Page 15 of 55 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 548

Thread: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

  1. #141
    Chews the Cud
    Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Benghazi
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I don't give a **** if it's sexual orientation or not, it's a marriage choice.
    Where's the bigotry? That was the question. And of course you don't care about sexual orientation. You think being gay is a choice, like having multiple wives. That's why you parallel homosexuality with polygamy. No doubt you think that bestiality and pedophilia are on the same level.

  2. #142
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,377

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Would you prefer that there be a legal basis for limiting the rights and freedoms of others? Especially when those rights and freedoms do not effect you in the slightest?
    Nope. This could've been accomplished without inventing Constitutional rights or redefining the definition of marriage.

    Besides, gimme a break, you libs want to limit rights and freedoms of others all the time. Don't be a hypocrite.

  3. #143
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Last Seen
    10-12-16 @ 07:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,849

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    Where's the bigotry? That was the question. And of course you don't care about sexual orientation. You think being gay is a choice, like having multiple wives. That's why you parallel homosexuality with polygamy. No doubt you think that bestiality and pedophilia are on the same level.
    There's really no point engaging without someone who is trying to allege "bigotry" against the "anti-polygamist" position. It is almost certainly just a method of trolling.

  4. #144
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,684

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by MrT View Post
    Yes, benefits supplied from the State are a legitimate reason to limit the rights and freedoms of the people. If, for example, the state provides you with paved roads or water treatment and, in exchange, requires you to pay taxes and the state makes it illegal for you to damage those structures (even when built on your own personal property), then the State has a legitimate interest from supplying their welfare benefits and they can, in exchange, limit your rights and freedoms.

    That is a fairly basic concept that is longstanding. And absolutely, your rights should be subject to the interests of the State. That is the entire point of having a Government force - we all give up some forms of freedom to the State in exchange for societal benefits. Drawing the line is the only issue remaining and it is incumbent on the State to prove that (in the scenario where we are dealing with a fundamental right) they have a compelling government interest and that their laws are narrowly tailored in order to accomplish/protect that interest.

    The timing of when the polygamy laws came into effect and when the various welfare programs which would be impacted by repeal of those polygamy laws seems irrelevant.
    I don't find it to be irrelevant at all, the timing of the laws that is.

    Because as I see it, polygamists were denied the right to have their situation considered as a matter of policy when these "financial benefits" of other married couples were considered, and they were denied this right because their institution of marriage was denied to them based upon....................

    Whatever reason it was based upon.


    So again I ask, what reason were bigamy laws put in place?

  5. #145
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    Nope. This could've been accomplished without inventing Constitutional rights or redefining the definition of marriage.

    Besides, gimme a break, you libs want to limit rights and freedoms of others all the time. Don't be a hypocrite.
    No, it couldn't have been accomplished fairly any other way. And it upheld an already existing right, to equal protection, due process, and to marriage, which has been ruled as existing for over 50 years.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #146
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,377

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No, it couldn't have been accomplished fairly any other way. And it upheld an already existing right, to equal protection, due process, and to marriage, which has been ruled as existing for over 50 years.
    There already was equal protection. With all due respect, I am really not interested in your militant attitude towards those who disagree with you.

  7. #147
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,684

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    Nope. This could've been accomplished without inventing Constitutional rights or redefining the definition of marriage.

    Besides, gimme a break, you libs want to limit rights and freedoms of others all the time. Don't be a hypocrite.
    Im sorry pal...... if all your pathetic mind can come up with is "yooz libruhlz!!"..... Im going to have to stop having a debate with you.

    The moment you go off talking about yooz libruhlz and make an unsubstantiated claim like "want to limit rights all the time" but don't give any examples and then call someone a hypocrite....... You are no longer debating, just trying to get into a name calling pissing contest.

    I'll be on my merry way.

  8. #148
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,377

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Im sorry pal...... if all your pathetic mind can come up with is "yooz libruhlz!!"..... Im going to have to stop having a debate with you.

    The moment you go off talking about yooz libruhlz and make an unsubstantiated claim like "want to limit rights all the time" but don't give any examples and then call someone a hypocrite....... You are no longer debating, just trying to get into a name calling pissing contest.

    I'll be on my merry way.
    Yes, libs do tend to run from the truth. Thanks, I appreciate it.

  9. #149
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Last Seen
    10-12-16 @ 07:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,849

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    I don't find it to be irrelevant at all, the timing of the laws that is.

    Because as I see it, polygamists were denied the right to have their situation considered as a matter of policy when these "financial benefits" of other married couples were considered, and they were denied this right because their institution of marriage was denied to them based upon....................

    Whatever reason it was based upon.

    So again I ask, what reason were bigamy laws put in place?
    I don't follow - why must the initial passage of the law take into account the financial benefits of other married couples in order for the law to be upheld or struck down today? There have been additional State interests enacted (or at least not enumerated at the time) since the anti-polygamy law was enacted. Repeal of the law must take into account the alleged legitimate State interests which exist today.

    The same reasoning applies to anti-gay marriage laws like DOMA. Those laws, when reviewed, took into account current State interests and, more importantly for those cases, current research into the field relevant towards addressing the alleged State interests.

  10. #150
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,329
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    Um, it states "wife", not, "wives". C'mon man.
    One wife at a time. Are you really basing marriage on the use of a plural versus no plural? We already know polygamy was common in Israel and the surrounding region .... Show me where it states in the bible that Gods law is one man and one woman only.
    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    Here's something from the OT.

    17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.
    Yes I already posted Duet 17 as well as Deut 21:15-17. That does not make it Gods law and in Deut 17, God was stating what Israel's KING should and should not do as God was to choose Israels King - this was not a pronouncement for all people, but simply to identify that this King was to trust in God and not in many wives which could lead Israel's King's astray. However Israel's Kings failed to meet these expectations didn't they.... both in women and in riches. 1 Kings 11:1-3.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


Page 15 of 55 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •