The W
Views: 98946188
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
16.9.14 1839
The W - Current Events & Politics - Trial could lead towards legalization polygamy
This thread has 5 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.86
Pages: 1 2 Next
(113 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (25 total)
El Nastio
Andouille








Since: 14.1.02
From: Ottawa Ontario, by way of Walkerton

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 43 min.
ICQ:  
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.49
I remember saying at some point (maybe even on these boards) it'll be just a matter of time before this is legalized. Now in Canada, they're talking about how this trial could pave the way towards legalized multiple marriages.

Click Here (ottawacitizen.com)





After a (very) long hiatus, I have begun to write again. And this time, I'm not alone!

Click Here (basisgames.blogspot.com) to check out Basis Games - Video Game/Console Reviews, Commentaries, and Analysis. Check it out!
Promote this thread!
Matt Tracker
Scrapple








Since: 8.5.03
From: North Carolina

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
I'm for them on principle. As long as everyone involved is a legal adult in their state, they can make as big a spousal cluster as they like. I don't think I can enter into such a marriage due to my wiring, but I won't force other adults to live under my practicing definition of a marriage.

I continue to argue that the fatal flaw of American conservatism is the clash of social and political stances: individual sovereignty except for adult relationships.



"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 442 days
Last activity: 442 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.91
Would this be a positive or a negative for the divorce lawyer industry: More people married equals more potential divorces, but if you can have more than 1 spouse, that could potentially limit some divorces.
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.64
Canada, you crazy swinger country, you. Amsterdam has nothing on you. I would say the divorce rate would stay the same. Its really only a handful of relationships that this would affect. I am not a fan of it, but I am not going to force my views of marriage on anyone unless that anyone is banging underage kids, plastic dolls and animals or in Japan's case robots.
El Nastio
Andouille








Since: 14.1.02
From: Ottawa Ontario, by way of Walkerton

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 43 min.
ICQ:  
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.49
    Originally posted by lotjx
    unless that anyone is banging underage kids


I wouldn't be shocked if that's next to be legalized or at least be the next "big issue". The Conservatives up here wanted to raise the age of consent to 16 a year or two ago, and surprisingly got a lot of flack for it (I was, of course, very much in favor of it being raised to 16).

What makes the "age of consent" is whatever the government says it is. The government can lower that age to ten years old if they wanted to, which would make it legal to have sex with a ten year old.

(edited by El Nastio on 24.11.10 1119)


After a (very) long hiatus, I have begun to write again. And this time, I'm not alone!

Click Here (basisgames.blogspot.com) to check out Basis Games - Video Game/Console Reviews, Commentaries, and Analysis. Check it out!
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 11 min.
Last activity: 10 min.
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
I can't, for the life of me, fathom why a man would want TWO women nagging at him.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.04
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    I can't, for the life of me, fathom why a man would want TWO women nagging at him.


If that meant that they would work and bring in two incomes, and I could stay at home, I'd deal with it.



-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

-- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
BoromirMark
Potato korv








Since: 8.5.02
From: Milan-Ann Arbor, MI

Since last post: 235 days
Last activity: 235 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.19
    Originally posted by Matt Tracker
    I continue to argue that the fatal flaw of American conservatism is the clash of social and political stances: individual sovereignty except for adult relationships.


Off-topic, but I continue to argue that the fatal flaw of liberalism is its batshit craziness and irrational "anything goes" lack of morality and consequences.




Michigan against the SEC: 20-5-1 (7-3 in bowl games)

Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
That's pretty much a troll and you know it.




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.84
As one of the "conservatives" around here, I just want to say, I am all for whatever "marriages" anyone wants to have with anyone or anything they desire.

I am just against tax advantages for said marriages. That includes "traditional" marriage. Dependents of said adults should, of course, cause some sort of tax allowance.

