Okay libs, provide any cogent argument
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
How? Each individual has a right to be married to another individual. That would be my approach. Polygamy is one individual married to multiple people. How effective that argument would be would depend to some degree on how the recent decision was framed.
They can't. But what's the issue with polygamy?
Again. If Marriage is THAT sacred to you, then the right should have been fighting decades ago to get it OUT of the state's hands.
Insanity will win out. Those men willing to take on more than one wife?! Fracking CRAZY!
At least libs are now admitting that marriage has no meaning. It served us for millennia, but who needs it. Libs know best.
It served us for millennia? Really? That long? This forum is lame anymore, like a mini bubble.
If
you whackos believe in the Bible like you say you do, you'd believe in polygamy. Since the right cites the Bible in bolstering their cases for just about any argument, how can polygamy be wrong since Moses, Solomon, David, and Samuel had multiple wives? The very same Old Testament that they cite in defense of their anti-homo position clearly documents polygamy. Btw, I'm sure no wingnuts eat any shellfish. Or wear any cloth with made of multiple fabrics.
Not only that, but if they believe in religious freedom, then they would have no problem with any religion allowing polygamy. As long as it involves consenting adults, who cares.
Excellent statement. Libs always accuse Christians of imposing our values on others. What hypocrites.
Then your cool with letting 10 year olds behind the wheel? Own a gun? Vote? Come on.... use some common sense.
What is it called when you won't cover birth control for women if it isn't imposing your values on others? It ain't being imposed on you, you don't have to like it, marry a man or even stop hating gay people. What has changed for you? What is imposed on you? Just go believe what ya want, I have a feeling gay people won't be bothering the fundy bakers anymore!
what do you mean won't cover birth control? Women can buy it anywhere. Catholics believe it is a sin and they won't pay for it with their insurance coverage. But it is still available and very cheap. You've been caught in liberal BS by claiming gay marriage is not being imposed on others. It is being imposed.
Hey...guess what? I don't care if they do or don't. If a dude wants a husband or 15 wives and counting...no skin off my back. Maybe the problem is us "libs" just don't care what other people are doing in their bedrooms. You other guys seem fixated on it though.
Whoa...hadn't thought of the menstrual cycle angle. The poor guy would be living with 15 women possible on the same cycle. He'd go mad. He'd probably shoot up some mall in Utah and then what.
Very "enlightened" of you. Typical lib. You don't give a whit about the potential and hugely negative impacts on women and children all because you want to feel enlightened and cool.
What's interesting is that you love big government but are very libertarian about this.
Women's right groups are against it. They believe that since most of the money is in the hands of men, men will be far more likely to have multiple wives than the reverse. They believe this denigrates women and supplicates them in this kind of marriage treating them like property rather than equals. As for children, some wives will be favored over others. Therefore the children will suffer. The children will also suffer from mockery in schools and elsewhere. And what happens to these kids if the finances in the family suffer? Some will be helped and others abandoned. Too many problems to count.
This is all great and fun, but I answered your original question about how you argue against polygamy. For some reason you've ignored that and rambled on about how this decision means polygamy is necessarily the next shoe to drop.
2 things:
I still don't see where polygamy is a problem and one the Gov't or "the people" for that matter should have a say on.
Rambling on about the Justices creating law is taking bastardized stance towards the reality of what occurred. The people voted an unconstitutional and discriminatory law into the books. The justices upheld the 14th amendment as it clearly states in section 1 that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.
The claim that the framers (which this amendment was not created by the framers; it was done post Civil War) had no thoughts of gay marriage in mind is speculative. We get it, you don't like gays or gay marriage. The arguments being made are ridiculous and the justices were right in the decision they made and it was not creating law, it was upholding justice towards a group being discriminated against.
Last edited:
through money.
This whole issue is rooted in envy and entitlement mentality, not the validation of love or a relationship society values.
It's like children. One child gets an Ipod and the others complain they want one too.
