Legalizing Polygamy: The Push Begins

[VERT]

Swingin is easier

 

[Expat]

An entire criminal enterprise can get married and have an expectation of privacy in all their conversations. Nice.

 

[Denny347]

Lots of "straw man" arguments on here.

 

[chibicascade]

If you can get three people to consent to a marriage, I don't see what the big deal is..

 

[goinggreyfast]

yep

Running for the border here?

I forsee a post count drop in your near future. Just sayin...

 

[Rocket]

Just so we are clear. Not All Mormons practice Polygamy. It is the Reformist. NOT the Main stream.

 

[wagyu52]

The most frightening part of this discussion isn't that some of the people here actually believe that **** about how it'll lead to people marrying dogs and toasters and can't see the flawed logic.

It's that those people vote.

What's frightening is the disregard of state rights and the will of the voters of the state of California, all disguised as giving a minority group "rights"
The truth is that you should be able to marry whom ever or what ever you want as long as it is in accordance with state law. The Federal Government needs to leave state laws alone.

 

[mrjarrell]

What's frightening is the disregard of state rights and the will of the voters of the state of California, all disguised as giving a minority group "rights"
The truth is that you should be able to marry whom ever or what ever you want as long as it is in accordance with state law. The Federal Government needs to leave state laws alone.

Just remember that stance when a majority of voters want to take away your guns. It'll be OK, because a lot of people voted that way.

 

[wagyu52]

Just remember that stance when a majority of voters want to take away your guns. It'll be OK, because a lot of people voted that way.

I will refer you to post #64

 

[Sfrandolph]

I had never thought it through that an entire crime cartel could get "married" to each other and then all conversations are protected. Spouses cannot testify against each other. Wow. What a boon to the criminal element!

 

[findingZzero]

Dude. I'm not concenting. I'm being leg raped by this dog! Perhaps I shoild have him arrested.

Leg Rape... Now that's a word/phrase I thought I'd ever use...

I've seen your leg. I'd call it entrapment.

 

[wagyu52]

Just remember that stance when a majority of voters want to take away your guns. It'll be OK, because a lot of people voted that way.

Isn't that possible right now? Correct me if I am wrong, if enough people in this country decide to repeal the 2ND Amendment it is possible?

 

[findingZzero]

If this comes to pass I demand the right to marry my Sig 556.

S&S, don't wait. I've seen your 556 and it's hot. Also, I've seen an AR hanging around when you're at work.

 

[ViperJock]

Why not legalise it? It's already accepted in many western states among the mormons out there and I'm sure there are more than a few muslims who are in polygamous marriages. As long as everyone's a consenting adult I don't see what the fuss is. Lots of adult support to raise kids and make money to support the family. There's certainly biblical support of it, so the evangelicals shouldn't be getting their noses out of joint over this one, as they do over gay marriage. I'd think they'd be on the train for this one. While we're at it, make sure the definition includes polyandry, as well and probably group marriages, with multiple male and female partners. With the economy the way it is a group marriage makes a lot of sense, from an economic standpoint.

Itis not accepted or condoned by the Mormons. Break off sects, yes. The real church excommunicates polygamists. For all your "knowledge" about Romney you failed to learn that.

I agree with the above sentiment. Man would have to be nuts....

However, what is more moral; the guy who loves and supports 3 women/families or the loser who sleeps around and has 3 baby mamas and all on welfare. One is legal, the other not. How does that make sense?

 

[mrjarrell]

Isn't that possible right now? Correct me if I am wrong, if enough people in this country decide to repeal the 2ND Amendment it is possible?

And that makes it right?

 

[indiucky]

The most frightening part of this discussion isn't that some of the people here actually believe that **** about how it'll lead to people marrying dogs and toasters and can't see the flawed logic.

It's that those people vote.

What is really funny is that people think two members of the same sex need to be able to get married in order for life to be "fair". That marriage is a somehow a "right" (comparable with the second amendment) as opposed to what it really is...A peace treaty drawn up between two members of the opposite sex with a total different outlook (Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus) trying to come to terms with their inherent differences...

