|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 2, 2011 20:16:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Aug 2, 2011 23:53:33 GMT -8
god willing, we can only hope...
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 4, 2011 17:39:36 GMT -8
More to the point, why do you have a problem with it? I don't understand why this guy should be prosecuted, assuming he is. He's not a bigamist - he's legally married to one woman; ain't like he's lied to the state and also married the other 3 under false pretenses. And it's not like he has been raping 12 year old girls like Warren Jeffs and the other male scumbags in his "religion". I think it was in a TV Guide of the time that Sherman Hemsley, who was doing The Jeffersons at the time, was living with 3 women. So what? If multiple women want to be married to the same man (or vice versa) and they are consenting adults, why is it any business of the government? The problem arises with FLDS, which is really nothing more than a religious excuse for pederasty. I get really tired of the right-wing demanding that government get out of the boardroom while intruding on the bedroom. If it's not just some religious excuse to rape little girls, why should we care? =Bob
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Aug 5, 2011 0:43:05 GMT -8
The right wing has been this for some time now. The rebranding to Tea Party did not/will not change this.
Taxes, markets, employment, health care, education, charity = "get the incompetent, too-big, over reaching US socialist government out!"
Abortion, tax protection for religion, teaching a fairy tale creation story in school, protecting marriage and it's 50% divorce rate from the gays who will destroy it's sanctity, wars, social security = "It is American and patriotic to protect and enforce the constitution!"
Makes me sick sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 9, 2011 18:07:35 GMT -8
Will, you offered this argument but apparently you've now run away from it. Do you have any response to our responses or are you just bailing out?
=Bob
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Aug 10, 2011 6:16:20 GMT -8
In Mexico where many "marriages" are not blessed by the church, there is lots of polygamy. In the village where I grew up, most of the people just moved in with each other and never went to church to recite vows.
MY best friend, Pablo Luna Garcia lived with his mother and three other siblings in a dirt floor hut made of jungle sticks and palm fronds for walls and the roof. I only occasionally saw his father who was one of three catholic priests assigned to La Iglesia (the church) on the hill overlooking the dirt street village. His father had three other wives in the town and children by all of them.
All of the priests were heterosexual and had "women" that they slept with in the village. The other two priests has only one woman each, but there were rumors that the youngest had on occasion visited with one of the prostitutes who worked in the cantina on the north side of the village. Many men of the village, just like the priest who had four wives had multiple households.
As most of you know, the Catholic Church was frowned upon by most of the population of Mexico after their revolution of 1911-1917. Church lands were taken away from the Church and distributed to the peasants. In many places the priests were forced to marry or they were shot. That happened all over Mexico, but mostly in the southern regions of the country.
Ever since then a lot of people did not marry. They just cohabitated. Such is life.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 10, 2011 18:36:18 GMT -8
Will, you offered this argument but apparently you've now run away from it. Do you have any response to our responses or are you just bailing out? =Bob Will, $#!+ or get off the pot. You brought this up but it appears you aren't willing to defend it. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Aug 12, 2011 7:35:30 GMT -8
In my first book, I made a strong case for a "State of Union" being what the government recognizes and a "State of Marriage" being what the church recognizes. Government has no business trying to define the religious concept of Marriage, but government can recognize Unions as "Two people trying to mutually support each other (emotionally, physically, financially...) living together as best they can.
Each church has a right to define marriage as it sees fit. Since churches have the right to define the term, the First Church of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance has a right to define it in homosexual terms, and Southern Baptists can continue to define it in their traditional terms as depicted in their interpretation of the Bible. Government has no right to try to define religious terms to the religious people of the land. With that in mind, any laws that specify "marriage" should be rewritten with the word "union" substituted for marriage.
States can then decide the number of people who can be in a union. Old School Mormons can define how many people can be in a marriage in their church. Likewise Moslems in their mosques and Hindu's and Buddhists in their temples, and all will be right in the world.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Aug 12, 2011 17:49:19 GMT -8
How about the state recognizes Marriage as "Two people trying to mutually support each other (emotionally, physically, financially...) living together as best they can."
