# So why can't we marry with more than one wife or husband?



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

Why is polygamy not recognized as a legitimate "marriage" under the law?

Why should I be denied my benefits of insurance/taxes to my spouses, if we got two of the same sex that can get a marriage license?

Since marriage is NOT between a man and a woman, rather a "civil union" then what would prevent me from having two wives, why is it limited to only two?

If marriage(under the law) does NOT require it to be between a Man and a Woman, then why am I being denied my Civil marriage license(and all the benefits that come with it)?

If it IS indeed a civil contract, why must it be between two parties? If marriage is NOT between a man and a woman, but men can marry men, and women marry women, then why must it be restricted to two parties?

Most people and judges agree that the Constitution doesn't allow the government to outlaw interracial marriage. Nor should it outlaw gay marriage or polygamy. 

I am being discriminated.

and what about those Bigamist out there? If a woman wants to marry the man she loves, what is the rational basis for saying she can&#8217;t do so just because she is married to another man who she says she also loves? 

What if the other man grants his consent to the second marriage, maybe because he wants a second marriage himself?


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

It isn't self evident to you? ?????????? One seems abundant to me (and I'm sure to her too)!


Nice knife pic....details?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Thats true, you are being discriminated against, as is your wife, why can't she have 2 husbands?


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Well, technically you make a good point. The reason polygamy is not legal is similar to the reasons that gay/lesbian marriage was not legal (and still is not in many states)--that is simply because society finds/has found polygamy and gay marriage to be undesirable and "wrong". That being said...I happen to be a proponent of gay marriage and am not all that thrilled with the polygamy idea. My primary opposition to polygamy is simply that the most common image of polygamy that we see is in the Fundamental Latter Day Saints Church and in that case there are issues of age, pressure to conform, etc---I question if those girls/women TRULY want to be in a polygamous relationship and have seen evidence that the culture in FDLS church is not healthy. I do know several couples who practice polyamory and in those cases all the people independently choose to live that so I am cool with that.

Something tells me though that you weren't trying to start an actual dialogue as much as just trying to start gay bashing--pardon me if I am off base with that.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Didn't i read in some states you can marry a ham sandwich :viking:


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I couldn't afford another one. Barely can afford the ones I already have.

Maybe you could marry one woman and one man.


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

Some societies (IE: most societies before the "enlightened age") have had the good sense to follow natural law which doesn't listen to some Ivy League bow-tie wearing professor who is confused about his own identity.

One man - one woman. God ordained (in case you want to dig deeper into the subject).


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

MrCalicoty said:


> Some societies (IE: most societies before the "enlightened age") have had the good sense to follow natural law which doesn't listen to some Ivy Leage bow-tie wearing professor who is confused about his own identity.
> 
> One man - one woman. God ordained (in case you want to dig deeper into the subject).



Where did you get that from?

Many societies practiced polygamy. Heck Many still do . . . Just not this one.

What makes you think that 1 man and 1 woman is the natural order?


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2010)

Because murder and suicide rates would go up. 


I know that if I had to pick up yet another man's socks that are two feet from the durn hamper I would pound the every lovin' snot out of him :hammer:

Weaker women would just joyfully swallow a fist full of pills. :viking:


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

Look at the one group that has polygamy in America, the FLDS and that Warren Jeffs, they kick boys out of the community for made up infractions so a few men can have many wives. We see the end results of that pathology. What is the end result of gays marrying? 

Still what right does the Government have to deny one group and at the same time support another? Gays are a protected class, but still. If it is indeed a civil union and if the Government has no say who can marry who, then why are the polygamy/Bigamy being left out?

We already have a society that allows people to choose not to marry, marry and divorce repeatedly, and live in any arrangement they choose. 

Don't give much credence to these "scholars" argument that legalizing polygamy would create a situation in which âloserâ men would end up unmarried and criminal (which is silly, anyway, losers and criminals usually seem to have little trouble finding girls with whom to make babies they wonât support), you have to start out with the premise that women would choose, most of the time, to be one of many wives rather than a one-and-only. 

The free market for mates works both ways, at least in North America. Weâve never really tested that, as most societies that practice polygamy on a large scale are pretty backwards and have so few social and economic options for women. 

When you take polygamy away from the other conditions of polygamous societies, like state-sanctioned religious extremism, child marriage, laws preventing women from working, etc. it becomes just another choice, and not a particularly attractive one from a cool financial standpoint (would you rather share a man making $100,000 a year with another woman and her two kids, or have a man making $50,000 devote his money to you and your two shared kids alone)


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

gideonprime said:


> Where did you get that from?
> 
> Many societies practiced polygamy. Heck Many still do . . . Just not this one.
> 
> What makes you think that 1 man and 1 woman is the natural order?


Answer: Genitalia


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

MrCalicoty said:


> Answer: Genitalia




I think you will need to expand upon that answer, if you would be so kind, because that one word makes no sense to me as an explaination for monogamy.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

MrCalicoty said:


> Answer: Genitalia


Guys, I'm talking about the LEGAL definition of Marriage.

What I don't understand is, if the federal government could reject polygamy in 1878 as a means of promoting the general welfare, why can&#8217;t it block attempts to redefine marriage now? If marriage is redefined by courts, via this California proposition strike down, what is there to stop anyone from declaring a &#8216;right&#8217; to any relationship they wish to enter and demanding &#8216;equal protection&#8217; under the Constitution?


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

I'm confused about what do you propose to do with the gay people then?

Force two gay women to marry two gay men for the paperwork and kids rights and then just live next door to each other..women in one house, men in another? 

It ain't like you can hold a gun up and force them to not be gay. You can only rape them or force them to commit rape, you can't make them like it.

Why can't they have a civil union and leave the marriages to the churches? After all, according to the catholics, protestants aren't married. According to protestants, traditional muslims aren't married. According to all of them, Wiccans aren't married.

But we sure do let them all get a marriage certificate and get the civil portion.


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

> I think you will need to expand upon that answer, if you would be so kind, because that one word makes no sense to me as an explaination for monogamy


I would love to be so kind. Thanks for asking... Genitalia. It happens to be quite unique and complementary between the opposite sexes and for a very important primary purpose. Wow! I got that out of my own reasoning and didn't have to consult the goofy dude wearing the bow tie....


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

VERN in IL said:


> If the federal government could reject polygamy then [in 1878] as a means of promoting the general welfare, why canât it block attempts to redefine marriage now? If marriage is redefined by courts, what is to stop anyone from declaring a ârightâ to any relationship they wish to enter and demanding âequal protectionâ under the Constitution?


Well we have certainly expanded rights since 1878. Heck women wern't allowed to vote until 1920. WTH???!!

We have grown as a nation since 1878, thankfully.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

MrCalicoty said:


> Some societies (IE: most societies before the "enlightened age") have had the good sense to follow natural law which doesn't listen to some Ivy League bow-tie wearing professor who is confused about his own identity.
> 
> One man - one woman. God ordained (in case you want to dig deeper into the subject).


Like Jacob and Rachel and Leah? (nevermind the other two)


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

MrCalicoty said:


> I would love to be so kind. Thanks for asking... Genitalia. It happens to be quite unique and complementary between the opposite sexes and for a very important primary purpose. Wow! I got that out of my own reasoning and didn't have to consult the goofy dude wearing the bow tie....



Oh I see you were bashing gays not polygamists. 

Now that answer makes perfect sense. 

Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

MrCalicoty said:


> I would love to be so kind. Thanks for asking... Genitalia. It happens to be quite unique and complementary between the opposite sexes and for a very important primary purpose. Wow! I got that out of my own reasoning and didn't have to consult the goofy dude wearing the bow tie....


but LEGALLY that is NOT the purpose of a Legal Civil Union Marriage! A marriage License is PERMISSION from the state to do something that would otherwise be Illegal.

Marriage(legal) is NOT about child rearing, it is NOT about one man and one woman for one lifetime. It IS about the denial of benefits of one class of citizens from another.


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

tinknal said:


> Like Jacob and Rachel and Leah? (nevermind the other two)


Yup, and after that Moses brought down the Ten Commandments and subsequently later the Mosaic law which prohibited the practice.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

gideonprime said:


> Oh I see you were bashing gays not polygamists.
> 
> Now that answer makes perfect sense.
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up.


I've never met a member of the opposite sex that my stuff WASN't compatible with.......


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

gideonprime said:


> Oh I see you were bashing gays not polygamists.
> 
> Now that answer makes perfect sense.
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up.


That's stretching it to the extreme but a typical comment coming from you.


----------



## Lyra (Sep 15, 2009)

VERN in IL said:


> Why is polygamy not recognized as a legitimate "marriage" under the law?



You seriously want to be part of "The View" every day? By choice? Are you a masochist? I have lived in many situations where my living conditions included 2+ women. Good luck lasting a month, buddy.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

MrCalicoty said:


> Yup, and after that Moses brought down the Ten Commandments and subsequently later the Mosaic law which prohibited the practice.


First off, you are flat wrong. Nothing in the 10 Commandments about Pologamy. Of course the New Testament replaced the Levitican Laws for Christians. Paul suggested that Bishops have only one wife. This to me indicates that having more than one wife was acceptable.


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

> First off, you are flat wrong. Nothing in the 10 Commandments about Pologamy. Of course the New Testament replaced the Levitican Laws for Christians. Paul suggested that Bishops have only one wife. This to me indicates that having more than one wife was acceptable.


*Thou shalt not commit adultery.* No, I guess I'm NOT flat wrong. And it's POLIGAMY not POLOGAMY.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

MrCalicoty said:


> Thou shalt not commit adultery. No, I guess I'm NOT flat wrong. And it's POLIGAMY not POLOGAMY.


Ahh, the spelling police. The last bastion of the weak argument. How sad.

Adultery is sexual relations with someone other than your wife. If you are married too both of your wives how can it be adultery?


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Actually, I have no problem with Polygamy if not practiced like a cult. But if a bunch of women want to get together and select one male to pass around between them as a stud, good for them. That way they can select for the right things since no real relationship is possible between any male and female in that situation. Just pick one that produce strong and smart females at a ratio of 10 to 1 for small docile males. Good to go!


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

tinknal said:


> Ahh, the spelling police. The last bastion of the weak argument. How sad.
> 
> Adultery is sexual relations with someone other than your wife. If you are married too both of your wives how can it be adultery?


Have you been consulting with the goofy bow-tie dude too?


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

If it's legal polygamy (not poligamy either MrCalicoty), then there would be no danger of adultery.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

MrCalicoty said:


> Have you been consulting with the goofy bow-tie dude too?


Instead of ad hominum attacks on me why not backing up some of what you say? 

You really must be new at this. Most folks here (of all stripes) are intelligent folks and we really have no time for this type of juvenile behavior.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Forget about marrying two or more. I dont even see the benefit of marrying one now that I have been there done that , got the T shirt twice and dang near lost both t shirts in the divorce that followed the second marriage if not for the fact that I had the better attorney.

Its not like you need any social conventions for all the important parts of a procreative relationship :shrug:


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

thequeensblessing said:


> If it's legal polygamy (not poligamy either MrCalicoty), then there would be no danger of adultery.


Wow, guess the spelling cop has to write himself a ticket! :bouncy::goodjob::grin::bow::nanner::smiley-laughing013:


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

ChristyACB said:


> Actually, I have no problem with Polygamy if not practiced like a cult. But if a bunch of women want to get together and select one male to pass around between them as a stud, good for them. That way they can select for the right things since no real relationship is possible between any male and female in that situation. Just pick one that produce strong and smart females at a ratio of 10 to 1 for small docile males. Good to go!


I feel like I'm reading the script for a "B" rated science fiction flick. This is what has become of the "enlightened society" which has degraded the standards of sucessful societies for ages upon ages. You're depiction only works (for any lenth of time) in fantasy land where sociological experiments abound with wishful thinking and unrealistic expectations.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

MrCalicoty said:


> I feel like I'm reading the script for a "B" rated science fiction flick. This is what has become of the "enlightened society" which has degraded the standards of sucessful societies for ages upon ages. You're depiction only works (for any lenth of time) in fantasy land where sociological experiments abound with wishful thinking and unrealistic expectations.


That was tongue firmly inserted into cheek but since you're going there...

Why wouldn't that work? I mean, if for the thousands of years since some slightly smarter males said to some other smarter males...hey, we're bigger than them...men have been able to make all the relationship rules and mores, why can't a change work.

How many males do you keep for your herd of cows? Goats? Sheep?

Which of the babies do you keep...which do you eat.

Seems sort of obvious to me.


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

Well bend me over yer nee and spank me!  Now about the pertinant issue. Tinknail what is your anser?


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

ChristyACB said:


> That was tongue firmly inserted into cheek but since you're going there...
> 
> Why wouldn't that work? I mean, if for the thousands of years since some slightly smarter males said to some other smarter males...hey, we're bigger than them...men have been able to make all the relationship rules and mores, why can't a change work.
> 
> ...


More truth comes out in jest my dear. It wasn't so tongue in cheek after all was it?


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

MrCalicoty said:


> Have you been consulting with the goofy bow-tie dude too?


Uh his name is . . . well he's called the Doctor and I have never consulted him. 

I simply like the show.

Problem for you?:stars:


----------



## silverbackMP (Dec 4, 2005)

MrCalicoty said:


> *Thou shalt not commit adultery.* No, I guess I'm NOT flat wrong. And it's POLIGAMY not POLOGAMY.


Actually, the closer translation says "you should not covet your neighbor's wife."


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

MrCalicoty said:


> More truth comes out in jest my dear. It wasn't so tongue in cheek after all was it?


Not really...I just thought about it for a sec after you asked that and the fact that we only eat the males and females that didn't develop properly for breeding. Well, it was sort of two plus two. It's an interesting thought experiment for sure. I'd love to know how that would work out in the end. 

Alas, most of us don't really like sharing. Our nails grow longer just thinking about it.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Hey lets build us a city and call it Sodom & Gahmora:kiss:


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

Shrek said:


> Forget about marrying two or more. I dont even see the benefit of marrying one now that I have been there done that , got the T shirt twice and dang near lost both t shirts in the divorce that followed the second marriage if not for the fact that I had the better attorney.
> 
> Its not like you need any social conventions for all the important parts of a procreative relationship :shrug:


Just take a look at the inner city who tossed the all those "archaic" social conventions away in order to get a free ride from Unlce Sam. Fathers without a purpose causing crime against their own. reference: George Gilder author of "Men and Marriage". Liberal Democrat Daniel Monyhan did an extensive study in the 60's to document this disgrace of the Great Society's social experiment.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

MrCalicoty said:


> Tinknail what is your anser?


"Ans*W*er to what?

I don't know anyone who wears a bow tie, unless it is you.


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

silverbackMP said:


> Actually, the closer translation says "you should not covet your neighbor's wife."


So, did you have a point to make?


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

Tinknail,

I've given all my ties to the poor. And now I air one mysef. Think yu veri mush!


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

It is in the best interest of society to discourage the insane from marriage and procreation. Any man who wants 2+ wives must be insane. I cannot speak for the ladies, but I think that would work both ways.


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

tinknal said:


> Instead of ad hominum attacks on me why not backing up some of what you say?
> 
> You really must be new at this. Most folks here (of all stripes) are intelligent folks and we really have no time for this type of juvenile behavior.


After what I have endured since joining HT a mere 5 weeks ago I think that my replies are right in line with what the moderators allow. Yes, I am quite new but am a fast learner...


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

megafatcat said:


> It is in the best interest of society to discourage the insane from marriage and procreation. Any man who wants 2+ wives must be insane. I cannot speak for the ladies, but I think that would work both ways.


I think the trick is to find 2 wimins who hates each other. 

Keeps 'em from ganging up on you......


