# I'm not surprised. Polygamy.



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Man applies for marriage license for second wife. Says he'll sue.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Just the beginning.

Non profit status for churches is in their crosshairs.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I guess I'll be the voice of reason and just wait to see what happens before I get my panties all wadded up.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I have no problem with plural marriage. At the very least there will be a parent around when one of those many kids need them.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

If animals get rights, can they marry?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Darren said:


> If animals get rights, can they marry?


Can they sign the licence? Throwing out ridiculous arguments gets you no where.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Can they sign the licence? Throwing out ridiculous arguments gets you know where.


So, are Military/Service dogs being abused because they have not "signed" any contract?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I have no problem with plural marriage. At the very least there will be a parent around when one of those many kids need them.


I hope we see it. Just one more step toward the precipice..

If Homos use a rainbow, what will polygamist use as their little cute sign?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

What sign/symbol do bigots use?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

7thswan said:


> So, are Military/Service dogs being abused because they have not "signed" any contract?


Yes, another off the wall post that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

I cannot see how anyone that supported gay marriage could not support polygamy. All the same arguments apply.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I cannot see how anyone that supported gay marriage could not support polygamy. All the same arguments apply.


I don't have a problem with polygamy, but it is illegal in the US right now. That would have to be dealt with before anything else can progress. Hence there shouldn't be any bunching panties... yet.


----------



## Shoden (Dec 19, 2012)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I cannot see how anyone that supported gay marriage could not support polygamy. All the same arguments apply.


I agree, and support both. However, I find it somewhat ironic that a religion know for its past support of polygamy was such a big supporter of California's Proposition 8. Given the LDS church's past persecution from the government based on their marriage practices, and also considering their doctrine of "free agency", you'd think they'd be on the side of marriage freedom.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Just think about the dude if he marries a couple of women and they both divorce him, he will be in a world of hurt.:happy2:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

no really said:


> Just think about the dude if he marries a couple of women and they both divorce him, he will be in a world of hurt.:happy2:


That already happens, they just are not married at the same time before they get divorced.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

This could put divorce lawyers out of business. Why get divorced?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> This could put divorce lawyers out of business. Why get divorced?


I see what you mean. It does leave you tied financially to the person and that could be a much bigger problem than the cost of the divorce.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I'm against it , I don't know what he has done but I'm almost certain that having multiple mothers-in -laws is contrary to the constitutions "Cruel and Unusual " clause !


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

I really don't care who marries who or how many who's you marry, I just get a bad feeling about having that kinda relationship.:trollface. LOL


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

What we need is a "Whatever floats your boat." law. In for a penny. In for a pound. If a dog engages in intercourse with a human female does that mean it's just casual sex or is it true love? Lady Rottweiler of internet fame wants to know. Panties optional. :bored:

The rest of us ... are stocking up on popcorn ... and watching the old black and white movies.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> What sign/symbol do bigots use?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

7thswan said:


> So, are Military/Service dogs being abused because they have not "signed" any contract?


Nobody mentioned abuse but but I do believe that a marriage license does require a signature and while my little heeler is pretty darned smart, she still hasn't mastered handwriting yet. 

Along with the required signature, I do believe it's also expected one can read and comprehend any legal document signed.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

wr said:


> Nobody mentioned abuse but but I do believe that a marriage license does require a signature and while my little heeler is pretty darned smart, she still hasn't mastered handwriting yet.
> 
> Along with the required signature, I do believe it's also expected one can read and comprehend any legal document signed.


It's called Consent- that is what attorneys I've listened to say. So, are Survice animals being abused because they cannot(supposidably) give consent to being Used?
!2 years olds can use handwriteing and sign a document, but their age says they can't. Everything has changed now. And yes, I did hear one polygamy issue come up, the awnser at the courthouse was-are you divorced from the first wife yet? So that is going to have to be hashed out now ....


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

7thswan said:


> It's called Consent- that is what attorneys I've listened to say. So, are Survice animals being abused because they cannot(supposidably) give consent to being Used?


Do you feel they are and how does this factor into plural marriages?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> Nobody mentioned abuse but but I do believe that a marriage license does require a signature and while my little heeler is pretty darned smart, she still hasn't mastered handwriting yet.
> 
> Along with the required signature, I do believe it's also expected one can read and comprehend any legal document signed.


She can make her mark and it can be witnessed. What satisfies as a "mark" might be subject to debate.......


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> She can make her mark and it can be witnessed. What satisfies as a "mark" might be subject to debate.......


Does she understand and comprehend what she is doing when she makes her mark?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

So can will be plural gay marriages be far behind? Followed by plural divorce?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

where I want to said:


> So can will be plural gay marriages be far behind? Followed by plural divorce?


I think plural marriage has to be made legal first, then made into law, and followed by people actually entering into a plural marriage before there can be plural divorce.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

wr said:


> Do you feel they are and how does this factor into plural marriages?


Well, I'm married to my Dh, why can't I have other marriages(plural)? Why can't I marry my Mother? That way I won't have to be her DPOA or pay taxes on her estate, ect.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

watcher said:


>


As long as we're sharing....

You guys can share this one with your brethren:


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

where I want to said:


> So can will be plural gay marriages be far behind? Followed by plural divorce?


How about just a trade in. We could have groups of " " and just trade in one for another. We wouldn't have to have those nasty divorces.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

There is no need to pass a law making it legal. In fact I believe it is easier with those laws making it illegal in place. You just have to take it to court. The judges will handle the rest to make it legal. Much faster than actually getting legislative action in all 50 states.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

7thswan said:


> Well, I'm married to my Dh, why can't I have other marriages(plural)? Why can't I marry my Mother? That way I won't have to be her DPOA or pay taxes on her estate, ect.


Now how can any sane person start to refute a post like this?  It's like trying to pick up a dog turd by the clean end. 

If this sort of post (there are currently two but I'm sure there will be more) represents a portion of the population we are doomed as a species.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

where I want to said:


> She can make her mark and it can be witnessed. What satisfies as a "mark" might be subject to debate.......


Perhaps laws are different in the US but in Canada, the document must be read/translated or read to and understood by the person affixing their mark and that mark has to be notarized or commissioned and that person is required to ask again if the information has been relayed, if they understand the document and if they have any questions. I believe it's set out that way to prevent people who are illiterate from being conned. 

Based on that premise, I would believe that it would be difficult to verify that a dog understood the terms of the contact and even more difficult for a witness to verify that terms are clear and it may be even more difficult to enforce a contract with a dog.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

We been doomed as a species since we became a species. Only our arrogance makes us think we're special. A smackaroonie almost took us out once. It'll happen again.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Darren said:


> What we need is a "Whatever floats your boat." law. In for a penny. In for a pound. If a dog engages in intercourse with a human female does that mean it's just casual sex or is it true love? Lady Rottweiler of internet fame wants to know. Panties optional. :bored:
> 
> The rest of us ... are stocking up on popcorn ... and watching the old black and white movies.


 Or like this marry ones cat.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> Now how can any sane person start to refute a post like this?  It's like trying to pick up a dog turd by the clean end.
> 
> If this post represents a portion of the population we are doomed as a species.


In my quest to eliminate exposure to gratuitous ugliness, you will now enter my ignore list. Since that also means anyone who quotes things like this will follow, I'm looking ahead to the first thread where everyone except moderators is unreadable.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Or like this marry ones cat.


Still waiting for evidence of those two states where you can marry your horse.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Still waiting for evidence of those two states where you can marry your horse.


 I posted a map where you can guess you didn't open it up. LOL

You posted a map where there are no bestiality laws, not the same thing. 

Incidentally, most of them were 'red' states.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> I posted a map where you can guess you didn't open it up. LOL


I don't like guessing. I like proof. is it the state you live in?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> Or like this marry ones cat.


Maybe the cat was a groomsman or ring bearer... odd but no odder than having a horse live in your house, right?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

The only horses that MAY live in a house are those that have them as seeing eye service ones. And after I write my book How To Housebreak your horse those that do that will have a easier time with their seeing eye service horse.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Dang! We are doomed!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I don't like guessing. I like proof. is it the state you live in?


 All you got to do is CLICK on posted Link and LOOK for yourself at the maps that are at there. PERIOD>

AK, the map you linked to had nothing to do with marrying animals, it was a map of states that don't have bestiality laws on the books.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> All you got to do is CLICK on posted Link and LOOK for yourself at the maps that are at there. PERIOD>


I prefer actual laws and facts.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Go For IT. Google is YOUR friend. If I can find the info so can YOU or anybody that Enquiring minds want to know.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Go For IT. Google is YOUR friend. If I can find the info so can YOUI or anybody that Enquiring mins want to know.


Yup no proof.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Listen You Search for it I did. You LOOK I do NOT want to put such info on a public board~!

CASE CLOSED and go ahead and answer YOU just went on [email protected]


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> Listen You Search for it I did. You LOOK I do NOT want to put such info on a public board~!
> 
> CASE CLOSED and go ahead and answer YOU just went on [email protected]


Test post..bear with me


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> Perhaps laws are different in the US but in Canada, the document must be read/translated or read to and understood by the person affixing their mark and that mark has to be notarized or commissioned and that person is required to ask again if the information has been relayed, if they understand the document and if they have any questions. I believe it's set out that way to prevent people who are illiterate from being conned.
> 
> Based on that premise, I would believe that it would be difficult to verify that a dog understood the terms of the contact and even more difficult for a witness to verify that terms are clear and it may be even more difficult to enforce a contract with a dog.


Actually I doubt that understanding can be determined without a court case. Many people who can read just fine sign documents they don't understand - in fact, I think most of the time people don't take time. And frankly people with severe mental limitations get married all the time without clear understanding. And I personally have carefully explained many things to people whose heads are going up and down but who have not taken in a word.

I was being facetious in the earlier post but I bet that everything you mentioned can be accomplished by a trained dog. The real hang up would be the general statutes limiting age of consent. There would be hard to train an 18 year old dog. But I bet some one will try.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Social security benefits are the only ones I know about in detail and there are rules for paying multiple non-divotced spouses but those rules are based on the idea one of the marriages is invalid. If multiple marriages are determined to be valid, then a court is going to decide if one benefit is split or multiple entitlements exist.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Darren said:


> What we need is a "Whatever floats your boat." law. In for a penny. In for a pound. If a dog engages in intercourse with a human female does that mean it's just casual sex or is it true love? Lady Rottweiler of internet fame wants to know. Panties optional. :bored:
> 
> The rest of us ... are stocking up on popcorn ... and watching the old black and white movies.


It's all about the Love, Dude, the Love. Or should I settle for a Civil Union?:umno: I can see it now, lavish partys,parades, window stickers, ect. Big cash if someones to invest.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Like the old Beatles song- "All you need is love".


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> As long as we're sharing....
> 
> You guys can share this one with your brethren:


You asked for symbols not placards. Like it or not if you read the Bible you will find that God hates ALL sin and if you willing keep sinning then He may not hate you He will punish you for your actions.

