0
markharju

Told You So....

Recommended Posts

markharju

...is anyone surprised?

Bigamist demands right to marry two women, cites SCOTUS ruling on homosexual marriage

Next it'll be a circus trainer wanting to marry his elephant.
.



Then let God be so inflamed with anger as to finally show Himself and deal with it along with the rest of this wicked world!

My life as a christian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWo2wKiUIkg

It's been rough, but I'd have it no other way...

Edit:
Wow....Just seen this live version - 1978

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUBil43DAoo
Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coreeece

***...is anyone surprised?

Bigamist demands right to marry two women, cites SCOTUS ruling on homosexual marriage

Next it'll be a circus trainer wanting to marry his elephant.
.



Then let God be so inflamed with anger as to finally show Himself and deal with it along with the rest of this wicked world!

My life as a christian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWo2wKiUIkg

It's been rough, but I'd have it no other way...

Edit:
Wow....Just seen this live version - 1978

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUBil43DAoo

One of my favorite albums of all time...thanks for putting it in perspective.

mh
.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coreeece

***...is anyone surprised?

Bigamist demands right to marry two women, cites SCOTUS ruling on homosexual marriage

Next it'll be a circus trainer wanting to marry his elephant.
.



Then let God be so inflamed with anger as to finally show Himself and deal with it along with the rest of this wicked world!

My life as a christian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWo2wKiUIkg

It's been rough, but I'd have it no other way...

Edit:
Wow....Just seen this live version - 1978

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUBil43DAoo

Amen and Selah
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
markharju


Good for them:)
Quote

Next it'll be a circus trainer wanting to marry his elephant.
.



It may well be. But it won't work, since it is quite clearly a completely different situation. Even if the elephant is over 18 it is not a consenting adult. Duh.:S
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
markharju

...is anyone surprised?

Bigamist demands right to marry two women, cites SCOTUS ruling on homosexual marriage

Next it'll be a circus trainer wanting to marry his elephant.
.



Mark... come on.... seriously??

As far as the link... why the hell not.... The Bible has all kinds of plural marriage.... although most men can't even satisfy the needs of one woman.:ph34r:
Maternal societies with polyandry are far more viable in the long run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iago

***...is anyone surprised?

Bigamist demands right to marry two women, cites SCOTUS ruling on homosexual marriage

Next it'll be a circus trainer wanting to marry his elephant.
.



You can marry as many people as you like, but you can only have one legal spouse.

That's just how the system is setup.

Says who? As Jeanne pointed out, polygamy existed in the Old Testament. So why not? Nothing to prohibit it now. No limits.

mh
.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Then let God be so inflamed with anger as to finally show Himself and deal with it
>along with the rest of this wicked world!

I'd think he'd be happy that Deuteronomy 21:15, Exodus 21:10 and 2 Chronicles 11:21 were finally being followed, and modern men were finally starting to follow in the footsteps of Moses, Jacob, Esau, David and King Solomon.

After all, several prominent religious leaders are now quite strenuously pointing out that freedom of religion is an inalienable right, and that people who wish to marry in a way supported by their religion must have their rights protected. And there are several religions in the US who do practice polygamy, and they have Biblical precedents to fall back on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who cares - if the government wasn't in the business of 'marriage' we wouldn't have any of these problems in the first place.

People could pair off (triple up, whatever) any way they like and it wouldn't have any 'default' legal perceived benefits that people feel they have to fight for. Benefits, arrangements, etc could be covered by individual, voluntary contracts between consenting individuals. Between individuals and their employers (for benefits). etc

marriage is about pairing up - this society was supposed to be about individuals

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is precisely ONE reason this matters and it has nothing to do with "morality"; spousal rights (hospital visitation, probate, all that kind of crap).

Beyond that, who gives a fuck and what business it is of yours?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rehmwa

Who cares - if the government wasn't in the business of 'marriage' we wouldn't have any of these problems in the first place.



But that's what they do. Get involved in things they have no need to, create special classes of people and then when confronted about it enough times, just expand the requirements to include the new group to enhance their power and influence.

The only time they've not done it was the abolition of slavery, but the Feds still greatly enhanced their power and influence.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron, has there been any discussion in the religious community of efforts to remove the government from "marriage" completely for all and/or increase the separation between church and state?
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Who cares - if the government wasn't in the business of 'marriage' we wouldn't have
>any of these problems in the first place.

It would have been interesting indeed if the Supreme Court had returned the decision "federal and state governments have no right to discriminate against people based on their marital status; any rights gained by marriage must be available to all."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bolas

Ron, has there been any discussion in the religious community of efforts to remove the government from "marriage" completely for all and/or increase the separation between church and state?