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Hey lets build us a city and call it Sodom & Gahmora:kiss:


uh two cities maybe.:nana:


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

MrCalicoty said:


> After what I have endured since joining HT a mere 5 weeks ago I think that my replies are right in line with what the moderators allow. Yes, I am quite new but am a fast learner...


Moderators DO tolerate Juvenile behavior, kind of like ignoring tantrums in children.


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

tinknal said:


> Moderators DO tolerate Juvenile behavior, kind of like ignoring tantrums in children.


Well I've already been spanked enough these last couple of days. Time for some adult dialog on BOTH sides now? Eh... Tinknal? You clever little Flaming Xtian you!!!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I think I could be quite happy with 7 husbands, one for each day of the week. On second thought, a harem of 30, one for each day of the month might be even better. I don't think I'd want more than that though, no point in being greedy. Of course, they would have to be able to afford me.

.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

naturelover said:


> I think I could be quite happy with 7 husbands, one for each day of the week. On second thought, a harem of 30, one for each day of the month might be even better. I don't think I'd want more than that though, no point in being greedy. Of course, they would have to be able to afford me.
> 
> .


I've always thought a half a dozen Amish girls would be nice.......


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

tinknal said:


> I've always thought a half a dozen Amish girls would be nice.......


You'll have to answer for that one you clever little Flaming Xtian you!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

tinknal said:


> I've always thought a half a dozen Amish girls would be nice.......


Or maybe 72 Amish virgins? Now wouldn't that be bliss? You could get old sticky witch Calicoty to be their supervisor and instruct them in their daily assignments to ministering to your needs. 

.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Or maybe 72 Amish virgins? Now wouldn't that be bliss? You could get old sticky witch Calicoty to be their supervisor and instruct them in their daily assignments to ministering to your needs.
> 
> .


Naw, that would just be greedy. Maybe three Amish girls and a couple of them smokin' fast trotting horses?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Trotting horses! Yum! That all sounds perfectly reasonable.

.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Trotting horses! Yum! That all sounds perfectly reasonable.
> 
> .


Yeah, two of them will need to get to work while I stay home and keep an eye on the cutest one...........


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

tinknal said:


> Yeah, two of them will need to get to work while I stay home and keep an eye on the cutest one...........


Excuse me while I go beg G-d for forgiveness.........


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

naturelover said:


> Or maybe 72 Amish virgins? Now wouldn't that be bliss? You could get old sticky witch Calicoty to be their supervisor and instruct them in their daily assignments to ministering to your needs.
> 
> .


Nope.. That's a paradigm that I will never exist in. Makes for great fiction though.


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

So tinknal... just what IS a Flaming Xtian for those of us who may have had other impressions in mind? You clever little Flaming Xtian you! I'll bet that you share the same Xtian fellowship with that saint of a man... Mark Twain.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2010)

Xtian is short for Christian. Flaming is usually understood to mean unashamed.


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

zong said:


> Xtian is short for Christian. Flaming is usually understood to mean unashamed.


So are YOU a Flaming Xtian too? One who subscribes to the statements that tinknal does? I seem to recall a God Smacked Jesus Freak somewhere in these parts too. I STILL don't know where this one gets her theology.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

MrCalicoty said:


> So are YOU a Flaming Xtian too? One who subscribes to the statements that tinknal does? I seem to recall a God Smacked Jesus Freak somewhere in these parts too. I STILL don't know where this one gets her theology.


Are you a troll?

Serious question, not joking. Because I've not see your posts before and they seem, well, a bit stalkerish.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2010)

MrCalicoty said:


> So are YOU a Flaming Xtian too? One who subscribes to the statements that tinknal does? I seem to recall a God Smacked Jesus Freak somewhere in these parts too. I STILL don't know where this one gets her theology.


Are you really sure you want to antagonize me? I mean, its OK if you do, but you don't seem to really have the right ammunition for it.


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

zong said:


> Are you really sure you want to antagonize me? I mean, its OK if you do, but you don't seem to really have the right ammunition for it.


I seem to remember somewhere that it is a class 1 felony to make personal threats over the internet. Mmmm. Just sayin... 

Of course I would NEVER suspect anything like that. I'm not that smart.


----------



## triple divide (Jan 7, 2010)

Did somebody say "Amish girls"???


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2010)

MrCalicoty said:


> Tell me what ammunition I need above this? I have the Sword of the Spirit, the Belt of Truth, the Helmet of Salvation, the Breastplate of Righteousness, the Sheild of Faith, and the shoes that come ready with the Gospel of Truth.
> 
> I guess that means I don't need to shoot anyone. All I am to do is proclaim what I know. What ammunition do YOU use?


Good sense.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Tonya said:


> Because murder and suicide rates would go up.
> 
> 
> I know that if I had to pick up yet another man's socks that are two feet from the durn hamper I would pound the every lovin' snot out of him :hammer:
> ...


Spew Alert. ound:


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

ChristyACB said:


> Are you a troll?
> 
> Serious question, not joking. Because I've not see your posts before and they seem, well, a bit stalkerish.


Actually my dear I am not as you might imagine. I respond to posts with my perspective on things and I come back to check on replies to my posts. It's the responsible thing to do. Otherwise I might be accused of "hit and run" which I see bandied about here on HT from time to time. 

No need for paranoia. I have high moral standards that can be found conveniently documented in a very reliable historical document called the Holy Bible and I am accountable to the Lord who's Holy Spirit spoke through the 40 authors that wrote the 66 books.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

MrCalicoty said:


> Actually my dear I am not as you might imagine. I respond to posts with my perspective on things and I come back to check on replies to my posts. It's the responsible thing to do. Otherwise I might be accused of "hit and run" which I see bandied about here on HT from time to time.
> 
> No need for paranoia. I have high moral standards that can be found conveniently documented in a very reliable historical document called the Holy Bible and I am accountable to the Lord who's Holy Spirit spoke through the 40 authors that wrote the 66 books.


What about the books the MEN of the Nicean Council who decided what was fit for inclusion in your book of dogma?

Oh wait god told them what was Bull Puckey and what wasn't? :rotfl:


----------



## Windy in Kansas (Jun 16, 2002)

Tonya said:


> I know that if I had to pick up yet another man's socks that are two feet from the durn hamper I would pound the every lovin' snot out of him


Why do you automatically think of it being another man to pick up after. Maybe a woman which can help pick up after the first man. On the other hand with a second husband and additional income perhaps just hire a sock picker upper. lol

Good thread. 

Along with other points already made---Let us say that #1 marries #2 and #3. #2 should also have the right to marry #4 to go along with her #1. #2 should also be allowed to marry other than just #1 so picks #5. Of course #4 and #5 will also want additional spouses. Are we complicated yet? Pretty soon it is just like some cousin states where everyone is related, and that are joked about and probably far from real.


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

I started a thread a while back about how I needed a wife. I would love to share the household reponsibilities and have someone else to help raise the children. As far as the bedroom goes, she could have him after he visits me...I prefer to sleep alone anyway!!!:smiley-laughing013:


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

MrCalicoty said:


> You'll have to answer for that one you clever little Flaming Xtian you!


What are you smoking tonight, Sir? Perhaps I am wrong, but you seem a little aggitated.....maybe you NEED to smoke something.....


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

gideonprime said:


> What about the books the MEN of the Nicean Council who decided what was fit for inclusion in your book of dogma?
> 
> Oh wait god told them what was Bull Puckey and what wasn't? :rotfl:


There are no such books in the bible that I read. My KJV and NKJV do not reference such Bull Puckey. 

My Holy Bible is not a book of dogma. That is an accusation that YOU make. My Holy Scripture says "Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Freedom"!

Ho Ho Ho to YOU you clever little Christian Basher.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

So the gnostic gospels don't count. alright.

What about bibles before your KJV? Do they count? I mean the KJV of the bible was first printed in 1611 so thats like what over 1500 years post Jesus, so what about all those bibles?


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

Have you ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Where its writings can be identified and cross-referenced they agree with the early pre-KJV texts perfectly. I speak and read english so I prefer an English translation. 

Original Hebrew writings are very precise and original Greek is very rich in it's expressions. With the original writings and modern translation capabilities we have some extremely good bridging of early writings to modern bible translations.

Brilliant scholars have been working on bringing this to the forefront in our lifetime unlike the fradulent writings of counterfeit religions and cults that are so prevalent and easily dismissed.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

MrCalicoty said:


> Have you ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Where the writings can be identified and cross-referenced they agree with the early pre-KJV texts perfectly. I speak and read english so I prefer an English translation.
> 
> Original Hebrew writings are very precise and original Greek is very rich in it's expressions. With the original writings and modern translation capabilities and we have some extremely good bridging of early writings to modern bible translations.
> 
> Brilliant scholars have been working on bringing this to the forefront in our lifetime *unlike the fradulent writings of counterfeit religions and cults that are so prevalent and easily dismiss*ed.



Oh here comes the holier than thou part of your sermon. Pass!

Like Islam and let me guess LDS? How about Catholic? Or protestant? Greek Orthodox? Wiccan? Buddhist? Everyone who doesn't believe exactly like you do? 

I gotta sleep . . . argue more tomorrow?:cowboy:


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

gideonprime said:


> Oh here comes the holier than thou part of your sermon. Pass!
> 
> Like Islam and let me guess LDS? How about Catholic? Or protestant? Greek Orthodox? Wiccan? Buddhist? Everyone who doesn't believe exactly like you do?
> 
> I gotta sleep . . . argue more tomorrow?:cowboy:


Oh here comes the straw man arguements... one right after the other. Lesseee I counted 8 of them in one paragraph. That's not going to work on my level playing field my friend.

I was HOPING you had a life. I guess afterall you DO! Sweet Dreams...


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

MrCalicoty said:


> I seem to recall a God Smacked Jesus Freak somewhere in these parts too. I STILL don't know where this one gets her theology.


god smacked jesus freak reporting for duty, im flaming too:buds:

who wants to come to Wyld Thangs Flaming Church of Sinners? funny how we all read the same book and get something different...

special music for today, can i get a witness???
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_3TkbS6C5s[/ame]


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I don't have a problem with polygamy or polyandry. As long as all the partners are adults, let 'em pair up as they please!


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> polyandry


 Wasnt that an early 60s TV show?


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

MrCalicoty said:


> Have you been consulting with the goofy bow-tie dude too?


No, they're consulting with some other goofy dude. Dunno whether you are wearing a bow-tie or not, but that doesn't matter here.

"It happens to be quite unique and complementary between the opposite sexes and for a very important primary purpose. Wow! I got that out of my own reasoning and didn't have to consult the goofy dude wearing the bow tie...."

What is that "very important primary purpose" that you claim causes marriage to be defined as monogamous(and ONLY between a man and woman)? Looks like you are trying to imply(without coming right out and saying it) that it is reproduction. If that's your claim, maybe you could provide some evidence about the "primary purpose" part, since not every marriage results in children. If your claim is right, then no marriages should be allowed which don't result in children.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Windy in Kansas said:


> Why do you automatically think of it being another man to pick up after. Maybe a woman which can help pick up after the first man. On the other hand with a second husband and additional income perhaps just hire a sock picker upper. lol
> 
> Good thread.
> 
> Along with other points already made---Let us say that #1 marries #2 and #3. #2 should also have the right to marry #4 to go along with her #1. #2 should also be allowed to marry other than just #1 so picks #5. Of course #4 and #5 will also want additional spouses. Are we complicated yet? Pretty soon it is just like some cousin states where everyone is related, and that are joked about and probably far from real.


Sounds kind of like some of my family reunions.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

If one had more than one wife or husband reading these posts the way my luck runs i would wind up with someone of you as mother in law or father in law :grit:

This being the case i would become a eunuch with a dull knife :shrug::bow:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Sawmill Jim said:


> If one had more than one wife or husband reading these posts the way my luck runs i would wind up with someone of you as mother in law or father in law :grit:
> 
> This being the case i would become a eunuch with a dull knife :shrug::bow:


Okay, son, I read that. You're in big trouble now. :help: Wait til your father gets home.

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

FourDeuce said:


> No, they're consulting with some other goofy dude. Dunno whether you are wearing a bow-tie or not, but that doesn't matter here.
> 
> "It happens to be quite unique and complementary between the opposite sexes and for a very important primary purpose. Wow! I got that out of my own reasoning and didn't have to consult the goofy dude wearing the bow tie...."
> 
> What is that "very important primary purpose" that you claim causes marriage to be defined as monogamous(and ONLY between a man and woman)? Looks like you are trying to imply(without coming right out and saying it) that it is reproduction. *If that's your claim, maybe you could provide some evidence about the "primary purpose" part, since not every marriage results in children.* If your claim is right, then no marriages should be allowed which don't result in children.


Umm hmmm, I second that. Please provide the evidence MrC.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'm not that smart.


That's the only thing you've said so far that I agree with


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's the only thing you've said so far that I agree with



:thumb::thumb::thumb:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:


I always *knew *we had things in common


----------



## charisma (Nov 13, 2007)

MrCalicoty said:


> Yup, and after that Moses brought down the Ten Commandments and subsequently later the Mosaic law which prohibited the practice.


Just where in Mosaic Law do you find the prohibition on polygamy? And are you just conveniently forgetting that many of the venerated "ore-bearers of Christ were in fact, polygamists... including (of course) King David, his son, Solomon, and a host of other post-Mosaic figures. Enlighten us please, wise one. 

This is precisely why it is so irritating to be branded with that nebulous "Christian" label--- cause you end up getting lumped in with folks like you. Zero sense of humor, a more than generous dose of self-righteousness, sprinkled with "oh-so-yummy" condescension in every post.

Frankly, every post I've seen that you've made screams the opposite of the faith that you claim to hold. I see no meekness, wisdom, kindness, gentleness, or love-- just a great deal of vindictiveness and self-righteous posturing.


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's the only thing you've said so far that I agree with


It's a great to be able to take a statement completely out of context and turn it around for you're own benefit isn't it? I see you have a few yapping followers who seem to endorse the same methodolgy. Mmmm impressive!

And you did it without even having to use two hands to type. Is that why it took you so long to jump in the fray?


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

naturelover said:


> Umm hmmm, I second that. Please provide the evidence MrC.
> 
> .


Naturelover, some things about nature are so obvious that they don't require explanation to an adult. I'm not giving a talk about the birds and the bees. That's someone elses responsibility (usually the parent).


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

wyld thang said:


> god smacked jesus freak reporting for duty, im flaming too:buds:
> 
> who wants to come to Wyld Thangs Flaming Church of Sinners? funny how we all read the same book and get something different...
> 
> ...



awesome... Suck Marrow dude!


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

shanzone2001 said:


> What are you smoking tonight, Sir? Perhaps I am wrong, but you seem a little aggitated.....maybe you NEED to smoke something.....


Why don't you ask the priestess from the Church of the Flaming Sinners if you need to smoke something. I hear they have quite a party going in her neck of the woods. Anything goes...

Suck Marrow eh ol gal?


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> I don't have a problem with polygamy or polyandry. As long as all the partners are adults, let 'em pair up as they please!


Just like wild beasts... How civilized! NOT


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

charisma said:


> This is precisely why it is so irritating to be branded with that nebulous "Christian" label--- cause you end up getting lumped in with folks like you. Zero sense of humor, a more than generous dose of self-righteousness, sprinkled with "oh-so-yummy" condescension in every post.
> 
> Frankly, every post I've seen that you've made screams the opposite of the faith that you claim to hold. I see no meekness, wisdom, kindness, gentleness, or love-- just a great deal of vindictiveness and self-righteous posturing.


I took the gloves off yesterday. I got tired of getting hit without defending myself. What you don't want to see me fight fair? As in meeting them on THEIR level??? 

To quote the high preistess from the Church of the Flaming Sinners... Suck Marrow eh? How's that for a sense of humor? It works for her. Oh so Yummy!