What kind of love would it be if I saw you about to stick your hand under a running mower and stood back and said "I can't point out the danger because then I'd be judging her actions based on my own standards."? Now I could either say "Excuse me but if you stick your hand under there those spinning blades will cut your fingers off." or I could scream "YOU STUPID MORONIC IDIOT DON'T PUT YOUR HAND UNDER THERE YOU'LL LOSE YOUR HAND!". Both would get the message across but I think the first would be the proper action to take. Others think screaming is best.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Now how can any sane person start to refute a post like this?  It's like trying to pick up a dog turd by the clean end.
> 
> If this sort of post (there are currently two but I'm sure there will be more) represents a portion of the population we are doomed as a species.


Not quite. If it is unconstitutional to limit marriage to a man and woman because that limit is based on religion why should it be constitutional to limit marriage to unrelated persons? What legal/constitutional reason can you give for preventing an adult son from marrying his mother or an adult brother from marrying his adult sister or, to take the medical/genetic reasons out of it, an adult son marrying his dad?

Aren't those things only illegal due to culture/religious reasons?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

watcher said:


> Not quite. If it is unconstitutional to limit marriage to a man and woman because that limit is based on religion why should it be constitutional to limit marriage to unrelated persons? What legal/constitutional reason can you give for preventing an adult son from marrying his mother or an adult brother from marrying his adult sister or, to take the medical/genetic reasons out of it, an adult son marrying his dad?
> 
> Aren't those things only illegal due to culture/religious reasons?


Due to a desire to seperate myself from the runaway ugliness, I have decided to put posters who seem to be unwilling to pass any chance for personal attacks into my ignore catagory. Since those same remarks appear in quotes anyway, I need to put the people who quote them into ignore too.
I'm sorry that I will not be able to enjoy your postings because of this. It is certainly at best a Phyrric victory move.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

where I want to said:


> Social security benefits are the only ones I know about in detail and there are rules for paying multiple non-divotced spouses but those rules are based on the idea one of the marriages is invalid. If multiple marriages are determined to be valid, then a court is going to decide if one benefit is split or multiple entitlements exist.


The way I understand it is spouses are entitled to collect as long as they were married at least ten years. So, that is possible in both plural marriages and cases where a person is married to more than one spouse for ten years or more even if they are only one wife at a time.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Also, I know my husband's SSA statements annually do have a type of explanation for what I and the kids (depending on how many we have) are each entitled to and the maximum total under survivor benefits. So, I guess those formulas as somewhat already being practiced for multiple dependents/survivors. I guess it wouldn't be that far off a stretch to alter it for multiple spouses.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

gibbsgirl said:


> The way I understand it is spouses are entitled to collect as long as they were married at least ten years. So, that is possible in both plural marriages and cases where a person is married to more than one spouse for ten years or more even if they are only one wife at a time.


Divorced spouse have a ten year duration of marriage requirement. A non divorced spouse has an 18 month or child in care requirement. As it stands now, the spouse of a defective marriage can only receive benefits as a spouse until the valid spouse starts getting them. Once the one valid spouse is entitled (maybe even only eligible), the invalid spouse's benefits end.
There is simply no provision for multiple, non divorced spouses in the law.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

gibbsgirl said:


> Also, I know my husband's SSA statements annually do have a type of explanation for what I and the kids (depending on how many we have) are each entitled to and the maximum total under survivor benefits. So, I guess those formulas as somewhat already being practiced for multiple dependents/survivors. I guess it wouldn't be that far off a stretch to alter it for multiple spouses.


There is a family maximum total benefit which can effect spouse's benefits but divorced spouse's are excepted from that limit. As far as I remember- it's been many years since I worked there.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> I think plural marriage has to be made legal first, then made into law, and followed by people actually entering into a plural marriage before there can be plural divorce.


It's not going to happen. The issue in plural marriage is money, which will allow SS & Medicare benefits to be multiplied. It's just not going to happen. There has to be a limit to how many people can get one person's federal benefits. If more than one wife will get benefits then he'll need to pay more to FICA.

With gay marriage they were already paying the same amount into FICA as hetero couples. It made sense to allow gay spouses to collect SS & Medicare benefits. The probability that a spouse would inherit those benefits has already been factored in.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> It's not going to happen. The issue in plural marriage is money, which will allow SS & Medicare benefits to be multiplied. It's just not going to happen. There has to be a limit to how many people can get one person's federal benefits. If more than one wife will get benefits then he'll need to pay more to FICA.
> 
> With gay marriage they were already paying the same amount into FICA as hetero couples. It made sense to allow gay spouses to collect SS & Medicare benefits. The probability that a spouse would inherit those benefots has already been factored in.


But the solvency of the systems was determined by actuarial statistics that are now invalid. More people will now be eligible from a pot that did not take them into account.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> It's not going to happen. The issue in plural marriage is money, which will allow SS & Medicare benefits to be multiplied. It's just not going to happen. There has to be a limit to how many people can get one person's federal benefits. If more than one wife will get benefits then he'll need to pay more to FICA.
> 
> With gay marriage they were already paying the same amount into FICA as hetero couples. It made sense to allow gay spouses to collect SS & Medicare benefits. The probability that a spouse would inherit those benefots has already been factored in.


So we choose to limit the civil rights of LDS and deny them their 14th amendment rights? Seems like we already limit their religious freedom by limiting their number of wives. Same as Sheikhs and such that have many wives. WTH???


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

watcher said:


> You asked for symbols not placards. Like it or not if you read the Bible you will find that God hates ALL sin and if you willing keep sinning then He may not hate you He will punish you for your actions.
> 
> What kind of love would it be if I saw you about to stick your hand under a running mower and stood back and said "I can't point out the danger because then I'd be judging her actions based on my own standards."? Now I could either say "Excuse me but if you stick your hand under there those spinning blades will cut your fingers off." or I could scream "YOU STUPID MORONIC IDIOT DON'T PUT YOUR HAND UNDER THERE YOU'LL LOSE YOUR HAND!". Both would get the message across but I think the first would be the proper action to take. Others think screaming is best.


You do realize that I don't believe in god, the bible, sin, hell, or any of the religious BS, right? So no hate or punishment for me. :happy2:

Share your placards with your brethren, to me you are pretty much interchangeable.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I'm not sure either as we have never collected any of the benefits. I was only mentioning it, to say that there appear to be plans in place for many different scenarios, so I imagine adding a plural marriage benefit plan would not be making a rigid system become flexible, it would be adding other options or benefits to a list that already exists for various other situations.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

gibbsgirl said:


> I'm not sure either as we have never collected any of the benefits. I was only mentioning it, to say that there appear to be plans in place for many different scenarios, so I imagine adding a plural marriage benefit plan would not be making a rigid system become flexible, it would be adding other options or benefits to a list that already exists for various other situations.


The benefits are defined in regulation and law, so when there is a conflict between laws, usually the court decides unless the law is amended. I imagine that shouting will occur no matter what.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

where I want to said:


> In my quest to eliminate exposure to gratuitous ugliness, you will now enter my ignore list. Since that also means anyone who quotes things like this will follow, I'm looking ahead to the first thread where everyone except moderators is unreadable.


Why are you trying to bypass the admin/moderators of this forum by making up your own rules and trying to force other members to go along with you? Are you trying to pressure admin to ban me even tho I haven't broken the rules just because you don't like what I post?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Zap! That's for you Irish Pixie. I love you.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I cannot see how anyone that supported gay marriage could not support polygamy. All the same arguments apply.


I cannot see how anyone opposed to gay marriage could not support polygamy (specifically if they used any religious refereaces in their dismissal of gay marriage).

After all, marriage has been defined (in the Bible, the same one that they are using to disallow gay marraige) to be between a man and woman or a man and *women*.

So surely those same people that were protesting the right of gays to get married due to their own religious text will stand behind the rights of polygmaist, after all, they may be trying to emulate what the 'leaders' in the Bible did.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

joseph97297 said:


> I cannot see how anyone opposed to gay marriage could not support polygamy (specifically if they used any religious refereaces in their dismissal of gay marriage).
> 
> After all, marriage has been defined (in the Bible, the same one that they are using to disallow gay marraige) to be between a man and woman or a man and *women*.
> 
> So surely those same people that were protesting the right of gays to get married due to their own religious text will stand behind the rights of polygmaist, after all, they may be trying to emulate what the 'leaders' in the Bible did.


A brave new world- or back to the future?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

joseph97297 said:


> I cannot see how anyone opposed to gay marriage could not support polygamy (specifically if they used any religious refereaces in their dismissal of gay marriage).
> 
> After all, marriage has been defined (in the Bible, the same one that they are using to disallow gay marraige) to be between a man and woman or a man and *women*.
> 
> So surely those same people that were protesting the right of gays to get married due to their own religious text will stand behind the rights of polygmaist, after all, they may be trying to emulate what the 'leaders' in the Bible did.


Guess you will have to ask someone that used religious references about that.

ETA- I try to stay out of Holy Wars


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> You do realize that I don't believe in god, the bible, sin, hell, or any of the religious BS, right? So no hate or punishment for me. :happy2:
> 
> Share your placards with your brethren, to me you are pretty much interchangeable.


You are very confusing. You earlier said the only way to heaven was thru Jesus.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why are trying to bypass the admin/moderators of this forum by making up your own rules and trying to force other members to go along with you? Are you trying to pressure admin to ban me even tho I haven't broken the rules just because you don't like what I post?


Interesting.

Watcher gets added to the ignore list.
Nevada just gets ignored.
HDRider gets a like.

Bet I get the ignore!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Watcher gets added to the ignore list.
> Nevada just gets ignored.
> ...


Supposedly I have been on ignore for a long time but she keeps reading them anyway. I must be special.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> You are very confusing. You earlier said the only way to heaven was thru Jesus.


Where did I say that? Make sure I was talking about me and not the tenets of the Catholic Church before you say anything else... or else people will think you're making stuff up again.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

nchobbyfarm said:


> ETA- I try to stay out of Holy Wars


Me too but my beer drinking neighbor that may or may not be wearing a speedo does try and educate me on the finer points from time to time. I know it's going to be an educational day because he's clothed and has no beer in hand.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Due to a desire to seperate myself from the runaway ugliness, I have decided to put posters who seem to be unwilling to pass any chance for personal attacks into my ignore catagory. Since those same remarks appear in quotes anyway, I need to put the people who quote them into ignore too.
> I'm sorry that I will not be able to enjoy your postings because of this. It is certainly at best a Phyrric victory move.


I suppose when one can not support one's opinion logically the best option is to stop trying.

I'm sorry you see me as attacking you personally. I don't know you therefore I really don't see how I can do that logically.

IMO putting someone on ignore isn't a good idea. Now if someone wishes they can attack you all they wish and you will not know you need to defend yourself. They could post all kinds of unkind things about you and/or your stance on issues and every one but you would see them. And since you would not be refuting what was being said most people would start to believe them. Its a common tactic in some places.

