MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,815
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 17, 2020 10:46:13 GMT -8
But if you're about to get married to cousin Elly, you should be forewarned that you won't be getting The Welfare if you have any kids. I guess my discomfort is with that statement. Marrying healthy cousin Elly carries a lower risk of passing on a genetic or potentially deadly disease than marrying a non-relative with any of the other diseases I mentioned. Those people perhaps should be denied The Welfare first. |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 17, 2020 10:48:18 GMT -8
I wouldn't disagree with that. Choices have consequences... Be accountable.
|
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Feb 17, 2020 13:52:55 GMT -8
Tuba:In American jurisprudence the only definition of marriage: a legal contract which establishes a special kind of kinship-- spousal-- where none existed before. That hasn't changed since same-gender marriages and families have been legally enfranchised. For the record: marrying many spouses at the same time is a straight-marriage tradition that has "defined" marriage for, at least, two millennia eh? Nothing new to the planet -- or America-- since same-gender marriages have been enfranchised; it's Biblical for chrissake. Can't blame polygamous marriages on the Gays, Sport; they're exclusively the inspiration of a straight kink. So, I think the a more logical question to ask is: if straight marriage, why not polygamy? First of all, welcome aboard, Tuba. I hope you find this forum as enjoyable as the rest of us have for the past year. I think perhaps my intent has been misunderstood, which is probably my fault for not being more clear in my original post. I am not "blaming the gays" for this most recent onward march of what Robert George referred to as "social liberalism." The undermining of marriage as understood throughout Western Civilization for at least the last 2,000 years goes back to the increasing acceptance of divorce (prohibited by Christ in Matthew 19:3-9) and the introduction of contraception in the 1960's. Yes, "straights" made a fine mess of marriage all by themselves--which was then further exploited by the LGBTQ lobby and its supporters (mostly consisting of heterosexuals) to redefine marriage as understood as mere "consent" between two people (regardless of gender) in order to justify the legalizing of so-called same-sex marriage. Once marriage was redefined as consisting of mere consent, it was only a matter of time before polygamy would come knocking at the door, since any ground for denying a person a second wife or husband has been removed by the Obergefell decision. As long as the three (or more) who are involved are freely consenting, on what principle then can such an arrangement be opposed? To say, however, that polygamy is "Biblical," is like saying that adultery and murder are "Biblical." Simply because something occurred in the Bible does not establish God's sanctioning of such a thing. The most clear Scriptural text on the nature of marriage is this: The LORD God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him.
So the LORD God formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each living creature was then its name.
The man gave names to all the tame animals, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be a helper suited to the man.
So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
The LORD God then built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman. When he brought her to the man,
the man said:
“This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;
This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of man this one has been taken.”
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body. (Genesis 2:18-24) This last verse above is repeated by Jesus himself in Matthew 19:5 and Paul in Ephesians 5:31. You will not find any place in the Bible where God commands or blesses polygamy. We do find certain figures in the Old Testament who had multiple wives or consorts by which they bore children, most notably Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon. What can be learned, however, from all these situations is that jealousy, rivalry, war, and murder were the direct results of such actions. Those cases were meant to be instructive as to what not to do, and you will not find any accepted tradition of polygamy in either Judaism (since at least before the time of Christ) or Christianity. The New Testament and 2,000 years of Christian history clearly understand marriage to be the permanent union of one man and one woman. The practice of polygamy in America came through Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism--which is not Christian. It is a heresy of Christianity, as it denies the Trinity and purports to have received a new and authoritative revelation from God outside of the Bible. My biblical remark was ironical if maybe a bit on the snarky side. Nevertheless, it was meant to emphasize my point that "polygamy" in America was not inspired by, or would be the inevitable consequence of, the enfranchisement of same-gender marriages. Indeed, many ancient cultures practiced polygamy, including the Bronze-Age one that is the subject of Bible myths and socio-sexual taboos. P. S. Thanks for the kind welcome. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Feb 17, 2020 15:03:32 GMT -8