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

deleted


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

charisma said:


> Just where in Mosaic Law do you find the prohibition on polygamy? And are you just conveniently forgetting that many of the venerated "ore-bearers of Christ were in fact, polygamists... including (of course) King David, his son, Solomon, and a host of other post-Mosaic figures. Enlighten us please, wise one.


No condescending intention there eh charisma? a bit of hypocrisy perhaps? See you've got flaws too!

Whether or not David, Solomon did have multiple wives it was NOT with the blessing of Jehovah. They also paid a heavy price for their sin.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

MrCalicoty said:


> It's a great to be able to take a statement completely out of context and turn it around for you're own benefit isn't it? I see you have a few yapping followers who seem to endorse the same methodolgy. Mmmm impressive!
> 
> And you did it without even having to use two hands to type. Is that why it took you so long to jump in the fray?


You know, its easy to get banned without making yourself look like you are looking 
Is there any need of this, or the Singletree thread you completely melted down in?


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Shygal said:


> You know, its easy to get banned without making yourself look like you are looking
> Is there any need of this, or the Singletree thread you completely melted down in?


It wants to get banned. That's how it validates itself.

Afterwards it can go to it's cult meetings and brag about how it straightened out those heathens over at HT.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Kind of strange behaviour though, don't you think? I don't think I've ever seen a troll go off the deep end quite like this one did. Obviously it wants to get banned after it had it's melt down in single tree - it even asked to be banned from single tree after it saw it's other demands wouldn't be fulfilled. But why did it even have the melt down in the first place, why even go there? It seemed to be doing not so badly on the rest of the board prior to yesterday's meltdown. 

Now it comes and commits suicide by GC. I wonder if it's having a bi-polar or schizophrenic episode of some kind and the single tree incident just sent it over the edge. Who would have thought that innocuous words like mangasm or metrosexual would send somebody off the deep end like that? Very strange.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

MrCalicoty said:


> Just like wild beasts... How civilized! NOT


Some wild beasts are monogamous. Others are not. As far as "civilized" much of human history shows that humans are not very "civilized" either.:viking:


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's the only thing you've said so far that I agree with


And sufficient evidence to prove that claim has already been provided. :kung::cowboy:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Just like wild beasts... How civilized! NOT


And marriage as it's currently constructed is civilized or dignified HOW? 

I'm on my fourth one, with the State's full blessing!


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

MrCalicoty said:


> Yup, and after that Moses brought down the Ten Commandments and subsequently later the Mosaic law which prohibited the practice.


Perhaps you could show us where in the 10 commandments or Mosaic law it says anything about it. Also Kings David and Soloman came way after Moses.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> And marriage as it's currently constructed is civilized or dignified HOW?
> 
> I'm on my fourth one, with the State's full blessing!


I'm on my third and final. I can only manage one relationship at a time so I've chosen serial monogamy rather than polygamy. (If that sounds a bit cold, let me say that I really love my husband!)


----------



## MrCalicoty (Jun 27, 2010)

My good friends. Whether I am banned or not makes little difference. When I joined a mere 6 weeks ago I played well with others until I found out how the barbarians eagerly flame with little moderator intervention. So yesterday I took the gloves off and played THEIR way. I'm not condemning the mods either as I know they don't like to have to deal with messy situations. HT would be much better off if the barbarians would use much more restraint.

In that short time I posted nearly 400 posts before 3 others went off on me for trying to share a big part of my life that might benefit them financially for a long time. Those statistics dropped quite a bit when moderators took a complete thread offline "for review" not telling me anything (to date) of why. I was never on the attack then. But I wasn't feeling the love of HTs motto of "Neighborly help and friendly advice". Bull Pucky... to quote someone from one of last night's flame war.

This is the way it is here. You people fight so much with each other and little intellegent dialog can exists in that environment. I was just bringing it into the spotlight. Ok, and maybe getting even for once.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2010)

When I go voluntarily to a place where I feel really unhappy, I leave.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> And marriage as it's currently constructed is civilized or dignified HOW?
> 
> I'm on my fourth one, with the State's full blessing!


Willow, I knew we had something in common. I split with my 4th years ago.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Well -- try, try again! 

DH and I both are on our 4th marriages ... clearly, all the problems in our previous marriages must have been caused by our spouses, since we're quite happy together. LOLOL!


----------



## ceresone (Oct 7, 2005)

Seems like some are determined to say the OP is bashing gays, no matter how he explains it.
My take is that the OP is asking where the clear lines are? good question-when the laws start being slanted to allow two of the same sex to be married, then where does the blurring of lines stop? (I like the one about the ham sandwich).
Perhaps we should allow more than one husband? I think it would be great, it would take several men to support me in the style I'd like to become accustomed to--but fellars? How are you going to support multiple wives?


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

MrCalicoty said:


> Some societies (IE: most societies before the "enlightened age") have had the good sense to follow natural law which doesn't listen to some Ivy League bow-tie wearing professor who is confused about his own identity.
> 
> One man - one woman. God ordained (in case you want to dig deeper into the subject).


If search the Bible for households where both husband and wife/wives were listed by name; you will observe that the over-whelming majority of households in the Bible were polygamous.

A few, a tiny minority of those households did have issues with in-fighting / jealousy. For most polygamous households in the Bible there simply is no mention of whether they were harmonious or not.

Consider: God never forbids polygamy.

God at times commands polygamy.

And God provides guidelines within which to operate polygamy in society.


----------



## ceresone (Oct 7, 2005)

My Goosness--I hadnt read pages 2, 3 and 4, when I posted--excuse me for entering in the midst of a fight--(running back to hide under the bed).


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

MrCalicoty said:


> *Thou shalt not commit adultery.* No, I guess I'm NOT flat wrong. And it's POLIGAMY not POLOGAMY.


And the spelling police even got it wrong



> polygamy
> 
> 
> Main Entry: poÂ·lygÂ·aÂ·my
> ...


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polygamy


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

ET1 SS said:


> If search the Bible for households where both husband and wife/wives were listed by name; you will observe that the over-whelming majority of households in the Bible were polygamous.
> 
> A few, a tiny minority of those households did have issues with in-fighting / jealousy. For most polygamous households in the Bible there simply is no mention of whether they were harmonious or not.
> 
> ...


I'm too lazy to look, but how many polygamous marriages are listed in the NT?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Note: To each his own, but I personally don't think multiple marriages are something to be proud of...


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Well -- try, try again!
> 
> DH and I both are on our 4th marriages ... clearly, all the problems in our previous marriages must have been caused by our spouses, since we're quite happy together. LOLOL!


If there is any truth to the old saying, practice makes perfect, I should be getting there.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

MrCalicoty said:


> After what I have endured since joining HT a mere 5 weeks ago I think that my replies are right in line with what the moderators allow. Yes, I am quite new but am a fast learner...


Apparently not fast enough: 

*MrCalicoty * 
*Banned*


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

I guess I don't see how people that witness most marriages today can call the union "civil".


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Jolly said:


> Note: To each his own, but I personally don't think multiple marriages are something to be proud of...


I'm not bragging, just stating the facts for myself and for many others. Better multiple marriages than a lifetime of misery. I count myself very fortunate that my DH and I found each other after we both experienced many years of unhappiness. I am very proud that we have made a warm, loving relationship.


----------



## jill.costello (Aug 18, 2004)

WindowOrMirror said:


> I guess I don't see how people that witness most marriages today can call the union "civil".


<giggle>


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> Apparently not fast enough:
> 
> *MrCalicoty *
> *Banned*


Is that what that means? I thought it was just a tag line he put up because people were talking about it being banned. So any name with that under it is banned?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

ChristyACB said:


> Is that what that means? I thought it was just a tag line he put up because people were talking about it being banned. So any name with that under it is banned?


Almost always (I have seen one temporary exception, a long time ago)


----------



## SteveD(TX) (May 14, 2002)

Plural marriages have their benefits - (watch Big Love). AND...

plural marriages have their problems - (watch Big Love). 

Overall....I wouldn't trade places with that poor guy for a billion dollars.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

bluesky said:


> I'm not bragging, just stating the facts for myself and for many others. Better multiple marriages than a lifetime of misery. I count myself very fortunate that my DH and I found each other after we both experienced many years of unhappiness. I am very proud that we have made a warm, loving relationship.


I LOVE THIS!!
AND THIS: I've chosen serial monogamy rather than polygamy.
I'm losing muh mind!!


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

bluesky said:


> I'm not bragging, just stating the facts for myself and for many others. Better multiple marriages than a lifetime of misery. I count myself very fortunate that my DH and I found each other after we both experienced many years of unhappiness. I am very proud that we have made a warm, loving relationship.


I am another one that is not bragging. One thing to remember, it is better to divorce than to spend the rest of your life in jail for murder.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

ChristyACB said:


> Is that what that means? I thought it was just a tag line he put up because people were talking about it being banned. So any name with that under it is banned?


Yes, it means they are banned


----------



## tiffnzacsmom (Jan 26, 2006)

Meet some poly families in real life before you judge the practice. If adults consent to loving more than one person and follow through on that commitment why should it affect me?


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Gercarson said:


> I LOVE THIS!!
> AND THIS: I've chosen serial monogamy rather than polygamy.
> I'm losing muh mind!!


My first husband thought polygamy was a wonderful idea for us. I refused and he walked.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

you can update your User Profile as well... making it APPEAR as though you've been banned


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

tiffnzacsmom said:


> Meet some poly families in real life before you judge the practice. If adults consent to loving more than one person and follow through on that commitment why should it affect me?


I agree. What works for some consenting adults might not work for others. I think we're way too busy sticking our noses in other people's business.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

WindowOrMirror said:


> I guess I don't see how people that witness most marriages today can call the union "civil".


Oh man that one deserves the whole bottle tipped up. So true WOM. A thought on the OP. I think it would be advantageous to have multiple kids by multiple wive's. The state aid would be tremendous! And never any taxes paid with most blue collar incomes. I'm all for it, it's a great way to Galt the system. Cheers:buds:.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

bowdonkey said:


> Oh man that one deserves the whole bottle tipped up. So true WOM. A thought on the OP. I think it would be advantageous to have multiple kids by multiple wive's. The state aid would be tremendous! And never any taxes paid with most blue collar incomes. I'm all for it, it's a great way to Galt the system. Cheers:buds:.


Yeah nothing says America like being a free loader. :stars: 

Oy Vey!

Gault, :rotfl:, you guys are so funny with that gault carp.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

> #130 Today, 10:25 AM
> WindowOrMirror
> banned Join Date: Jan 2005
> Location: northcentral WI
> ...


an example or a request? I'm thinking an example.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I think it would be advantageous to have multiple kids by multiple wive's.


Actually, the ideal situation for a woman probably is to have a couple kids by different fathers before settling down with a man who was childless but content to help her raise her family. 

That way, she'd have two or three men contributing to the support of her household -- in these uncertain times, probably a surer bet than relying on only one! :shrug:


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

naturelover said:


> You could get old sticky witch Calicoty to be their supervisor and instruct them in their daily assignments to ministering to your needs. .


HA! I remember Sticky Witch. 

Trolls do seem to come here on this board from time to time!


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

What about my dogs, this medicine for the 3 of them is getting pretty expensive. Government Health care?


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> Actually, the ideal situation for a woman probably is to have a couple kids by different fathers before settling down with a man who was childless but content to help her raise her family.
> 
> That way, she'd have two or three men contributing to the support of her household -- in these uncertain times, probably a surer bet than relying on only one! :shrug:


I, briefly, dated a girl that was doing just that. She had 4 children by 4 fathers and each was paying full 30% of there income as support. 

As soon as I figured out what was going on I dumped her faster than a hot potato. I still think she was looking to me to be number 5.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

AngieM2 said:


> an example or a request? I'm thinking an example.


Yikes... yes, an example!


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

ceresone said:


> Seems like some are determined to say the OP is bashing gays, no matter how he explains it.
> My take is that the OP is asking where the clear lines are? good question-when the laws start being slanted to allow two of the same sex to be married, then where does the blurring of lines stop? (I like the one about the ham sandwich).
> Perhaps we should allow more than one husband? I think it would be great, it would take several men to support me in the style I'd like to become accustomed to--but fellars? How are you going to support multiple wives?


Exactly, just where are the clear lines?

From a legal standpoint you can't have people marrying farm animals.(an animal is NOT a consenting adult) But what about the Pedophiles? 

Why can't a 50yr old man marry a 8 year old boy?(with parents permission) Who is the state to say when a child is ready to marry based on age? If they are physically able, why not. When it comes to gay marriage, it has nothing to do with (physical) forms.

So if a 13 year old boy and a 48 year old Pedophile want to "get together" for the rest of their lives, if you allow gays to marry, then why not let those two marry? IF children are NOT the ideal of a marriage, what is? Why restrict marriage between a man and woman but rather have marriage for the Polygamist, beastliness, Pedophiles and other kinky "relationships"?

How many of you that support gay marriage would support Pedophiles,Polygamist and social misfits? In essence, if you support one, you support them all, under equality.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Wow, it only took 140 posts for someone to come up with the pedophilia/bestiality carp. :bored: It's always the last gasp of those who can't think of any other reason to deny _consenting adults_ the right to marry the person of their choosing.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

VERN in IL said:


> Exactly, just where are the clear lines?
> 
> From a legal standpoint you can't have people marrying farm animals.(an animal is NOT a consenting adult) But what about the Pedophiles?
> 
> ...


Come on Vern, what does gay marriage have to do with all of this other stuff?
2 consenting adults should be able to get married, man and woman, man and man, woman and woman. What difference would it make in the lives of others? It isn't like gays are a recent outcrop of the human race. They have been around for a long time. It isn't like the world is going to end if a couple of people choose to get married.
I can't see why it is so important to some that gays are not allowed to marry.
Really, what would it matter?


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

pancho said:


> Come on Vern, what does gay marriage have to do with all of this other stuff?
> 2 consenting adults should be able to get married, man and woman, man and man, woman and woman. What difference would it make in the lives of others? It isn't like gays are a recent outcrop of the human race. They have been around for a long time. It isn't like the world is going to end if a couple of people choose to get married.
> I can't see why it is so important to some that gays are not allowed to marry.
> Really, what would it matter?


Why are you insisting on two consenting adults, why not three?

**** are not a recent outcrop of the human race, neither are Pedophiles and people that want to have fun with animals.



> Really, what would it matter?


Exactly, why would it matter, that is what I'm asking YOU. If you allow one group to marry, what about the other groups, should they be allowed to marry also? Why limit it to TWO, why not three or four?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

VERN in IL said:


> Why is polygamy not recognized as a legitimate "marriage" under the law?
> 
> *Because right now, marriage is one man and one woman, as it has been forever.*
> 
> ...


Personally? I believe one man, one woman. I can quote the Scriptures.

However.
I totally see what you are saying.
WHY can the gays get what they want, yet the mormons can't. Not fair.
It's a huge load of crap is what it is. The gays give lots of money to the Dems to get their way. The mormons don't. That's why the gays get all that they want, and the religious, don't.

Seriously, it's America! Get the mormons to raise a stink. Make a noise, tv, radio, internet. If you feel this strongly about, rouse the troops, and ready yourself for battle. Battle for change....
or 
Get out your check book, write a REAL BIGGGGGGG CHECK
And you can do this from your couch, with only lifiting a pen.

Money IS the root of all evil.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

VERN in IL said:


> Why are you insisting on two consenting adults, why not three?
> 
> **** are not a recent outcrop of the human race, neither are Pedophiles and people that want to have fun with animals.
> 
> ...


Why not indeed? I agree with you Vern, Consenting adults should have the freedom to do as they please, as many or few other consenting as they wish.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Vern, what is the purpose of marriage? Whether it's a marriage of 2 people or more is irrelevant to this question, all I want to know is what do you believe is the sole purpose of marriage?

