The five thousand year old tenet that defines, describes and mandates marriage between a man and a woman. --- so you're going to use 5k years of myths and failed societies to support your position?
The "extra/additional" rights that Gays are clamoring for should be shown for what it is. --- equal rights = liberty A secularist maneuver to continue the destruction of Western Society as we know it. --- gay marriage is not going to destruct the west. however, a continued interventionist policy might. Again, the government is at fault here. No government sanctioned "Marriage" should exist, between any individuals. --- on this we agree. 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. --- mmm ... currently the marriages are approved by the state. On Apr 18, 11:32 am, 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 beastiality must also be repealed.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 beastiality must also be repealed.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 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. -- -- 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.