Almost as common and the liberal tactic of ending a debate by calling someone a name and stomping off.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Due to a desire to seperate myself from the runaway ugliness, I have decided to put posters who seem to be unwilling to pass any chance for personal attacks into my ignore catagory. Since those same remarks appear in quotes anyway, I need to put the people who quote them into ignore too.
> I'm sorry that I will not be able to enjoy your postings because of this. It is certainly at best a Phyrric victory move.


So you have no answer why the government should forbid a son from marrying his farther?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's not going to happen. The issue in plural marriage is money, which will allow SS & Medicare benefits to be multiplied. It's just not going to happen. There has to be a limit to how many people can get one person's federal benefits. If more than one wife will get benefits then he'll need to pay more to FICA.
> 
> With gay marriage they were already paying the same amount into FICA as hetero couples. It made sense to allow gay spouses to collect SS & Medicare benefits. The probability that a spouse would inherit those benefits has already been factored in.


So are you saying that the great almighty United States Supreme Court would make a ruling on the constitutionality of a law not based on the constitution itself but on economics or politics? 

I'd love to see how they would twist themselves into knots to say that its unconstitutional for a state to set a limit on who you can marry but it is constitutional for it to set a limit on how many you can marry. Would you not be violating the rights of the third person who wishes the full rights and privileges of marriage?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> You do realize that I don't believe in god, the bible, sin, hell, or any of the religious BS, right? So no hate or punishment for me. :happy2:
> 
> Share your placards with your brethren, to me you are pretty much interchangeable.


Hey, just trying to point out that people can share the same beliefs but express them differently. There were a lot of people who were anti war in the 60s. Some of them wore flowers and sang at peaceful protest, some of them spit on military personal and some blew up buildings. Would you lump all of them into the one anti war pot as you are religious people into one pot?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where did I say that? Make sure I was talking about me and not the tenets of the Catholic Church before you say anything else... or else people will think you're making stuff up again.


It was you, and half the time it is hard to know what you mean because you speak with such strong innuendo and vagaries.

Obviously I misunderstood you. Fine, Just try to know who believes what. You were unusually plain in the post where you said you didn't believe in God, sin or punishment.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Watcher gets added to the ignore list.
> Nevada just gets ignored.
> ...


As I pointed out using the ignore function for someone who is really attacking you is a dumb move. It allows them to 'attack' you while taking away your ability to defend yourself. A skillful user can can attack someone and stay well within the rules, seen it happen. For example its against the rules to personally attack someone but in most cases its not, and can't really be, against the rules to attack their stand on something. If someone wanted they could reply to my post with "Watcher, that's one of the most moronic views of that I've ever seen." While they are hinting I'm a moron the attack is on my view or words not my person. If I don't see their reply I can't demand they show me what in my post is moronic and human psychology says people will start to view me as a moron based solely on the accusation. And I have enough people thinking I'm a moron based on what I say I don't need more thinking it based on accusation alone.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

where I want to said:


> Due to a desire to seperate myself from the runaway ugliness, I have decided to put posters who seem to be unwilling to pass any chance for personal attacks into my ignore catagory. Since those same remarks appear in quotes anyway, I need to put the people who quote them into ignore too.
> I'm sorry that I will not be able to enjoy your postings because of this. It is certainly at best a Phyrric victory move.


LOL... I'm actually starting to enjoy these posts a little bit.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

where I want to said:


> In my quest to eliminate exposure to gratuitous ugliness, you will now enter my ignore list. Since that also means anyone who quotes things like this will follow, I'm looking ahead to the first thread where everyone except moderators is unreadable.



Shouldn't take long.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Annnnyyway. I really haven't looked into it much, but I think the highest % rate I have ever heard of, even in tribes/countries/regions where polygamy is not only legal but socially acceptable, is something like 25%.

I think the issue is somewhat inconsequential, at least for now. I mean you already have unofficial polygamy in some ways. Look at Ted Turner and all the women/kids he had collecting support from him back in the day. Do you really see anybody applauding that? I spend a lot of time around a lot of left leaning people, and I don't see anybody aspiring to that lifestyle. 

I think, unfortunately, there will always be people who are only interested in marrying for money and safety. And unfortunately, as our government continues to hand itself over to our corporate godfathers, our wages will continue to decrease, and we may see more wealthy people collecting spouses if polygamy is ever legal, but I doubt it will be a thing in this country. Too many people would just be too unsatisfied with the lack of attention from their significant others. 

Also, in all seriousness. I feel like most people I've met who were in poly-amorous relationships were totally disenchanted with it after a pretty short while. I just don't think it will be that popular or dangerous. Most people seem to want that one person in their lives who means the most to them, and that seems to have been the case throughout human history. 

But I'll take that occasional group of people who can actually get along and love each other over the thousands of volatile, bitter, unhappy marriages we see.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> It was you, and half the time it is hard to know what you mean because you speak with such strong innuendo and vagaries.
> 
> Obviously I misunderstood you. Fine, Just try to know who believes what. You were unusually plain in the post where you said you didn't believe in God, sin or punishment.


I think I'm getting an apology vibe here but then you mumble with "strong innuendo and vagaries". I'll be the bigger person and accept it as it is.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> I think I'm getting an apology vibe here but then you mumble with "strong innuendo and vagaries". I'll be the bigger person and accept it as it is.


Yea I'm pretty sure I've taken a few insults veiled as peace offerings around here. But my high horse has really long legs. Doesn't matter how high it piles up. ;-)


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I think I'm getting an apology vibe here but then you mumble with "strong innuendo and vagaries". I'll be the bigger person and accept it as it is.


I was not apologizing.

Maybe we should both try extra hard to be clear with one another.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I was not apologizing.
> 
> Maybe we should both try extra hard to be clear with one another.


So you *were* trying to make it look like I was being deceptive/lying. Good to know.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> So you *were* trying to make it look like I was being deceptive/lying. Good to know.


You put words in my mouth almost every time you respond to me. Stop it. 

I speak plain. If I thought you's lying, I'd say so.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

7thswan said:


> So, are Military/Service dogs being abused because they have not "signed" any contract?


Some would claim they are abused, and I imagine a few of them actually are at times.

It has nothing to do with this topic though


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I hope we see it. Just one more step toward the precipice..
> 
> If Homos use a rainbow, what will polygamist use as their little cute sign?


So, you're all for "rights and freedom", but only as long as everyone conforms to your standards?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Watcher gets added to the ignore list.
> Nevada just gets ignored.
> ...


Actually it's a simple system. If some has been deliberately and consistantly insulting, not just to me but many, then they get on the list. It is not saying something unpleasant or disagreeable to me. And not just the occasional faux pas. I just dislike rudeness but hate that it has become a cold blooded tactic of abuse. That game can go on without me.

But then, if people end up quoting the ungliness, even to refute it, it defeats the purpose of ignoring anyone. So, even though I enjoy some people's thoughts, I just rather not get caught up in the jerk-the-chain tit for tat. So I leave that behind too in ignoring people who quote an especially nasty piece of garbage.

The only reason watcher got ignored was due to that. But things also have timing. If quote was made of a person who was not ignored at the time, then there was no reason not to like it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

7thswan said:


> Well, I'm married to my Dh, why can't I have other marriages(plural)? Why can't I marry my Mother? That way I won't have to be her DPOA or pay taxes on her estate, ect.


Unless she's a millionaire you won't pay more taxes on any estate by not being married.

If that's what you want to do though, I see no reason why it should be illegal


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So, you're all for "rights and freedom", but only as long as everyone conforms to your standards?


I am by nature someone who believes in natural behavior. There is nothing natural about where men put their men parts into other men.

Regarding women. I can't speak to that as well.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Actually it's a simple system. If some has been deliberately and consistantly insulting, not just to me but many, then they get on the list. It is not saying something unpleasant or disagreeable to me. And not just the occasional faux pas. I just dislike rudeness but hate that it has become a cold blooded tactic of abuse. That game can go on without me.
> 
> But then, if people end up quoting the ungliness, even to refute it, it defeats the purpose of ignoring anyone. So, even though I enjoy some people's thoughts, I just rather not get caught up in the jerk-the-chain tit for tat. So I leave that behind too in ignoring people who quote an especially nasty piece of garbage.
> 
> The only reason watcher got ignored was due to that. But things also have timing. If quote was made of a person who was not ignored at the time, then there was no reason not to like it.


Just don't reply to them. 

Me, I would never put someone on ignore. Some of these people are too odd, and I just can't avert my eyes, like watching a train wreck. You know it is going to be bad, but you just can't not watch.

Anyway, ever how you want to do it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> Test post..bear with me


That is the only sensible post on this thread


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Just don't reply to them.
> 
> Me, I would never put someone on ignore. Some of these people are too odd, and I just can't avert my eyes, like watching a train wreck. You know it is going to be bad, but you just can't not watch.
> 
> Anyway, ever how you want to do it.


She puts me on ignore and still reads. Don't get the logic at all. She is also the one who preached don't respond if you don't like what they are posting. Guess she does not like following her own suggestions.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> She puts me on ignore and still reads. Don't get the logic at all. She is also the one who preached don't respond if you don't like what they are posting. Guess she does not like following her own suggestions.


I thought it was a him.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Due to a desire to seperate myself from the runaway ugliness, I have decided to put posters who seem to be unwilling to pass any chance for personal attacks into my ignore catagory. Since those same remarks appear in quotes anyway, I need to put the people who quote them into ignore too.
> I'm sorry that I will not be able to enjoy your postings because of this. It is certainly at best a Phyrric victory move.


Due to the fact it's boring to listen to constant whining, I will put the next person who feels the need to announce who they intend to ignore on ignore.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Actually it's a simple system. If some has been deliberately and consistantly insulting, not just to me but many, then they get on the list. It is not saying something unpleasant or disagreeable to me. And not just the occasional faux pas. I just dislike rudeness but hate that it has become a cold blooded tactic of abuse. That game can go on without me.
> 
> But then, if people end up quoting the ungliness, even to refute it, it defeats the purpose of ignoring anyone. So, even though I enjoy some people's thoughts, I just rather not get caught up in the jerk-the-chain tit for tat. So I leave that behind too in ignoring people who quote an especially nasty piece of garbage.
> 
> The only reason watcher got ignored was due to that. But things also have timing. If quote was made of a person who was not ignored at the time, then there was no reason not to like it.


I don't care who you ignore. You have every right to ignore or not ignore whomever you choose.

But when you made a post to Watcher declaring your going to place him on ignore for quoting Irish Pixie, I was puzzled.

Then Nevada quoted Irish Pixie and you made no declaration at all which was more puzzling.

Then HDRider quoted Irish Pixie and you liked his post and made no declaration which I found fascinating.

Then I quote Irish Pixie while making the observation about the inconsistency and a prediction of what I would get as a result. 

Post, don't post, ignore, don't ignore, make grandiose declarations or don't. I just find it a bit.......puzzling.