.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

VERN in IL said:


> ****** are not a recent outcrop of the human race, neither are Pedophiles and people that want to have fun with animals.


As I suspected all along, you've got a bad case of homophobia and thus your opinion on this subject is worth exactly nothing, as it's obviously fueled by an emotional reaction to something that scares the bejeebers out of you.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

VERN in IL said:


> Why are you insisting on two consenting adults, why not three?
> 
> **** are not a recent outcrop of the human race, neither are Pedophiles and people that want to have fun with animals.
> 
> ...


Why don't you let the 2 gay people marry, then everyone can concentrate on your problems. Can't never tell if you help the gays they might help you.
Just because I am nosey, which are you wanting to marry?


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

gideonprime said:


> Yeah nothing says America like being a free loader. :stars:
> 
> Oy Vey!
> 
> Gault, :rotfl:, you guys are so funny with that gault carp.


He-he-he, You gotta understand, it's just so satisfying adding nothing of value to topics like this. Cheers, a 10 oz tumbler of Jim Beam and ice to all the freeloaders, tax evaders and avoiders.


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

MrCalicoty said:


> Why don't you ask the priestess from the Church of the Flaming Sinners if you need to smoke something. I hear they have quite a party going in her neck of the woods. Anything goes...
> 
> Suck Marrow eh ol gal?



It seems to me that I almost have to smoke something in order to understand your wierd posts.....unfortunately, you are not worth me frying my brain over!

I am not an "ol gal". That is not a term you should use on a stranger...


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

bluesky said:


> I'm not bragging, just stating the facts for myself and for many others. Better multiple marriages than a lifetime of misery. I count myself very fortunate that my DH and I found each other after we both experienced many years of unhappiness. I am very proud that we have made a warm, loving relationship.


Happy for you, but warm loving marriages fail, too...or so y'all are telling me. What makes you think this marriage will last?

My parents were married over 40 years. None of my mom's or my dad's siblings ever divorced. My in-laws have been married 52 years. None of my FIL's siblings are divorced, one of my MIL's 13 siblings is divorced. I've been married 30 years, my wife's siblings 27 and 25 years, respectively.

So between you and Willow girl, you've got 800% more divorces than 32 couples in my bunch. I admit I'm being presumptuous, but wouldn't just one spouse have made life a mite easier?

I think it does. I think it makes for stronger family units and I think strong family units make for a better society. And that brings us to a lot of the stuff going on in this thread...for the good of the society, we don't need polygamy. We don't need gay marriage. We don't need out of wedlock babies.

We need strong committed couples, men and women who show pluck and perseverence when times get a little tough. We need people who worry less about self and self-gratification and who take responsibility seriously. People with honor, pride and the ability to sacrifice for a better tomorrow.

In Victorian times, people thought we had finally risen above our animalistic baser natures. That man, through his intellect and religion, could be what the animals could not...civilized.

History proves them wrong, but why cannot we still try to be at least as good as the angels of our better natures?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> So between you and Willow girl, you've got 800% more divorces than 32 couples in my bunch. I admit I'm being presumptuous, but wouldn't just one spouse have made life a mite easier?


If I had known my 4th husband was going to be perfect, I'd have married him first! 

Seriously, though ... in all fairness, because I didn't have children, I didn't feel obliged to stick around after a relationship had run its course. In the one marriage where I helped to raise a stepdaughter, I made the decision to stay until she was grown. My first divorce was a little rough because he was drinker and didn't take kindly to being dumped, but the other two were friendly. And my ex's all went on to marry other women with whom they are/were happy. So I really don't see how I contributed to the decline of Western civilization. :shrug:



> Bingo. Now that they have included gay marriages, they have pulled their finger out of the dike,


Interesting mental image there, seeing as we're talking about gays and lesbians!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Interesting mental image there, seeing as we're talking about gays and lesbians!


Freudian slip? (and a typo)?


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"**** are not a recent outcrop of the human race, neither are Pedophiles and people that want to have fun with animals."

And neither are people who want to try to run other people's lives. Iran is full of them, as are most theocracies. I prefer to live in a democracy, where I get to run my own life(for the most part), and the people who want to run everybody else's life are mostly kept in check.:rock:


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Freudian slip? (and a typo)?


Yikes no....

Showing my age in my 'expressions'.....
The idea that one has the small hole plugged and when even the smallest hole is exposed, eventually the force of the water on the other side will bring the protective wall down and destroy everything in it's path.....

Yikes. I did not mean to imply anything. 
30 years ago, this expression would not raise one eyebrow :shocked:

The typo is what it is....again, unintentional. I try to spell correctly, but sometimes, typo's happen!!


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

Jolly said:


> .......I think it makes for stronger family units and I think strong family units make for a better society. And that brings us to a lot of the stuff going on in this thread...for the good of the society, we don't need polygamy. We don't need gay marriage. We don't need out of wedlock babies.
> 
> We need strong committed couples, men and women who show pluck and perseverence when times get a little tough. We need people who worry less about self and self-gratification and who take responsibility seriously. People with honor, pride and the ability to sacrifice for a better tomorrow.
> 
> ...


So under such a scheme who is to define what is "strength" then? Government? Church as government? Government as church?

Under such a scheme are marriages to be totally arranged because one selected person seems "strong" enough to family members? What if the family picks the wrong person, based on the appearance of "strength" when the person is actually an abuser?

And what is the dividing line between social "strength" and being an abusive spouse in the name of "strength"? One person's "strength" may be another person's abuse.

The "good ol days" weren't all that good. A lot of women and familes had to suffer under the physical beatings of their husbands/fathers back then, and suffer in silence, because the illusion of "strength" had to be maintained at all costs.

Just food for thought. "Strength" is an illusion.

As far as anything else is concerned, just make it through one day at a time, that's strength enough, and live and let live. Harm no one and encourage peace.


----------



## ceresone (Oct 7, 2005)

I fully support Vern in ill, and Jolly.
Theres still hope for the Nation!


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Jolly said:


> We need strong committed couples, men and women who show pluck and perseverence when times get a little tough. We need people who worry less about self and self-gratification and who take responsibility seriously. People with honor, pride and the ability to sacrifice for a better tomorrow.


What we need is a country where all of the people living there are equals. If one person is allowed to do something all others should have that same right.
It doesn't matter if you are gay, straight, or bi. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, brown, or yellow.

If any person is allowed to marry another consenting adult then that privilege should be extended to all consenting adults. Not everyone has the same desires or taste. I don't expect the rest of the country to only marry who I choose for them and I don't expect them to choose who I marry.

That is the way a free country should be. We all have choices. Some are good and some are bad. I sure don't want anyone else making those choices for me.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

They want "marriage" instead of a "union" , because if the people and the law comply then Gays will be relieved of the guilt.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

pancho said:


> What we need is a country where all of the people living there are equals. If one person is allowed to do something all others should have that same right.
> It doesn't matter if you are gay, straight, or bi. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, brown, or yellow.
> 
> If any person is allowed to marry another consenting adult then that privilege should be extended to all consenting adults. Not everyone has the same desires or taste. I don't expect the rest of the country to only marry who I choose for them and I don't expect them to choose who I marry.
> ...


:bow: :bow: :bow:

Right on!


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

7thswan said:


> They want "marriage" instead of a "union" , because if the people and the law comply then Gays will be relieved of the guilt.


Really what difference does what they call it make? If a man and a woman can get married and call it marriage why shouldn't 2 men or 2 women not be able to do the same thing and call it the same thing?

I know a few gays, they do not feel guilty. I also know a few closet gays. They feel a little guilt. Mostly that is caused by the treatment of those who admit to being gay.

Other animals are gay. I don't know why some people cannot understand that is the way many were born. They don't have a choice. They just want to live their life like other people.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

7thswan said:


> They want "marriage" instead of a "union" , because if the people and the law comply then Gays will be relieved of the guilt.


Why should gays feel guilt for loving someone?:stars:


----------



## jefferson (Nov 11, 2004)

"can't we all just be friends?"


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

georger said:


> So under such a scheme who is to define what is "strength" then? Government? Church as government? Government as church?
> 
> Under such a scheme are marriages to be totally arranged because one selected person seems "strong" enough to family members? What if the family picks the wrong person, based on the appearance of "strength" when the person is actually an abuser?
> 
> ...


Strength is not an illusion, it is a quantifiable statistic, just pick your yardstick. In my example, I used divorce and the dissolution of the nuclear family, but you are welcome to provide a different set of parameters, if you chose.

As for arranged marriages...I've got a whole 'nuther set of opinions on those, some of which will probably shock you...feel free to start a thread about them and I'll chime in...


----------



## QoTL (Jun 5, 2008)

I've been trying to get my husband to get a gf for years.


Would be nice to have someone else here to wash windows and do the laundry. :grin:


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

gideonprime said:


> Why should gays feel guilt for loving someone?:stars:


Not the love, the sex. Is it a sin acording to the Bible?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

7thswan said:


> Not the love, the sex. Is it a sin acording to the Bible?


From what I have heard there is a lot of sins according to the bible. Have you ever sinned?


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

7thswan said:


> Not the love, the sex. Is it a sin acording to the Bible?


We cannot determine policy based on the Christian Bible...


----------



## QoTL (Jun 5, 2008)

Phoebesmum said:


> We cannot determine policy based on the Christian Bible...


I don't think we should, either.

But I think we do.

People forget that our country was founded with LOTS of different faiths. Some fled religious persecution in their own countries.


'In God', 'Under God', etc.. is in much of our society.

I'm not Christian, and I think there should be much more acceptance of other faiths, but our country certainly isn't to that point yet.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Personally? I believe one man, one woman. I can quote the Scriptures..


I can quote a lot more scriptures promoting polygamy


Laura Zone 5 said:


> Seriously, it's America! Get the mormons to raise a stink. .


its been well over 100 years since Mormoms practiced polygamy. Practice it now or even advocate for it and you are excommunicated.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

QoTL said:


> I don't think we should, either.
> 
> But I think we do.
> 
> ...


"In God" and "Under God" does not bother me....although it would be ideal to NOT have that since there are people who are athiest....but since the general term "God" is used rather than "Christian God" "Jesus" etc, I think it is neutral enough.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

mnn2501 said:


> I can quote a lot more scriptures promoting polygamy
> 
> its been well over 100 years since Mormoms practiced polygamy. Practice it now or even advocate for it and you are excommunicated.


It has been well over 100 years since SOME Mormons practice polygamy and since it was encouraged by the official church doctrine, but the Fundamental Latter Day Saints sect of the Mormon church DOES practice polygamy and there are some people in the mainstream Mormon church who also do.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

One thing polygamy does is keep the population in check. Women in polygamous societies have fewer children.

I had a Prof in college who was from Nigeria. His grandparents were members of the native religion. His Grandfather had 10 wives and 23 children. His parents were Catholic and in a monogamous marriage. They had 10 children. Apparently explosive population growth in Nigeria is a serious issue. 

Bear in mind the population depends upon children per woman, not children per family. The polygamous family had 2.3 children per woman whereas the monogamous family had 10 per woman. I know this is anecdotal but he assured us that it was a definite trend.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

tinknal said:


> One thing polygamy does is keep the population in check. Women in polygamous societies have fewer children.
> 
> I had a Prof in college who was from Nigeria. His grandparents were members of the native religion. His Grandfather had 10 wives and 23 children. His parents were Catholic and in a monogamous marriage. They had 10 children. Apparently explosive population growth in Nigeria is a serious issue.
> 
> Bear in mind the population depends upon children per woman, not children per family. The polygamous family had 2.3 children per woman whereas the monogamous family had 10 per woman. I know this is anecdotal but he assured us that it was a definite trend.


Population growth of humans worldwide is a problem....no idea if polygamous families have fewer children or not, but humans are exploding in population to our own deteriment.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

7thswan said:


> Not the love, the sex. Is it a sin acording to the Bible?


eating lobster or clams is a sin by the Bible.
Shaving your beard is a sin by the Bible
Women talking in Church is a sin by the Bible
Stoning adulterers is not only not a sin its required by the Bible

Do we really want to go down this road?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Phoebesmum said:


> It has been well over 100 years since SOME Mormons practice polygamy and since it was encouraged by the official church doctrine, but the Fundamental Latter Day Saints sect of the Mormon church DOES practice polygamy and there are some people in the mainstream Mormon church who also do.


Fundamentalists (FLDS) are not members of the "Mormon Church", they are however a schism group of Latter Day Saints that has had nothing to do with the main Church since they broke off.
*NO *member of the mainstream LDS ("Mormon") Church is a polygamist today - *it will get you excommuncated immediatly*.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Phoebesmum said:


> It has been well over 100 years since SOME Mormons practice polygamy and since it was encouraged by the official church doctrine, but the Fundamental Latter Day Saints sect of the Mormon church DOES practice polygamy and *there are some people in the mainstream Mormon church who also do.*


Please, present your evidence of this. (No, not your supposition, your EVIDENCE.) There is much in the line of hard evidence, even outright proof of members who desire to engage in this lifestyle who are immediately and summarily excommunicated. I think it's fair to say that no one in the mainstream Mormon church actively practices polygamy. Makes for a nice tidbit of rumor though...


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

mnn2501 said:


> eating lobster or clams is a sin by the Bible.
> Shaving your beard is a sin by the Bible
> Women talking in Church is a sin by the Bible
> Stoning adulterers is not only not a sin its required by the Bible
> ...


I'd like some chapter and verse from the New Testament where these "sins" are enumerated.
Please.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Gercarson said:


> I'd like some chapter and verse from the New Testament where these "sins" are enumerated.
> Please.


Oh so Christians can blow off the old testament when it suits them?

Which part of "the word" actually matters then?


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

pancho said:


> From what I have heard there is a lot of sins according to the bible. Have you ever sinned?


That is what repentance is for. We are born to sin. Not everyone will repent, and you repent by ceasing from sin, acknowledge it as such by confessing, and do no more.


Marriage is none of the Governments business. It's a business of religion and society. The problem all started by issuing Licenses, then the government got the power to deny or grant based on _their_ terms.

So abolish Marriage licensing by the state, leave it up to not-for-profit organizations to issue licenses.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

gideonprime said:


> Oh so Christians can blow off the old testament when it suits them?
> 
> Which part of "the word" actually matters then?


No, but any OT law that is overturned in the NT can be ignored.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

VERN in IL said:


> That is what repentance is for. We are born to sin. Not everyone will repent, and you repent by ceasing from sin, acknowledge it as such, and do no more.


So no matter what you do it is OK if you say you are sorry after the deed is done? Sounds like a good. Think the cops will think the same way next time they stop me?

Why would gays bother you then. They can always say they are sorry.

Hey, you still haven't answered my question . Now I really am curious. 
Are you wanting to marry two or more women, and animal, or an underage kid? You sure are arguing for them to be able to marry. Which one is it?


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

VERN in IL said:


> That is what repentance is for. We are born to sin. Not everyone will repent, and you repent by ceasing from sin, acknowledge it as such by confessing, and do no more.
> 
> 
> Marriage is none of the Governments business. It's a business of religion and society. The problem all started by issuing Licenses, then the government got the power to deny or grant based on _their_ terms.
> ...


Right then even married people will need to get a civil union card to receive the legal benefits of marriage. You know little thiing like inherritance rights, right to pension or ss benefits, taxes, etc.

Not a bad idea I suppose but more trouble than just allowing gays to be "married" in the eyes of the law.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

tinknal said:


> No, but any OT law that is overturned in the NT can be ignored.


How convenient. :stars:


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

gideonprime said:


> How convenient. :stars:


Maybe you ought to actually read it.......


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

tinknal said:


> Maybe you ought to actually read it.......


