calfoxwc Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 The government's only concerns are taxation and determining who has medical right of attorney, next of kin, etc. ************************************************ eh.... I don't see that. A society must have laws in many areas to be able to survive conflicts, disagreements, and to protect individual rights across the board. The problem is, the wingnut, out of control left is fighting a culture war. And, I wonder how much mental illness plays a role. Check it out - woman "marries" a bridge. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356774/Australian-woman-Jodi-Rose-marries-bridge-France--gets-mayors-blessing.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted May 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Civil unions were the way to go on this issue. Once the definition of marriage between one man and one woman has been changed then logically why should there by laws against a man having three or four wives? Isn't that his right? How dare there be laws against a man having multiple wives in his pursuit of happiness. So where does it end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 eh.... I don't see that. A society must have laws in many areas to be able to survive conflicts, disagreements, and to protect individual rights across the board. The problem is, the wingnut, out of control left is fighting a culture war. And, I wonder how much mental illness plays a role. Check it out - woman "marries" a bridge. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356774/Australian-woman-Jodi-Rose-marries-bridge-France--gets-mayors-blessing.html I wonder if the Mayor will have to deal with the eventual divorce. Hope the bridge was able to sign a prenup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Civil unions were the way to go on this issue. Once the definition of marriage between one man and one woman has been changed then logically why should there by laws against a man having three or four wives? Isn't that his right? How dare there be laws against a man having multiple wives in his pursuit of happiness. So where does it end? I honestly don't give a crap if someone has 70 wives so long as all involved are o.k. with it. It isn't my messed up life so I could care less. I worry about myself and let nutty people do as they wish so long as no one is getting harmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted May 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Atheists would say they don't know yet and not rely on immediately jumping to filling that void with fairy tales. I can live without knowing exactly how or why something exists or functions. Give science enough time. At one point, science fiction writers thought that going to the Moon and to Mars was crazy. And at one time many of the prophecies in the bible seemed far fetched but many of the technologies today have made those far fetched prophecies a reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Civil unions were the way to go on this issue. Once the definition of marriage between one man and one woman has been changed then logically why should there by laws against a man having three or four wives? Isn't that his right? How dare there be laws against a man having multiple wives in his pursuit of happiness. So where does it end? Polygamy wasn't in the Bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted May 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Trying to force beliefs are never the way to go. I see one issue in particular (abortion) as not even being a "religious" one. I belong to Right to Life and there are atheists in Right to Life who are against abortion just because they see it as murdering a baby (and that is how I see it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted May 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Polygamy wasn't in the Bible? What does Scripture say about Polygamy? In Matt. 19:4 we are told by Jesus that God created one “male and [one] female” and joined them in marriage. Mark 10:6-8:"But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. The two as one is the pattern on how marriage was to be conducted from the start. NOT three or four as one. Eve was taken from Adams body and given back to him as his wife (singular) showing God’s approval of what the marriage union is to be like. God always spoke of man's “wife,” as singular, not wives. Notice it also states one father one mother. It wasn’t until sin made man fall (Gen. 4:23) that polygamy occurs. Cain was cursed, Lamech is a descendent of Cain and the first to practice polygamy. The first time polygamous relationship is found in the Bible is with a thriving rebellious society in sin; when a murderer named “Lamech [a descendant of Cain] took for himself two wives” (Gen.4:19, 23). The same Godly pattern of one man and one wife is lived by Noah. At the time of the Ark (Gen. 7:7), Noah took his one wife into the ark, all his son’s took one wife; God called Noah’s family righteous and pure. If polygamy were ordained of God, it would have made sense that Noah and his sons would have taken additional wives with them to repopulate the earth faster from the cataclysm. Was Abraham, David Solomon condemned or approved for practicing polygamy? Well they certainly did not get blessed for it! The fact that every polygamist in the Bible like David and Solomon (1 Chron. 14:3) were punished. This should be evidence that this is not God’s will. God never condoned polygamy but like divorce he allowed it to occur and did not bring an immediate punishment for this disobedience. Deut. 17:14-17: “I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' “you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, 'You shall not return that way again.' “Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.” This is the command of God, and he has never changed it. The New Testament teaches that, “Each man [should] have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). Monogamous marriage teaches us the type of the relation Christ has between himself and His bride, the church (Eph. 5:31-32). The church is called the bride, collectively as one (singular) each person is not a bride, as in plurality of wives and marriages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Of course a person can't marry a pig. But a woman "married" a bridge. Who gets to decide what the laws are? Maybe, people can go naked everywhere? A society must be structured in a constructive way, or you have no working society. society has a requirement to structure itself, without impeding the rights of the individual. Just what individual rights are, is naturally called into question. A kid in elementary school can't get married, sign a legal contract, etc etc etc....... why? Because society protects itself from disaster, and protects the individuals from themselves when they are deemed too young to make valid decisions on their own behalf. Who says? Society. common sense says. Just because it's in the Bible, doesn't mean that it's wrong. And the Bible talks a whole lot about sin - far more than I care to ever had read much of - and a lot about lessons learned. A whole lot about principles. And principles are what society uses to guide behavior for to the degree that said society is healthy and self-sustaining, while protecting the RIGHTS OF THE INDIVUDUAL. It's a balancing act. Biblical principles are lessons learned from the sins way back in the past. God's Ten Commandents pertain to bad things done by sinful people. Don't do em. Note that I said GUIDE, and protecting individual rights and freedoms. That includes the rights of all, whether or not they are Chritian or Hebrew or Muslim or whoever else. But common sense never sanctions perverted behavior, imho, regardless of whether people accept the Bible as their guide, or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Trying to force beliefs are never the way to go. I see one issue in particular (abortion) as not even being a "religious" one. I belong to Right to Life and there are atheists in Right to Life who are against abortion just because they see it as murdering a baby (and that is how I see it). Which it isn't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Right, gay marriage will be a disaster that leads to the downfall of society... