Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage cited by polygamy case

[PureX]

I am disgusted by violent mob activity that some call justified civil disobedience? I am disgusted by the slaughter in cold blood of police officers? I am disgusted by drunken orgies during spring breaks on our public beaches wherein young males line up to have sex with a drunken young woman?
You know, stuff like that.

So what? All of these activities are already illegal, so all you have to do is call the cops, and they will come and arrest those involved. So what further need or purpose is there for you to show your disgust and contempt for others?

You contemptible knobhead! I am not insisting on anything.
I am lamenting the loss of civility in our society.

Who isn't? But this isn't what you were lamenting. What you were lamenting was not being able to show your disgust and contempt toward others as you would like. And you still haven't explained why this matters to you. Or why it should matter to anyone else.

 

[bybee]

I count four instances of faulty comparison fallacies (we are not discussing animal cruelty, child abuse, murder of police officers, or sexual acts of college co-eds; are we?) and yet his question still stands.

I have not claimed superiority to other folks. I do claim the right to voice my opinion. There are behaviors which I find contemptible.
And "political correctness" is not one of my vices.
I do admit to meandering and digressing. I apologize if you find it distressing. But, I'm not likely to change.

 

[bybee]

So what? All of these activities are already illegal, so all you have to do is call the cops, and they will come and arrest those involved. So what further need or purpose is there for you to show your disgust and contempt for others?
Who isn't? But this isn't what you were lamenting. What you were lamenting was not being able to show your disgust and contempt toward others as you would like. And you still haven't explained why this matters to you. Or why it should matter to anyone else.

I did not express myself well. And you are correct to take me to task for my words. Really I'd rather help someone than attack someone. My disgust at certain behaviors is best kept to myself.
I am not showing contempt for a person but I do have contempt for certain behaviors.
You have very freely expressed your contempt for me.
Perhaps you are the one who is smugly superior?

 

[Quetzal]

I have not claimed superiority to other folks. I do claim the right to voice my opinion. There are behaviors which I find contemptible.
And "political correctness" is not one of my vices.
I do admit to meandering and digressing. I apologize if you find it distressing. But, I'm not likely to change.

No one is asking you to change who you are. But I do not think it is outside the realm of possibility to request some sort of consistency. Remember, when you bring strong emotion to an otherwise civil debate, we are in danger of losing the ability to think and discuss in a critical way. I call it "super charging", that is when someone tries to "super charge" their post with irrelevant topics/statements that they are emotionally tied to. Just my observation.

 

[Rusha]

No one is asking you to change who you are. But I do not think it is outside the realm of possibility to request some sort of consistency. Remember, when you bring strong emotion to an otherwise civil debate, we are in danger of losing the ability to think and discuss in a critical way. I call it "super charging", that is when someone tries to "super charge" their post with irrelevant topics/statements that they are emotionally tied to. Just my observation.

In regards to the OP topic, I see polygamy as being an issue that should warrant concern insofar as children being bred for and actually dragged into these marriages as an active member of an egomaniac's harem.

Of course, like any type of marriage, an overall ban against anyone under eighteen marrying should suffice.

 

[Quetzal]

In regards to the OP topic, I see polygamy as being an issue that should warrant concern insofar as children being bred for and actually dragged into these marriages as an active member of an egomaniac's harem.

Of course, like any type of marriage, an overall ban against anyone under eighteen marrying should suffice.

I hope that wouldn't happen, but you nailed it with the last sentence.

 

[Rusha]

I hope that wouldn't happen, but you nailed it with the last sentence.

I don't like polygamy for the simple fact that most who promote it are egotistical, control freaks. IF someone ask me if they should marry a man or woman who had other spouses, I would tell them it's their choice, but a nutty one should they decide to do so.

It's normally about one needing to feel appealing and having power of his minions (wives).

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusha
In regards to the OP topic, I see polygamy as being an issue that should warrant concern insofar as children being bred for and actually dragged into these marriages as an active member of an egomaniac's harem.

Of course, like any type of marriage, an overall ban against anyone under eighteen marrying should suffice.

I hope that wouldn't happen, but you nailed it with the last sentence.

Because the innocence of youth is so sacred to the LGBTQueer/sexual anarchist movement.

Yep, uh huh.

