First, there is no speculation on my part Plain Ol'. "It Is....What It Is..."
The five thousand year old tenet that defines, describes and mandates marriage between a man and a woman. The "extra/additional" rights that Gays are clamoring for should be shown for what it is. A secularist maneuver to continue the destruction of Western Society as we know it. Again, the government is at fault here. No government sanctioned "Marriage" should exist, between any individuals. All unions should be civil in nature, and if you can find a Church to marry you, then more power to you! Marriage is, and will continue to be an ecclesiastical function. On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:10 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > wrote: > Under this train of thought, the laws against incestual marriage and > beastiality must also be repealed. > --- > speculation noted > > All of those individuals should be able > to benefit from tax laws, (which is the only thing that Gays cannot > benefit > from, > --- > you get it. > > In essence, let's just get rid of all societal norms. > --- > what norms are you referring to? > > On Apr 18, 9:38 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > Under this train of thought, the laws against incestual marriage and > > beastiality must also be repealed. All of those individuals should be > able > > to benefit from tax laws, (which is the only thing that Gays cannot > benefit > > from, despite their claims of 1100 or 13oo laws that they are denied or > > discriminated against) > > > > In essence, let's just get rid of all societal norms. > > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:29 AM, plainolamerican < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > ... take a deep breath. > > > and know that polygamy has existed for millennium and will continue, > > > just like homosexuality. > > > It's just a matter of time until the jews and catholics on the USSC > > > see the light. > > > > > As a lawyer in the same-sex marriage litigation at the Supreme Court > > > who has spent a couple years working through all the implications of > > > declaring a constitutional right to gay marriage, it became clear that > > > such a declaration would also mean there is a right to polygamy. > > > When I previously explained these reasons, gay marriage supporters > > > said the country would never go there. Well, now the far-left magazine > > > Slate has come out with a full-throated endorsement of polygamous > > > marriage. > > > For thousands of years, Western Civilization has always recognized > > > three elements to marriage. It is the union of (1) two consenting > > > adults, (2) of opposite sex, (3) who are not close blood relatives. > > > Gay marriage advocates say the second element can be jettisoned. I’ve > > > always asked why those same people say the first element cannot be > > > touched. > > > Slate believes, “Legalized polygamy in the United States is the > > > constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice.” > > > They’re wrong on all counts. On the constitutional issue, for > > > liberties not found in the text of the Constitution (where marriage is > > > never mentioned once), the Supreme Court has held a fundamental right > > > is one that is “deeply rooted in the history and traditions” of the > > > American people. Marriage of one man and one woman satisfy this test, > > > which is why the Court held in the 1878 case Reynolds v. U.S. that > > > there is no constitutional right to polygamy. It’s also why there is > > > no right to gay marriage but why laws against marriage between > > > different racial groups are clearly unconstitutional. > > > Slate elaborates on their reasoning: > > > The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage > > > is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two > > > consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than > > > marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though > > > polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no > > > value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized > > > groups among us. > > > If you believe that marriage is merely the union of consenting adults, > > > and nothing more, then this argument might make sense. I’m still > > > waiting for one of the lawyers working on the gay marriage cases to > > > explain why this means their argument for a right to gay marriage > > > doesn’t extend to polygamists. > > > This is especially important, since same-sex marriage has only existed > > > on earth since 2001, but polygamy has been around more than 5,000 > > > years of recorded history. Also, gay marriage is legal in just over a > > > dozen countries, but polygamy is legal in over four dozen (roughly 50) > > > nations and is expressly sanctioned by the second-largest religion on > > > earth with 1.6 billion followers, Islam. > > > One point Slate misses is that there are two forms of polygamy that > > > could never involve disadvantaging women: a multi-person gay men > > > marriage, and a multi-person lesbian marriage. If three men decide to > > > enter into a polygamous gay marriage, how could any woman be > > > victimized by it? It becomes increasingly harder for those trying to > > > redefine marriage to explain their arbitrary line-drawing choices. > > > Slate concludes: “All marriages deserve access to the support and > > > resources needed to build happy, healthy lives, no matter how many > > > partners are involved.” I give them credit for their honesty; they > > > admit and even embrace that if you demand a right to same-sex > > > marriage, there’s no principled reason not to have a right to > > > polygamous marriage. The only reason is political. The American people > > > have been told for years now that gay marriage would not open > > > Pandora’s Box, but they still understand at a gut level that they do > > > not want to entirely redefine the family unit in the United States. > > > Slate completely misses the point of marriage laws in America. We’ll > > > write about that when the Supreme Court hands down its decision in the > > > Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry. > > > Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is a fellow with the > > > American Civil Rights Union and on faculty at Liberty University > > > School of Law. > > > --- > > > freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most > > > marginalized groups among us. > > > very good! > > > > > Polygamy exists in three specific forms: polygyny - wherein a man has > > > multiple simultaneous wives; polyandry - wherein a woman has multiple > > > simultaneous husbands; or group marriage - wherein the family unit > > > consists of multiple husbands and multiple wives. > > > Historically, all three practices have been found, but polygyny is by > > > far the most common. Ambiguity arises when the broad term "polygamy" > > > is used when a specific form of polygamy is being referred to. > > > Additionally, different countries may or may not include all forms in > > > their laws on polygamy. > > > > > Polyandry > > > Polyandry is a practice wherein a woman has more than one husband at > > > the same time. Fraternal polyandry was traditionally practiced among > > > nomadic Tibetans in Nepal, parts of China and part of northern India, > > > in which two or more brothers are married to the same wife, with the > > > wife having equal 'sexual access' to them. The Indian epic the > > > Mahabharata includes the polyandrous marriage of Draupadi to the five > > > Pandava brothers. Polyandry is believed to be more likely in societies > > > with scarce environmental resources, as it is believed to limit human > > > population growth and enhance child survival. It is a rare form of > > > marriage that exists not only among poor families, but also the elite. > > > > > -- > > > -- > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > > > --- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > "PoliticalForum" group. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an > > > email to [email protected]. > > > For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > > > > JustPlainOl.Goofy.jpg > > 397KViewDownload > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
