims are for it.
Someone please explain to me the comments I've heard from liberals lately, that validating gay marriage is OK but polygamy should not be allowed? On what grounds? Why is it OK for two gay guys to be married and raise a family, but NOT OK for two guys and a woman? or two women and a guy? Or THREE WOMEN?
It seems to me, that if the traditional family is no longer grounds for marriage, that the courts won't be able to deny polygamy.
Our constitution in an effort to avoid tyranny separated the powers that govern, dictate, and clarify laws. This was necessary to avoid concentration of power. What was not written into the US Constitution was an important ingredient and that was have a majority of decent God fearing persons in our government. Sadly that has become almost illegal now.
ReplyDeleteOther that just being wrong and immoral there is no reason to prevent a homosual marriage, polggamy, or beastality.
Common sense and morals were considered a given back then. Today perversions and such have become the protected acts under our constitution for we are no longer that nation under God.
This is our downfall; this is what will destroy this country.
Common sense and morals were considered a given back then.
Delete- Amen
On some level Live, you ask a fair question. On a straight constitutional matter, it does seem a little hard to defend the made up rights of marriage between a man and a women and not extend that to polygamy. We have created a lot of special rights for hetero couples that single people pay the freight for. They get a tax break. The get reduced insurance rates for their children. Their children get education paid for by everyone else. God did not say this is the way it should be, rather we created those benefits as a society. This, to me, is important.
ReplyDeleteWhile we have put ourselves in a trick bag with these made up marriage benefits when it comes to gay coupes, I still believe the reason this is picking up steam is because many in society have moved on this issue. When DOMA was passed, the attitude toward gay people was very different. While a majority of people may still not accept the concept of being gay, I believe that many are coming to the conclusion that letting gay people be married has no effect on their life whatsoever. As I keep saying, it's not a BFD to people in my age group and younger.
My long winded point is that I don't believe society will tolerate polygamy and as such, the concept that plural marriages are the same as a two person union will be rejected regardless of how good a case can be made in court. We are stuck with a primarily conservative court for at least the next 15 years, there isn't a chance such a thing would pass them. Second, I think it could be shut down with tax law.
To me, polygamy is a scam to primarily seduce younger women into letting their husband screw other women. I see it as predatory and not something that people would naturally gravitate towards unless they are brainwashed into accepting it from a young age. Undoubtedly, some are quite happy with the arrangement just as some are quite content having open marriages. When and if society does move in that direction, well, I'll cross that bridge when it comes to it. I don't think there is remotely a large base of support for it and as such, I don't worry about it.
As to then forming unions between human and animals and then adults and children, these are bullshit straw men. First of all, we have the right to make laws forbidding having sex with animals. Animals cannot give consent and neither can children without being manipulated.
bs straw men... and two guys marrying were not 50 years ago.....
DeleteFact of the matter is that it would be seen as unconstitutional to disallow polygamy and bestiality. You no longer have moral grounds when you support homosexuality.
I don't think you are grasping what I"m saying here abut polygamy. You are fighting me on polygamy on a point I'm not making. I tend to agree it would be seen as unconstitutional. Not in today's world though. You can run around worrying about this, but it aint gonna happen.
DeleteAs for bestiality, that would be plain cruelty to animals. Though we inflict enormous cruelty on animals, letting people outright fuck them will not be tolerated. You are kind of disgusting for suggesting it.
It won't be tolerated?!? The left will embrace it as it does all other perversion. Example: homosexuality -- end .
DeleteHate to break it to you, but there are gay Republicans and Republicans who have spawned gay children. Only the farther right land of Republicans are as bitter about this as you.
DeleteDidn't the great King Solomon have 700 wives and multiple concubines? http://biblehub.com/1_kings/11-3.htm
ReplyDeleteKing Solomon was the wisest man who ever lived and also one of the most foolish. God gifted him with unsurpassed wisdom, which Solomon squandered by disobeying God's commandments.
DeleteSolomon was the second son of King David and Bathsheba. His name means "peaceable." Even as a baby, Solomon was loved by God.
A conspiracy by Adonijah, Solomon's half-brother, tried to rob Solomon of the throne. Solomon killed Adonijah and Joab, David's general, to take the kingship.
God appeared to Solomon in a dream and promised him anything he asked. Solomon chose understanding and discernment. God was so pleased with the request that he granted it, along with great riches and power.
Solomon's downfall began when he married the daughter of the Egyptian Pharaoh to seal a political alliance. He could not control his lust. Among Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines were many foreigners, which angered God. The inevitable happened: They lured King Solomon away from Yahweh into worship of false gods and idols.
Of course, in the case of Solomon only one wife is actually mentioned by name. That beats Noah, whose wife will he forever nameless.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the Mormon Church opposes polygamy.
ReplyDeleteYes and no. In Utah it is alive and well. There are always going to be fringe groups that will push different ways and beliefs out there.
DeleteWe would have to say that the church issued a manifesto denouncing polygamy because of a direct confrontation between the Mormon church and the US government.
DeleteAn interesting bit of Supreme Court ruling came out of that which is utterly trampled, primarily by the left today that stated that while a person has the right to their beliefs and has the right to express those beliefs, they do not necessarily have the right to practice them if they run afoul of state laws..... talk about homophobes... what about Godiphobes...... should be a hate law for that.
Considering that Christian views were unchallenged for over 200 years in this country, I can understand the persecution complex Christians have developed. What Christians have done to others in the name of their religion is not talked about because, after all, that was in the past.
DeletePeople have embraced pursuit of money and material goods and power as much as anything else while they have rejected God and religion. It's a little more complex then simple views about left and right America.
"What Christians have done to others in the name of their religion"
DeleteWhat? You mean like the Inquisition and Crusades? Stuff like that?
If so, I challenge your premise that those sorts of things were "Christian".
"What Christians have done to others in the name of their religion"
DeleteWhat? You mean like the Inquisition and Crusades? Stuff like that?
If so, I challenge your premise that those sorts of things were "Christian".
Hi guys. This is a test.
ReplyDelete"What Christians have done to others in the name of their religion"
ReplyDeleteDo you mean like Inquisitions and Crusades? If so, I challenge your premise attributing that to Christianity. Paul needed no army.
Test
ReplyDelete