Lest anyone think I am falling under the influence of Guru or something (please, Guru, I am just goofing, clearly, your stance on most things is to the left of me and that is all I am implying), let me tell you my reason for the above: To me, Marriage (notice, that is not in quotes) is an earthy image of Christ and the Church expressed in people and it is, as they say "holy matrimony", as opposed to some sort of civil contract. I see it as something that only people who follow Christ engage in as it is designed (or those who looked forward to the appearance of same), and therefore, something that only happens in a Christian Church of some sort that closely follows Christ.

I am more than willing to allow relationships between non believers, and other various groupings to be "called" marriage though. I just want the tax advantages of just being married (ie: joint filing Taxes,) removed.

There you go.



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
I need that tax write-off, man.

Also, don't screw with the write-offs for having kids. I'm hoping to use those, too.

//edit: If/when we have kids.

(edited by Guru Zim on 24.11.10 1439)



Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
djp
Morcilla








Since: 16.2.07
From: 3rd Floor, NW window

Since last post: 93 days
Last activity: 30 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.67
Timing is everything - shoot for those late December births.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 35 days
Last activity: 35 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.43
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Lest anyone think I am falling under the influence of Guru or something (please, Guru, I am just goofing, clearly, your stance on most things is to the left of me and that is all I am implying), let me tell you my reason for the above: To me, Marriage (notice, that is not in quotes) is an earthy image of Christ and the Church expressed in people and it is, as they say "holy matrimony", as opposed to some sort of civil contract. I see it as something that only people who follow Christ engage in as it is designed (or those who looked forward to the appearance of same), and therefore, something that only happens in a Christian Church of some sort that closely follows Christ.


Marriage predates Christianity. By a lot.

EDIT: Also, does this apply only to marriage? I mean, if you're going to take this thing that was done for thousands of years before the Bible was written and say it can only be done correctly by Christians, why stop there? Maybe Christians are the only ones who now how to eat correctly, and how to wipe their asses correctly, and how to tie their shoes correctly.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 24.11.10 1934)

AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.84
did I say you couldn't have some sort of civil marriage? But you'd prefer to troll rather than read my message. Marriage, in the religion I espouse, which I believe to be the only true one (and any "Christian" who does not isn't one, which is a discussion we can have in a different thread, if you like), Marriage between two people is a representation of Jesus and His church - that is why it is holy. I would much prefer that the marriages generated by various governments were treated like other civil contracts. Because, that's all a marriage is, as far as a government goes: You share some basic benefits rights, including tax rights, you automatically have power of attorney for the other person if they become disabled, you automatically become their beneficiary for their estate, and so on.

You yourself usually espouse the separation of church and state, and since marriage is a holy union (and in fact one of the most important sacraments of the Roman Catholic church and one of the requirements for celestial heaven in the Latter Day Saints church) one would think that you would want it separated from the government, which I also support.

But I guess you prefer that this profoundly religious ceremony (at least profoundly religious in the great bulk of the ceremonies performed) remain one somehow associated with various state local and federal governments. I do not.



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 35 days
Last activity: 35 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.43
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    did I say you couldn't have some sort of civil marriage? But you'd prefer to troll rather than read my message.


I didn't say you said that. I said you said only Christians know how to marry correctly. I'm not even sure what this is referring to.


    Marriage, in the religion I espouse, which I believe to be the only true one (and any "Christian" who does not isn't one, which is a discussion we can have in a different thread, if you like), Marriage between two people is a representation of Jesus and His church


Wait, which church is that? Is it the Catholics? The Protestants? Lutherans? Mormons?

Abraham, who according to the stories was the founder of the world's three major monotheistic religions, obviously wasn't a Christian, because he predated the story of the New Testament by about 2000 years. But he had a wife - do you believe his marriage was incorrect?

I think your view is baseless and discriminatory. You can say "but hey, I'm OK with people doing it anyway, even if their method is inferior," but that doesn't suddenly make your view logical, consistent or correct.

And how about gay Christians? Or did you only mean Christians who see things the same way you do?


    You yourself usually espouse the separation of church and state, and since marriage is a holy union (and in fact one of the most important sacraments of the Roman Catholic church and one of the requirements for celestial heaven in the Latter Day Saints church) one would think that you would want it separated from the government, which I also support.

