 |
Personally I consider Polygamists gluttens for punishment. One spouse is enough to deal with... particularly since women living together tend to have their periods sync with each other eventually... can you imagine 4 wife's PMS'ing every month in unison? That would be magnitudes worse than having three daughters and your wife on the rag.
That alone is enough to keep the average educated male from wanting to have multiple wives. Legal or not.
Polygamy is accepted by those people based on religious grounds - they are using the same arguments as you.
Most women do not have PMS.Quote:
can you imagine 4 wife's PMS'ing every month
And thank god for that... but plenty enough do.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Edit... I mean BAD PMS... noit minor irritability.
So it comes down to some people have a right to their religious beliefs and some don't.
It's quite common, that's a no-brainer.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Quote:
How common is PMS?
There’s a wide range of estimates of how many women suffer from PMS. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists estimates that at least 85 percent of menstruating women have at least 1 PMS symptom as part of their monthly cycle.
Are you making a religious argument for polygamy?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again, smoothy:
I CAN define marriage. It's a CONTRACT. You can't enter into a contract with a child, your TV, or your horse.Quote:
If you can't legally define marriage.. you can't legally deny that from happening.
Excon
Hello again, righty's:
Look. I'm not gay. I'm not Mormon. I'm not married. So, I'm not INTO plural marriage. I'd be HAPPY to be against it. Give me a reason why I should be.
excon
Marriage is not a contract... marriage was invented and defined by the Church thousands of years before contracts existed or most civilizations.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
No I am making an argument for hollering about your rights while denying others their rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You make so much of your religious principles, and being "made" to go against them, yet to anyone else you have no problem squashing theirs. That's my argument, and always has been, and that's forcing yourself into the lives of others to bend them to your religious beliefs.
Absolutely false.Quote:
marriage was invented and defined by the Church
Hello again, Steve:
I am. Look. I don't know WHY Mormons do that. I don't know WHY they want to do that. But, if their religion calls for it, and it doesn't HURT anybody, then I believe the Constitution allows them to practice their religion as they see fit WITHOUT government interference.Quote:
Are you making a religious argument for polygamy?
Tal raises a good point.. You are the one who CLAIMS religious liberty on the issues YOU care about.. Does your claim for religious liberty run across the board?
Excon
And there you go again with that straw man of us forcing our beliefs on others while denying their rights nonsense. Everything is not a right and marriage as defined by centuries is a standard. Do you have standards or is it anything goes?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Care to prove that then... as its clearly in the Torrah and Bible... not to mention the Koran and many other very old religious texts... and predates ANY existing laws or legal codes.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
That's the same false argument Tal uses all right and you've always had it backwards. The contraception mandate is a government imposed violation of a reasonable religious belief. You guys have this asinine view (which would never stand up to any legal scrutiny) that us not buying birth control for someone else is forcing our beliefs on others. Hogwash, no one is preventing anyone from accessing birth control - which I'll remind you the use of was already virtually universal by the government's own report. I mean really, the idea that free birth control is a right is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard, right behind the notion that my not buying it for you is me imposing my beliefs on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I've never claimed an absolute right to religious liberty, if that were the standard then there's nothing in the way of Sharia law and you can let the stonings and public beheadings begin.
Hello again, Steve:
So, you're for religious liberty for Christians.. That ain't how the First Amendment reads...
excon
Sure.Quote:
Care to prove that then.
The Avalon Project : Laws of the Kings, 753 - 510 B.C.
eHistory.com: Marriage in Ancient Mesopotamia and Babylonia
Daily Kos: Dear Christians who oppose
How about addressing my actual argument and not the ones you make up?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The Old Testiment and the Torrah significantly predate that.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
This link is returning an error from their server right now so I can't make any comments on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
This is a purely and completely biased blog with no credibilityQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
The world is bigger than the middle east where the current major religions dominate. And there were scattered tribes all over the world with differing belief systems. War and trade intermingled many as well as slavery of the conquered.
Indeed the history of man is one of differing belief systems and for fact Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian, and a perfect example of making religions through martyrdom, a common practice of that time. But as I said, the world is bigger than the middle east and goes back tens of thousands of years before recorded history of the region.
They have dated the pyramids both in Egypt and South America and Mexico back even further.
My point of course that man has evolved from what he was to now, and will continue to evolve into more than he is now. So spare me the absolute truth of your current belief because its subject to change later. This is not the early millennium of ancient long dead philosophy.
Jesus was a Jew? I did not know that.
So why aren't Christians Jews too?