Furthermore, if marriage is defined as broadly as a legal contract between two adults capable of consent (i.e they are not minors or mentally ill), then that would logically seem to condone cousins marrying cousins, fathers marrying daughters, brothers marrying sisters, etc. Would it not? It should, for the simple reason of that it is no one elses business. For the sake of discussion, set aside the health risk of inbred children. Two adults who are blood related could have a relationship and make sure there is no reproduction. In that case, who is any of us to say they can't. The fact that the image of an adult couple consisting of a brother & sister makes me nauseous is irrelevant. I think it is weird, I think it may not be healthy (mentally), but if no one is forcing me to do it or condone it, then what is it to me? |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 17, 2020 15:57:59 GMT -8
Furthermore, if marriage is defined as broadly as a legal contract between two adults capable of consent (i.e they are not minors or mentally ill), then that would logically seem to condone cousins marrying cousins, fathers marrying daughters, brothers marrying sisters, etc. Would it not? It should, for the simple reason of that it is no one elses business. For the sake of discussion, set aside the health risk of inbred children. Two adults who are blood related could have a relationship and make sure there is no reproduction. In that case, who is any of us to say they can't. The fact that the image of an adult couple consisting of a brother & sister makes me nauseous is irrelevant. I think it is weird, I think it may not be healthy (mentally), but if no one is forcing me to do it or condone it, then what is it to me? They probably won’t make you DO it... but we all know the reprobates will never settle for “yes.” As the homosexual, then bisexual, then transgender zealots have ably shown us, they will demand we condone it... and any other perversion they can muster. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,815
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 17, 2020 16:09:12 GMT -8
I'm not prescient, but I can almost guarantee that the first serious movie about a brother-sister marriage will win the Academy Award for Best Picture. Because Hollywood always has to show off how highly evolved and accepting they are, it's as predictable as a sunrise.
|
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Feb 17, 2020 18:40:16 GMT -8
It should, for the simple reason of that it is no one elses business. For the sake of discussion, set aside the health risk of inbred children. Two adults who are blood related could have a relationship and make sure there is no reproduction. In that case, who is any of us to say they can't. The fact that the image of an adult couple consisting of a brother & sister makes me nauseous is irrelevant. I think it is weird, I think it may not be healthy (mentally), but if no one is forcing me to do it or condone it, then what is it to me? They probably won’t make you DO it... but we all know the reprobates will never settle for “yes.” As the homosexual, then bisexual, then transgender zealots have ably shown us, they will demand we condone it... and any other perversion they can muster. But, of course, marrying a sibling, one's progeny or other close relative is illegal in most --if not all -- US states. Such marriages aren't unprecedented in history -- especially in the aristocracy -- though. Indeed, if the Noachian legend is taken at face value, we're all descended from some pretty intense incest. Let that roll around in your head for awhile. As for what homosexuals "demand", you have it wrong. We have never requested nor required the approval, permission or pardon of our detractors and abusers to fulfill our perfectly usual and biologically obtained romantic and sexual imperatives. Our aim has always been to emasculate the relentless American institutional, legal and religious oppression, ridicule and condemnation that endeavors to diminish our enjoyment and protections of all the birthrights of American citizenship. But your approval? Nope. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Feb 17, 2020 21:06:58 GMT -8
...We have never requested nor required the approval, permission or pardon of our detractors... Actually they have. An example is gay marriage. If the gay community just wanted the same rights as the heterosexual community when it came to relationships, they would have been happy with domestic partnerships. Any loopholes in domestic partnerships could have been corrected in order to put them on equal footing as marriage. Instead, fully knowing the traditional aspects of marriage and wanting to take a shot at those they disagree with spiritually, the homosexual community demanded that their domestic partnerships be called marriage as well. It was a very spiteful action. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Feb 17, 2020 22:35:27 GMT -8