    But I guess you prefer that this profoundly religious ceremony (at least profoundly religious in the great bulk of the ceremonies performed) remain one somehow associated with various state local and federal governments. I do not.


I also don't think the government should be in the marriage business, but that's not the view I'm questioning. I want some clarification on why you turn your nose at any marriage that isn't between two Christians.

Again, marriage predates Christianity. Marriage is not a Christian ceremony. More accurately, Christians have their own ceremonies they associate with the concept of marriage, a concept which cannot be tied to any specific religion.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 24.11.10 2201)

AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.84
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan

    Abraham, who according to the stories was the founder of the world's three major monotheistic religions, obviously wasn't a Christian, because he predated the story of the New Testament by about 2000 years. But he had a wife - do you believe his marriage was incorrect?



Nope. The Bible tells us that Abraham "looked ahead" to Jesus - or at least most folks who understand the bible would understand the passage centered around Hebrews 11:10. And he wasn't the only one that looked ahead to Christ.


And how about gay Christians? Or did you only mean Christians who see things the same way you do?


Homosexuality is forbidden by the Bible, so a marriage between two people that are the same sex would not agree with Jesus' description of Marriage. You can find that also in the Bible. It's in Matthew 19:4-6


I also don't think the government should be in the marriage business, but that's not the view I'm questioning. I want some clarification on why you turn your nose at any marriage that isn't between two Christians.


I don't care what contracts people enter into. I just don't consider that contract between two people what the Bible describes as marriage.

and I am no longer feeding the troll, so put anything else you desire here. You have the last word.


(edited by AWArulz on 24.11.10 2303)

(edited by AWArulz on 24.11.10 2304)

We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 18 hours
Last activity: 18 hours
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.03
    Originally posted by AWArulz

    I don't care what contracts people enter into. I just don't consider that contract between two people what the Bible describes as marriage.


That's your perogative, and I certainly don't want to stir anything up, but I don't see what that has to do with the tax issue. The reasons why governments find it preferable to give certain tax breaks to married couples don't really have anything to do with religion. If you're just saying that you don't think that such tax breaks are justified, that seems to me to be a separate argument.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 35 days
Last activity: 35 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.43
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Homosexuality is forbidden by the Bible, so a marriage between two people that are the same sex would not agree with Jesus' description of Marriage. You can find that also in the Bible. It's in Matthew 19:4-6


So do you interpret the entire Bible this literally and infallibly? You approve of, nay demand, the public stoning of people who commit specific sins, etc.?

    Originally posted by AWArulz
    I don't care what contracts people enter into. I just don't consider that contract between two people what the Bible describes as marriage.


As soon as you provide me with some sort of objective definition of marriage (meaning a dictionary, etc.) that describes it as a Christian rite, this will be relevant. In the mean time, the government is acting on the definition of marriage the rest of the world operates by, and that definition doesn't include the word "Jesus."


    and I am no longer feeding the troll, so put anything else you desire here. You have the last word.


If your original rant was related to the subject, then I think my questions were as well. But good for you, I guess. It's too bad, because I'd like to hear your answer to my first question in this post.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 25.11.10 0307)

Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.19
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by TheBucsFan

      Abraham, who according to the stories was the founder of the world's three major monotheistic religions, obviously wasn't a Christian, because he predated the story of the New Testament by about 2000 years. But he had a wife - do you believe his marriage was incorrect?


    Nope. The Bible tells us that Abraham "looked ahead" to Jesus - or at least most folks who understand the bible would understand the passage centered around Hebrews 11:10. And he wasn't the only one that looked ahead to Christ.



      And how about gay Christians? Or did you only mean Christians who see things the same way you do?


    Homosexuality is forbidden by the Bible, so a marriage between two people that are the same sex would not agree with Jesus' description of Marriage. You can find that also in the Bible. It's in Matthew 19:4-6


    Originally posted by Matthew 19:4-6
    And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a]them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”


I do not see anything written there that expressly forbids anything. It shows an example of a marriage, between a man and his "wife."