I won't advocate for the horse. But there are groups like NAMBLA that would want to marry a child. The reason it is out there as part of the discussion is because it wasn't that long ago being gay was considered by the medical profession as deviant behavior. That is why Im say when you open pandoras box you don't know what your going to unleash. It IS a logical part of the argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
A child cannot legally sign a contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
I have already pointed out when I child can sign a contract. And by extension the fact that it isn't happening now doesn't preclude that it couldn't happen later. Im not saying that any of the things that could happen are going to happen overnight. But the door is now open for them to happen. Hence the pandora's box reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Laws change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Really, you have to ask?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I just do not believe the FEAR of what could happen, and what if something can happen, overrides what is happening, and that a segment of the American population has been discriminated against and denied the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that all citizens are guaranteed in the Constitution.
They deserve, and have a right to be first class citizens with equal right under the law. Let the horse lovers, or child lovers make their own case whenever.
Actually they never were denied rights. They were denied a marriage license. Solely based on the definition of the law. There were still avenues available for them to gain the same rights as married couples enjoyed. They just wanted to skip that part. Also it leaves the doors wide open for attacking the church. So spare me the they couldn't have the same rights bs. They had enough political power and connections to elevate civil unions to the same status and they could have left marriage alone as far as the definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The promotion of marriage is in the states interest and is a compelling one. Its not just about religion. Although it appears your side wants to make it about only religion so that way you can still feel good about it.
Pandora's box has been opened and time will tell what comes of it.
The IRS Mistakenly Exposed Thousands of Social Security Numbers
Must be some more of that "smarter government" we got with Obama.
Or another example of inadvertent data leaks that happen all the time in public and private enterprises.Quote:
Must be some more of that "smarter government" we got with Obama.
No, read the story, it was incompetence. They used words like "unwitting" and "accidentally" but it was no accident.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You know what "scrubbed" means, it means they didn't do their job before uploading the files - GIGO - you get out of it what you put in.Quote:
Every so often, 527s have to file tax forms to the IRS, which then get added to a database. The database itself is hardly a secret; the IRS has been sending updated records routinely to Public.Resource.org and other public-interest groups, and it's a favorite among political reporters. But when the IRS told the group's founder, Carl Malamud, to disregard the Form 990-Ts included in the agency's January release, he took a closer look at the files in question.
After analyzing the breach, Malamud wrote a letter to the IRS pointing out 10 instances where a social security number was accidentally revealed on the government's website—just a small sample of the larger breach.
Just the day before, Malamud had filed another letter to the agency describing a problem with the 990-Ts. Of over 3,000 tax returns contained in the January update, 319 contained sensitive data the agency should have scrubbed,
It's always incompetence whenever there is a data leak/breach, or else they would never happen, whether it's lackadaisical programing that was exploited or a human error. That's part of my job to make sure that latter doesn't happen.
No one, and I mean no one can foresee every possibility so it's not always incompetence. This was pure incompetence that cannot be brushed aside as another "nothing to see here" moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Hello again, Steve:
Yeah, the IRS sucks... How come Issa is letting them get away with it?? He DOES have oversight.. He CAN subpoena witness's. He CAN put 'em in jail if they don't cooperate..
Why are you sniveling at me? Issa is YOUR guy.
excon
PS> On the other thread, tom is sniveling about the executive branch FAILING to investigate itself... Uhhh, that's WHY we have a sharp guy like ISSA...
And the moment he throws someone in jail you'll cry foul. That's how your side works.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You know what a constitutional crisis is ? It's called the Legislative branch trying to enforce it's contempt charges without the support of the executive branch. With the exception of a small security detail that scrubs the Kennedy family alcohol and drug abuse ,the only person the House has for enforcement is the Sgt at Arms . Yeah it would work real well to have him march to the White House and attempt to detain and arrest anyone there .
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
you know what a constitutional crisis is ?
Side? SIDE?? I pay taxes too. Whether I like it not, Issa is MY guy too. IF the IRS is corrupt, I Want to know. IF Obama is corrupt, I Want to KNOW. IF BOTH are corrupt, THAT'S the Constitutional crisis. THEY'RE the one's creating it. My congressional representative ISN'T creating ANYTHING by investigating...Quote:
And the moment he throws someone in jail you'll cry foul. That's how your side works.
I don't understand you.. IF Obama is a CROOK, wouldn't you like to know?? Of COURSE, you want to know, but you cover up for Issa instead... Why you think THAT'S more important than a corrupt government, I'll NEVER figure out.
Excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:30 PM. |