The church can go do to themselves/alter boys whatever they want, since the church deserves no special protections under the law, and cannot lay claim to words.
|
|
|
Post by podpeople on Aug 12, 2011 18:30:51 GMT -8
who cares. live and let live.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 13, 2011 17:35:32 GMT -8
who cares. live and let live. William apparently does but as usual he's too CS to back up his apparent argument. I write "apparent" because he claims to be a libertarian and therefore should hate government interference in the bedroom as much as he hates government in the boardroom. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Aug 13, 2011 17:51:26 GMT -8
today's libertarian => tea party => new age republican => radically social conservative
...(in disguise, of course)
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 16, 2011 18:05:01 GMT -8
today's libertarian => tea party => new age republican => radically social conservative ...(in disguise, of course) Libertarians are what they are. William is not a libertarian despite his claimes to have voted for Libertarian Party candidates. William can never be a libertarian because he's a social conservative who is more in line with Bachmann and Perry than he is with Ron Paul. Will is just another right-wing Republicant lacking the balls to go full force in favor of the libertarian ideology. Jon Stewart got it correctly: www.ibtimes.com/articles/198657/20110816/jon-stewart-ron-paul.htmI don't care for Paul's economic ideology when it comes to domestic spending but he is right on when it comes to Pentagon spending. It's time to put the bull$#!+ of the American empire to rest - get out of most every overseas base we have and cut military spending in half. I'm sick and tired of being told we have all these phantom enemies. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Aug 17, 2011 6:35:31 GMT -8
I don't think Will is arguing for or against polygamy. Although I believe he is not for either (nor am I).
Just demonstrating that the logic to accept gay marriage can and will be used to accept polygamy.
Bob (and others), you are just being consistent with your acceptance of both gay and polygamist marriages. Many are not.
The question is really directed at them. How can you be for gay marriage, but not for polygamist marriages?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 17, 2011 17:13:37 GMT -8
I don't think Will is arguing for or against polygamy. Although I believe he is not for either (nor am I). Just demonstrating that the logic to accept gay marriage can and will be used to accept polygamy. Bob (and others), you are just being consistent with your acceptance of both gay and polygamist marriages. Many are not. The question is really directed at them. How can you be for gay marriage, but not for polygamist marriages? Where did I state I'm against polygamist marriages? I don't give a rat's ass what happens in the bedroom as long as nobody is harmed against their will. Where I have a problem with Willy is he claimes to be a "libertarian" while adhering to the same old Christian Reich nonsense while apparently being to CS to respond to our responses. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Aug 17, 2011 21:37:14 GMT -8
Hi Bob
I think you misunderstood me. I know you are for both gay and polygamist marriages. I commend you for being consistent.
However, many don't realize that if you support gay marriage, it will be really hard to not support polygamist marriages.
I also don't care much about "what happens in the bedroom", that is, private affairs. However, changing marriage to include gay and polygamist couples is a public affair.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 18, 2011 15:50:20 GMT -8
Hi Bob I think you misunderstood me. I know you are for both gay and polygamist marriages. I commend you for being consistent. However, many don't realize that if you support gay marriage, it will be really hard to not support polygamist marriages. I also don't care much about "what happens in the bedroom", that is, private affairs. However, changing marriage to include gay and polygamist couples is a public affair. For the record, I also support polyandrous marriages. And yes, I did misread your response. But basically I'm just trying to goad William into stating what he believes given the rather provocative manner in which he introduced this thread. Either way, the thread is a bit nonsensical because the article is nothing more than a report on a liar for hire's strategy based upon a fear of prosecution that hasn't happened. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 24, 2011 16:45:42 GMT -8
Heard something good from Ron Reagan today (he's sitting in for Chris Matthews). The difference between being in favor of same-sex marriage and polygamy, bestiality or whatever is the hatred of same-sex marriage is exclusionary while all the others are inclusionary. Nobody can engage in polygamy or bestiality but only gays and lesbians are not allowed to marry. The laws against it are no different than the laws not allowing marriage between "races". But then again, I'm sure Rick Perry would love to see those laws brought back since he's already stated that he believes the Supremes decision taking down anti-sodomy laws was unconstitutional.
=Bob
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Aug 24, 2011 18:40:52 GMT -8
Hi Bob
Whether or not you are for or against gay marriage, you're making a category mistake when you compare Homosexuality (a behavior) with a race (non-behavior).
All males are treated equally. No males can marry another male. All Females are treated equally. No females can marry another female.
If you base your decision on gay marriage based on desire/behavior, then men should be able to marry men and women (at the same time) if they so please, and like wise women should be able to marry men and women (at the same time) if they so please.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Aug 24, 2011 19:41:53 GMT -8
Hi Bob Whether or not you are for or against gay marriage, you're making a category mistake when you compare Homosexuality (a behavior) with a race (non-behavior). All males are treated equally. No males can marry another male. All Females are treated equally. No females can marry another male. If you base your decision on gay marriage based on desire/behavior, then men should be able to marry men and women (at the same time) if they so please, and like wise women should be able to marry men and women (at the same time) if they so please. You are correct. Sexual discrimination is not the same as racial discrimination. Bob I saw that today too. It was one of the more rational arguments for either side of the debate I have heard in quite some time. And I had also never heard it put in those terms. One is exclusionary and one is inclusionary. EVERYONE has the right to get married EXCEPT gays, but NO ONE can marry multiple people or animals.
|
|