Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Privacy loses? Lol. How is a gay couple getting married an invasion of your privacy? Why do you think some Holy book that not everyone believes in gets to decide for a secular nation, yet the government, the ones issuing the licenses, doesn't get a say? Silly.
I am not the one who is silly....silly.
Your question "How is a gay couple getting married an invasion of your privacy?" shows your complete lack of understanding of my point.
A gay couple getting married isn't an invasion of my privacy, the fact that they have to get permission at all to get married is in fact an invasion of their privacy and relegates their right into a government controlled privilege.
For the record, in my opinion people should be free to marry whomever they want, gay or straight and they shouldn't need any government permission to do it.
The religious people who wanted to keep marriage defined as a man and a woman really set us on the path to this terrible supreme court decision. Instead getting states to pass laws to prohibit gay marriage they should have instead told the states that they have no business telling anyone who can and can't get married. Then each religious group could have had their own rules about who they would allow to get married and who they wouldn't. Then the states could issue on demand a decree of marriage between any two people who wanted to be married and wanted the legal benefits of being married. The states could recognize the religious ceremonies as the same or could require the couple to also obtain one issued by the state. In this scenario you see, anyone can get married and the government isn't in charge of giving anyone permission to get married.
Instead what we got was a gigantic screw up by SCOTUS. They should have struck down all the marriage laws and claimed it was a right and that states couldn't be telling people who they could and couldn't marry. You see....that would have really been #LoveWins. Instead we got told for the first time by the federal government that marriage is a privilege and that it can be regulated by the states which means that your private business is now government business and while dumb people celebrated gaining a right, what they were actually doing was losing a right. So yes. #PrivacyLoses. Although perhaps, #CivilRightsLoses would be a better tag.
Have any of you considered the the increased probability of an inbreeding situation? With all those half brothers and half sisters living together, it's bound to happen.
But what the heck, we shouldn't be concerned about the kid's sex lives either, right liberals?
I guess not - good example is the Dugger son who diddled his little sisters. But wait - that is a penultimate conservative family! I see that only liberals would be concerned with the safety of the young girls according to your post, and according to lots of the responses that were posted by so many 'good christians' during the height of the scandal.
Have any of you considered the the increased probability of an inbreeding situation? With all those half brothers and half sisters living together, it's bound to happen.
But what the heck, we shouldn't be concerned about the kid's sex lives either, right liberals?
What's the difference between half-siblings born into polygamous families and half-siblings born into serially monogamous marriages (ie, parents marry, divorce, remarry somebody else, divorce, rinse repeat)?
Cultural norms come from survival instincts. If your tribe has to constantly fight other tribes and adult males are rare commodity, there will be polygamy, legal or not. Imagine big scale invasion on US soil, where most men will die in order to push enemy back. Those who [imagine] survive, will have unlimited pool of young women to make pregnant,even if they have only 1 leg, 1 hand, or 1 ball... It happened in Western history before too.
Islam specifically encourages men who can afford it to marry widow and divorcees. Having multiple wives was also a part of some Native American tribes' culture, too, especially for men to marry their brothers' widows. It served as a welfare system.
It most certainly is the governments business now. Remember #LoveWins? Well a better name for it should have been #PrivacyLoses because now we have given the gov the permission to define what marriage is.
Government has always defined what marriage is, going back to at least the Middle Ages when kings and nobles had the authority to determine who could marry whom. All the Church cared about was that they weren't close blood relatives.
BTW, Utah could not become a state until its proposed state constitution specifically outlawed polygamy. The Mormon church abandoned polygamy so that its doctrine wouldn't interfere with the push for statehood.
It has already been going on for a long time, polygamist Muslim families immigrating to the US, and living on welfare. Nothing new here.
Bull manure. Do you know how hard it is to get into the US? I thought not. It can take years for a nuclear family to get into the US. A family with multiple wives is not passing muster with Immigration because the US only recognizes 1 spouse.
Now, once here, a family might practice polygamy, but they would do it the exact same way that Fundamentalist Mormons do: there's one recognized legal wife. Any other "wives" are not recognized.
Oh, yeah, and welfare is much more common among Fundamentalist Mormons in southern Utah than it is among immigrants of any group.
It is also a matter of the Constitutionality of equal protection under the law. If it is accepted in one situation (immigrants, refugees) then it has to be accepted everywhere under U.S. Jurisdiction.
The original article was in the Wall Street Journal about three years ago and was written by a female researcher who was originally looking for data on women's rights. ( I photo copied the article and have it buried in my files)She came across this situation in her research. I can only imagine that more multiple families have been admitted.
It is not a matter of "Sex lives" it is a matter of law. When you obtain a marriage license, you have to legally assert that you are not currently married to another.
Unless you can show proof that immigrant men and their multiple wives are knowingly admitted to US by the
immigration authorities as a family unit, you can't make the claim that they are. People frequently live as husband and wife in this country who are not legally married!
Really, it's better not to be a smart-ass if you don't know what you're talking about. Try listening and learning for a change.
It's an absolute fact that polygamy and cousin-marriage are reasons why Middle Eastern societies are wrecks by our standards.
You might take your own advice.
The Fundamentalist Mormons in southern Utah are a well-known group that practice polygamy, probably the largest group in the US. Most Muslims do not practice polygamy any more than most Mormons practice do, but there may be a subset of them that practice polygamy. The two groups do so in exactly the same way: the first wife is the only one who has legal standing. The other wives may be married in religious ceremonies, but they can't obtain marriage licenses unless the husband's break the law. They cannot even have standing as common law wives in states that recognize that type of marriage because there's already a wife in existence.
Polygamy and cousin-marriages have absolutely nothing to do with the problems in the Middle East. As an example of exactly how ignorant that statement is, marriages between cousins are legal in most, if not all, of the states in the US and have been since its inception.
What's the difference between half-siblings born into polygamous families and half-siblings born into serially monogamous marriages (ie, parents marry, divorce, remarry somebody else, divorce, rinse repeat)?
Maybe the possibility that 3,4,5 or more 'wives' all under the same roof, a little too close for comfort?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