Have read it. Found it full of holes and illogical. Discarded it as superstition.:cowboy:

YMMV.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

gideonprime said:


> Have read it.
> YMMV.


Then you weren't paying attention. If you were you would have been able to answer your own question.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Well said Tink. Simple and to the point.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

gideonprime said:


> Have read it. Found it full of holes and illogical. Discarded it as superstition.:cowboy:
> 
> YMMV.


Maybe you should re-read Luke.

20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Ross said:


> Well said Tink. Simple and to the point.


That's me, simple and pointed......


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

tinknal said:


> Then you weren't paying attention. If you were you would have been able to answer your own question.


But in the begining there was the word with god and it was his word so t. . .what your infallible god what screwed up with the first list of rules and changed his mind later?

If he was all knowing why not get it right the first time.:smiley-laughing013:

See full of holes.:hammer:


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

tinknal said:


> Maybe you should re-read Luke.
> 
> 20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
> 
> ...


:yawn:

:umno:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

gideonprime said:


> But in the begining there was the word with god and it was his word so t. . .what your infallible god what screwed up with the first list of rules and changed his mind later?
> 
> If he was all knowing why not get it right the first time.:smiley-laughing013:
> 
> See full of holes.:hammer:


What do you believe in?


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2010)

gideonprime said:


> How convenient. :stars:


The same way that laws are often overturned, such as the 21st amendment overturned the 18th amendment. Of course, nobody thought to be as flippant and cavalier about it then.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

gideonprime said:


> Oh so Christians can blow off the old testament when it suits them?
> 
> Which part of "the word" actually matters then?


You gonna point out those chapters and verses or are you going down this rabbit trail again and again and again?


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

gideonprime said:


> But in the begining there was the word with god and it was his word so t. . .what your infallible god what screwed up with the first list of rules and changed his mind later?
> 
> If he was all knowing why not get it right the first time.:smiley-laughing013:
> 
> See full of holes.:hammer:


He didn't change the laws. They still apply to Jews. The change was just a simple clarification for Jews who became Christians. 

BTW, I'm done playing this game with you. You are not interested in a discussion on beliefs, you just want to trash my beliefs.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Alrighty---here I go **cracking knuckles to prepare to type**

First, I was in a lesbian relationship for six years and VERY active in the GLBT community within the city that I lived.

Second, NEVER did I meet a gay or lesbian couple who wanted marriage so that they could be relieved of the "guilt" from having gay or lesbian sex.

Third, the most common reason that they wanted "marriage" as opposed to "civil union" was simply so that there would be no difference in how the law defined and viewed their relationship. They felt (as do I) that calling it something different marginalized or made their relationship viewed differently and/or as less within society.

Fourth, the second most common reason they wanted a legal marriage OR union was because they wanted to have legal rights/acknowledgement/protection of their relationship in terms of things like life and health insurance, wills, and more and more child custody issues.

Fifth, I met MANY gay and lesbians couples who had been together for ten, twenty, thirty, forty and one lesbian couple I met were both in their early eighties and have been together since they were 19--they had been together more than SIXTY years and yet they knew if one of them passed away before the other, her extended family would do EVERYTHING in their power to evict the other from their home and prevent her from getting life insurance...they had a TON of legal documents drawn up to ward off as much as possible but lawyers had warned them that the family could tie up the money and estate for at least a year with very simple interference from the family to YEARS with more extreme legal interference from the family....if ANY of you can tell me WHY two women who loved each other for SIXTY years should not be able to easily and legally leave EVERYTHING to the other without the biological family being able to interfere, PLEASE tell me why. And yet this is NOT an uncommon thing to happen.

Sixth, gay marriage does NOT lead to degradation of straight marriage....straight marriage is doing that to itself QUITE well. Gay marriage is not a threat to children because it will somehow allow gays and lesbians to adopt children easier....even in my state where there is a state law that states no gay marriage or civil union from another state will be recognized here, it is becoming very easy for gays and lesbians to adopt children and studies show that on the whole, the kids are as well-adjusted as those with straight parents! Shocker, I know.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

tinknal said:


> He didn't change the laws. They still apply to Jews. The change was just a simple clarification for Jews who became Christians.
> 
> BTW, I'm done playing this game with you. You are not interested in a discussion on beliefs, you just want to trash my beliefs.


I am not trashing your beliefs. Believe as you wish. 

Just stop telling me that I read it wrong or did not pay attention because I did not come to the same conclusions are did.

Your statements seem clear that you believe that only your way is the righy way, while I am far more tollerant than that and think there are many paths to truth.

Oh and I see what you mean about the change for christians. That makes sense and thanks for the answer.

:cowboy:


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Gercarson said:


> You gonna point out those chapters and verses or are you going down this rabbit trail again and again and again?


Uh I din't make the list of sins. Ask that poster for your chapers and verse.

I was wondering why Christians get to blow off the OT.

Tinknal actaully answered that. But hey thanks for playing.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

gideonprime said:


> I am not trashing your beliefs. Believe as you wish.
> 
> Just stop telling me that I read it wrong or did not pay attention because I did not come to the same conclusions are did.
> 
> Your statements seem clear that you believe that only your way is the righy way, while I am far more tollerant than that and think there are many paths to truth.


Where have I said that my way is the only right way? Where have I ever trashed anyone else's beliefs?


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

tinknal said:


> Where have I said that my way is the only right way? Where have I ever trashed anyone else's beliefs?


Point made you did not actually say your's was the only right way. I apologize for that mistake.:kiss:

You did however tell me I wasn't paying attention to the Bible and suggested I re-read.

Thanks but No thanks. As I said have read it and discarded it. Though of course YMMV.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> What do you believe in?


I believe in lots of things . . . Mostly I believe that we should try to co-exist and put our differences behind us so that we can move forward as a species.

I believe we should try to reach for the stars and spread across the galaxy.

I believe we should help our fellow man if we can.

I believe religion is the cause of more problems than not.

I believe Coke is better than Pepsi.

I believe in the infield fly rule.

I believe it's too hot this summer.

I believe that I don't always live up to my expectations of us all but I try to.

I believe that cheating on a spouse or lover is the cowardly.

I believe that sometimes dangerous people need to be treated as such and put down without hesitation.

That said I believe that lumping an entire group togather because of the actions of a few fringey and dangerous people is wrong.

I believe in freedom.

I believe in duty.

I believe in taking care of family.

I believe internet porn is awesome.

The list goes on but I'll stop now.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

gideonprime said:


> I believe in lots of things . . . Mostly I believe that we should try to co-exist and put our differences behind us so that we can move forward as a species.
> 
> *Truly nobel. It will never happen though!*
> 
> ...


*That was cute AND interesting! *


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

gideonprime said:


> I believe in lots of things . . . Mostly I believe that we should try to co-exist and put our differences behind us so that we can move forward as a species.
> 
> I believe we should try to reach for the stars and spread across the galaxy.
> 
> ...


I'll finish it for you.
I believe the "ludes" have kicked in.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

tinknal said:


> No, but any OT law that is overturned in the NT can be ignored.


Where exactly in the NT are any OT laws overturned? Because this is what I have read in the NT



> Matthew 5:17-19
> 
> The Fulfillment of the Law
> 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I believe I don't remember what this thread is about.

Oh yes, I remember. There was some man wanting to marry a couple of women, an animal or a kid.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Shygal said:


> Where exactly in the NT are any OT laws overturned? Because this is what I have read in the NT


Jesus sometimes speaks to the people in terms of the entire law still being valid, but in the Gospel of Matthew he gradually reveals that he is in the process of reinterpreting the Old Testament and raising the peopleâs vision to his own words and commands. Such are the last words he speaks before he goes up into heaven (Matt. 28:16-20). Jesus is causing a transition from the Old Covenant to the New.
"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven".
The "Commandments" are the ones Moses were given on Mt. Sinai.


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

VERN in IL said:


> That is what repentance is for. We are born to sin.
> .


Could you give examples in the OTwhere it states this? Or is it a NT subscription?


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

Phoebesmum said:


> Alrighty---here I go **cracking knuckles to prepare to type**
> 
> First, I was in a lesbian relationship for six years and VERY active in the GLBT community within the city that I lived.
> 
> ...


:bow: very well put!


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

tinknal said:


> No, but any OT law that is overturned in the NT can be ignored.


So why bundle the OT & NT together ?Why not sell them seperate?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Phoebesmum said:


> Alrighty---here I go **cracking knuckles to prepare to type**
> 
> First, I was in a lesbian relationship for six years and VERY active in the GLBT community within the city that I lived.
> 
> ...


What type of relationship are you in now?


----------



## FyredUp (May 22, 2010)

MrCalicoty said:


> After what I have endured since joining HT a mere 5 weeks ago I think that my replies are right in line with what the moderators allow. Yes, I am quite new but am a fast learner...


Fast learner? Not a chance. When you have nothing of relevance you post pot stirring attacks that are less than meaningless.

Perhaps if you spent more time listening, and trying to learn and share, instead of trying to seem oh so cool you would have a better time here.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

gideonprime said:


> Uh I din't make the list of sins. Ask that poster for your chapers and verse.
> 
> I was wondering why Christians get to blow off the OT.
> 
> Tinknal actaully answered that. But hey thanks for playing.


Oh, I see - hippity hop.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Gercarson said:


> Oh, I see - hippity hop.


uhh ok if that makes you feel better.:indif:


----------



## charisma (Nov 13, 2007)

Just my .02 cents... obviously ymmv but, as for "marriage":

I honestly have an issue with "marriage" being under the purview of the state in general. The term "marriage" is one that has religious connotations. In my (not so humble, I suppose) opinion, the state should only be involved in granting "unions"--- whether the couple is gay, straight, whatever. Such "unions" would convey full legal/civil rights upon the partnership presented to the state. If someone wanted to get "married" they would be free to approach whatever church of their choosing (or mosque or synagogue, or whatever) and request a separate religious ceremony.

The idea behind this is that, I can think of a myriad of reasons people might want to join into a union with each other-- two elderly women who are companions (not necessarily in a relationship, just friendship) might feel strongly enough that they would like to extend such benefits to each other... etc. 

I see no issue with converting the entire mess into the concept of a "union"-- it would, I think, relieve some of tensions between the secular and religious elements in our society. People should be able to join together with whomever they wish (consenting adults only, so please, don't use the ad hominem argument about bestiality or pedophilia) 

As far as I'm concerned the government needs to get out of the "marriage business" and focus only on providing the sort of legal partnerships necessary for people to be able to live together and extend whatever benefits to whomever they wish.

But again, that's just my opinion, and I'm sure I'll get flamed-- from those who believe in the "sacredness" of marriage & those who feel that I'm somehow attempting to demean the GLBT population.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Shygal said:


> Where exactly in the NT are any OT laws overturned? Because this is what I have read in the NT


" 9On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."

Acts, ch 10


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

charisma said:


> Just my .02 cents... obviously ymmv but, as for "marriage":
> 
> I honestly have an issue with "marriage" being under the purview of the state in general. The term "marriage" is one that has religious connotations. In my (not so humble, I suppose) opinion, the state should only be involved in granting "unions"--- whether the couple is gay, straight, whatever. Such "unions" would convey full legal/civil rights upon the partnership presented to the state. If someone wanted to get "married" they would be free to approach whatever church of their choosing (or mosque or synagogue, or whatever) and request a separate religious ceremony.
> 
> ...


Very well put! 

I've long been a proponent of the civil union, or domestic partnership, for any two people. Mom and daughter (many insurance companies don't allow putting parents on the policy, even the military only allows them to be a partial dependent, meaning only surplus medical and dental if such a thing exists for parents that live with military), dad and son, sisters, brothers, best friends, elderly friends, etc. Having it as a recognized union means that both people are protected from the archaic laws that tend to govern what happens when a person is incapacitated or dies. 

I mean, how many elderly women would NOT have gone into the old folks home if she could legally team up with her best friend and help each other in one house yet be protected from having that house taken by others when her elderly friend dies if the house or car or whatever else is in her name.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

I mean, how many elderly women would NOT have gone into the old folks home if she could legally team up with her best friend and help each other in one house yet be protected from having that house taken by others when her elderly friend dies if the house or car or whatever else is in her name

Anyone with an IQ above their shoe size if they wanted to ahead of dying could fix this with out marriage :shrug: Fact is most don't think they are going and hang on to things one day to long .

On many things joint ownership ,trust, will,or a POA . Don't wait till you on your last leg to take care of business or at the funeral home .:bow:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I see no issue with converting the entire mess into the concept of a "union"-- it would, I think, relieve some of tensions between the secular and religious elements in our society.


Nope -- straight people would screech that the gays were taking away their right to marriage! :shrug:


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

gideonprime said:


> uhh ok if that makes you feel better.:indif:


Sheer genius - wow! Now, that'll make you feel better.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Nope -- straight people would screech that the gays were taking away their right to marriage! :shrug:


Willow, they have "unions" in Calif. ,the Gays were not happy with that, they want "marriage" also. This is why I say that they are not happy with that, they Have to get accepted into marriage-Why? Is it to make a point of saying that they are no diffrent than a hetro marriage. They are not happy with Unions for a reason.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

7thswan said:


> Willow, they have "unions" in Calif. ,the Gays were not happy with that, they want "marriage" also. This is why I say that they are not happy with that, they Have to get accepted into marriage-Why? Is it to make a point of saying that they are no diffrent than a hetro marriage. They are not happy with Unions for a reason.


The reason many gays and lesbians feel strongly about being "married" versus having a "civil union" is simply so that there can be no difference in the eyes of the laws. I think pretty much all gays and lesbians would be fine with only having civil unions in terms of legal association IF that was the only legal option for straight people too...taking "marriage" out of the government hands seems like a great option--make civil unions the norm for gays and straights alike!


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

HOTW said:


> :bow: very well put!


Thank you...interesting how none of the "gay is a sin" folks wanted to tackle my common sense approach to it...


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Jolly said:


> What type of relationship are you in now?


Not that it matters, but I am not currently in any relationship. I consider myself bisexual and am opening to dating the right person from either gender.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Since it's about all things being equal, I wouldn't object too strenuously to gay marriage provided the churches were allowed, by law, to opt out of marrying gays if they chose. Just as some pharmacists are prosecuted for refusing to dispense certain medications based on their own moral/religious standings, many people fear the same type of treatment for our churches should gay marriage become equal across the board. Sure, I've heard the argument that churches can currently decide whom to marry and who they will not, however, as far as my research goes, no church has refused an entire group of people, whether based on gender, race, or sexual orientation. I do believe this would be a first and if there is no precedent, than anything can happen I fear, especially with a liberal SCOTUS.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

thequeensblessing said:


> Since it's about all things being equal, I wouldn't object too strenuously to gay marriage provided the churches were allowed, by law, to opt out of marrying gays if they chose. Just as some pharmacists are prosecuted for refusing to dispense certain medications based on their own moral/religious standings, many people fear the same type of treatment for our churches should gay marriage become equal across the board. Sure, I've heard the argument that churches can currently decide whom to marry and who they will not, however, as far as my research goes, no church has refused an entire group of people, whether based on gender, race, or sexual orientation. I do believe this would be a first and if there is no precedent, than anything can happen I fear, especially with a liberal SCOTUS.


UHHHH....LOL...there are MANY religious groups that discriminate against gays and you will not see gays lining up outside BEGGING to be let in...


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Phoebesmum said:


> Thank you...interesting how none of the "gay is a sin" folks wanted to tackle my common sense approach to it...