Happy 4th to you!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Due to the fact it's boring to listen to constant whining, I will put the next person who feels the need to announce who they intend to ignore on ignore.


Ignore me. I dare you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I am by nature someone who believes in natural behavior. There is *nothing natural* about where men put their men parts into other men.
> 
> Regarding women. I can't speak to that as well.


Evidently it is "natural" since it's been going on since the beginning of time.

This thread is about polygamy though, so my comments will mostly be in relation to the actual topic.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I am by nature someone who believes in natural behavior. There is nothing natural about where men put their men parts into other men.
> 
> Regarding women. I can't speak to that as well.


If you don't put your man part into other men why would you care what other men do with their man parts?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Evidently it is "natural" since it's been going on since the beginning of time.
> 
> This thread is about polygamy though, so my comments will mostly be in relation to the actual topic.


I don't deny its existence. I just find it repulsive.

I am for polygamy. Men need multiple partners. Just natural.

I'll try to keep up.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> If you don't put your man part into other men why would you care what other men do with their man parts?


See above..


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I don't deny its existence. I just find it repulsive.
> 
> I am for polygamy. Men need multiple partners. Just natural.
> 
> I'll try to keep up.


I think wearing white socks with sandals is repulsive but I've never tried to stop anyone from doing it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> If you don't put your man part into other men why would you care what other men do with their man parts?


More to the point, what gays do in the bedroom isn't what gay marriage is about. The fact is that they were already doing what they do in the bedroom before gay marriage, so they didn't need gay marriage to do it. Gay marriage is about getting, or being denied, federal benefits.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I don't deny its existence. *I just find it repulsive*.
> 
> I am for polygamy. Men need multiple partners. Just natural.
> 
> I'll try to keep up.


I find defecation repulsive but I have no delusions that it's "unnatural"



> Ignore me. I dare you.


Sorry, but you failed to follow my detailed instructions, and therefore do not meet my criteria.

You may be reconsidered at a later date, but don't expect any announcements


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I think wearing white socks with sandals is repulsive but I've never tried to stop anyone from doing it.


You should. They are just embarrassing themselves and making everyone around them uncomfortable.










Please make this your mission in life to rid the world of such.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nevada said:


> More to the point, what gays do in the bedroom isn't what gay marriage is about. The fact is that they were already doing what they do in the bedroom before gay marriage, so they didn't need gay marriage to do it. Gay marriage is about getting, or being denied, federal benefits.


He said he's repulsed by male homosexuality (specifically where man parts go) that's not even mentioning gay marriage. He's more ambivalent about female homosexuality, apparently.

I agree that gay marriage is fundamentally about benefits.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I find defecation repulsive but I have no delusions that it's "unnatural"
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you failed to follow my detailed instructions, and therefore do not meet my criteria.
> ...


I find my morning constitutional most satisfying. It is obvious we can't agree on anything. 

I beg you, ignore me, or just don't reply to me. That works best for me.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> He said he's repulsed by male homosexuality tho that's not even mentioning gay marriage. He's more ambivalent about female homosexuality, apparently.
> 
> I agree that gay marriage is fundamentally about benefits.


There you go again. Putting words in my mouth. Stop it or I will report you to the moderators as stalking me and harassing me. You should ignore me too. Please...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> There you go again. Putting words in my mouth. Stop it or I will report you to the moderators as stalking me and harassing me. You should ignore me too. Please...


Not to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you oppose gay marriage because you don't approve of what they do in the bedroom. No?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Not to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you oppose gay marriage because you don't approve of what they do in the bedroom. No?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

My eyes! My eyes!

Pictures like that should have had an early warning label. 

I'll never be able to unsee that! Ahhhhhh!

Oh, and the flags and guys were bad too.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nchobbyfarm said:


> My eyes! My eyes!
> 
> That should have had an early warning label.
> 
> ...


NY is fabulous! Artie's Deli on Broadway is divine.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Is there anyone left who is not on ignore?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> Is there anyone left who is not on ignore?


I don't have anyone on ignore. I feel that ignore is for those that lack fortitude. :happy2:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> More to the point, what gays do in the bedroom isn't what gay marriage is about. The fact is that they were already doing what they do in the bedroom before gay marriage, so they didn't need gay marriage to do it. Gay marriage is about getting, or being denied, federal benefits.


And can't the same thing be said about polygamy? You can't have two wives listed on your health insurance can you? What about trying to claim two spouses on your 1040, you think the IRS would go for that?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't have anyone on ignore. I feel that ignore is for those that lack fortitude. :happy2:


Quoting you is an automatic ignore :nanner:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I may have to start another thread about is it now unconstitutional for a state to have a laws restricting who can marry whom. What constitutional reason could you give for a law forbidding a son marry his father? Or a brother marrying his sister if one or both were sterile?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> I may have to start another thread about is it now unconstitutional for a state to have a laws restricting who can marry whom. What constitutional reason could you give for a law forbidding a son marry his father? Or a brother marrying his sister if one or both were sterile?


or if there is no sex,just love,wounderful sinless love....


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

watcher said:


> I may have to start another thread about is it now unconstitutional for a state to have a laws restricting who can marry whom. What constitutional reason could you give for a law forbidding a son marry his father? Or a brother marrying his sister if one or both were sterile?


I'll ignore it.

Trixie will call you a bigot.

Nevada will claim he was for it before he was against it.

Greg will say its Bush's fault.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

HDRider said:


> I don't deny its existence. I just find it repulsive.
> 
> I am for polygamy. Men need multiple partners. Just natural.
> 
> I'll try to keep up.


See this is why people study science. Everyone has untested theories about everything. You have your opinion. But now studies are saying that back when we were just a bunch of scavengers, berry pickers, and mammoth killers, women took multiple partners as well; may the healthiest sperm survive. 

On the other hand, looks like envy, jealousy, monogamy, and men who didn't like women having a choice in the matter (because they weren't being chosen) were all factors, usually resulting in violence...and probably less healthy sperm getting a shot at the egg.

Then along came organized marriage and religions......turns out women in general have more integrity than we do. Doesn't mean you should get 5 wives but then turn around and S L you know what shame women just because they feel the same urges as you.

I mean the basic study of human nature today kind of suggests that we aren't the only ones who "need" multiple mates.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I'll ignore it.
> 
> Trixie will call you a bigot.
> 
> ...


Who's Trixie?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wiscto said:


> See this is why people study science. Everyone has untested theories about everything. You have your opinion. But now studies are saying that back when we were just a bunch of scavengers, berry pickers, and mammoth killers, women took multiple partners as well; may the healthiest sperm survive.
> 
> On the other hand, looks like envy, jealousy, monogamy, and men who didn't like women having a choice in the matter (because they weren't being chosen) were all factors, usually resulting in violence...and probably less healthy sperm getting a shot at the egg.
> 
> ...


Well, good then.

But one little Googlate got this...

Evolutionary theorists posit that men are predisposed genetically to prefer multiple partners, whereas women are predisposed to invest in a single partner (Buss and Schmitt, 1993). 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2909346/


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> What constitutional reason could you give for a law forbidding a son marry his father? Or a brother marrying his sister if one or both were sterile?


 Do you see a lot of that?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

HDRider said:


> I'll ignore it.
> 
> Trixie will call you a bigot.
> 
> ...


Dang, that took all the fun out of that new thread. But alas, I have some extra time to nap!


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

HDRider said:


> Well, good then.
> 
> But one little Googlate got this...
> 
> ...


So... You think "one little googlate" was enough. Interesting. Seems like a very unbiased and scientific way to go about things... 

Meanwhile most hard science now suggests that studies today are heavily skewed by our current social structure and how that effects our psychology. Basically. Just because women don't enjoy casual sex as much as men do, that does not necessarily suggest that they were historically only attracted to one mate. We just think that's the outcome because we are...well...biased. It could simply suggest that they wanted to know their mates, have a connection, and be attracted to them for more than just the obvious reasons...as in they were looking for attractive traits beyond muscle mass and physical appearance, like brains and feelings, which would both be beneficial to survival for the female and her offspring. Which means that women may have contributed to the evolution of intelligence and men who have empathy.

Science regarding the physical evolution of males suggests that our you-know-what's evolved based on multiple male partners engaged in "activity" with smaller groups of females. It also suggests that the "drive" we feel isn't necessarily based just on multiple partners, but on the fact that the women in given "colonies" of early humans were "ready" at varying times...so men needed to be ready to live up to their end of the bargain and spread the DNA around. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ses-science-evolution-genitalia-health-weird/

There are plenty of theories that might complicate your opinion. 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-007-9242-8
https://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/p/staff/CV262Bailey_UQ_Copy.pdf
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-007-9242-8
https://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/p/staff/CV262Bailey_UQ_Copy.pdf
http://www.davidbrin.com/neoteny1.html


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> Quoting you is an automatic ignore :nanner:


Or not. Maybe but only certain people. Or not. Who knows?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wiscto said:


> So... You think "one little googlate" was enough. Interesting. Seems like a very unbiased and scientific way to go about things...
> 
> Meanwhile most hard science now suggests that studies today are heavily skewed by our current social structure and how that effects our psychology. Basically. Just because women don't enjoy casual sex as much as men do, that does not necessarily suggest that they were historically only attracted to one mate. We just think that's the outcome because we are...well...biased. It could simply suggest that they wanted to know their mates, have a connection, and be attracted to them for more than just the obvious reasons...as in they were looking for attractive traits beyond muscle mass and physical appearance, like brains and feelings, which would both be beneficial to survival for the female and her offspring. Which means that women may have contributed to the evolution of intelligence and men who have empathy.
> 
> ...


I do have my biases, and I am not a scientist.

Carry on..


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> I do have my biases, and I am not a scientist.
> 
> Carry on..


oh man I have a good one one the genetics of the brain capabilitys/function of some blacks compaired to whites,ya, sicence. I'll pm you.


----------



## Tyler520 (Aug 12, 2011)

there is simply no longer any sound legal or logical argument against polygamy. Rule of law no longer exists in this country


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

7thswan said:


> oh man I have a good one one the genetics of the brain capabilitys/function of some blacks compaired to whites,ya, sicence. I'll pm you.


Why can't you post it here? Is it because of how racists it is?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Do you see a lot of that?


Nice deflection of the question. Care to answer it? Or is you answer because its in the shadows it doesn't exist, much like gays decades ago?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

HDRider said:


> I do have my biases, and I am not a scientist.
> 
> Carry on..


As you were.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevada said:


> It's not going to happen. The issue in plural marriage is money, which will allow SS & Medicare benefits to be multiplied. It's just not going to happen. There has to be a limit to how many people can get one person's federal benefits. If more than one wife will get benefits then he'll need to pay more to FICA.
> 
> With gay marriage they were already paying the same amount into FICA as hetero couples. It made sense to allow gay spouses to collect SS & Medicare benefits. The probability that a spouse would inherit those benefits has already been factored in.