No discussion that I am aware of. IMO, the "church" has taken an absent or myopic view of government in general until the 1980s. At that time there was a move just to get Christians to vote. I did not participate in Christian activities prior to 1981. I just remember pastors, preachers, evangelists, etc. saying we need to register and vote so we could take an active role.

Removing marriage from governmental control would be a great idea. Ted Cruz stated yesterday on Blaze TV that it would never happen because of the legal issues involved with divorce e.g. child custody and property settlements.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RonD1120

***Ron, has there been any discussion in the religious community of efforts to remove the government from "marriage" completely for all and/or increase the separation between church and state?



No discussion that I am aware of. IMO, the "church" has taken an absent or myopic view of government in general until the 1980s. At that time there was a move just to get Christians to vote. I did not participate in Christian activities prior to 1981. I just remember pastors, preachers, evangelists, etc. saying we need to register and vote so we could take an active role.

Removing marriage from governmental control would be a great idea. Ted Cruz stated yesterday on Blaze TV that it would never happen because of the legal issues involved with divorce e.g. child custody and property settlements.

It's my one concern with eliminating marriage from government oversight. Marriage provides presumptions. Try going into a business relationship with someone and doing it without a partnership agreement. Might be fine until fighting occurs. What about when one wants the partnership to end? It will be a nightmare to resolve it. Lengthy. Expensive

Marriage laws basically say "here is what you are contracting to." It is what it is. And it does make things simpler.

I see nothing wrong with a prenup and no marriage afterward. But I also have a problem with marriage being a business decision.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm missing the reason why there can't be more than two people in a marriage? You guys are equating it to business, and in business there are more than two people making important legal and monetary decisions just fine. What am I missing here?

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> You guys are equating it to business, and in business there are more than two
>people making important legal and military decisions just fine.

Right, but as of now all the legal apparatus surrounding marriage assumes one "other" person. That would have to change. And since there are literally hundreds of cases where that assumption is made (for taxes, educational loans, survivor benefits, visitation rights, medical decisionmaking etc) it would be a lot of changes. Not to say it can't be done, it would just be somewhat difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or to put it another way:

If you marry *one* woman, then divorce her, she gets half your shit.

So if you married *two* women, then divorced both, one gets half your shit; The other would get the other half of your shit; Now you ain't got shit.[:/]

So it follows that if you married *three* women, then divorced them all:
- The first would get half your shit.
- The second would get the other half of your shit.
- And the court would be telling you that you need to come up with more shit, (that you don't have), to pay off the third one.:S

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RonD1120

***Ron, has there been any discussion in the religious community of efforts to remove the government from "marriage" completely for all and/or increase the separation between church and state?



No discussion that I am aware of. IMO, the "church" has taken an absent or myopic view of government in general until the 1980s. At that time there was a move just to get Christians to vote. I did not participate in Christian activities prior to 1981. I just remember pastors, preachers, evangelists, etc. saying we need to register and vote so we could take an active role.

Removing marriage from governmental control would be a great idea. Ted Cruz stated yesterday on Blaze TV that it would never happen because of the legal issues involved with divorce e.g. child custody and property settlements.

The "church" has a myopic view of everything.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

> You guys are equating it to business, and in business there are more than two
>people making important legal and military decisions just fine.



Freudian slip?
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RonD1120

***> You guys are equating it to business, and in business there are more than two
>people making important legal and military decisions just fine.



Freudian slip?
Errors provided by Apple iPhone 6

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

> You guys are equating it to business, and in business there are more than two
>people making important legal and military decisions just fine.

Right, but as of now all the legal apparatus surrounding marriage assumes one "other" person. That would have to change. And since there are literally hundreds of cases where that assumption is made (for taxes, educational loans, survivor benefits, visitation rights, medical decisionmaking etc) it would be a lot of changes. Not to say it can't be done, it would just be somewhat difficult.



Broadly speaking, many of those examples are not much different than the rights and privileges multiple siblings already have vis a vis their mutual parents, or vice versa, and those things are generally doable. So when you cut thru the bullshit, most of it really is more about attitude and convention than practicality. Justice Roberts ignores that perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anvilbrother

I'm missing the reason why there can't be more than two people in a marriage? You guys are equating it to business, and in business there are more than two people making important legal and monetary decisions just fine. What am I missing here?

Corporations are people and most of them end up with multiple legal mergers. So basically the US Gov has always supported a poly lifestyle.
_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0