I'm not being sarcastic, but what makes someone a "woman?" I saw a very interesting show on Discovery Health a few years back about gender. Does not having a penis make you a woman? What about transgenders?

A friend of mine was a male back in high school. He is now legally a woman. She identifies as a lesbian, but legally, she could marry a man if she wanted to because she is female in the eyes of the law. Would it still be homosexual if she has no male genitals, had the right body chemistry and as much plastic surgery as universally accepted female Heidi Montag?

Ok, they're not women because they weren't born with a working vagina, what about the "women" who weren't born with working ones either, that are intersexed (formerly called hermaphrodites) or have XXY chromosomes?

When I was a kid, gender was so black and white. Male and female. Now I'm seeing that there are some shades of grey starting to pop up in the middle.

    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Marriage between two people is a representation of Jesus and His church - that is why it is holy.


There are probably a few thousand people in China who were married a few thousand of years before Christianity was invented who would probably disagree with you.

That may be your definition of marriage (and all of the Christian mythology) and that works for you and your family, but it is not the universal definition. I know a few Jews and Muslims who would have a differing opinion of this Jesus fella.


Long story short, this does prove something I have been noticing in society. It's the older generation, the boomers, that are still clinging on to the older societal "norms." Yahoo had an article recently that said with each decade, more and more people feel they don't need to get married as it is such an outdated concept.

Just like someone from the late 1800s wouldn't get what Jutterbugging was, or a 20s flapper not understanding the conservatism of the 50s, or that same person telling someone in the 80s to turn off that "noise" that was beatboxing, I (in my early 30s) just shake my head at all this Emo and Straight Edge stuff. I will never get it. It borderline annoys me. Justin Beiber needs a freaking hair cut (this coming from someone who had his hair near waist length for 20 solid years).

I shudder to think what weird things the kids of the new century will turn their noses up at in 20-25 years because it is strange and weird.

Times change, people change, society changes. Once upon a time, the Roman/Greek gods were the kings of Europe. Now they're studied in middle schools. Who knows what will happen with the popular religions in a few thousands of years.

Here is a point that I think got lost in all this religious discussion, no one would be forcing anyone to get into these Poly relationships. If three (or more) people want this setup, that's there choice. I just hope they are informed and emotionally mature to enter into something like that because 99% of my friends who have tried a Poly household have had HUGE, MESSY drama and they were either the Beta relationship or they were in the Alpha relationship and was too jealous of the attention to the new partner.

For that 1% where it did work out (it is a household of 7 adults, last time I asked, somewhere in Orange, VA) they are in bliss. More power to them. They have many incomes, plenty of adults to babysit and watch the children, and everyone is happy and loved, but that situation is definitely the execration to the rule that Poly relationships just don't work out.

(edited by Zeruel on 25.11.10 0536)

(edited by Zeruel on 25.11.10 0538)

(edited by Zeruel on 25.11.10 0539)

-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

-- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.84
I apologize for going back on my word on this, I'll say one more thing.

A: read my posts

b: I am only suggesting that marriage be removed from government approval (because I believe it to be a mostly religious rite. I think if you do some basic research you will find that this is true in the overwhelming casss of marriage, even in the ones I am not talking about in the other lands and times other people have brought up)

c: I do not think any religious laws should apply to those who are unbelievers except those whom the majority of people believe is valid - for example, many religious also ban murder. I am not for removing that from the public arena again (there were times when it was, essentially, legal). So no, pulling out random old testament penalties for adultery is not my desire.

d: people can be any crazy gender they think is right. I don't care if a "girl" has a penis. What I personally think of such things is completely another matter.

e: I just want the government out of marriage.





We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 4.86
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: The Feds seize a number of sites
Next thread: the Koreas have been attacking each other
Previous thread: At Least 345 dead in stampede at Cambodian festival
(113 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Call Clinton - see iif he remembers me. I have 11 picures in two settings with him. Not t the White house though. The one setting (a book signing), there were about 2000 of us lined up to take the picture and Bubba was manly and happy with each of us....
The W - Current Events & Politics - Trial could lead towards legalization polygamyRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.136 seconds.