Not so Nevada. It will likely fall under the same ole survivor benefits as the rest of us have already. IE, if a man dies his benefits are divided among his wife and minor children. Each get a check and each are taxed individually according to their share. 

So a polygamist spouse that married 20 years ago will get X amount and his second wife he married 5 years ago will get X- amount. 

See, not hard at all.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't have a problem with polygamy, but it is illegal in the US right now. That would have to be dealt with before anything else can progress. Hence there shouldn't be any bunching panties... yet.


True, but wasn't gay marriage illegal in many states last month? Its not now.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> True, but wasn't gay marriage illegal in many states last month? Its not now.


Beyond that, I don't want to hear about her panties.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wr said:


> Nobody mentioned abuse but but I do believe that a marriage license does require a signature and while my little heeler is pretty darned smart, she still hasn't mastered handwriting yet.
> 
> Along with the required signature, I do believe it's also expected one can read and comprehend any legal document signed.


American disability act.

Not everyone is physically able to sign..

So.... no hand.or paralyzed folks can't marry ...news flash.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

7thswan said:


> Well, I'm married to my Dh, why can't I have other marriages(plural)? Why can't I marry my Mother? That way I won't have to be her DPOA or pay taxes on her estate, ect.


Talk to anchorage newest mayor.... He supports marriage between parents and children. He backed it up......He got elected.....He supports giving out money.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Beyond that, I don't want to hear about her panties.


Huh? I mean

What?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> American disability act.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dogs are considered disabled?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

There seem to be a statement as to a need to be able to sign.
My response covers that.

The dog... was not addressed by me.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Huh? I mean
> 
> What?


Check the first couple of posts in this tread by Irish Pixie. It will make more sense!


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Check the first couple of posts in this tread by Irish Pixie. It will make more sense!


LOL, well I don't have a dog anywhere near that hunt.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

MY eyes burn, cain't believe I wasted 25 minutes for this.....


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I mean some what you guys are complaining about is actually working in your favor.

For example. In light of divorce, who in their right mind would want to risk splitting their possessions and wealth 5 ways? I think we pretty much all agree that marriage means what's mind is yours and what's yours is mine. Until that changes I don't see this getting too far out of control.

Also, the first people (overall) to ask for a license will be people who are known for forcing women, usually young ones and sometimes too young...into marriages. Not the best PR campaign.


----------



## Jlynnp (Sep 9, 2014)

I have often thought that my having a wife (I am female) would work great. I hate housework, cooking, ect and my husband would appreciate someone to do those things. So Let me see would I need to get married to her using the same sex marriage thing or could he marry her if the pass the law so you can have more than one spouse??


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Jlynnp said:


> I have often thought that my having a wife (I am female) would work great. I hate housework, cooking, ect and my husband would appreciate someone to do those things. So Let me see would I need to get married to her using the same sex marriage thing or could he marry her if the pass the law so you can have more than one spouse??


Either way, it would probably be a mutually beneficial arrangement for everyone. 

You'd be fully within your rights as guaranteed by the 14th amendment, ever how you decide to work it out.

Let us know how it goes.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mreynolds said:


> LOL, well I don't have a dog anywhere near that hunt.


And you won't either. :happy2:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

painterswife said:


> She puts me on ignore and still reads. Don't get the logic at all. She is also the one who preached don't respond if you don't like what they are posting. Guess she does not like following her own suggestions.


Actually you are no longer in my ignore list. I decided if i couldn't resist looking, it was silly. But that was before I also started ignoring people who get caught up in responding to nonsense. That has been more effective than I thought. I had been hoping that others would let the deliberate chain jerking post died in a pool of silence. That obviously did not happen. Some people kept responding to trolling comments and, in apparent glee over the success of controlling the conversation, the trolling just got worse and worse, taking over thread after thread. 
It is impossible to have an interesting discussion that consists of ugly exchanges for the sole purpose of putting each other in their place. I keep hearing 10 year old's lament of "he said it first" and "stop saying that." So, since it has become irritating noise anyway, why not use the ear plugs of ignore.......


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Jlynnp said:


> I have often thought that my having a wife (I am female) would work great. I hate housework, cooking, ect and my husband would appreciate someone to do those things. So Let me see would I need to get married to her using the same sex marriage thing or could he marry her if the pass the law so you can have more than one spouse??


So, if your husband marries another woman, is she your spouse too? I suppose if all depends on intention it could go either way. He could have two spouses while you only have one or you could all have two. 
Sure is a shift in power in a relationship. No divorce needed. Don't like your current one? Just add one you do like. New grounds for divorce? My spouse married someone new- I need a divorce. A lawyer's paradise of possibilities.......


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Actually you are no longer in my ignore list. I decided if i couldn't resist looking, it was silly. But that was before I also started ignoring people who get caught up in responding to nonsense. That has been more effective than I thought. I had been hoping that others would let the deliberate chain jerking post died in a pool of silence. That obviously did not happen. Some people kept responding to trolling comments and, in apparent glee over the success of controlling the conversation, the trolling just got worse and worse, taking over thread after thread.
> It is impossible to have an interesting discussion that consists of ugly exchanges for the sole purpose of putting each other in their place. I keep hearing 10 year olds lament of "he said it first" and "stop saying that." So, since it has become irritating nouse anyway, why not use the ear plugs of ignore.......


I agree with you. How ever I see what you call trolling and chain jerking as a response to the hateful comments and name calling by few posters on the right. If they stop "lefty this", "lefty that" and name calling it might stop. Then we could have some nice adult conversations.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> There seem to be a statement as to a need to be able to sign.
> My response covers that.
> 
> The dog... was not addressed by me.


My professional designation falls under contract law and I fully understand the disabilities act and a couple more but since I was responding to why a dog and master can't marry, I didn't feel that the disabilities act truly applied to the situation since there was no mention of a dog being paralyzed nor was there any indication that it had been trained to 'speak' and had recently lost the ability - as noted by my mention of my own dog, but I get the feeling that you knew that already.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

painterswife said:


> I agree with you. How ever I see what you call trolling and chain jerking as a response to the hateful comments and name calling by few posters on the right. If they stop "lefty this", "lefty that" and name calling it might stop. Then we could have some nice adult conversations.


But there were always those, both left and right,who did it. Remember the 'you're mean' posting forever on welfare discussions? Or the 'you're racist if you object to Obama's actions"? I think that it is just easy to think of your own words as expressing what is obvious while those who received them consider it hateful. The left is not one whit lest guilty in aggregate than the right. 
What is going on now has ceased being name calling of general conditions out of conviction or anger by the inarticulate and has become targeted, persistent bullying targeting individuals, not positions, and has included widespread hate as a weapon. That is a major problem. 
It is, for example, one thing to say to someone that their position on an issue is wrong which they have defended based on religion and a whole different thing to announce their religion itself is defective. It is one thing to say, for example, that Muslims or Christians need to address such-and-such an issue, do matter what their interpretation is, and a whole different thing to say Muhammad or Jesus is BS. One is a political position subject to possible negotiation and the other is deliberately rude and hateful, leading only to more rudeness or hate. 
And my real objection is to that hatefulness being used as a tactic. Extremely ugly.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> My professional designation falls under contract law and I fully understand the disabilities act and a couple more but since I was responding to why a dog and master can't marry, I didn't feel that the disabilities act truly applied to the situation since there was no mention of a dog being paralyzed nor was there any indication that it had been trained to 'speak' and had recently lost the ability - as noted by my mention of my own dog, but I get the feeling that you knew that already.


This ignores the idea that marriage is not to be restricted according to anyone's personal interpretation if it excludes a group. So, while you might define marriage as a contract between two individuals capable of giving consent, that very definition excludes a group who wish to consider it something different. They might choose now to consider marriage as it suits themselves, not you. It would be no different than a forced marriage when a child is given by her parents to an old man. The man still agrees to abide by the rules of marriage, while the child is incapable of giving consent. No one askes. 

Yet it has been determined not appropriate in western culture and so was excluded. So was the idea of same sex marriages. If one idea of marriage is subject to challenge, why not all? Thus it leads to the idea that any assumptions about what marriage is, is subject to challenge.

Your objection is that your assumption has been challenged as opposed to just someone else's.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> But there were always those, both left and right,who did it. Remember the 'you're mean' posting forever on welfare discussions? Or the 'you're racist if you object to Obama's actions"? I think that it is just easy to think of your own words as expressing what is obvious while those who recieve them consider it hateful. The left is not one whit lest guilty in aggregate than the right.
> What is going on now has ceased being name calling of general conditions out of conviction or anger by the inarticulate and has become targeted, persistent bullying targeting individuals, not positions, and has included widespread hate as a weapon. That is a major problem.
> It is, for example, one thing to say to someone that their position on an issue is wrong which they have defended based on religion and a whole different thing to announce their religion itself is defective. It is one thing to say, for example, that Muslims or Christians need to address such-and-such an issue, do matter what their interpretation is, and a whole different thing to say Muhammad or Jesus is BS. One is a political position subject to possible negotiation and the other is deliberately rude and hateful, leading only to more rudeness or hate.
> And my real objection is to that hatefulness being used as a tactic. Extremely ugly.


I have extended my offer to quit if those on the right quit. I can't control others but I am trying to start a process. Who else is willing to participate?

Step up put your names out there.

You can wine and moan that both sides do it but unless you publicly say you will stop you are part of the problem.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

painterswife said:


> I have extended my offer to quit if those on the right quit. I can't control others but I am trying to start a process. Who else is willing to participate?
> 
> Step up put your names out there.
> 
> You can wine and moan that both sides do it but unless you publicly say you will stop you are part of the problem.


Yes- that has always been effective. (Sorry, that was sarcasm.) It's already part of the rules under insults but there seems to have been little enforcement with much selectivity.

And I like to think I already try to avoid it. I can not enforce my personal choice on others. Moderators are the only one who can.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

where I want to said:


> This ignores the idea that marriage is not to be restricted according to anyone's personal interpretation if it excludes a group. So, while you might define marriage as a contract between two individuals capable of giving consent, that very definition excludes a group who wish to consider it something different. They might choose now to consider marriage as it suits themselves, not you. It would be no different than a forced marriage when a child is given by her parents to an old man. The man still agrees to abide by the rules of marriage, while the child is incapable of giving consent. No one askes.
> 
> Yet it has been determined not appropriate in western culture and so was excluded. So was the idea of same sex marriages. If one idea of marriage is subject to challenge, why not all? Thus it leads to the idea that any assumptions about what marriage is, is subject to challenge.
> 
> Your objection is that your assumption has been challenged as opposed to just someone else's.


If a church wishes to sanction a marriage between dog and owner, that's great but the question presented was simply based on the comment that said dog to could receive benefits, which requires a license. I'm not mistaken, the law requires that certain criteria needs to be met before a marriage license is issued and part of that is the ability to legally sign such a document. 

The best possible avenue would be to appoint a representative as a guardian or establish an enduring power of attorney over said dog's affairs, if you were technically looking for a loophole. 

