Posted on 03/22/2006 8:01:47 PM PST by neverdem
It was posted here. As I recall, it was his neighbor's goat, and he got caught, so to keep from dishonoring the goat, he had to buy it and marry it.
(You just can't make this stuff up.)
"not far behind is bestiality"
and here's our solution to the problem posed by the National Animal Identification System (or "Big Brother is watching you. And your little dog, too!)http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/index.shtml
Slavery and Polygamy were both societal norms, and treated as such in the Bible. (Paul's Letter to Philemon, however, is interesting in that it sets the groundwork for the eventual abolition of slavery.)
Homosexuality, however, is not accepted at all in the Bible....
No, seriously, this is actually a difficult choice. I get the "benefits" if they're straight, but if they're all lesbians, then odds are pretty strong that they'll ignore me and go do their own thing. So they'll be whining and nagging alright, but they'll be doing it to each other, while I drink and play video games or something with no one bothering me.
Honestly, I'm gonna go with the lesbians.
The thing about it all.... straight or gay who would want to be around all those kids and people all the time? I like it when its quiet and peaceful here and I was happy when 2 of my kids got married. I love them all but I get sick of a houseful of kids with friends and all that. And I could never put up with sister-wives. Can you imagine when its that time of the month? No wonder they get different houses. Funny thing is all my girlfriends and I seem to get ours at the same or near the same time each month. So we are all b.tchy at the same time.
Like, for example, Larry King, Teddy Kennedy, Donald Trump, Kwisi Imfume, Jesse Jackson, or the legendary Wilt Chamberlain ....
Newsflash: Rich and well off males have as many women as they want, both licit and illicit. Not unless there are significantly more "rich" than exist today will it effect the availability of females in the overall population. The problem you anticipate comes from having an extremely limited population with nearly universal polygamy within to start with.
I say again, we already practice polygamy in the US, with all the attendant inheritance, social welfare and complex clan implications. It is socially sanctioned and commonplace. The only requirement is that we have our multiple spouses sequentially and not concurrently.
Well, I have had dogs that were far more loyal than my two ex-wives were. Hmmm...you've now got me thinking that marital bestiality might not be a bad idea.
Since the federal government is not the one regulating marriages, doctors and driving, have you checked your state constitution yet? Does it allow your state to regulate those things?
And as for having a better idea I was sort of suggesting running for a state office, not a federal one.
"Like, for example, Larry King, Teddy Kennedy, Donald Trump, Kwisi Imfume, Jesse Jackson, or the legendary Wilt Chamberlain ....
Newsflash: Rich and well off males have as many women as they want, both licit and illicit. Not unless there are significantly more "rich" than exist today will it effect the availability of females in the overall population. The problem you anticipate comes from having an extremely limited population with nearly universal polygamy within to start with."
True, but most of the women they get are temporary relationships. The little slut will go find a new man after the fling is over. Polygamy insures that a large percent of women will be with a small percent of the men perminatly. Its the knowledge that you will never get a wife that would cause most problems.
"I say again, we already practice polygamy in the US, with all the attendant inheritance, social welfare and complex clan implications. It is socially sanctioned and commonplace. The only requirement is that we have our multiple spouses sequentially and not concurrently."
Having multiple spouses sequentially is far different than concurrently. Under the immoral system we have now, most people pair off, even if its only for a short time. Under large scale Polygamy, most men will NEVER have a partner, and they know they won't. This is all speculation because polygamy only works when women are treated like property anyway. What percent of women would accept her man getting a new wife? The murder rate amoung women would certainly go up!
A gay male friend once confided in me that it's a known secret that gay male couples will go clubbing "together" and find someone to take back home...
Not unless we outlaw divorce, criminalize adultery, make female consent to marriage unrequired and drastically enlarge the percentage of rich.
This is all speculation because polygamy only works when women are treated like property anyway. What percent of women would accept her man getting a new wife?
Which is why your scenario doesn't work out. There has never been "large scale" polygamy, because there has never been a "large scale" group of wealthy that would soak up the available pool of spouses. If the US legalized polygamy, you likely wouldn't see any more polygamous marriages than already occur illegally. Unless the 2nd spouse sees some benefit, I don't think there will be much desire to get into the relationship, and if the first spouse sees no benefit, she is unlikely to consent.
As it is now in the US, with "no fault" divorce, one spouse can unilaterally practice polygamy by simply dumping his/her current spouse and marrying another, who sees a clear benefit by cutting out the first. Or, a guy can practice polygamy by simply impregnating his multiple "hos" concurrently and not even bother to marry them. That way, Uncle Sam will pick up the household grocery bill and he won't be facing bigamy charges along with the paternity suits.
However, if you want to know a more likely place for your scenario, look to Red China, where they have been aborting their female population into imbalance. There the pool of females won't be just sequestered, it will be scarce to nonexistent.
The older divorced wife has the same human value and should make herself available to a new potential lover.
Yeah, you can tell that I just got finished with my Trial Practice Seminar homework. : )
We saw it this past weekend, and they weren't so lovey dovey. The women were all getting jealous, and the man is all stressed out.
Doesn't look good to me.
Article the third [Amendment I]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right and we do have a right to regulate practice, not belief.
No man can become a law unto himself under the guise of religious freedom...
Again, here is the case law...
“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices...”[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]
Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
The First Amendment is about speech and thought, not actions.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Rights of Americans are not limited to those that are enumerated...
Like I asked more pointedly last time, from where are such rights derived?
Answer: The Declaration of Independence... “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” Genesis and Mosaic Law... like it or not...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
This question clearly has nothing to do with my position.
Oh, it most surely does. That is why you want to run away from it...
No man can become a law unto himself under the guise of religion!
No, you cannot have ritual murders or rapes. You cannot marry your weird uncle if you are a ten year old boy, marry your dog or invent a religion that says you can and claim it as your “right” to do so. That is bullcrap and you know it.
We cannot regulate biology.
Now, you can make babies all day long, but just don't expect everyone else to give you tax exemptions or welfare to pay for it, or expect us to put up with your brood of hooligans you cannot raise properly and not hold you accountable.
Article. I.Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...
To promote the Progress of Science...
Homosexuality in and of itself is a biological threat, hardly promoting the progress of science or the ‘general Welfare.’ The same is true for polygamy.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Article. III.Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...
It has been adjudicated...
Marriage is not a right, it is a privileged practice that requires statutory license.
[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]
Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
LOL! Such a picturesque cultural reference!
...and not even bother to marry them. That way, Uncle Sam will pick up the household grocery bill and he won't be facing bigamy charges along with the paternity suits.
Yep, ain't that the truth?
increasing acceptance of homosexual marriage?
What drugs is the author taking? There were 12 amendments to prevent homosexual marriage and ALL passed by landslides.
All states have some prohibition of homoseuxla marriage save massachusetts. That state had it imposed by a judge who copied the language out of the ABA model law. (she wanted to go down in history as a judge who freed the homosexuals on some civil rights holiday)
Homosexuals are just upset because polygamists are have sex with the opposit sex and are able to produce children. Homosexuals produce nothing other than recreational sex.
I would consider having homosexuality removed, as a mental disorder, from the DSM IV, having several cable networks devoted exclusively to homosexuals, having several network TV shows devoted exclusively to homosexuals, having "sexual orientation" written into every non-discrimination clause in every legal document, and having instilled fear of prosecution into anyone who dares speak out about homosexuality, indicative of a strategy that "worked."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.