Page 16 of 55 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 548

Thread: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

  1. #151
    Tavern Bartender
    #prouddeplorable
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    70,152

    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.
    No, I think marriage is being redefined. And that it's been redefined, it's open to other possibilities. You don't polygamy has a sexual orientation?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country spoke, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #152
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,684

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by MrT View Post
    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.
    Because for whatever the ORIGINAL reason to ban polygamy was..... that prevented polygamists from being considered when the later financial benefits were developed for married couples.

    So, if the original reason to ban polygamy was discriminatory in nature..... then they suffered from discrimination both in not being able to marry at the time, AND not being considered when policy was adopted for financial benefits for married persons....

  3. #153
    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
    There already was equal protection. With all due respect, I am really not interested in your militant attitude towards those who disagree with you.
    No, there wasn't. A woman could not marry a woman, but a man could marry a woman. That is not equal protection.
    "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.

  4. #154
    Educator SocialDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    The beautiful Pacific Northwest
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 02:30 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    922

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    It is forcing people conscientiously objecting people to participate in financing ssm.
    Conscientious objectors have always had to pay for government services they disagree with. Religiously based pacifism is the largest example of this I can think of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    So then....You too are for Mob Rule then?

    The people are subject to whatever rights given to them by the majority....... The rights and liberties of the people are not to be protected from the prejudices of the majority against the minority?
    The principle here is not mob rule. Marriage is one of the areas where I'm rather apathetic to be quite honest. If there was a push for legalized polyamorous marriage, I'd probably be for it. If there was a push for getting the government out of marriage and issuing everyone a civil union, I'd probably be for it. But those issues themselves are on the fringe of society so much to the extent that these reforms won't have much of an impact on, well, anything, except that a large number of people will be upset about it. I view 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance the same way. Theoretically it should be removed, but it's not worth wasting time on and will unnecessarily upset the majority. Don't get me wrong, there are cases where I hold very unpopular opinions and support actions that might be considered unpopular, but that is on issues that have extensive real life consequences.
    Last edited by SocialDemocrat; 07-02-15 at 10:03 AM.
    Social democrat is no longer an accurate description of my views.

  5. #155
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,393

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    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.
    God says what He means, and means what He says. It's clear that polygamy is not a part of God's perfect plan as early as Genesis. You know, the beginning?

  6. #156
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,372
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    God says what He means, and means what He says. It's clear that polygamy is not a part of God's perfect plan as early as Genesis. You know, the beginning?
    Show me where it states in the bible that Gods law is one man and one woman only......
    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.


  7. #157
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,699

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    God says what He means, and means what He says. It's clear that polygamy is not a part of God's perfect plan as early as Genesis. You know, the beginning?
    Sorry, but no.


    God speaks, man misinterprets.

    The Bible has been used to excuse cults that have sex with children, human sacrifice, and all manner of deeds. It has been misinterpreted by entire churches and in my view an entire era, the dark ages.

    It is the single best selling book every year, it has been studied more than all other books and laws combined, is the basis of both western justice systems, British and Napoleonic, and the best resource known to man in the studies of anthropology.

    And, it is the single most disputed book in the history of the known universe. There are at least 25 ideological pathways, with sub pathways and merged pathways. Each passage has been studied and analyzed again and again, and there is almost NO base agreement. Even when most books are written are defined as "it is believed to have been..." and is most presumed to be the work of saint...." and that's the "new" testament.

    So, the Bible is NOT law. What is written, the words, are not directions from God, but His follower's cultural understanding of him at that time, reflected in poetry, song, story telling etc.

    So we cannot say the Bible says this, as there is no consensus. For instance, the dark ages interpretation of Jonah is all about the "fish" and being "swallowed"...when there never was a fish according to new schools of thought. When you place the origin of the story in what was happening at the time, wandering in the desert, what could be more scary than a 'monster' from the deep of a people many of whom have never seen a large body of water. Beacuse as yo9u read the story, it is not about a whale or a fish, it is about a man who tries not to do the will of God, goes to extremes to avoid it, and ends up there anyway..and a miracle results.

    So no, the Bible settles nothing, but does what it was intended to do, but begin medications on what the stories are telling us. It is not an end, but The beginning.
    "Small people talk about people, average people talk about events, great people talk about ideas" Eleanor Roosevelt

  8. #158
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    37,173

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    No, I think marriage is being redefined. And that it's been redefined, it's open to other possibilities. You don't polygamy has a sexual orientation?
    What sexual orientation would that be?

    If a man has more than one wife, wouldn't he be sexually attracted to all of them?

    Oh, and The Bible clearly supports polygamy:

    Exodus 21: 10

    If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.
    You have to be able to feed them both, of course.

    And, whether he loves all of his wives or not, the first born is the first born:



    15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.
    Deuteronomy 21:15-17

    but nowhere does it limit a man to only one wife.
    Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?



  9. #159
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,684

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    God says what He means, and means what He says. It's clear that polygamy is not a part of God's perfect plan as early as Genesis. You know, the beginning?
    And that is irrelevant..... As we are a nation of peoples of ALL religions. People in the USA should not be subject to laws fashioned to tailor our lifestyles to a particular religion's tenements.

  10. #160
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,372
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    What sexual orientation would that be?

    If a man has more than one wife, wouldn't he be sexually attracted to all of them?

    Oh, and The Bible clearly supports polygamy:

    Exodus 21: 10



    You have to be able to feed them both, of course.

    And, whether he loves all of his wives or not, the first born is the first born:





    Deuteronomy 21:15-17

    but nowhere does it limit a man to only one wife.
    Correct - God does limit the number of wives of Israel's Kings, but not the people, nor is there a commandment stating one man one woman for marriage. Historically the Romans instituted monogamy sometime after Christ's crucifixion. Monogamy was a Roman construct adopted by the Roman Church and later Christianity.
    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 16 of 55 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... 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
  •