Tackle ... ? ? ?
You may attempt to use as much "common sense" as you would like to try to justify "gay" as normal and as in California pass laws to gain dignity and remove any stigma that is attached to this aberration of sexual orientation ... but ...
No one cares how you live your life - but you will never change the laws of nature and the moral laws of any religion - unless you start your own. Of course, I will stand corrected if you can show me a religion that does condone homosexuality. I know that they all tolerate it as a human condition, but it is always accepted as a perversion of that human condition.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Gercarson said:


> Tackle ... ? ? ?
> You may attempt to use as much "common sense" as you would like to try to justify "gay" as normal and as in California pass laws to gain dignity and remove any stigma that is attached to this aberration of sexual orientation ... but ...
> No one cares how you live your life - but you will never change the laws of nature and the moral laws of any religion - unless you start your own. Of course, I will stand corrected if you can show me a religion that does condone homosexuality. I know that they all tolerate it as a human condition, but it is always accepted as a perversion of that human condition.


Change the laws of nature??? LOL Nope--nature shows us PLENTY of examples of homosexual behavior:

- Bonnet Macaques
- Uganda Kob
- Spotted hyenas
- Grey whales
- Dragonflies
- Bonobo Chimpanzees (entire species is considered bisexual)
- Lions
- Dolphins
- Killer whales
- Black-headed gulls

I could go on and on and on--over 1,500 animal species have individuals that practice homosexuality.

In regards to religions that "condone" homosexuality rather than view it is a "perversion"

- Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism in the U.S.
- Episcopal Church
- United Church of Christ

I am not looking to change ANY laws of religion...and I shouldn't have to care about the laws of religion because we are SUPPOSE to have separation of church and state in this country...

If YOU can tell me ONE logical, well-founded reason why marriage between two people of the same sex should NOT be legal, I will be shocked.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Phoebesmum said:


> Not that it matters, but I am not currently in any relationship. I consider myself bisexual and am opening to dating the right person from either gender.


Yes, there was a reason I asked.

In order to be an aggrieved class of citizen, one pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, you need to be part of an aggrieved class. Black or white, male or female, whatever.

The problem with the homosexual or bisexual community is that it is impossible to define the aggrieved class. Sexuality is somehow murkily defined as whatever the person in question says it is, at that moment.

Therefore, it is an incongruent class which seeks redress under the law.

IOW, you can't fix what you can't define.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Phoebesmum said:


> UHHHH....LOL...there are MANY religious groups that discriminate against gays and you will not see gays lining up outside BEGGING to be let in...


My point exactly. Religious organizations currently have the right to decide for themselves who they want to court as members. However, I don't think many churches disallow gays to sit in the pews anymore than those same churches will disallow Mormons to sit in the pews. I attend other churches with friends from time to time, and I don't wear a sign that states that I'm Mormon, so most folks don't even know. Would they show me the door if they knew? Perhaps they would, but that's their right, isn't it? I don't go in and demand equal treatment from the members or pastor. Yet that's my fear with legally protected gay marriage. I simply want churches exempted from anything that even remotely resembles a mandate or the fear of legal action for choosing NOT to marry gays.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

thequeensblessing said:


> My point exactly. Religious organizations currently have the right to decide for themselves who they want to court as members. However, I don't think many churches disallow gays to sit in the pews anymore than those same churches will disallow Mormons to sit in the pews. I attend other churches with friends from time to time, and I don't wear a sign that states that I'm Mormon, so most folks don't even know. Would they show me the door if they knew? Perhaps they would, but that's their right, isn't it? I don't go in and demand equal treatment from the members or pastor. Yet that's my fear with legally protected gay marriage. I simply want churches exempted from anything that even remotely resembles a mandate or the fear of legal action for choosing NOT to marry gays.


I agree---I think churches need to be able to NOT have to perform gay marriages if that is against their doctrine.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Jolly said:


> Yes, there was a reason I asked.
> 
> In order to be an aggrieved class of citizen, one pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, you need to be part of an aggrieved class. Black or white, male or female, whatever.
> 
> ...


Well, if you have two women or two men who are in a relationship then during their relationship they should receive legal right just as a straight marriage could...AND just like a single straight person can't claim any rights related to marriage, a single gay/lesbian/bisexual person could not either...and it is not impossible to define the class...it is people who are gay/lesbian/bisexual...simple enough to me...just because a portion of that group at times are in a straight relationship does not mean they are not part of the group...TRUST me, there is a LOT of discrimination that bisexuals face from both the gay/lesbian and straight communities....


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Gercarson said:


> Tackle ... ? ? ?
> You may attempt to use as much "common sense" as you would like to try to justify "gay" as normal and as in California pass laws to gain dignity and remove any stigma that is attached to this aberration of sexual orientation ... but ...
> No one cares how you live your life - but you will never change the laws of nature and the moral laws of any religion - unless you start your own. Of course, I will stand corrected if you can show me a religion that does condone homosexuality. I know that they all tolerate it as a human condition, but it is always accepted as a perversion of that human condition.


:yawn:

Attack attack attack, justify hatred. My how utterly expected and broken record of you.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Phoebesmum said:


> If YOU can tell me ONE logical, well-founded reason why marriage between two people of the same sex should NOT be legal, I will be shocked.


Perhaps a "logical" response would bring about a diatribe on a homosexual pairing of - Killer whales - Black-headed gulls in a twisted attempt to legitimatize sexual aberrations.
I am not shocked that the drum beat goes on and on and on in this bizarre quest to make abnormal, normal - still the pulsating does not work nor can it ever - even when it does become "legal" to be perverse.
I am an Episcopalian - I am aware of the "acceptance" of the human condition of homosexuality but am totally unaware of the condoning of that crippling condition. We also accept alcoholics and drug abusers as conditions that need a place that loves them and that they are, like homosexuals, children of God - but we do not condone the conditions.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

gideonprime said:


> :yawn:
> 
> Attack attack attack, justify hatred. My how utterly expected and broken record of you.


Attack ... ? Where did you find "hatred" in my comments on the disfunctional condition of homosexual activities. Are you using this as an example of use of the new liberal/socialist buzz word "hatred/hate"? Good doggie.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Gercarson said:


> Attack ... ? Where did you find "hatred" in my comments on the disfunctional condition of homosexual activities. Are you using this as an example of use of the new liberal/socialist buzz word "hatred/hate"? Good doggie.


:hysterical:

skin a bit thin today?

ound:


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Gercarson said:


> Perhaps a "logical" response would bring about a diatribe on a homosexual pairing of - Killer whales - Black-headed gulls in a twisted attempt to legitimatize sexual aberrations.
> I am not shocked that the drum beat goes on and on and on in this bizarre quest to make abnormal, normal - still the pulsating does not work nor can it ever - even when it does become "legal" to be perverse.
> I am an Episcopalian - I am aware of the "acceptance" of the human condition of homosexuality but am totally unaware of the condoning of that crippling condition. We also accept alcoholics and drug abusers as conditions that need a place that loves them and that they are, like homosexuals, children of God - but we do not condone the conditions.


OH REALLY--Well, I know MANY Episcopals--work with one who worked at the church for years---and personally know two Episcopal priests who not only embrace the gay community but also perform gay marriage ceremonies...not sure how much more "condoning" you can get!

And, as far as, being gay or lesbian being "perverse"--THAT is a personal opinion and should have no bearing on legislation.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Gercarson said:


> Attack ... ? Where did you find "hatred" in my comments on the disfunctional condition of homosexual activities. Are you using this as an example of use of the new liberal/socialist buzz word "hatred/hate"? Good doggie.


Well, I think referring to people as "perverse" is pretty hateful.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Phoebesmum said:


> Well, I think referring to people as "perverse" is pretty hateful.


Thanks PM! I thought it was pretty self evident myself but when one holds hate close to their heart one can become blind to it.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

gideonprime said:


> Thanks PM! I thought it was pretty self evident myself but when one holds hate close to their heart one can become blind to it.


They just validate it as "speaking the truth" about being gay...not realizing that those SAME excuses were made to prevent blacks from marrying whites and to legitamize slavery.....


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Phoebesmum said:


> Well, I think referring to people as "perverse" is pretty hateful.


Did I say "people"? Sorry, I thought I was talking about a human condition known as "homosexuality". But, I will add that equating homosexuality to interracial marriage and slavery IS absolutely perverse.

Resolved: "That the 70th General Convention of the Episcopal Church affirms that the teaching of the Episcopal Church is that physical sexual expression is appropriate only within the lifelong monogamous "union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind" "intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity and, when it is God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord" as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer; (1979 BCP, pg. 423, Marriage service)

However, this ecclesiastical condemnation of homosexuality notwithstanding, these churches are quick to add that people who consider themselves to be homosexuals should be cared for with the compassion of followers of a loving God.

I'm sure there are many "priests" who will perform marriages between men and men and women and women and men and boys and the list could go on. Does not mean it is acceptable to Christians - I think that may be the sticking point though, that it is a Christian tenet and Christians are the current target of "hate" right now - hopefully it's because we are honest in our beliefs and making "gay" marriage legal will not change that.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Gercarson said:


> Of course, I will stand corrected if you can show me a religion that does condone homosexuality. I know that they all tolerate it as a human condition, but it is always accepted as a perversion of that human condition.


 I think you stand corrected

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/3374/gays-and-religion-where-some-major-denominatitions-stand


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

tinknal said:


> He didn't change the laws. They still apply to Jews. The change was just a simple clarification for Jews who became Christians.
> 
> BTW, I'm done playing this game with you. You are not interested in a discussion on beliefs, you just want to trash my beliefs.



I am so glad that you have come to this conclusion...


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Aintlifegrand said:


> I am so glad that you have come to this conclusion...


Now ALG you know I have no problem with Christians as ling as they do not try to shove their religion down my throat. Or act as if everyone needs to believe what they believe.:shrug:

Why are you against open discourse and exchange of Ideas?


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

gideonprime said:


> Now ALG you know I have no problem with Christians as ling as they do not try to shove their religion down my throat. Or act as if everyone needs to believe what they believe.:shrug:
> 
> Why are you against open discourse and exchange of Ideas?


One thing I find on here is that people don't really want open discourse and exchange of ideas. They want to present their ideas as the truth/reality/right and not be questioned on it....questioning leads to them having to think about their position. I LOVE talking about things that are more "controversial"---not at ALL because I want people to begin thinking like me, but because I find it positively fascinating to hear people describe their thoughts and rationalize them, including my own rationalizations!! LOL


----------



## Zephaniah (Mar 16, 2010)

gideonprime said:


> I think you will need to expand upon that answer, if you would be so kind, because that one word makes no sense to me as an explaination for monogamy.


Makes sense to me. You dont have genitalia in the front and the back to "do" two at the same time.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Phoebesmum said:


> One thing I find on here is that people don't really want open discourse and exchange of ideas. They want to present their ideas as the truth/reality/right and not be questioned on it....questioning leads to them having to think about their position. I LOVE talking about things that are more "controversial"---not at ALL because I want people to begin thinking like me, but because I find it positively fascinating to hear people describe their thoughts and rationalize them, including my own rationalizations!! LOL


You have that right. You will find many on here that think their way is the only way. They seem bent on changing everybody else to thier way of thinking. They never take time to consider there may be several different answers to a question and several different ways of life.
Then even if you agree with them you will still be wrong.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Zephaniah said:


> Makes sense to me. You dont have genitalia in the front and the back to "do" two at the same time.



Keep reading, it resolves itself in a couple of posts.

My "Parts" is none of your business.:grin:


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Phoebesmum said:


> The reason many gays and lesbians feel strongly about being "married" versus having a "civil union" is simply so that there can be no difference in the eyes of the laws. I think pretty much all gays and lesbians would be fine with only having civil unions in terms of legal association IF that was the only legal option for straight people too...taking "marriage" out of the government hands seems like a great option--make civil unions the norm for gays and straights alike!


Our Laws were based on Christian ideals/beliefs. It's not hateful to have Gays and Hetros be different. Where's the "Diversity"? This is why I said in my last statement, about the guilt. Gays don't want to have anyone/law imply that they are doing something wrong. In my understand , sex with one of ones own kind is considered a sin. Not for me to judge in anyway, and I don't care to. For me I simply interpret it, that Gays are simply to live without sex. Lots of people are born not being able to have/do like other people. A cross to bare, so to speak. We are all tempted by sin in different ways. Not to be "hateful" in any way.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

7thswan said:


> Our Laws were based on Christian ideals/beliefs. It's not hateful to have Gays and Hetros be different. Where's the "Diversity"? This is why I said in my last statement, about the guilt. Gays don't want to have anyone/law imply that they are doing something wrong. In my understand , sex with one of ones own kind is considered a sin. Not for me to judge in anyway, and I don't care to. For me I simply interpret it, that Gays are simply to live without sex. Lots of people are born not being able to have/do like other people. A cross to bare, so to speak. We are all tempted by sin in different ways. Not to be "hateful" in any way.


It is NOT hateful to say that gays/lesbians and heteosexuals are different...you are ABSOLUTELY correct. Gays and lesbians ARE different from straights in terms of their sexual attraction. And we are not asking for a law to say we are not doing something wrong...we are asking for equal protection under the law. Whether being gay/having gay sex is moral/immoral is NOT the question--those are personal opinions/judgement calls, we just want equal protection. People in this country battle over the morality/immorality of abortion, but the law has said the question of morality is not part of the battle...the question of a woman being able to make a healthcare decision is..I am not asking you or anyone to say that gay/lesbian sex is moral---I am saying that regardless of what your morals are, it does not affect you in any way for two people who are in love to commit their lives to each other and be granted equal protection under the law irregardless of the gender of the two people. Period.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

gideonprime said:


> Now ALG you know I have no problem with Christians as ling as they do not try to shove their religion down my throat. Or act as if everyone needs to believe what they believe.:shrug:
> 
> Why are you against open discourse and exchange of Ideas?



While I would dearly love to exchange ideas and help you to realize that you have been wrong as it pertains to Christians and God... it has become apparent over the course of the last few years that you will not change nor do you wish this help..So I am glad he came to that conclusion because time is short and he is needed elsewhere in this quest.. there are others with whom he _can_ make a difference..


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Aintlifegrand said:


> While I would dearly love to exchange ideas and help you to realize that you have been wrong as it pertains to Christians and God... it has become apparent over the course of the last few years that you will not change nor do you wish this help..So I am glad he came to that conclusion because time is short and he is needed elsewhere in this quest.. there are others with whom he _can_ make a difference..


Riiiiight!:thumb:


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

gideonprime said:


> Oh so Christians can blow off the old testament when it suits them?
> 
> Which part of "the word" actually matters then?


Only the parts they like. It doesn't matter that Jesus Himself said that the law would not go away until Heaven and Earth pass away, they use mental gymnastics to nullify the parts they don't want to obey.