They probably won’t make you DO it... but we all know the reprobates will never settle for “yes.” As the homosexual, then bisexual, then transgender zealots have ably shown us, they will demand we condone it... and any other perversion they can muster. But, of course, marrying a sibling, one's progeny or other close relative is illegal in most --if not all -- US states. Such marriages aren't unprecedented in history -- especially in the aristocracy -- though. Indeed, if the Noachian legend is taken at face value, we're all descended from some pretty intense incest. Let that roll around in your head for awhile. As for what homosexuals "demand", you have it wrong. We have never requested nor required the approval, permission or pardon of our detractors and abusers to fulfill our perfectly usual and biologically obtained romantic and sexual imperatives. Our aim has always been to emasculate the relentless American institutional, legal and religious oppression, ridicule and condemnation that endeavors to diminish our enjoyment and protections of all the birthrights of American citizenship. But your approval? Nope. I'm sorry but this kind of rhetoric is straight out of the mouth of Vilepagan. Is he trying to set up a second profile name--or has he simply recruited a like-minded collaborator? |
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Feb 17, 2020 22:43:31 GMT -8
...We have never requested nor required the approval, permission or pardon of our detractors... Actually they have. An example is gay marriage. If the gay community just wanted the same rights as the heterosexual community when it came to relationships, they would have been happy with domestic partnerships. Any loopholes in domestic partnerships could have been corrected in order to put them on equal footing as marriage. Instead, fully knowing the traditional aspects of marriage and wanting to take a shot at those they disagree with spiritually, the homosexual community demanded that their domestic partnerships be called marriage as well. It was a very spiteful action. Actually they have. An example is gay marriage. If the gay community just wanted the same rights as the heterosexual community when it came to relationships, they would have been happy with domestic partnerships. Any loopholes in domestic partnerships could have been corrected in order to put them on equal footing as marriage. Tuba:Prior to 2014 many states provided legal standing to same-gender "domestic-partnerships". We weren't satisfied with them because their legal benefits and protections did not include the unique effect of all marriage statutes: the creation of a legal kinship where no existed before.There is a host of legal benefits that accompany spousal kinship; no extra legal hoops to jump through to safeguard the integrity of a marriage.
rms:.
Instead, fully knowing the traditional aspects of marriage and wanting to take a shot at those they disagree with spiritually, the homosexual community demanded that their domestic partnerships be called marriage as well. It was a very spiteful action. Tuba:Spiteful, you say? That would assume our aim was to deliberately diminish the legal benefits and protections of the very legal contract we endeavored so hard to obtain equal benefit from, too. WTF? Surely, if all this was just to spite "spiritual" folks (I presume you mean Christians) then not only would the benefits and protections of opposite-gender marriages be diminished, but the "spirituality" of Christians (and otherwise) would be, too. Can you describe some ways they have? |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Feb 17, 2020 23:27:37 GMT -8
Tuba:Spiteful, you say? That would assume our aim was to deliberately diminish the legal benefits and protections of the very legal contract we endeavored so hard to obtain ... That is an incorrect assumption. The aim wasn't to diminish the concept of marriage, rather it was to spite those who believe homosexuality is a sin. If it was just the legal benefits & protection that was desired, that could have been accomplished through domestic partnerships & any needed changes or adaptions to them. To push further, to demand that gay domestic partnerships be called marriage was not required for those benefits & protections. Instead it was a way to stick it to those who are religious, so that homosexuals could claim that their relationships are also a marriage even though said relationship does not meet the age old definition of marriage. The unintended consequence was that that demand turned off the majority of the US public like myself who believed that a homosexual relationship has all of the legal benefits & protections of a traditional marriage. We saw a spiteful group looking for a pound of flesh, laughing in glee as the left lit up the White House in a multi-colored rainbow lighting. Those actions didn't change my opinion about the rights of a homosexual relationship, but it did change my opinion of the character of many of those in the homosexual community. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Feb 17, 2020 23:36:48 GMT -8
