Again, the government is at fault here. No government sanctioned "Marriage" should exist, between any individuals. All unions should be civil in nature, and if you can find a Church to marry you, then more power to you! Marriage is, and will continue to be an ecclesiastical function.
And this is where we agree 100%!!! On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>wrote: > First, there is no speculation on my part Plain Ol'. "It Is....What It > Is..." > > The five thousand year old tenet that defines, describes and mandates > marriage between a man and a woman. > > The "extra/additional" rights that Gays are clamoring for should be shown > for what it is. A secularist maneuver to continue the destruction of > Western Society as we know it. > > Again, the government is at fault here. No government sanctioned > "Marriage" should exist, between any individuals. All unions should be > civil in nature, and if you can find a Church to marry you, then more > power to you! Marriage is, and will continue to be an ecclesiastical > function. > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:10 PM, plainolamerican < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Under this train of thought, the laws against incestual marriage and >> beastiality must also be repealed. >> --- >> speculation noted >> >> All of those individuals should be able >> to benefit from tax laws, (which is the only thing that Gays cannot >> benefit >> from, >> --- >> you get it. >> >> In essence, let's just get rid of all societal norms. >> --- >> what norms are you referring to? >> >> On Apr 18, 9:38 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Under this train of thought, the laws against incestual marriage and >> > beastiality must also be repealed. All of those individuals should be >> able >> > to benefit from tax laws, (which is the only thing that Gays cannot >> benefit >> > from, despite their claims of 1100 or 13oo laws that they are denied or >> > discriminated against) >> > >> > In essence, let's just get rid of all societal norms. >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:29 AM, plainolamerican < >> [email protected] >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > ... take a deep breath. >> > > and know that polygamy has existed for millennium and will continue, >> > > just like homosexuality. >> > > It's just a matter of time until the jews and catholics on the USSC >> > > see the light. >> > >> > > As a lawyer in the same-sex marriage litigation at the Supreme Court >> > > who has spent a couple years working through all the implications of >> > > declaring a constitutional right to gay marriage, it became clear that >> > > such a declaration would also mean there is a right to polygamy. >> > > When I previously explained these reasons, gay marriage supporters >> > > said the country would never go there. Well, now the far-left magazine >> > > Slate has come out with a full-throated endorsement of polygamous >> > > marriage. >> > > For thousands of years, Western Civilization has always recognized >> > > three elements to marriage. It is the union of (1) two consenting >> > > adults, (2) of opposite sex, (3) who are not close blood relatives. >> > > Gay marriage advocates say the second element can be jettisoned. I’ve >> > > always asked why those same people say the first element cannot be >> > > touched. >> > > Slate believes, “Legalized polygamy in the United States is the >> > > constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice.” >> > > They’re wrong on all counts. On the constitutional issue, for >> > > liberties not found in the text of the Constitution (where marriage is >> > > never mentioned once), the Supreme Court has held a fundamental right >> > > is one that is “deeply rooted in the history and traditions” of the >> > > American people. Marriage of one man and one woman satisfy this test, >> > > which is why the Court held in the 1878 case Reynolds v. U.S. that >> > > there is no constitutional right to polygamy. It’s also why there is >> > > no right to gay marriage but why laws against marriage between >> > > different racial groups are clearly unconstitutional. >> > > Slate elaborates on their reasoning: >> > > The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage >> > > is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two >> > > consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than >> > > marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though >> > > polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no >> > > value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized >> > > groups among us. >> > > If you believe that marriage is merely the union of consenting adults, >> > > and nothing more, then this argument might make sense. I’m still >> > > waiting for one of the lawyers working on the gay marriage cases to >> > > explain why this means their argument for a right to gay marriage >> > > doesn’t extend to polygamists. >> > > This is especially important, since same-sex marriage has only existed >> > > on earth since 2001, but polygamy has been around more than 5,000 >> > > years of recorded history. Also, gay marriage is legal in just over a >> > > dozen countries, but polygamy is legal in over four dozen (roughly 50) >> > > nations and is expressly sanctioned by the second-largest religion on >> > > earth with 1.6 billion followers, Islam. >> > > One point Slate misses is that there are two forms of polygamy that >> > > could never involve disadvantaging women: a multi-person gay men >> > > marriage, and a multi-person lesbian marriage. If three men decide to >> > > enter into a polygamous gay marriage, how could any woman be >> > > victimized by it? It becomes increasingly harder for those trying to >> > > redefine marriage to explain their arbitrary line-drawing choices. >> > > Slate concludes: “All marriages deserve access to the support and >> > > resources needed to build happy, healthy lives, no matter how many >> > > partners are involved.” I give them credit for their honesty; they >> > > admit and even embrace that if you demand a right to same-sex >> > > marriage, there’s no principled reason not to have a right to >> > > polygamous marriage. The only reason is political. The American people >> > > have been told for years now that gay marriage would not open >> > > Pandora’s Box, but they still understand at a gut level that they do >> > > not want to entirely redefine the family unit in the United States. >> > > Slate completely misses the point of marriage laws in America. We’ll >> > > write about that when the Supreme Court hands down its decision in the >> > > Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry. >> > > Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is a fellow with the >> > > American Civil Rights Union and on faculty at Liberty University >> > > School of Law. >> > > --- >> > > freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most >> > > marginalized groups among us. >> > > very good! >> > >> > > Polygamy exists in three specific forms: polygyny - wherein a man has >> > > multiple simultaneous wives; polyandry - wherein a woman has multiple >> > > simultaneous husbands; or group marriage - wherein the family unit >> > > consists of multiple husbands and multiple wives. >> > > Historically, all three practices have been found, but polygyny is by >> > > far the most common. Ambiguity arises when the broad term "polygamy" >> > > is used when a specific form of polygamy is being referred to. >> > > Additionally, different countries may or may not include all forms in >> > > their laws on polygamy. >> > >> > > Polyandry >> > > Polyandry is a practice wherein a woman has more than one husband at >> > > the same time. Fraternal polyandry was traditionally practiced among >> > > nomadic Tibetans in Nepal, parts of China and part of northern India, >> > > in which two or more brothers are married to the same wife, with the >> > > wife having equal 'sexual access' to them. The Indian epic the >> > > Mahabharata includes the polyandrous marriage of Draupadi to the five >> > > Pandava brothers. Polyandry is believed to be more likely in societies >> > > with scarce environmental resources, as it is believed to limit human >> > > population growth and enhance child survival. It is a rare form of >> > > marriage that exists not only among poor families, but also the elite. >> > >> > > -- >> > > -- >> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> > >> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> > >> > > --- >> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups >> > > "PoliticalForum" group. >> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> send an >> > > email to [email protected]. >> > > For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > >> > >> > >> > JustPlainOl.Goofy.jpg >> > 397KViewDownload >> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- brine http://brineb.blogspot.com/ -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