In the event that laws change and dogs can enter into a marriage contract, I'm prepared to accept those laws but until then, I remain pretty convinced that the laws will likely not change because of their inability to enter into such an agreement.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

painterswife said:


> I have extended my offer to quit if those on the right quit. I can't control others but I am trying to start a process. Who else is willing to participate?
> 
> Step up put your names out there.
> 
> You can wine and moan that both sides do it but unless you publicly say you will stop you are part of the problem.


Sheesh- I just noticed I have been insulted.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> If a church wishes to sanction a marriage between dog and owner, that's great but the question presented was simply based on the comment that said dog to could receive benefits, which requires a license. I'm not mistaken, the law requires that certain criteria needs to be met before a marriage license is issued and part of that is the ability to legally sign such a document.
> 
> The best possible avenue would be to appoint a representative as a guardian or establish an enduring power of attorney over said dog's affairs, if you were technically looking for a loophole.
> 
> In the event that laws change and dogs can enter into a marriage contract, I'm prepared to accept those laws but until then, I remain pretty convinced that the laws will likely not change because of their inability to enter into such an agreement.


Yes, I agree. But then I thought that of millenia of marriage being universally between a man and woman made that pretty set too.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Yes, I agree. But then I thought that of millenia of marriage being universally between a man and woman made that pretty set too.


Do you really think anyone will ever take you seriously if you suggest people will want to marry their animals, or that it could even be possible?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you really think anyone will ever take you seriously if you suggest people will want to marry their animals, or that it could even be possible?


I am surprised anyone took it seriously as it was meant as an example of why the list provided was not useful. But then I am surprised by the deadly lack of humor in many people. Especially about themselves.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

where I want to said:


> I am surprised anyone took it seriously as it was meant as an example of why the list provided was not useful. But then I am surprised by the deadly lack of humor in many people. Especially about themselves.


There's nothing funny about irrational examples inserted in a serious conversation. 

If you want to make jokes, they should be at least funny enough so folks can tell a difference


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's nothing funny about irrational examples inserted in a serious conversation.
> 
> If you want to make jokes, they should be at least funny enough so folks can tell a difference


Yes, I have constantly been in trouble because I use irony in a lot of things. A difficult form of humor for many Americans and evidently Canadians.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Yes, I have constantly been in trouble because I use irony in a lot of things.


There's nothing ironic about irrational arguments.

They simply make it appear you're either uninterested or incapable of having a real, logical conversation on a topic


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wiscto said:


> So... You think "one little googlate" was enough. Interesting. Seems like a very unbiased and scientific way to go about things...
> 
> Meanwhile most hard science now suggests that studies today are heavily skewed by our current social structure and how that effects our psychology. Basically. Just because women don't enjoy casual sex as much as men do, that does not necessarily suggest that they were historically only attracted to one mate. We just think that's the outcome because we are...well...biased. It could simply suggest that they wanted to know their mates, have a connection, and be attracted to them for more than just the obvious reasons...as in they were looking for attractive traits beyond muscle mass and physical appearance, like brains and feelings, which would both be beneficial to survival for the female and her offspring. Which means that women may have contributed to the evolution of intelligence and men who have empathy.
> 
> ...


You do realize that the word _social_ has more in common with the disease than with science?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you really think anyone will ever take you seriously if you suggest people will want to marry their animals, or that it could even be possible?


Tell you what...I guarantee that somewhere in this country, somebody would marry their animal *today*, if it were not against the law.

There is no level of depravity to which man will not sink, it is all just a matter of degrees.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Darren said:


> What we need is a "Whatever floats your boat." law. In for a penny. In for a pound. If a dog engages in intercourse with a human female does that mean it's just casual sex or is it true love? Lady Rottweiler of internet fame wants to know. Panties optional. :bored:
> 
> The rest of us ... are stocking up on popcorn ... and watching the old black and white movies.


The problem with this law, is that it does not consider the sobriety, or lack thereof, of the individuals involved in the sex act.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Jolly said:


> You do realize that the word _social_ has more in common with the disease than with science?


You're not saying anything profound right now. You're just expressing a feeling And it doesn't even really apply. What the scientists are saying is that we should DISCARD the social side of the research until after they find something biological to work off of. Because science is science...

But you would know what schizophrenia is if the scientists hadn't used biology to study that particular SOCIAL behavior right? We would have just figured that out with our guts, right? "Social" has nothing to do with "science," right? Get outta here with that noise.

You all try so hard to pretend that you're more reasonable and objective than all those scientists.... Why is it that you're all so desperate to prove that "smart" people are never right?


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Darren said:


> If animals get rights, can they marry?


Any reason you would be against animals marrying?
Jim


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

where I want to said:


> So, if your husband marries another woman, is she your spouse too?


Well now there's an interesting question to ponder and brings up all kinds of other interesting questions.

If the two wives are not considered spouses, for the sake of benefits, just because they are married to the same man can they then marry each other to make it so?

Or switching it what if a woman married a man then a woman. How would the law view the relationship between the woman spouse and the man spouse?

I can see a lot of lawyers making a lot of money in the next few decades over this.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's nothing funny about irrational examples inserted in a serious conversation.
> 
> If you want to make jokes, they should be at least funny enough so folks can tell a difference


But irrational examples often can show how illogical the current argument is. 

They can also be used to show how something can be taken to its extreme based on logic. How irrational would it have been a decade ago to use an example of the federal government banning light bulbs to show how out of control the government is getting? Most would have thought that crazy, but have you tried to buy a 100W light bulb lately?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I realize marry an animal may seem outlandish at first glance.

But, I have read about people doing so as a part of their faith at least with cattle and dogs. I believe it was in India, so I don't know what faith it was, they have so many there. Might have been Hindu or even just a cultural practice.

From what I recall, people have gone through what they consider legitimate ceremonial marriages, even with the plan being they could marry a human also. I guess it was because it was to show they were accepting familial obligations to the animal as a way to receive blessings or make amends for something.

I could see how a person related to that culture could want the right to legally marry an animal here if they were attempting to integrate their former cultural life with their new American life.

Not saying it makes sense to me. But, I don't know why I should have the right to deny them the right to do so.

Just another example of why the idea of removing the govt from all types of marriages makes sense to me.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

OK, I decided not to start a new thread, but I saw this today.... http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517

It may not be about polygamy but along the same idea of the flood gates opening.

The title...


> Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals





> Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

BlackFeather said:


> OK, I decided not to start a new thread, but I saw this today.... http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517
> 
> It may not be about polygamy but along the same idea of the flood gates opening.
> 
> The title...


This is an argument the slayers of America will never get.

The dam has burst...


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

BlackFeather said:


> OK, I decided not to start a new thread, but I saw this today.... http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517
> 
> It may not be about polygamy but along the same idea of the flood gates opening.
> 
> The title...



Actually, there are many online articles that refute this. It us my understanding that an error or misquote, depending on who you believe. 

I posted the article I could find with the least amount of advertising out of respect for those with dial up. 

http://www.charismanews.com/us/4160...orientation-but-apa-claims-it-was-their-error


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

watcher said:


> Not quite. If it is unconstitutional to limit marriage to a man and woman because that limit is based on religion why should it be constitutional to limit marriage to unrelated persons? What legal/constitutional reason can you give for preventing an adult son from marrying his mother or an adult brother from marrying his adult sister or, to take the medical/genetic reasons out of it, an adult son marrying his dad?
> 
> Aren't those things only illegal due to culture/religious reasons?


 The only correct ruling is to end state sanctioned marriage in the first place. Let the church marry whomever it so chooses, but pass on zero legal protections from it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Jolly said:


> Tell you what...I guarantee that somewhere in this country, somebody would marry their animal *today*, *if it were not against the law.*
> 
> There is no level of depravity to which man will not sink, it is all just a matter of degrees.


But it IS against the law and that isn't likely to ever change, so it's foolish to keep suggesting it


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> This is an argument the slayers of America will never get.
> 
> The dam has burst...


Don't be a Jenna. 

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHUeV0BXAoU[/ame]


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I thought you signed that no name calling pledge there cutie.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I thought you signed that no name calling pledge there cutie.


I agreed with the sentiment. The OP tried but your buddies would have nothing to do with it. 

When the hyperbole is that excessive it _must_ be called out.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

> But it IS against the law and that isn't likely to ever change, so it's foolish to keep suggesting it


Yeah, pretty foolish.
But then, who thought 10 or 20 years ago we'd see what happened last month?:facepalm:


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agreed with the sentiment. The OP tried but your buddies would have nothing to do with it.
> 
> When the hyperbole is that excessive it _must_ be called out.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> Yeah, pretty foolish.
> But then, who thought 10 or 20 years ago we'd see what happened last month?:facepalm:


 Yeah, things sure are different now than in the past, look at all the changes, and yeah its been longer than 10 or 20 years, but now women get to vote, blacks are no longer considered property, 'white only' drinking fountains are a thing of the past. Changes for the better.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> But then, who thought 10 or 20 years ago we'd see what happened last month?


I always thought it would happen.

It seems that conservatives aren't very good at looking forward. They didn't see marriage reform coming, they didn't see the mortgage crisis coming, and they didn't see 9/11 coming. I guess anticipating things just isn't something they do well.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Yeah, pretty foolish.
> But then, who thought 10 or 20 years ago we'd see what happened last month?:facepalm:


I saw that one coming years ago. It was just a matter of getting someone to take the issue to the Supreme Court. There was no realistic way the court could have possibly handed down any other ruling. The Constitution is quite clear about the equal protections of EVERYONE'S rights.
As to the outlandish idea of people marrying their pets.... The Constitution is pretty clear on that too... Critters are not "persons".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Yeah, pretty foolish.
> But then, *who thought* 10 or 20 years ago we'd see what happened last month?


Lots of people thought it would happen, and it turns out they were right, just like those in the 60's who wanted legal marijuana were right

That doesn't make it less ridiculous to suggest marrying an animal will ever be legal, and those who keep bringing it up know that as well.

Silly icons and silly arguments make one look..., well...., silly.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I guess y'all are right, I should have checked my reference book.
He has foretold us all things...............


Luke 17:26-30King James Version (KJV)

26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> I guess y'all are right, I should have checked my reference book.
> He has foretold us all things...............
> 
> 
> ...


Just one question here since you brought up Noah and his ark.... When the waters receded and the land was dry again, life continued on for Noah and his sons and their wives.... ok, thats all good and well, but who did Noahs grand sons marry?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Direct descendants of Adam and 
Eve. Same as all of us.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Incest coutresy of God.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Direct descendants of Adam and
> Eve. Same as all of us.


Yes I understand that, but I was thinking the only "direct descendants" available to them would be either their siblings or cousins. Sounds a bit incestuous to me. Especially considering Noah and his clan were considered to be the only ones righteous enough to be spared the flood.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Incest coutresy of God.