Gay couples or polygamists, and their dependents, are now (would be) entitled to survivor benefits via SS, VA, or railroad disability just like hetero couples have been. Previously homosexuals where helping to foot the bill for heterosexual benefits they themselves wanted. Now all are footing the bill for each other. So as an example, the gay marriage or polygamist affect women and children through money. There are others ways of affect as well.
How is it not? Explain any rational argument? As Roberts noted, there is no argument against polygamy. Maybe you're smarter than
Your reasoning of a one on one marriage is very weak. Consenting adults. Wives testifying they are happy and content. Equal rights. Once marriage was redefined the legal argument against polygamy effectively ended.
Couldn't disagree more and your ridiculous assertion that those against gay marriage are bigoted against gays is a dispicable argument and is made to shut down debate. To claim the framers of the 14th Amendment would have used this amendment to permit gay marriage is laughable and you know it. We have a constitutional rememdy for new laws. Either amend the Constitution, have votes at the state level or pass new laws through Congress.
The right has been preaching doom and gloom since Obama was elected the FIRST time, shit ain't happened and no one believed you so we elected him again. You guys are gonna get creamed in 2016 because you can't see anyone who doesn't look or think like you as the enemy. On another note, Christie through his clown hat into the bus!.
You continue to say the framers would be against it. The framers were the 1868 congress. Please provide proof they would be against its application towards gay marriage.
Further, there have already been changes when original documents were found to have been discriminatory as was the case of the Supreme Court finding properly states didn't have the right to legislate discriminatory laws. It's simple.
in 1868 The country was deeply religious. Gay marriage would not even have occurred to them and if it did it would've been viewed abhorrently. Just five years ago Kagan in her confirmation hearing stated that gay marriage was not a constitutionally protected right. If you want to change the law defining marriage, legislate it. Do not do it through nine unelected judges.
Last edited:
So we agree then. The framers could be wrong about being discriminatory. Women's right to vote, blacks being allowed to vote, blacks being viewed as property, Native Americans, vote only being extended to land owners, etc.
The states who enacted legislation banning gay marriage did so and as soon as a single state voted for it, the protection of the 14th came into play. The justices had no choice and if they were truly voting to uphold the law there shouldn't have been a single dissenting opinion.
The only counter to this could have been a federal ban which rightly would have never passed. Kagan is one opinion and frankly, "things change Mox".
On the plus side expect the NRA to capitalize on this within the next year or two for CCW. Even more of a plus is that we see some comprehensive reform on gun laws that actually make some sense and not dumb ass ASW ban like Clinton enacted that did nothing but create aesthetic changes.
This decision is good for so many reasons. Most of all it provides equality.
10 year olds driving, voting and owning a gun (potentially) effect me. A 10 year old marrying a 45 year old pervert has no effect on me. Love is love. Didn't you get the memo?
A 10 year old doesn't lack the maturity or intellectual capacity to make those decisions for themselves, hence laws affect "minors" differently in many circumstances.
But keep playing the Anti Gay-Marriage games of (Beastiality, Polygamy, Incest, etc.)
HAHAHAHA. LMAO! President Lincoln was assassinated, President Andrew Johnson was impeached by the House, did not offer protection to former slaves, opposed the 14th Amendment, almost all southern states opposed the 14th Amendment, which gave citizenship to former slaves, the US Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act (making it difficult for a President to fire cabinet officials), President Andrew Johnson compared himself to Christ.....
Maybe you are right, sounds deeply religious just like today.....
I'll stop playing that game when someone explains to me how those things are LOGICALLY different. Not just that they're icky. The jump from opposite sex to same sex is a far greater jump than from 2 people to 3+ people. Incest can be between consenting adults. People have the right to kill animals for food so don't tell me the animal would have to consent to getting married. Either society has the right to define marriage or it doesn't. SCOTUS has now said society does not have that authority.
I dont' think it's actually going to happen anytime soon. But that's only because the supreme court isn't using any coherent, rational thought process. They are simply voting along political lines.