----------



## casusbelli (Jan 6, 2009)

Just discovered this thread today.
Haven't read pages 3 to 8, just 1,2 & 9. So excuse me if some of this has been covered.
Back to the OP's question, ignoring all the sexual orientation stuff:

The Decalogue did not forbid polygamy. Adultery always meant this: sleeping with another man's wife. NOT having more than one wife yourself. That's why David's murder of Uriah and taking Bathsheba was adultery, NOT his having more than one wife. The New Testament states that Elders in the church should be the husband of but one wife. Doesn't mention laymen who don't seek to be Elders. Martin Luther essentially admitted that the NT doesn't forbid polygamy either. 
But, we should be more exact: 
Having more than one wife is polygyny. As far as I can tell, this is lawful, Biblically, long as none of them has been married before, or are widowed if they were. 
Having more than one husband is polyandry. This is always unlawful. Taking a stand for this law of God got John the Baptist beheaded.
Yeah, this is a double standard - men and women have different laws. The Law is not egalitarian, and, as they say, the world ain't fair. So what? But...there must be natural reasons, and heavenly, why this is so. Advantages for each side either way. Just different ones. 
s


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Shygal said:


> I think you stand corrected
> 
> http://www.religionnewsblog.com/3374/gays-and-religion-where-some-major-denominatitions-stand


I will stand corrected in that there are some "sects" that have broken away from the core/basis tenents of their religion. I do know that there are "some" openly homosexual churchs that are founded and devoted to them. So, in that case, yes there are some "churches" that cater to the homosexual - Jewish, Christian, Sikh and Muslim cultures have generally perceived homosexual behaviour as sinful. Many Jewish and Christian leaders, however, have gone to great lengths to make clear that it is the homosexual acts and not the homosexual individuals or their "orientation" that is condemned. Hinduism and Buddhism tend to view homosexuality primarily from the standpoint of its karmic effects, with varying conclusions. 
That being typed - Some liberal strands of both mainstream Protestant Christianity and Reform Judaism advocate, on theological as well as social grounds, the full acceptance of homosexuals and their relationships. So, we let the liberals take care of the liberals and stand our ground (hopefully) when liberalism becomes mainstream - tax payer funded baby killing, homosexual marriages, something called NAMBLA, redistribution of wealth, One world government. Now, I'm not saying these things aren't coming or aren't here - but no matter how "legal" they become, they will NEVER be correct or acceptable to anyone but the hedonists who demand them - AND demand that everyone be legally forced to "accept" them.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

NAMBLA? Really your going to equate the relationships of consenting adults to NAMBLA?

:rotfl:

Not even close!

Though I must thank you for the laughs!

ETA - Who here accepts NAMBLA? WHo here has ever been pro-child molester? 

Dude, weak argument.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

casusbelli said:


> Just discovered this thread today.
> Haven't read pages 3 to 8, just 1,2 & 9. So excuse me if some of this has been covered.
> Back to the OP's question, ignoring all the sexual orientation stuff:
> 
> ...


Not at ALL disagreeing with you, just wonder what the advantages would be to women to be married to a man with multiple wives but not be able to marry multiple men. As a side note, there are actually some evolutionary biologists who feel that men are genetically/evolutionarily predisposed to "spread their seed" and woman are genetically/evolutionarily predisposed to be selective of their partners due to length of time/investment of resources required for each pregnancy/child.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

tinknal said:


> " 9On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
> 
> 10And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
> 
> ...


That was a vision to allow him to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, perhaps y'all need to read in context.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Gercarson said:


> I will stand corrected in that there are some "sects" that have broken away from the core/basis tenents of their religion. I do know that there are "some" openly homosexual churchs that are founded and devoted to them. So, in that case, yes there are some "churches" that cater to the homosexual - Jewish, Christian, Sikh and Muslim cultures have generally perceived homosexual behaviour as sinful. Many Jewish and Christian leaders, however, have gone to great lengths to make clear that it is the homosexual acts and not the homosexual individuals or their "orientation" that is condemned. Hinduism and Buddhism tend to view homosexuality primarily from the standpoint of its karmic effects, with varying conclusions.
> That being typed - Some liberal strands of both mainstream Protestant Christianity and Reform Judaism advocate, on theological as well as social grounds, the full acceptance of homosexuals and their relationships. So, we let the liberals take care of the liberals and stand our ground (hopefully) when liberalism becomes mainstream - tax payer funded baby killing, homosexual marriages, something called NAMBLA, redistribution of wealth, One world government. Now, I'm not saying these things aren't coming or aren't here - but no matter how "legal" they become, they will NEVER be correct or acceptable to anyone but the hedonists who demand them - AND demand that everyone be legally forced to "accept" them.


1. I, and anyone else who supports gay marriage rights, don't care if you or anyone else "accepts" homosexuality as moral...you can keep your moral beliefs...no threat of a law ordering you to start believing homosexual sex is grand so don't worry.

2. You criticize ME for comparing the bigotry and discrimination of homosexuality by some religious people to the bigotry and discrimination of inter-racial marriage and slavery and then YOU compare homosexuality to NAMBLA???

Are you freakin' kiddin' me?!?!? Please tell me you are not one of those people who think homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Phoebesmum said:


> UHHHH....LOL...there are MANY religious groups that discriminate against gays and you will not see gays lining up outside BEGGING to be let in...


Actually I disagree with this, they will be lining up trying to get in just so they can sue the Churches for not allowing them to be married in them.

I say, civil unions for everyone and then if they desire a blessing by their Church they may do that afterwards -- similar to England.


----------



## casusbelli (Jan 6, 2009)

"just wonder what the advantages would be to women to be married to a man with multiple wives but not be able to marry multiple men. "

Lesse, just off the top o' me head:
1) If single or widowed, and polygyny were cultural acceptable/condoned, then she could marry the _best_ man she could find (him consenting, of course) regardless of whether "he was taken" already.
2) if m*nstr*ting, third trimester, or postpartum - wouldn't (necessarily) be pestered by testosterone-poisoned husband, alternates being present.
3) built-in baby-sitters, built-in helpers, built-in social network (especially in days before phones and texting), new-found "sisters" for those who never had, etc..


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

casusbelli said:


> "just wonder what the advantages would be to women to be married to a man with multiple wives but not be able to marry multiple men. "
> 
> Lesse, just off the top o' me head:
> 1) If single or widowed, and polygyny were cultural acceptable/condoned, then she could marry the _best_ man she could find (him consenting, of course) regardless of whether "he was taken" already.
> ...


Wow--you came up with several! I am impressed! You have given this considerable thought!

Just one thing though--MANY women who are m*nstr*ating (is that REALLY a word that is not allowed on this board? OMG if so!) and third trimester actually have hormonal surges that INCREASES their desires.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Phoebesmum said:


> It is NOT hateful to say that gays/lesbians and heteosexuals are different...you are ABSOLUTELY correct. Gays and lesbians ARE different from straights in terms of their sexual attraction. And we are not asking for a law to say we are not doing something wrong...we are asking for equal protection under the law. Whether being gay/having gay sex is moral/immoral is NOT the question--those are personal opinions/judgement calls, we just want equal protection. People in this country battle over the morality/immorality of abortion, but the law has said the question of morality is not part of the battle...the question of a woman being able to make a healthcare decision is..I am not asking you or anyone to say that gay/lesbian sex is moral---I am saying that regardless of what your morals are, it does not affect you in any way for two people who are in love to commit their lives to each other and be granted equal protection under the law irregardless of the gender of the two people. Period.


Isnt that exactly what a Union affords them? All the legalities, the same as Marriage.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

7thswan said:


> Isnt that exactly what a Union affords them? All the legalities, the same as Marriage.


Have you AT ALL paid attention to what I have said?!?! I am not denying that a civil union in many cases does provide the same protection as marriage, HOWEVER by calling one marriage and the other civil unions, that is in a legal way creating a division between the two ie a "separate but equal" concept that we have proven with other things to not be equitable. If marriage is a legal term, then gays and lesbians should be able to be legally married. If marriage is a religious term, then legal proceedings for all should be civil unions and keep the marriages in the realm of religion.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

7thswan said:


> Isnt that exactly what a Union affords them? All the legalities, the same as Marriage.


I thought we had decided as a nation that seperate but equal was unacceptable.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Phoebesmum said:


> 1. I, and anyone else who supports gay marriage rights, don't care if you or anyone else "accepts" homosexuality as moral...you can keep your moral beliefs...no threat of a law ordering you to start believing homosexual sex is grand so don't worry.
> 
> 2. You criticize ME for comparing the bigotry and discrimination of homosexuality by some religious people to the bigotry and discrimination of inter-racial marriage and slavery and then YOU compare homosexuality to NAMBLA???
> 
> Are you freakin' kiddin' me?!?!? Please tell me you are not one of those people who think homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters.


Uh - please "google" NAMBLA" to see exactly what they are. I did, but didn't want to read about this homosexual "organization" - so didn't open one of the 167,000 "hits", but did note, that there is an equal opportunity organization out there for women/girls only. Hmmmm - don't know, does that count as "child molesting"?


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

gideonprime said:


> NAMBLA? Really your going to equate the relationships of consenting adults to NAMBLA?
> 
> :rotfl:
> 
> ...


Accckkk - didn't mean to hit one of your hot buttons - had no idea.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

Phoebesmum said:


> . . . . just wonder what the advantages would be to women to be married to a man with multiple wives but not be able to marry multiple men.


Hmmmm, I have to wonder the same thing! A disadvantage for the women is that their "man" would only bring home so much money. Spreading it out among all the wives results in them having less money. (Of course, if all the wives worked, then I guess the husband wouldn't have to eh?)

About the only advantage I see for the women, is they might might not have to pick up his socks, underweear, and clothes off the floor as there are other women in the house. They could take turns keeping house clean for their "man", cooking, etc if we are in a "traditional" marriage. And if they don't "feel in the mood" the "man" can make another selection. 

It's pretty plain to see that a man made all these rules and "laws"! I supoose in this sceario of multiple wives "they should all be barefoot and pregnant too, eh?" Just like they "should" be.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Gercarson said:


> Uh - please "google" NAMBLA" to see exactly what they are. I did, but didn't want to read about this homosexual "organization" - so didn't open one of the 167,000 "hits", but did note, that there is an equal opportunity organization out there for women/girls only. Hmmmm - don't know, does that count as "child molesting"?


Clearly it does and none of us are advocating child molestation.

:viking: keep swinging though. It is entertaining.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Gercarson said:


> Uh - please "google" NAMBLA" to see exactly what they are. I did, but didn't want to read about this homosexual "organization" - so didn't open one of the 167,000 "hits", but did note, that there is an equal opportunity organization out there for women/girls only. Hmmmm - don't know, does that count as "child molesting"?


If you have at ALL looked into the issue of child molestation and homosexuality, you will see that the VAST majority of child molesters, including those men who victimize boys and women who victimize girls, are heterosexual. I guarantee you there are very few gay men/women who are part of NAMBLA. Child molestation and rape are not about the sexual acts but about power and manipulation. Men who molest little boys/are attracted to little boys are not automatically gay--and usually are straight--but because of a variety of reasons, they choose to molest children. Get your head out of the sand and research some of this before you start claiming that NAMBLA members are homosexual.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

gideonprime said:


> Clearly it does and none of us are advocating child molestation.
> 
> :viking: keep swinging though. It is entertaining.


Don't expect the puppets here though - that's another entertainment segment.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Gercarson said:


> Don't expect the puppets here though - that's another entertainment segment.


You are being every bit of a puppet of the anti-gay agenda as many on here claim I am of the liberal agenda.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Phoebesmum said:


> You are being every bit of a puppet of the anti-gay agenda as many on here claim I am of the liberal agenda.


Are you suggesting that Christians are puppets of God? I confess then - yes, I acknowledge Jesus Christ as who He said He is.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Gercarson said:


> Are you suggesting that Christians are puppets of God? I confess then - yes, I acknowledge Jesus Christ as who He said He is.


God never said that homosexuals are child molesters.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Gercarson said:


> Are you suggesting that Christians are puppets of God? I confess then - yes, I acknowledge Jesus Christ as who He said He is.


I doubt she is. She is saying christians are puppets of the anti-gay agenda . . . and that agenda's parents as well.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

gideonprime said:


> I doubt she is. She is saying christians are puppets of the anti-gay agenda . . . and that agenda's parents as well.


DING DING DING!! We have a winner!! PRECISELY! Not ALL Christians, but many do ascribe to the anti-gay agenda.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

gideonprime said:


> I doubt she is. She is saying christians are puppets of the anti-gay agenda . . . and that agenda's parents as well.


Okay ding, ding, ding, a liberal translating for another liberal - now, 'splain this "anti-gay" agenda AND this genealogy attached to it that you've alluded to. I don't know from no agenda.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Gercarson said:


> Okay ding, ding, ding, a liberal translating for another liberal - now, 'splain this "anti-gay" agenda AND this genealogy attached to it that you've alluded to. I don't know from no agenda.


The whole "homosexuals are child molesters" concept is straight out of the anti-gay agenda.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Phoebesmum said:


> The whole "homosexuals are child molesters" concept is straight out of the anti-gay agenda.


But, what IS this "anti-gay agenda" this came "straight" out of?


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Gercarson said:


> But, what IS this "anti-gay agenda" this came "straight" out of?


I am not going to play this game with you....Christian groups and groups trying to manipulate Christians have been pushing anti-gay ideas for a long time. There are a variety of groups to choose from and I am sure a google search will allow you to find many.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

[ame]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=american+anti-gay+agenda&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CoxKYCFhkTNX6JoWWhgSPnOyUBgAAAKoEBU_QzxeQ[/ame]

here is a link to search about the american anti-gay agenda. 

Read up!


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Phoebesmum said:


> I am not going to play this game with you....Christian groups and groups trying to manipulate Christians have been pushing anti-gay ideas for a long time. There are a variety of groups to choose from and I am sure a google search will allow you to find many.


just linked him a google search about it.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

gideonprime said:


> just linked him a google search about it.


Thank you...you can lead a horse to water....


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> That was a vision to allow him to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, perhaps y'all need to read in context.


Why would G-d use the abolition of the Kosher laws to make a point unless he also wanted to abolish those laws? 

To Preach to the Gentiles the Disciples had to go among them, live with them, eat with them. Those who followed Christ were new beings, under a new set of rules.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

Phoebesmum said:


> I am not going to play this game with you....Christian groups and groups trying to manipulate Christians have been pushing anti-gay ideas for a long time. There are a variety of groups to choose from and I am sure a google search will allow you to find many.


Which is silly, even the Bible writes homosexuality will be prevalent in the end times. You should preach against it, but why would you try to prevent it in others, even when our book says it will happen, is that not a definition of a hypocrite?

Look at Fred Phelps, he does NOT prevent funerals, not at all. But rather preaches on Public grounds to hell bound walking dead. He truly believes his message and wishes to warn others of the fate of the ungodly. But he is casting his peril to swine. The purpose of preaching is repentance, you rebuke a wise man.



> Where's the "Diversity"?


Exactly, articles from the "Gay" community say that "it's fun, it's like you're undercover in a foreign country" so to say that all ****/Dikes support Gay marriage is far from true, some like the thrill of being undercover.



> charisma said:
> 
> 
> > Just my .02 cents... obviously ymmv but, as for "marriage":
> ...


Totally get out of the marriage business, the ONLY, ONLY parties that should be in a marriage is a Man and a Woman. When you get a Marriage license, you invite a third party, it is you, your spouse and THE STATE.

I would love to see the Supreme Court do a "separation of church and state" on this issue.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

HOTW said:


> Could you give examples in the OTwhere it states this? Or is it a NT subscription?


I could, but this thread is ABOUT the LEGAL definition of marriage, it has NOTHING to do with religious sects. But the OT crowd insist one making a show out of religion, instead of debating this intelligently.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

gideonprime said:


> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...fai=CoxKYCFhkTNX6JoWWhgSPnOyUBgAAAKoEBU_QzxeQ
> 
> here is a link to search about the american anti-gay agenda.
> 
> Read up!


Uganda ... ??? Uganda - wow!


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Gercarson said:


> Uganda ... ??? Uganda - wow!


so you choose to read one of the links not about america. ok. clearly you are being intetionally obtuse.

good day!


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

If this thread is about the legal definition of marriage then the mention of OT vs NT and all those connotations do not belong. Since they have been used oin context of the debate then liek a court of law the posters should reply in response to questions about the mentions based on the biblical references.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

gideonprime said:


> so you choose to read one of the links not about america. ok. clearly you are being intetionally obtuse.
> 
> good day!


Good day to you too! That's NOT being "intetionally" obtuse. Clearly! ???


----------



## charisma (Nov 13, 2007)

VERN in IL said:


> Which is silly, even the Bible writes homosexuality will be prevalent in the end times. You should preach against it, but why would you try to prevent it in others, even when our book says it will happen, is that not a definition of a hypocrite?
> 
> Look at Fred Phelps, he does NOT prevent funerals, not at all. But rather preaches on Public grounds to hell bound walking dead. He truly believes his message and wishes to warn others of the fate of the ungodly. But he is casting his peril to swine. The purpose of preaching is repentance, you rebuke a wise man.
> 
> ...


