Posted on 07/31/2011 2:47:45 PM PDT by Steelfish
Edited on 07/31/2011 5:23:27 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
EDITORIAL A Gay-Wedding Crasher A law professor attempts to use a homosexual rights ruling to defend a polygamous family in Utah.
In this file photo, (pic in URL) Kody Brown poses with his wives Janelle, Christine, Meri, and Robyn for TLC's reality TV show, "Sister Wives." The Browns' attorney, Jonathan Turley, filed a lawsuit challenging the Utah bigamy law that makes their lifestyle illegal.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The argument “get governemnt out of marriage” is a Libertarian ploy to implement no holds barred faggotry and perversion. It’s that simple.
Governments of whatever sort have recognized marriage for millenia. Inheritance, legitimacy, protection of the family unit specifically children and wives - all depend on governments recognizing marriage as a specific relationship and institution.
It’s a prybar to destroy marriage with and insert their favored perversion and sexual vice as being equal to monogamous marriage between a man and a woman.
Yes, I want the definition to go back to what it was before statists like you tried to turn it into some bureaucratic, licensed affair!
- - - - -
You want to go back to before there were written laws? Marriage laws have been on the books since Ancient History.
Sir, you may want to take a look at FromTheSidelines page.
Quote:
What’s the point... FR is clearly run by an irrational group who refuse to actually read words, and will accept lies from others.
No wonder it’s no longer relevant...
http://www.freerepublic.com/~fromthesidelines/
I tried to warn you...
But they are entirely different animals, are they not?
Calling the legalistic, bureaucratic bond "marriage" is putting a relgious term at the mercy of temporal whim.
If this licensed affair were tied to the religious, then we wouldn't have to deal with its perversion into "gay" marriage. TRUE "MARRIAGE" IS MAN AND WOMAN, no matter what your legal definition says.
Thank you for your rational replies. You make good points, and I don't want to get caught up in the semantics.
"'Marriage laws' on the books since Ancient History" imply laws that are divorced from religion. I agree that there's a legalistic "marriage" in addition to the religious one. And in history, there have been "perverted" versions of "marriage" allowed, haven't there? Many of your "legal" marriages have included polygamy.
I'm suggesting that if we choose to have the government involved in bonds between people, for whatever reason, we shouldn't pervert "marriage" to do it.
If this licensed affair were tied to the religious, then we wouldn’t have to deal with its perversion into “gay” marriage.
- - - -
Logical fallacy. They have different origins and serve different purposes, getting rid of legal marriage won’t ‘give’ it back to the Church, since it never took it ‘away’ from the Church. It will only serve to promote gays and polygamists and further lead to the degradation of society.
And we should keep marriage between a man and a woman -LEGALLY. If we do away with legal marriage then the gays have won.
What’s the point... FR is clearly run by an irrational group who refuse to actually read words, and will accept lies from others.
No wonder it’s no longer relevant...
He'll be zotted, but I'm sure he'll be back under a new handle.
Sad thing is, he was actually kind of likable...
What’s the point... FR is clearly run by an irrational group who refuse to actually read words, and will accept lies from others.
No wonder it’s no longer relevant...
Ooops, now it's correct.
He started right in calling me names and attacking me. I’m not gonna miss him.
Yeah Riiigggghhtttt... by their fruits you shall know them. Judge rightly.
Or maybe he knew that.
“’Marriage laws’ on the books since Ancient History” imply laws that are divorced from religion.
- - - - -
Actually, the opposite is true. In ancient civilizations laws were given by God (or the gods) and a means of enforcement of His (or their) laws. Alan Deshowitz (as much as I hate him) argued that the Decalogue was the first written legal code, which while not exactly correct, does give a good example of laws coming from the Divine.
Western Civilization from the time of the Greeks have abhorred polygamy. In modern history, the Republican party was founded to combat the ‘twin relics’ of barbarism - slavery and polygamy. The Mormon church (and later breakoffs) are the ones that have argued that religious or spiritual marriage can and should be divorced from the legal entity of marriage.
It really bugs me when people improperly use historical quotes. Sorry, occupational hazard.
Would you agree with that?
Even in societies that tolerated the activity to some extent, it was never legally accepted as the equal of marriage.
- - - - -
That is because it wasn’t considered in the same way as we think of it today. It was more of a dominance thing in Ancient culture (esp Greco-Roman), there were rules that determined if you were a ‘giver’ or ‘receiver’, and tolerance depended upon class of the participants and wealth depending upon time and region.
The Roman Emperor scandalized and horrified Roman society by creating statues of his sex slave, Antinous. Neither the Greeks, nor the Romans, nor the Egyptians, etc tolerated polygamy and considered the practice barbaric.
Polygamy was more often practiced in areas such as Africa and Asia where there was no tolerance of homosexuality.
So because I believe Government should keep its nose out of the sacrament of marriage
_________________________________________________
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Thats one big reason the polygamous Mormons ran from state to state...
They were looking for a place they could where the US government couldnt get on their case for their extra “marriages”
There have always been laws in the US against bigamy..
It was called unlawful cohabitation and was a jailable offence..
They finally decided to go to (Mexico) Utah Teritory out of the reach of the long arm of the American law...
If they had just had one wife and obeyed the law they could have settled down and lived peacefully
The ones who stayed in MO and lived decent lives have descendants living there yet...
The Mormons regarded their polygamy as “sacred”
This is all so blatantly discriminatory; when are we going to see the wives of diplomats, said wives being goats and sheep, invited to White House functions?
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.