'Sister Wives': Polygamy law challenge called demand for equality

Originally posted by Annee

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.

With minds like yours - - I'd still be barefoot - pregnant - and in the kitchen.

Totally depended on some man.

NO THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I got my rights - - gays and polygamists deserve theirs.

You can stay in your Lockbox society.

At this point I'd almost rather be barefoot and pregant that folding shirts at the GAP...at least I'd have a lovely child to look forward too, lol. And the tiles in the kitchen are cool on the bare feet in the hot summer.

I think we need to reevaluate the knee-jerk response that "job is always better for a woman than a traditional family role." Because right now I'm not seeing it.

Originally posted by Partygirl
At this point I'd almost rather be barefoot and pregant that folding shirts at the GAP...at least I'd have a lovely child to look forward too, lol. And the tiles in the kitchen are cool on the bare feet in the hot summer.

I think we need to reevaluate the knee-jerk response that "job is always better for a woman than a traditional family role." Because right now I'm not seeing it.

I was a stay at home mom - by choice. Key word Choice.

Not allowing gays to marry - - denies them that Choice. For no real legitimate reason.

reply to post by Annee


so whats the pitch this time?

they were born that way?

oh i can already foresee the oprah episodes...

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
hah, i told you this would happen.

whats next?

no seriously, where does it end?

With consenting adults having the relationships they choose.

Without fear of government arresting them.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by Annee

 

so whats the pitch this time?

they were born that way?

oh i can already foresee the oprah episodes...

Homosexuals are born attracted to same gender. Yes. It is a birthright - - not a behavior.

There are many reasons why group marriages are a practical and good idea.

Originally posted by Partygirl
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

There is a place to discuss theology on this board. That place is not here. I specifically stated in the post above I did not want to have this kind of argument here , and I will not, as it is neither productive nor germane to the main thrust of this topic and this forum. However I thought I should clarify my position and perspective so people have some framework for evaluating my opinions.

I don't think you can bring your beliefs into a discussion.

Then say - don't discuss it. It kind of doesn't work that way.

reply to post by Annee


sorry, the rest of the world disagrees.

next youll be telling me a consenting 4 year old should be able to marry so long as they have a permission slip signed by mommy and daddy.

Originally posted by Annee

I don't think you can bring your beliefs into a discussion.

Then say - don't discuss it. It kind of doesn't work that way.

If I was a Communist (to pick a random "ism") and I wanted to comment in a thread on political economy, I think it would be reasonable to simply state my ideological affiliation in connection with an opinion, so that people would have a frame of reference for understanding my position. I could probably do this without the entire conversation devolving into an examination of the fundamental political tennants of Communisim.

This is a thread about family issues, so I stated my affliation as a Christian in connection with my opinion, so that people would have a frame of reference for understanding my position. I feel I should be able to do this without the entire conversation devolving into an examination of the fundamental doctrinal tennants of Christianity. As I stated there is a whole forum on this board with dozens of topics in which we can do this. Let's not let it destroy this thread, please.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by Annee

 

sorry, the rest of the world disagrees.

next youll be telling me a consenting 4 year old should be able to marry so long as they have a permission slip signed by mommy and daddy.

I'm not going to address this stupidity again.

Consenting Adults. That does not mean consenting adults marrying off a child.

Originally posted by Partygirl
This is a thread about family issues, so I stated my affliation as a Christian in connection with my opinion, so that people would have a frame of reference for understanding my position. I feel I should be able to do this without the entire conversation devolving into an examination of the fundamental doctrinal tennants of Christianity. As I stated there is a whole forum on this board with dozens of topics in which we can do this. Let's not let it destroy this thread, please

I'm not the one discussing your religion.

Yet,

Originally posted by Annee
I'm not going to address this stupidity again.
.

But wasn't this the response people got whenever they said gay marriage might open the door to polygamy? Withering scorn. "Such a thing would never be possible, its stupid even to bring it up."

And yet here we are, discussing the stupid and the unthinkable.

Maybe instead of calling people you don't agree with "stupid," its time to examine the wider implications of the gay marriage on society in general?

See, it used to be that "everyone knew" that marriage was naturally for men and women, and the very idea of gay marriage would have been dismissed as stupid.

But now that we can no longer draw the line at man-women, we need a new line, don't we? Otherwise you really will have children getting married.

So where is the line? Please draw it for us, and be as specific as possible.

reply to post by Annee


since when does annee get to decide what reality is for everybody?

one freaky illegal fetish is as good as another.

gay marraige was special because they really believe they are born that way and should be included.(and being gay is not illegal)

that doesnt mean its an open invitation to redefine marraige to include whatever your heart desires.

which leads me back to my original point, which you conveinently misunderstood (or just misquoted):

are the polygymists going to claim that they were born that way? or is annee just defining her own narrow scope as reality for the rest of the world?