Credo... Very well put from a biblical perspective. And to your point (I think), nothing seems to be in the way of legally denying a polygamous marriage. Now the question becomes, should states be allowed to make the decision about its acceptability for their citizens? I'd say YES. Since the U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage there is nothing (legally, that is) standing in the way of states approving polygamy--just as there wasn't anything preventing states from allowing same-sex marriage. That being said, however, I would strongly disagree that any state (or the federal government) has a moral right to allow either of these things, for the simple fact that the nature of marriage itself is pre-political. Marriage--as the foundation of the family--precedes any government and, as such, no government has the right to re-define it. To say that states can re-define marriage is to support a theory of positive law that flies in the face of the natural law and places practically no limit on what the state can giveth and taketh away. Just because the constitution doesn't specifically mention something doesn't mean that it is therefore an open question. I would argue that there are certain realities that no government has a right to overturn. (The Roe v. Wade decision that allowed for the killing of the unborn is another example.) There was no reason for the U.S. Constitution, at its adoption, or subsequent state constitutions to define marriage since everyone already understood what it meant. Citing examples from ancient or other primitive cultures to justify polygamy or incestual marriage is irrelevant to the traditions and customs of the American people. The movement to allow same-sex marriage was not (as it has usually been portrayed by the media) an exercise in redressing a class of disenfranchised people who were previously and unjustly prevented from marrying--and thus enjoying the full rights of citizenship. No gay or lesbian person was ever prevented from getting married in the United States. It was simply the recognized fact that marriage was between a man and woman. No one ever was or is prevented from "loving" whomever they wanted--gay, straight, or otherwise. But to enlist the state or federal government to decree that the relationship between two men or two women is no different than that of a man and woman--the relationship which is necessary to produce human life--is akin to decreeing that apples and oranges are now the same, or that 2 + 2 = 5. Let's be honest enough to acknowledge that the same-sex marriage campaign was not an "expansion" of marriage--it was a re-definition of marriage. And ideas (especially bad ones) have consequences. If marriage now means anything we want it to mean, then it essentially means nothing.But perhaps that was the plan all along..... |
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Feb 17, 2020 23:48:46 GMT -8
They probably won’t make you DO it... but we all know the reprobates will never settle for “yes.” As the homosexual, then bisexual, then transgender zealots have ably shown us, they will demand we condone it... and any other perversion they can muster. As for what homosexuals "demand", you have it wrong. We have never requested nor required the approval, permission or pardon of our detractors and abusers to fulfill our perfectly usual and biologically obtained romantic and sexual imperatives. Our aim has always been to emasculate the relentless American institutional, legal and religious oppression, ridicule and condemnation that endeavors to diminish our enjoyment and protections of all the birthrights of American citizenship. But your approval? Nope. No, Davidsf and RSM have it right. I speak from personal experience. "Validation" is the word my gay family members used. "Validation" is what they asked for. Your last sentence indicates that you are confrontational about your sexual orientation as well, as if you want to force it all down our throats (no pun intended), and insist that we all accept your lifestyle. Hollywood tries to force it on us also, in movies and television. Hell, there was an article on MSN today entitled "50 Most Beloved TV Couples." Among the 50 couples they listed as "most beloved" were nine LGBT couples. That's 18% LGBT couples. And 18% is four times as high as Gallup's polling (4.5% are LGBT), and five times as high as the Williams Institute's polling (3.5% are LGBT). All designed to make us accept it as perfectly normal, by keeping gays front and center, wherever we look. And don't get me started on what the schools are teaching little elementary school children today, despite parental opposition. So there's that. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 18, 2020 3:46:39 GMT -8
Why thank you Credo, that's the nicest hing you've ever said to me.
Neither one Credo. I need no second profile name, Vilepagan works just fine for me, and you guys "recruited" tuba all on your own...I suspect it was all the stupidity he was reading just compelled him to respond. Good luck with your new member, I hope he sticks around for awhile. It's interesting to watch you try to counter his reason and logic with your ancient mythology.
On the subject of the thread, I don't understand why anyone would want to marry more than one person at a time, but I also have no objection to it from a practical perspective. From a legal perspective I can see a lot of problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 18, 2020 3:52:58 GMT -8
No, david and RSM think they can tell gay people what they think. That's never right.
Are you gay? If not, you do not speak from personal experience.
And because of that you think all gay people think the same way.
Exactly how you feel about abortion, no?
Egad not that. The horror.
Yes, there's that. A whole paragraph explaining why gay people in Hollywood might want to portray gays in a positive light...to counter such ignorance and bigotry.
|
|