Yeppers, and not just once, but twice God put his very favorite humans in that position... first was with Adam and Eve, then Noah and his clan. Just seems odd that He would put his chosen in that position.... which is quite illegal in every state that I know of today. He also seemed to have been ok with polygamy as quite a few of his favorites practiced that too.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

....was that Thunder???


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> ....was that Thunder???


Naw, that was just my Yvonne passing gas. :ashamed:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Actually it's a simple system. If some has been deliberately and consistantly insulting, not just to me but many, then they get on the list. It is not saying something unpleasant or disagreeable to me. And not just the occasional faux pas. I just dislike rudeness but hate that it has become a cold blooded tactic of abuse. That game can go on without me.
> 
> But then, if people end up quoting the ungliness, even to refute it, it defeats the purpose of ignoring anyone. So, even though I enjoy some people's thoughts, I just rather not get caught up in the jerk-the-chain tit for tat. So I leave that behind too in ignoring people who quote an especially nasty piece of garbage.
> 
> The only reason watcher got ignored was due to that. But things also have timing. If quote was made of a person who was not ignored at the time, then there was no reason not to like it.


Well, while I appreciate Watcher's beliefs on the 'ignorant' I mean 'ignor' button, I sure see your point. And I'm kinda leaning towards yours b/c we saw over in the Bernie thread that even if you don't see it, there's a slew of folks to defend you anyway.
Just sayin'.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Well, while I appreciate Watcher's beliefs on the 'ignorant' I mean 'ignor' button, I sure see your point. And I'm kinda leaning towards yours b/c we saw over in the Bernie thread that even if you don't see it, there's a slew of folks to defend you anyway.
> Just sayin'.


You mean the one were you measure a woman's worth by the size of her butt?

Like I said, it's because of that crap that there are millions of woman (and men) that have eating and mental disorders. Unbelievable. 

And you're bragging how your "buddies" supported you for saying it... :facepalm:


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> You mean the one were you measure a woman's worth by the size of her ass?
> 
> Like I said, it's because of that crap that there are millions of woman (and men) that have eating and mental disorders. Unbelievable.
> 
> And you're bragging how your "buddies" supported you for saying it... :facepalm:


Beginning to think there is a direct correlation between butt size and brain size.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> You mean the one were you measure a woman's worth by the size of her ass?:


That would be just plain tacky! Women have more than one feature to measure their value. At least two more that I can think of! :hammer:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Just one question here since you brought up Noah and his ark.... When the waters receded and the land was dry again, life continued on for Noah and his sons and their wives.... ok, thats all good and well, but who did Noahs grand sons marry?



Excellent question.
You're not alone in asking it and being given very bad answers.........



painterswife said:


> Incest coutresy of God.


:umno:




Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes I understand that, but I was thinking the only "direct descendants" available to them would be either their siblings or cousins. Sounds a bit incestuous to me. Especially considering Noah and his clan were considered to be the only ones righteous enough to be spared the flood.



Only ones.........go back and read carefully again.
There were seven Adamic souls, if I recall, named on the Ark, Noah and his family. The bible leaves out names of those less relevant to the story.
But if you read the passage, Noah took two of every _flesh_, actually I think it was 7 of the clean and 2 of the unclean of every flesh.
I'll explain further in your next question, but assuming that there were not representatives of every race on that boat, because they named as "flesh" rather than named individually, would be just that - an assumption. That assumption has been made and taught for centuries and the perversion of incest has been justified from the pulpit, erroneously and ignorantly. 




Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, and not just once, but twice God put his very favorite humans in that position... first was with Adam and Eve, then Noah and his clan. Just seems odd that He would put his chosen in that position.... which is quite illegal in every state that I know of today. He also seemed to have been ok with polygamy as quite a few of his favorites practiced that too.


It has been stated on several threads that God was ok, or authorized polygamy. I don't believe I've ever seen that in scripture, but I'm open to learning it tonight if it's true.

As to Adam and Eve, I'm sorry to say that this has been taught from the pulpit as well, that the only way the population grew was thru incest.
Assuming again that Adam and Eve were the ones referred to in Genesis ch. 1, on the 6th day.
The 7th day He rested and in chapter 2, we see the story of the Garden, where he placed a man called Adam.
Assumptions again are made that God lost His place in the story and started over with the people created on the 6th day. This is further confused with Eve being called "the mother of all living". Sounds like she _must _ have been the first woman.......unless you know it is her seed that eventually will be the One who _Does_ bring life eternal.
Careful reading of the Hebrew doesn't back this up, in fact later, when Cain takes a wife from the land of Nod (?) no one seems to know where she came from and wrongly assumes again that it must be a sister of his. :umno:

The different races were created on the 6th day and many people and commanded to "go forth and multiply", thus creating all the unrelated people needed.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Excellent question.
> You're not alone in asking it and being given very bad answers.........
> 
> 
> ...


My bible makes it quite clear that there were eight people aboard the ark.... Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives. I have never heard of any others being spared from the flood. 
As to Caine wife..... You seem to have missed something... She came from a land called Nod. Could have been his sister or a niece. Please provide chapter and book where you find God creating any human other than Adam and Eve. I am especially interested in that part where God created the races on the sixth day. That's another passage that I must have missed.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2015)

For YH

Just a Jewish perspective, more than 1 couple was created.


Torah 

Berei**** - Genesis - Chapter 1

26 And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth." &#1499;&#1493;&#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1488;&#1457;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1504;&#1463;&#1506;&#1458;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1492; &#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1510;&#1463;&#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1461;&#1504;&#1493;&#1468; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1491;&#1456;&#1502;&#1493;&#1468;&#1514;&#1461;&#1504;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1456;&#1497;&#1460;&#1512;&#1456;&#1491;&#1468;&#1493;&#1468; &#1489;&#1460;&#1491;&#1456;&#1490;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1507; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1463;&#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1492;&#1461;&#1502;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1502;&#1462;&#1513;&#1474; &#1492;&#1464;&#1512;&#1465;&#1502;&#1461;&#1513;&#1474; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509;

27 And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. &#1499;&#1494;&#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1489;&#1456;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1488;&#1457;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; | &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1510;&#1463;&#1500;&#1456;&#1502;&#1493;&#1465; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1510;&#1462;&#1500;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1457;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1488;&#1465;&#1514;&#1493;&#1465; &#1494;&#1464;&#1499;&#1464;&#1512; &#1493;&#1468;&#1504;&#1456;&#1511;&#1461;&#1489;&#1464;&#1492; &#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1512;&#1464;&#1488; &#1488;&#1465;&#1514;&#1464;&#1501;:

28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. " &#1499;&#1495;&#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1489;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1498;&#1456; &#1488;&#1465;&#1514;&#1464;&#1501; &#1488;&#1457;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1465;&#1488;&#1502;&#1462;&#1512; &#1500;&#1464;&#1492;&#1462;&#1501; &#1488;&#1457;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1508;&#1468;&#1456;&#1512;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1512;&#1456;&#1489;&#1493;&#1468; &#1493;&#1468;&#1502;&#1460;&#1500;&#1456;&#1488;&#1493;&#1468; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509; &#1493;&#1456;&#1499;&#1460;&#1489;&#1456;&#1513;&#1473;&#1467;&#1492;&#1464; &#1493;&#1468;&#1512;&#1456;&#1491;&#1493;&#1468; &#1489;&#1468;&#1460;&#1491;&#1456;&#1490;&#1463;&#1514; &#1492;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1506;&#1493;&#1465;&#1507; &#1492;&#1463;&#1513;&#1468;&#1473;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1497;&#1460;&#1501; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1499;&#1464;&#1500; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492; &#1492;&#1464;&#1512;&#1465;&#1502;&#1462;&#1513;&#1474;&#1462;&#1514; &#1506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1512;&#1462;&#1509;:

Later after the 7 day cycle he started tweaking things to improve his creation, and concerning man he did this.

Berei**** - Genesis - Chapter 2

7And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul. &#1494;&#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;&#1510;&#1462;&#1512; &#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1465;&#1493;&#1464;&#1492; &#1488;&#1457;&#1500;&#1465;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1488;&#1462;&#1514; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1506;&#1464;&#1508;&#1464;&#1512; &#1502;&#1460;&#1503; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1458;&#1491;&#1464;&#1502;&#1464;&#1492; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1508;&#1468;&#1463;&#1495; &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1488;&#1463;&#1508;&#1468;&#1464;&#1497;&#1493; &#1504;&#1460;&#1513;&#1473;&#1456;&#1502;&#1463;&#1514; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1460;&#1497; &#1492;&#1464;&#1488;&#1464;&#1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1500;&#1456;&#1504;&#1462;&#1508;&#1462;&#1513;&#1473; &#1495;&#1463;&#1497;&#1468;&#1464;&#1492;:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> But it IS against the law and that isn't likely to ever change, so it's foolish to keep suggesting it


How many years ago could such a thing have been said about gay marriage?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> My bible makes it quite clear that there were eight people aboard the ark.... Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives. I have never heard of any others being spared from the flood.
> As to Caine wife..... You seem to have missed something... She came from a land called Nod. Could have been his sister or a niece. Please provide chapter and book where you find God creating any human other than Adam and Eve. I am especially interested in that part where God created the races on the sixth day. That's another passage that I must have missed.


Well, I don't wish this to turn into a debate, you certainly are free to read it as you see fit. When you asked that very common question, I obliged with a biblical alternative that does not involve incest, although it is foreign to most churches. Knowing that would be an abomination to God, I never understood why the answer would not be searched out by theologians.

Once in Genesis 6 and 3 times in Genesis 7 God tells Noah to bring "two of all flesh" into the ark.
Assuming that only eight people are mentioned, in fact only 4 (the men, not their wives) are the only people on board is understandable, but that makes incest the only possible way to carry on the population.
I thought you might consider the alternative explanation as more reasonable.
I've also heard the reason it was ok was because the blood lines were still unpolluted, but that doesn't get around the immorality of sleeping with your sister or mother.:yuck:

I also noticed an earlier post saying incest wasn't outlawed until Leviticus, but you'll notice in Noah's story, that familiar phrase used in Leviticus is used when Ham "uncovered his father's nakedness".
Many are falsely taught that was a homosexual act when Noah was drunk, including me. I learned that's a Hebrew expression for sleeping with a man's wife.:hammer:
So when Noah sent Ham away, we know the prohibition on incest was in effect from the beginning.

Now, to your question on Adam, Genesis Ch 1: 26 - 28.
The man called Adam isn't mentioned yet, not until chapter 2.
But men and women ARE created on the 6th day, in God's image.
We have all races on the earth today and He loves them all. So rather than assuming incest, isn't it more reasonable to assume all those different colors of God were created then, just as it is written?

I CAN tell you why theologians get this one confused.
Adam or rather a' dam
That word is hebrew for "man".

So when God said he created a' dam in chapter 1 and later creates eth ha adam or "the man called adam" (my spelling is no doubt incorrect, I'm doing it phonetically) people have incorrectly assumed they are one and the same.

