It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by getreadyalready
I totally agree with you. Though i do not condone polygamy, it is not my place to tell someone how many people with whom they can intimately cohabitate. However, that being said, if they are going t recognize polygamy,
they need to recognize that women can have multiple husbands and that all the spouses, who MUST be consenting adults, are entitled to an EQUAL share of income and benefits.
But still - - - you can't create a second class citizen. It has to be equal. ALL must be called Marriage.
And eventually ALL will be.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
It is the "tradition of marriage."
Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...there are many traditions of marriage that are very old and have nothing to do with religion - but - those are usually considered illegal or not recognized in lieu of the bs claim that religion somehow owns or created the tradition of marriage...
...i agree with getreadyalready in that eventually all legal marriages will be called legal unions because thats what they really are if you have to file (pay for) a marriage license before the government recognizes your union...
Originally posted by silent thunder
My take on this is that gay marriage has indeed opened the door for polygamy and evern more, shall we say...exotic...domestic arrangements.
Nobody wanted to think about that. The entire issue (both pro and con) was framed in terms of the rights of Gay people. Nobody spent much time asking about the knock-on effects of changing the basic foundation of what defines marriage, one of the oldest and most universal human institutions.
Originally posted by Observer99
Many objectors to gay marriage, like me, made exactly that argument the entire time. We knew it, and the criminal NWO people who back this agenda knew it too. They WANT to destroy the traditional family in every way. It lets them get more control over everyone's lives. Aaron Russo explained how this crowd supported women's lib with the intent of destroying the family unit and gaining control over women in the workplace. It worked very well.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the Christian comment. The Bible is full of polygamists. Even in the new testament polygamy is discussed:
Originally posted by Partygirl
As a Christian I believe in the sanctity of tradtional male-female marriage.
However, beyond this point (which I have no interest arguing here, let it be known) I would like to state for the record that polygamy already exists.
So the bible is somewhat sexist, it seems to allow polygyny but apparently not polyandry (and probably not gay marriage).
There absolutely is an example in the Bible, where God actually does command a situation of polygamy ---in the New Testament, even. ...
* believer WIFE is commanded of God to either:
remain unmarried, or
be reconciled back to her husband
* believer HUSBAND is commanded of God to:
not put away any wife, and to
let any departed wife return back to him
The key point is that the HUSBAND is NOT given the same commandments of instruction. Only the WIFE is commanded to remain unmarried, but the HUSBAND is not given that commandment. He is commanded of God to let her be married to him, either way!
Accordingly, the HUSBAND is of course, still free to marry another wife. That fact is further proved by the later verses