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by Annee

 

since when does annee get to decide what reality is for everybody?

one freaky illegal fetish is as good as another.

gay marraige was special because they really believe they are born that way and should be included.(and being gay is not illegal)

that doesnt mean its an open invitation to redefine marraige to include whatever your heart desires.

which leads me back to my original point, which you conveinently misunderstood (or just misquoted):

are the polygymists going to claim that they were born that way? or is annee just defining her narrow scope of reality for the rest of the world?

And for that matter, why stop at "being born that way" as a justification? Why not just accept people as different for whatever reason and "celebrate that diversity" ? You don't want to be guilty of a "hate crime" do you?

Originally posted by Partygirl

Originally posted by Annee
I'm not going to address this stupidity again.
.

But wasn't this the response people got whenever they said gay marriage might open the door to polygamy? Withering scorn. "Such a thing would never be possible, its stupid even to bring it up."

If you would like to present an argument intelligently - - then I'm sure it will be worth discussing.

Childish remarks with laughing emoticons - - will not. At least by me.

Originally posted by Annee
If you would like to present an argument intelligently - - then I'm sure it will be worth discussing.

Childish remarks with laughing emoticons - - will not. At least by me.

Ah, so now annie gets to set the parameters for discussion! Not only the paramaters for marriage, but discussion itself. What a powerful person she must be. No more emoticons. Gotcha. No more mention of my religion, even to give people a rough idea of who I am. Gotcha. No more "Childish Remarks." Not too sure about what exactly this means, but clearly it is more restrictive than the ATS terms and conditions.

Anything else I should change? Should I go put on a different color shirt, or eat a certain food? Would you like me to fetch your slippers first? You sure do have a lot of rules, Annee. Just making sure I have them all right.

While I am trying to anticipate further examples of Annee's very specific rules for engaging in conversation so as not to offend her, I will try to construct the nub of my argument in as logical a form as possible:

1) The limits of marriage were previously well-established: Man, woman, consenting adults.

2) This has changed with the addition of gay marriage. Now the old rules no longer apply.

3) Since the old rules no longer apply, we need new rules. The new rules seem to be "the old way plus homosexuals but not plus anyone else" and I'm having a hard time seeing the logic of this.

4) Whenever #3 above is pointed out to an oponent, they seem to get mysteriously annoyed, or start calling the other person "childish" or complaining about emoticons. I wonder why? Could it be that they cannot answer the question logically themselves?

The only true problem is with the State and it's ability to tax said marriages or unions. Under current law this is not possible, thus the need to put it before a higher court.

Anytime that you involve the state there will always be the issue of taxation. Marriage is no different in this respect. By going to the court house to obtain a "marriage license" you have asked the "State" for permission to marry and placed the State as a party to the marriage. Thus giving them rights to any and all fruits that are produced by the union. Its a three party contract between the husband, wife and the State where upon all State's laws and provisions apply.

Marriage between one man and one woman does not require any State's permission nor does it allow the State any rights to the fruits of the marriage or jurisdiction over the marriage. In plain English, they have no rights over the children (fruits) nor can they dissolve the marriage (divorce) as the State was not party to the contract.

However, for any other type of union, should it be polygamist or homosexual you are required to get the State's permission for the union. Since homosexual marriage has been legalized in more than one State, its only a matter of time before polygamy will also have to be legalized or other forms of discrimination must be allowed.

This begs the question; where will it all end? The fact is, it has opened the door for all manor of non-standard "marriages". Wither one likes it or not no longer applies as the line has been crossed. For all those that want to claim equal rights, just remember, the woman that wants to marry her dog or the man that wants to marry a ewe will claim "equal rights". The polygamist now can claim "equal rights" under discriminatory law.

the difference is that

1) polygamy is already illegal

and

2) calling it anything other than a choice is laughable.

when you choose to do something illegal that makes you a criminal

so this isnt even in the same ballpark as gay marriage (as i continue to point out the obvious) because:

1) theres no appeal to civil rights

and

2) society has already spoken (see penal code section whatever paragrach C)

ill admit, it would make divorce court a helluva lot more interesting.

6 wives fighting over who gets the mans house

reply to post by RelentlessLurker


BS... WHo made it illegal ? when you found out... Prosecute the guy and make sure he will loose his head in the process.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


well i guess in this case the state.

not sure how to respond to the rest..