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Sodom and Gomorrah. Great societies for different reasons, have failed and imploded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Except, gay couples *don't* have the same rights as straight couples. The recent case was brought about, if i remember rightly, because of a couple who wanted to jointly adopt kids - like any straight married couple could do - but because they weren't officially married, they couldn't, and only one of them would be a legal guardian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted May 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Which it isn't... I have read from those who perform abortions admit these were babies that are being killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 On the gay marriage topic - I feel the prevailing theme amongst the anti crowd is that marriage for the gays isnt a 'civil right'. which of course, is rather mind boggling. Also, I took a glance at all the posters who start threads and are the primary drivers of conversation here (I'll admit I very rarely check this side of the forum) and it seems like it's essentially a circle jerk of the same 4 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 I guess you're volunteering to be the pivot man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 I'd have said three, not four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 I guess you're volunteering to be the pivot man? I had to wiki that phrase and you know it off the top of your head. Hey, not my thing but I sure won't judge you for it, chief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 I assumed it was a basketball reference. But then, I guess could be something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 I assumed it was a basketball reference. But then, I guess could be something else. Basketball was my first thought, baseball was my second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Tiam is like Union Bob, he'll drop by, say whiney stuff, and then leave without having to explain his comments, or read responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohican Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Going to the OP, (late to the game once again) some random musings Joe Biden is a stroke addled muppet that no one takes seriously. He couldn’t hold his own in a VP debate with Sarah Palin, so law degree or whatever aside he is no mental giant. He’s in the VP slot for several reason – Comic Relief, the use of the crazy man/Retard as VP for impeachment protection, and to float the occasional trial balloon for President Obama’s handlers. Remember, VP Joe the Stroke Patient blurted out some things during the 2012 campaign that allowed Obama’s Stance on Gay Marriage to “evolve”. VP Biden can’t count his fucking shoe laces, so someone downloaded this through his matrix cable.2. The timing on this impeccable. It makes Carson look bad to non-discerning media consumers and the statement is made while nine unelected thugs in black robes chart the nation’s course on marriage. It also happened after about 300 high ranking main stream GOP “leaders” signed onto embracing gay marriage. 3. Bigoted – adjective. Utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. It’s a curse of the enlightenment that bigoted is always used in the negative, and always implies that one is wrong. It’s one of those words used to shut off discussion. If you call someone bigoted, or intolerant, or racist then people typically don’t want to be perceived as one of those things so will drop any argument. It’s chickenshit. Example - Examine this statement-Premise. “All pederasts should be imprisoned, and upon release be relieved of their offending members.” Bigoted? Intolerant? When accused of this many people go into a defensive mode and abandon their argument. Example – A strict interpretation of the Koran tells it’s believers that they are to rule the world, and that any ends justify the means. People who follow a strict interpretation of the Koran have no place in a society structured on Individualism and Liberty. Bigoted? Intolerant? Being a bigot is not always a bad thing…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Tiam is like Union Bob, he'll drop by, say whiney stuff, and then leave without having to explain his comments, or read responses. Union Bob? Bob the builder...? Pretty sure that's what you mean. Also, I've explained myself quite well. It's the broken-record rebuttals that aren't worth diving into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Who are you? I think I'll live if the village idiots don't take me seriously not only will you live it actually speaks for you that the primates don't take you srsly, given the other monkeys they do take srsly. Should abs be a vote of confidence in yourself, you're on the right path when the morons don't like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 I have read from those who perform abortions admit these were babies that are being killed. At what point in the pregnancy is it killing a baby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted May 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 I have never agreed with the argument that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil so why do it? (because we have to) We are almost always confronted with choices in elections of voting for the lesser of two evils. I really don't see much profiles in courage in either party today. Do you think Obama or Hillary Clinton really evolved recently on gay marriage or did they see the tide turn on public opinion and jump on the bandwagon? No doubt Obama always believed in gay marriage but as recently as 08 he would say he believed marriage was between one man and one woman when it wasn't good for him in politics. They are hypocrites but that is nothing new in either party. Not just picking on democrats hypocrisy as the republicans have more than their share as well. Our two party system could use some expanding into three or four viable parties capable of actually winning but with all the money in politics flowing into the two parties it would be very difficult to get some competition with other parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohican Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Right, gay marriage will be a disaster that leads to the downfall of society... I know that you are being facetious, but your premise is still correct. There are other factors.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Union Bob? Bob the builder...? Pretty sure that's what you mean. Also, I've explained myself quite well. It's the broken-record rebuttals that aren't worth diving into. You're just another know-it-all (not really) punk who comes in with stupid ass comments. Seen it a million I had to wiki that phrase and you know it off the top of your head. Hey, not my thing but I sure won't judge you for it, chief. Well, seeing as you said circle jerk, you must have some inside knowledge...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 You're just another know-it-all (not really) punk who comes in with stupid ass comments. Seen it a million Well, seeing as you said circle jerk, you must have some inside knowledge...... I prefer being called a little person, please and thank you. Yeah, I said circle jerk. I bet you could pole most of America and they would know what a quarterback is but then look dumbfounded when asked about a levels concept. We all know broad terminology, but unless one takes a Personal interest, the specifics and details go by the way side. In your case, you got specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 I know that you are being facetious, but your premise is still correct. There are other factors.... Ummmmm.... Please expand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.