The LGBT community can play house all they want via civil unions and pretend they are just like dear old mom and dad but that is not what they are trying to do...They are trying to redifine marriage to suit their selfish agenda....One final F U to religous folks...One final F U to social mores of the past thousand years...Once they get it rediefined they will find some other imagined slight to channel their anger towards because that's what they have done for the last 30 years...Hate crime legislation being a perfect example...Basically even when they are mugged,murdered, or robbed it has to be because they are "special" as opposed to when someone else has that happen because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time...It's pathetic how transparent they are and even more pathetic how with a sympathetic media, Hollywood, and Pop Stars they are able to convince people that should know better...

IMHO ofcourse lest I offend any of the self appointed INGO annointers of special rights for special people....

I am not frightened however by the fact that you all vote...In this media age it is very easy for people to be swayed by the Media, Pop Stars, the Networks (It's the "New Normal" don't you know...Come on..Let's watch "Glee"!!!!)and other "cool" people...If they have you afraid that citizens that disagree with you on the definition of marriage vote then it appears their campaign has worked...Fear and shame is how they control the sheeple and the electronic leaders of the herd in one generation have convinced folks that two men shacking up and having sex is the "New Normal"...Wow....

 

[Bunnykid68]

Lots of "straw man" arguments on here.

Can you marry a strawman though?

 

[kludge]

Itis not accepted or condoned by the Mormons. Break off sects, yes. The real church excommunicates polygamists. For all your "knowledge" about Romney you failed to learn that.

I agree with the above sentiment. Man would have to be nuts....

However, what is more moral; the guy who loves and supports 3 women/families or the loser who sleeps around and has 3 baby mamas and all on welfare. One is legal, the other not. How does that make sense?

I'm not arguing your point, it's a good one and it brings up a much larger issue...

Once you say that government shouldn't be able to legislate morality in one area, then it's hypocritical to say that it's OK to legislate morality in any other area.

It opens the floodgates for any laws that are based on morality to be challenged - ALL the malum in se laws. I mean couldn't it be argued that laws prohibiting theft, perjury, fraud, battery, incest, rape, murder, are based on biblical morality, and that there must be separation of church and state? Just because one person thinks one thing is immoral, doesn't mean everyone else does.

So then society as a whole, not some religious text, should decide what's moral, correct? I mean if there is no higher authority than man, then mankind should decide what is moral.

Didn't society do just that in California with Prop 8? By a large margin I might add.

Should 91% (if that number is even remotely accurate) of the people polled be able to tell congress to take away the right to keep and bear arms, to buy sell and trade without the government's intrusion into the citizens' business.

If there is no higher authority than man, then society must decide, correct?

I'm not taking sides just debating/presenting one possible argument. I can definitely see both sides of the debate.

 

[lucky4034]

What is the difference if you call it marriage or civil union? Who gives a **** what you call it? Its a self agreed upon label and that really is the point... the government shouldn't even waste time recognizing such labels.

"Oh my religion says this is legal and says thats not"​

Whoopdie doo.....

If 40 marines want to label themselves "brothers" or 10 basketball players want to call themselves a "team" or two guys "husbands" or 10 guys "husbands".....

Who cares? and why does the government fight so hard to regulate people from labels?

Elvis called himself "The King"... I don't recall Lydon Johnson kissing his feet or asking him for permission to meddle in Vietnam. .

These "laws" or "rights" or whatever the hell you want to define them are a product of an era where society structured around religious values and teachings.

This is no longer solely a "Christian Nation"... its time to re-evaluate antiquated rulings. You can either be receptive to change or be swallowed by it. Its your choice... however, I would heed caution on how much effort you apply to resisting change....

If evolution has taught us anything, its that the more oppressive the environment is, the more drastic the change required to overcome it.

If the goal of a Christian life is to spread the Gospel... for the life of me, I can't understand why the popular method to get the message across is to force people to abide by it? This definition that the label "marriage" should be "one man and one woman" and therefore should be regulated by the government as such is outdated thinking.

The fact is... there is very little need for government to recognize the label of "marriage". Leave that for the individuals to define and recognize on their own accordance. If Christians want a monopoly on the term "marriage"... fine, the rest of us can call it Civil Union... it really doesn't matter because both are labels that have no business in the political forum.

 

[Smokepole]

Sorry. Your dog, unlike a human adult, cannot consent to relations with you.

Cass Sunstein will disagree with you on that one. He advocates rights (and legal counsel) for all animals equal to human rights. Has for decades. And he is one of Oblunder's top advisers.

Stupid is as stupid does.