 

[PureX]

I did not express myself well. And you are correct to take me to task for my words. Really I'd rather help someone than attack someone. My disgust at certain behaviors is best kept to myself.

This is just a suggestion, but why not learn to let that "disgust" go.

The reason I asked you what you hoped to gain from expressing it, is because I don't think much of anything ever is gained from expressing it. Or even from feeling it beyond a momentary cringe.

For example; if I found myself being viscerally disgusted by the sight of two men kissing in public, I would not blame those men for my reaction. Because they just are who and what they are. And I am not in control of that, in any way. So I would look into myself for the cause of that visceral reaction, because I don't believe it's reasonable, nor necessary, nor positively effective for me to react that way. And if it effected me so strongly that I felt an overwhelming need to show them how disgusting I found them, and their behavior, then I would consider myself in serious need of an attitude adjustment. Because I know it's not my place to pass judgment on others in that way, and it's certainly not my place to want or try to punish them based on my judgment of them!

I'm not arguing with you just to argue. My comments had a reason behind them. And this was the reasoning.

I am not showing contempt for a person but I do have contempt for certain behaviors.
You have very freely expressed your contempt for me.
Perhaps you are the one who is smugly superior?

If you think I'm showing you contempt by my posts you are very wrong. If I had contempt for you I wouldn't bother responding at all. You would be on 'ignore'. Just the opposite is true. I respond because I find you intelligent, caring, awake, and learning. All traits that I love and admire in people. Which is why I want to share what I can, and learn what I can, by interacting with them.

 

[Rusha]

Because the innocence of youth

Is why there should always be laws that prohibit one from marrying children and teens ...

 

[Quetzal]

I don't like polygamy for the simple fact that most who promote it are egotistical, control freaks. IF someone ask me if they should marry a man or woman who had other spouses, I would tell them it's their choice, but a nutty one should they decide to do so.

It's normally about one needing to feel appealing and having power of his minions (wives).

Certainly not my cup of tea either, but, as you said, should someone want to do it that is on them.

 

[The Barbarian]

And, if the government stayed out of marriage entirely, this would be a non-issue, except for those folks obsessed about what goes on in other people's bedrooms.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Is why there should always be laws that prohibit one from marrying children and teens ...

I marvel how in your imaginary world children are safe from the LGBTQueer/sexual anarchist movement.

 

[Rusha]

I marvel

Good for you. Post twister.

As usual, the rest of your post wasn't worth addressing.

 

[sly72]

I believe that if you follow God and want to be recognized as being in sanctified union together, you must be man and wife. God doesn't change the rules of the bible to fit people who choose not to live in accordance with God's laws. People change their ways to fit the laws in accordance to the bible and are rewarded to receive God's blessing. That does not say that God does not love everyone, "God is love."
Men in higher courts may make any decision they want to, it will never be the deciding factor of What God's deems worthy of true blessing. And you can change any law you want. Man's law has no spiritual foundation on anything that is not in accodance to the bible.

 

[Dolmax]

annabenedetti, regarding your 'Marriage' meme, the issue is that it's using the wrong translation, i.e. NIV uses the word rape in both verse 25 & 28:

Deuteronomy 22 (NIV)
25*But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26*Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27*for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28*If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29*he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Whereas the KJV is correct as it only uses the word 'force' (rape), when applicable, i.e. verse 25:

Deuteronomy 22 King James Version (KJV):
25*But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
26*But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27*For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28*If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29*Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

 

[Neopatriarch]

annabenedetti, regarding your 'Marriage' meme, the issue is that it's using the wrong translation, i.e. NIV uses the word rape in both verse 25 & 28:

Deuteronomy 22 (NIV)
25*But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26*Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27*for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28*If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29*he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Whereas the KJV is correct as it only uses the word 'force' (rape), when applicable, i.e. verse 25:

Deuteronomy 22 King James Version (KJV):
25*But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
26*But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27*For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28*If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29*Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Would you explain the difference between forced sex and rape? This seems to be a difference without a distinction.

It's a known fact that fundamentalist Mormons supported gay marriage rights because they saw it as a stepping stone to possibly legalizing polygamy. It hasn't been hidden. I personally don't care. While I find the practice and those that follow it intriguing, I honestly don't see it as a stable existence. Not to mention the brainwashing and abuse that tend to flourish in those societies. As long as no one is forced into the situation, I mean why not?