I can understand not knowing Hebrew and not being able to read the manuscripts, I know very little, but accepting and perpetuating incest as ordained by God, that I don't understand.
I'd rather hear someone say, "heck, I don't know."


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Well, I don't wish this to turn into a debate, you certainly are free to read it as you see fit. When you asked that very common question, I obliged with a biblical alternative that does not involve incest, although it is foreign to most churches. Knowing that would be an abomination to God, I never understood why the answer would not be searched out by theologians.
> 
> Once in Genesis 6 and 3 times in Genesis 7 God tells Noah to bring "two of all flesh" into the ark.
> Assuming that only eight people are mentioned, in fact only 4 (the men, not their wives) are the only people on board is understandable, but that makes incest the only possible way to carry on the population.
> ...


a rather interesting interpretation say the least but you still fail to bring forth an explanation about who Noah's grandchildren married. I am also puzzled about the several races getting past the flood. Were not Noah's sons all the same race? According to my bible all people were destroyed in that world wide flood other than the eight who were spared on the ark.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> a rather interesting interpretation say the least but you still fail to bring forth an explanation about who Noah's grandchildren married. I am also puzzled about the several races getting past the flood. Were not Noah's sons all the same race? According to my bible all people were destroyed in that world wide flood other than the eight who were spared on the ark.


Two of *all* flesh.
Besides Noah, his sons and their wives, there would have been two of all the non-adamic peoples - other races, or in Greek, ethnos.
I know it's taught that Noah's family were the only humans aboard, but can you actually find a verse that says so exclusively?



This is the closest you'll get...

Gen. 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.


And this verse follows......

Gen. 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

As you said, Noah's family presumably were all the same race, so your question is valid. If there were no others on the ark, how could other races populate the earth again?

Actually, in chapter 10, it pretty much says as much.....

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-10/

Notice in verse 5, the Gentiles.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Two of *all* flesh.
> Besides Noah, his sons and their wives, there would have been two of all the non-adamic peoples - other races, or in Greek, ethnos.
> I know it's taught that Noah's family were the only humans aboard, but can you actually find a verse that says so exclusively?
> 
> ...


Ok I am going to lean towards the " this is as close as I get" that states the eight individuals that were to board the ark, over the "well there had to be others to make my theory work" in spite of no scripture to support it. As to verse five... That tells us exactly which of Noah's grandsons were involved with the job of populating the gentile nation.... Nothing more.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

That's fair. I only wanted to open your mind in reading it as if it were the first time, with no preconceived ideas, and that's hard to do.
We've been taught as children all these stories - the garden of Eden and the apple.
Know where the first mention of an "apple" is? It's nowhere in Genesis, lol.
We were taught that it was just Noah's family on the ark, no one else. Yet 3 chapters later there are whole nations of people including Gentiles.

Don't get me started on the whole mess of "the earth is only 6,000 years old".
You won't actually find that written. If you know that the word "was" in Genesis 1:1 is also translated as "became" then the verse *The earth was/became void* takes on a whole new meaning.
I'm one who believes the earth is much older, millions of years, maybe billions and there were all sorts of creatures on it, even dinosaurs, long before God put us here, when the earth _became_ void.
When God is dressing down Job at the end of that book, He asks Job, You've seen the huge bones of these great beasts, where were you when I made them?

One thing I've learned. The more educated on languages and the more studying of the Word I've done, the more I've come to find it is true, the way it is written.

But since this thread is on polygamy and some have said it was ok with God, I'd like to see the verses.
I know it happened.
Abraham, Jacob, and what about Solomon?
But those were mistakes done by men, not at God's command.
Look for yourselves.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> That's fair. I only wanted to open your mind in reading it as if it were the first time, with no preconceived ideas, and that's hard to do.
> We've been taught as children all these stories - the garden of Eden and the apple.
> Know where the first mention of an "apple" is? It's nowhere in Genesis, lol.
> We were taught that it was just Noah's family on the ark, no one else. Yet 3 chapters later there are whole nations of people including Gentiles.
> ...


But God seemed to be ok with their "mistakes".... They were some of his very favorite men.... Abraham in particular. Old Abe got to be the very head of Gods chosen people.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> But God seemed to be ok with their "mistakes".... They were some of his very favorite men.... Abraham in particular. Old Abe got to be the very head of Gods chosen people.


Very true.
How many times has it been said, "Love the sinner, hate the sin"?

Abraham is a great example.
He didn't wait on God for a son, he had one by his wife's servant ........ at Sarah's insistence.:hammer:
Because of that mistake, Ishmail was born and the great dispute in the Middle East over property has been with us ever since.
I think if you were to ask God, "Was that ok?" you'd get........:facepalm::hammer:

God takes a lot of heat when it's man that screws up, but He just keeps rolling right along.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Man, this thread went all kinda sideways didn't it...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Very true.
> How many times has it been said, "Love the sinner, hate the sin"?
> 
> Abraham is a great example.
> ...


Makes a feller wonder why God didn't even bother to scold Abe for his transgressions. While yer here, could you direct me to those verses that forbid either polygamy or incest?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> You mean the one were you measure a woman's worth by the size of her ass?
> 
> Like I said, it's because of that crap that there are millions of woman (and men) that have eating and mental disorders. Unbelievable.
> 
> And you're bragging how your "buddies" supported you for saying it... :facepalm:


I measure someone's worth by their actions, male or female.
If a politician has repeatedly LIED; repeatedly been involved in corruption, repeatedly been vile in their law practice, been kicked off panels, etc, b/c of their vileness/corruption/unethical behavior, cause the deaths of patriotic Americans b/c of at the very least-ineptitude, then I'll call them names. 

She IS a lying, corrupt, inept inhumane being. And she happens to have a large rear. All of these things she coulda done something about at one time or another. 
Its far too late to correct the damage she did to the 12 y/o girl who was raped & she got the rapist off by belittiling the poor child. And she laughed about it. The rapist failed a lie detector too.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> I measure someone's worth by their actions, male or female.
> If a politician has repeatedly LIED; repeatedly been involved in corruption, repeatedly been vile in their law practice, been kicked off panels, etc, b/c of their vileness/corruption/unethical behavior, cause the deaths of patriotic Americans b/c of at the very least-ineptitude, then I'll call them names.
> 
> She IS a lying, corrupt, inept inhumane being. And she happens to have a large rear. All of these things she coulda done something about at one time or another.
> Its far too late to correct the damage she did to the 12 y/o girl who was raped & she got the rapist off by belittiling the poor child. And she laughed about it. The rapist failed a lie detector too.


That isn't what you said, you devalued a female human being _because of the size of her butt_. If you had just droned on ad nauseum about her politics that's one thing but you didn't.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

dlmcafee said:


> For YH
> 
> Just a Jewish perspective, more than 1 couple was created.
> 
> ...


Very similar to what we were taught in a catholic school.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

InvalidID said:


> Man, this thread went all kinda sideways didn't it...


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> That isn't what you said, you devalued a female human being _because of the size of her ass_. If you had just droned on ad nauseum about her politics that's one thing but you didn't.


NO way. It is you & a couple others that are totally fixed on the fact that I've stated the FACT that she has a large rear-as an aside to the LyinCorruptInept part. That has NEVER been the main point. Its been the ONLY point you & some others want to argue, being so affixed on that, WHY? Are you all obese? I never thought so. Are you all obsessed at defending a being who is all those things? Why?
Some cannot stand the FACTS that are there for all to see. 
I have not made fun of that woman solely b/4 of her rear. I see that some would like to make it that. B/c there is NO defense for any of the other atrocities she's been a part of.

If large rears & brains go together, guess we'd better elect Christie!


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

InvalidID said:


> Man, this thread went all kinda sideways didn't it...



Maybe, maybe not.
The topic was, now that gay marriage is the "law of the land" will polygamy be next.
And after that incest and pedophilia.

The argument made in SCOTUS that was on the losing side came from the Bible, in part.
In order to know your laws, you must understand the law book it comes from, no?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Makes a feller wonder why God didn't even bother to scold Abe for his transgressions. While yer here, could you direct me to those verses that forbid either polygamy or incest?



If you'll read Genesis ch. 17, I think you'll find a few corrections that God gave Abram. It is there that he is then called Abraham.

I'm now starting to get the feeling that I would be telling you things you already know.
Am I wrong?
I mean, we've already quoted some of them here in Genesis, and there is more in the 1st 5 books.
If you've read them, and it appears you have, then don't you already know where these verses are?

Having a mocker of mine "like" your post doesn't give me much confidence in answering further, either.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> If you'll read Genesis ch. 17, I think you'll find a few corrections that God gave Abram. It is there that he is then called Abraham.
> 
> I'm now starting to get the feeling that I would be telling you things you already know.
> Am I wrong?
> ...


Ok, I have now read Genesis 17 as you suggested, didnt find anything about any admonitions against plural marriages nor incest there. Thinking you may have erred as to the chapter I then read chapters 14 through 24..... still found no admonitions but did pick up on several places that both of those "sins" seemed to be sanctioned by the Lord in His infinite wisdom. 

You would be correct that I had read those books previously, but it was a long time ago, and there were many many things I learned but as to knowing right where each thing is, sorry, I didnt catalogue them accurately in my brain at the time. I do appreciate your effort on my part, and as usual when I pick up the book I learn something new. I was totally unaware that Sarah was not only one of Abrahams wives.... but his half sister as well! How did I miss that before?!?

I wouldnt worry too much about someone "liking" my posts, I have no control over what others think, but am truly enjoying our discussion here.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I have now read Genesis 17 as you suggested, didnt find anything about any admonitions against plural marriages nor incest there. Thinking you may have erred as to the chapter I then read chapters 14 through 24..... still found no admonitions but did pick up on several places that both of those "sins" seemed to be sanctioned by the Lord in His infinite wisdom.
> 
> You would be correct that I had read those books previously, but it was a long time ago, and there were many many things I learned but as to knowing right where each thing is, sorry, I didnt catalogue them accurately in my brain at the time. I do appreciate your effort on my part, and as usual when I pick up the book I learn something new. I was totally unaware that Sarah was not only one of Abrahams wives.... but his half sister as well! How did I miss that before?!?
> 
> I wouldnt worry too much about someone "liking" my posts, I have no control over what others think, but am truly enjoying our discussion here.



All righty.

No, the admonitions are not in the form of "Abram, you broke my commandment of ......." but they are there.
Abram questions God about His commitment that he have a son and father a great nation. That's WHY he slept with Hagar and had Ishmael.
God reminds him again that his son will be with Sarah, his wife, and they won't be Gentiles, like Ishmael.
Then we have what you and I would consider more than a mild correction - a 99 year old man to self circumcise.........

LOL
Sure, that's not the way we view it now, but ole Abe probably had thoughts that crossed his mind as he was doing it.......:hrm:


He also pleads with God on behalf of Ishmael, an admission that this was his mistake, and to not take it out on the boy.

I've also found that when God is teaching me something, there are many different levels and different lessons all rolled into one.


----------