Golly, I don't even know where to start.

My point (to which you were either being obtuse, or didn't understand) is that "marriage" is a religious institution--- something that the state should have NO part of. Please see ChristyACB's response a couple of pages up in response to my post--- those are EXACTLY the sort of unions I'm talking about. The government, in my opinion, should ONLY be in the business of granting legal unions--- if you want "marriage" to be only between a man and a woman, then great for you. Get your legal license for a union from the state and then have whatever religious flavor you ascribe to to "marry" you in the church. The state only has the business to keep track who is legally wanting to confer rights upon one another: this includes heterosexuals, homosexuals, or whatever other sort of civil union you want/need to come up with to be happy in this life. Handing out "marriages" is none of the .gov's business.

And this brings me to my second point--- the one that obviously demonstrates why you ignored my points in my original posts. If you truly believe that Fred Phelps is a "wise man" who is trying to lead the "hell bound walking dead" to "repentance" then I can only infer the following:

1. you have zero understanding of the message that Phelps is preaching (as it is clearly antithetical to the Gospel of Christ in the New Testament)
OR you agree with Phelps' twisted Pharisaic version of the Gospels. If the former is the case, I suggest you read the TRUTH about Fred Phelps. If the latter is the case, then there is nothing I can say. You would obviously rather believe a twisted, vindictive, vitriolic hate-mongerer who would have surely been thrown out of the temple with the tax collectors than you would believe the words recorded as coming out of the mouth of the Christ as recorded in the New Testament.

Either way, this entire discussion has left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. One of the original premises I had believe about most folks who take the "homesteading" approach is that they are a "live and let live, get the .gov outta my business" kind of bunch. Obviously, there are many here who want the government out of business on every front except for that of legislating morality, something I cannot abide. I cannot stand the "Gospel of Socialism" where everyone gets their cake & eats it too, any more than I can stand those who see themselves as fit to judge others and have morality legislated from either the Congress or the bench.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

gideon prime said:


> I thought we had decided as a nation that separate but equal was unacceptable.


It's Libs that want to keep "race" separate but equal. There should be no asking of a persons Race on any application, census ect.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

7thswan said:


> It's Libs that want to keep "race" separate but equal. There should be no asking of a persons Race on any application, census ect.


On that . . . we agree! OMG 7th swan common ground! Who would have thought it!


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

7thswan said:


> It's Libs that want to keep "race" separate but equal. There should be no asking of a persons Race on any application, census ect.


The problem with using "race" at all as a defining characteristic is that it is meaningless...biologists have proven that race cannot be used as a means to classify people...race is simply one form of continuous variation within the human species--just as height, weight or eye color. I agree that race should not be used on any application, census, etc for any purpose and only ethnicity (heritage) should be used in areas where that type of information is helpful for statistical information, not as a way to classify groups of people.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Phoebesmum said:


> The problem with using "race" at all as a defining characteristic is that it is meaningless...biologists have proven that race cannot be used as a means to classify people...race is simply one form of continuous variation within the human species--just as height, weight or eye color. I agree that race should not be used on any application, census, etc for any purpose and only ethnicity (heritage) should be used in areas where that type of information is helpful for statistical information, not as a way to classify groups of people.


But the Gov. is using for Voting purposes, that is wrong. They use it to manipulate Districts.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

7thswan said:


> But the Gov. is using for Voting purposes, that is wrong. They use it to manipulate Districts.


I agree...we saw a clear problem with that when Bush stole Florida.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Phoebesmum said:


> I agree...we saw a clear problem with that when Bush stole Florida.


Phoebesmum just lost that tiny, tiny bit of credibilty she "might" have had.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Phoebesmum said:


> I agree...we saw a clear problem with that when Bush stole Florida.


Hahaha! The courts said he didn't! But some of you just cant let go of the past! Shame!

In California, the dems use race to change the voting districts in their favor all the time, and not one dem complains about that!


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> Hahaha! The courts said he didn't! But some of you just cant let go of the past! Shame!
> 
> In California, the dems use race to change the voting districts in their favor all the time, and not one dem complains about that!


And that is also not right...manipulating the polls in any way is not okay with me.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Gercarson said:


> Phoebesmum just lost that tiny, tiny bit of credibilty she "might" have had.


LOL well I am shocked you thought I had ANY credibility so no loss in my mind.


----------



## JMD_KS (Nov 20, 2007)

Gercarson said:


> Phoebesmum just lost that tiny, tiny bit of credibilty she "might" have had.


That is your opinion. Be aware not everyone shares it. :icecream:


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

JMD_KS said:


> That is your opinion. Be aware not everyone shares it. :icecream:


Be aware that I couldn't care less.


----------



## JMD_KS (Nov 20, 2007)

Phoebesmum said:


> Be aware that I couldn't care less.


Um,yeah. I got that.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

JMD_KS said:


> Um,yeah. I got that.


:goodjob:


----------



## Jan Doling (May 21, 2004)

Ewwww...I won't share a toothbrush....I'm sure as heck not going to share a husband....and who would want 2 of those?!!!


----------



## Old Swampgirl (Sep 28, 2008)

Because we just should have better sense!


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

JMD_KS said:


> That is your opinion. Be aware not everyone shares it. :icecream:


Totally aware - reminded everytime I see Barack Hussein Abdullah Obama on tv.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Gercarson said:


> Totally aware - reminded everytime I see Barack Hussein Abdullah Obama on tv.


:goodjob: I am honored you think of liberals so frequently!


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Phoebesmum said:


> :goodjob: I am honored you think of liberals so frequently!


Barack Hussein Abdullah Obama is always on tv.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

Gercarson said:


> Barack Hussein Abdullah Obama is always on tv.


Yep--just like Baby Bush was...that's the way it works.


----------



## JMD_KS (Nov 20, 2007)

Sheeh I feel like I'm in the 3rd grade, w/ all the silly made-up names flying around! :baby04:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Phoebesmum said:


> Yep--just like Baby Bush was...that's the way it works.


Would you like to link us to proof of that? Ya know, like how many times the community organizer is on TV vs how many times Bush was.
Last I read was the community organizer was on many ties MORE already & isn't 1/2 done.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

JMD_KS said:


> Sheeh I feel like I'm in the 3rd grade, w/ all the silly made-up names flying around! :baby04:


"Made up names"? "Silly"? Whut?


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

I'm actually surprised that it took this long to become a Bush/Obama rant. The trolls are slowing down..............:hobbyhors


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

tinknal said:


> I'm actually surprised that it took this long to become a Bush/Obama rant. The trolls are slowing down..............:hobbyhors


It's what we do.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

At first I had high hopes that this would be an intelligent discussion/debate...

What was I thinking??


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

thequeensblessing said:


> At first I had high hopes that this would be an intelligent discussion/debate...
> 
> What was I thinking??


I do think this question and "debate" will be discussed at some point in the near future. It IS a valid point that society needs to address. Polygamy has a societal history and has been embraced at different times. 
You have been "around" General Chat for a while and your question "What was I thinking??" lets us all know that you knew this was going to degenerate pretty quicky. There have been some points made that have come across as "intelligent" and substantial - of course that is my point of view. I predict that this subject will make an appearance again in the near future.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Gercarson said:


> It's what we do.


So you admit to being a troll. Not that it wasnt obvious already


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

thequeensblessing said:


> At first I had high hopes that this would be an intelligent discussion/debate...
> 
> What was I thinking??


LOL, we could always PM......


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

At the end of the day, who has been discriminated against by not allowing gay marriage?

Certainly not homosexuals, they can marry anybody of the opposite sex they choose, with the exception of their mother or other close female relative.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Shygal said:


> So you admit to being a troll. Not that it wasnt obvious already


Who dat wokking on my bridge??


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> At the end of the day, who has been discriminated against by not allowing gay marriage?
> 
> Certainly not homosexuals, they can marry anybody of the opposite sex they choose, with the exception of their mother or other close female relative.


Let's turn that around, shall we? Say society gave you the option of marrying any same-sex partner you chose. Assuming you're not gay or bi, you probably wouldn't find that very appealing, would you?


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Jolly said:


> At the end of the day, who has been discriminated against by not allowing gay marriage?
> 
> Certainly not homosexuals, they can marry anybody of the opposite sex they choose, with the exception of their mother or other close female relative.


But they cant marry the person they love and want to spend the rest of their lives with.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Today 2 people were arrested a few blocks from where I am setting tonight. A married couple. Friends and neighbors had not see their young son in a while and began to wonder where he was. Finally someone contacted the police. The police investigated and found the couple had killed their son 2 years ago and burned his body in the back yard.
Their own 3 year old son.

Sorry for interrupting the argument on gay marriage. Please go ahead with this important discussion. 

Just thought I would let you know what happens in some of the male/female marriages. I think the small 3 year old boy would have been much better off living with a married gay couple rather than the family he was born into.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> Let's turn that around, shall we? Say society gave you the option of marrying any same-sex partner you chose. Assuming you're not gay or bi, you probably wouldn't find that very appealing, would you?


Ah, but a same-sex marriage is not a marriage, is it?


----------



## tiffnzacsmom (Jan 26, 2006)

Jolly said:


> Ah, but a same-sex marriage is not a marriage, is it?


In some states or countries it is, we're just behind on basic human rights.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Ah, but a same-sex marriage is not a marriage, is it?


Some would say that depends on the laws of the jurisdiction in which the couple is married.

Others see marriage as a religious institution -- if a couple has been joined by their church, or otherwise in accordance with their beliefs, they consider themselves married, even if they didn't obtain a license from the state. 

In some states, if a couple has lived together for a certain period of time, and acts as if they are married, their relationship is considered a common-law marriage even in the absence of church AND state sanction. 

I think if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, for all intents and purposes, it's a duck (or should be). 

Incidentally, IMO, asking what the Bible says about gay marriage is like asking what it says about space travel. Neither existed during the time period in which the Bible was written, so one would not expect the Bible to issue an opinion on either. 

From what I've read, male homosexuality in Biblical times generally involved prostitution or other loveless, casual encounters (which was all that were permitted under law). It is easy to see why religious authorities would condemn these practices, as they have the potential to spread disease and undermine the social structure, just as heterosexual prostitution does (and which also was condemned). The concept of gay people living together in loving, lifelong, monogamous relationships (also known as MARRIAGE) simply didn't exist at the time, and thus (like space travel) it never even entered the discussion. :shrug:


----------



## Jenn (Nov 9, 2004)

Maybe you guys never got to the financial/legal issues. I think we have to limit benefits garnered from other people (government, employer) to only one spouse or partner. So we'd have 'first wife' or 'first husband' and then lesser ones with fewer benefits. Of course maybe we should totally leave marriage or the (near ?) equivalent to people's personal lives but apparently marriage is a good thing for the country and an employer. Christy if you're still here you've been a large scale people handler. If you could discriminate, who would you ratehr hire? Married or single man? Married or single woman? Lesbian or married straight man? Single straight or gay man or married straight woman? And why, if you wish to answer either seriously or ridiculously?


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

Here is my Question, just WHAT are these benefits that being "Married" are?

If you claim your spouse as a Dependant, then are they part of the family and entitled to all the benefits that a normal, traditional family has?

The ------s have a civil union. It seems to me the **** would want what has happened in the "Christendom" you have all these Religions calling themselves the "true Christians" Baptist(all denominations est. in the past 200 years), Catholics, Protestants, on and on.

They all claim they are Christians, and they claim the other man made religions are not Christian(by their doctrines). All Organized Religions are inventions of men, just like Gay marriage is, it is against nature and nothing more than a invention of men's thoughts , it is unnatural and unhealthy, totally against nature.

Just like all apostate Christianity is, it is against God's ways, it will take you to hell.

So actually Permitting Gays to Marry and calling yourself a Christian when _you_ join a whore house, put money in that plate to let a guy tell you smooth words, they have MUCH in common!:cowboy:

It is most hypocritical!


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Settle down Vern, I think you may be loosing it. You aren't even making sense now.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Made sense to me. :shrug:

He's right. There should be no such thing as marriage for anybody. Marriage isn't natural and serves no good purpose for anyone except to get people bound up with the law. It's just another way for the powers that be to control people and control their lives.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

pancho said:


> Settle down Vern, I think you may be loosing it. You aren't even making sense now.


How am I not making sense, you can't comprehend simple speech? Gays want to be "married" just like the the religious folks all want to be called "Married", and throwing a big stink over gay marriage.
.
The Religious folks claim they are "Christians," even tho every major religions doctrines contradict the other major religions doctrines....none of them are really "Christians" according to Biblical writings. So the term "Christian" has been changed, obviously to allow different religions to claim "Christian". 

The Bible is clear about "no divisions among you", but somehow it's fine calling yourself a Christian, even tho you are a Catholic and worship idols, but not okay to called a Gay union a "Marriage?" That is hypocritical, if you can't make sense of it, that really isn't my problem.

The Mormon Church really pushed hard for this Proposition in California, this proposition reminds me of what happened in "prohibition". Do your homework, study your history, and it just might make sense. In fact I would NOT be surprised if a Constitutional Amendment was established, just like Prohibition was established, but later rejected.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

gideonprime said:


> Right then even married people will need to get a civil union card to receive the legal benefits of marriage. You know little thiing like inherritance rights, right to pension or ss benefits, taxes, etc.
> 
> Not a bad idea I suppose but more trouble than just allowing gays to be "married" in the eyes of the law.


Thank you for being honest. It's not about love, but about benefits and money. I'm sure some straight folks do the same thing, but I think love is paramount.

Don't tell anyone, but we have these super secret things called Wills... you can give your worldly possessions to a dog or cat, or I suppose, your gay lover... takes just a few minutes... write it all down, have it witnessed by several non-interested people, sign it, and voila. I wouldn't worry about the 'pensions'... the progressives are planning as we speak to seize them, so all the deadbeat entitlementistas can have their gravy boat. Same for SS... surely GLBT's are smart enough to not believe in this ultimate Ponzi scheme.

Personally, I don't care if they have legal civil unions... but changing a several millenium old (old as civilization) definition of something, just to make a group feel better, poo on that. Get it done legal, so you can have the same pain and suffering as the rest of the world, and be happy. Be happy you don't live in an Islamic country. The worry wouldn't be about whether you could get legally married or not, but whether you'd be legally stoned to death at a moment's notice.

And, if we change the definition of marriage, and legalize gay marriage, because of some magical civil rights or equality rules, I cannot see how polygamy could still be illegal. You open the barn door, and all the critters get out.


----------



## Phoebesmum (Jan 4, 2009)

texican said:


> Thank you for being honest. It's not about love, but about benefits and money. I'm sure some straight folks do the same thing, but I think love is paramount.
> 
> Don't tell anyone, but we have these super secret things called Wills... you can give your worldly possessions to a dog or cat, or I suppose, your gay lover... takes just a few minutes... write it all down, have it witnessed by several non-interested people, sign it, and voila. I wouldn't worry about the 'pensions'... the progressives are planning as we speak to seize them, so all the deadbeat entitlementistas can have their gravy boat. Same for SS... surely GLBT's are smart enough to not believe in this ultimate Ponzi scheme.
> 
> ...


Yes, gay people are "smart enough" to fill out wills but (as I explained in an earlier post on this thread) without legal protection family members who are opposed to the partner of a gay or lesbian individual receiving inheritances, etc can and DO tie up the estate in lawsuits refutting the legitimacy of the will...legal protection via recognized civil unions/marriage solves this problem. The lawsuit can drag on for years and cost the partner a LOT in legal fees.


----------

