Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah Anti-Polygamy Law

[CountryBoy1981]

I honestly wish the marriage debate would end. So much conservative political capital is spent at the most arbitrary of issues.

Tradition is not a valid reason for anything. Besides, people have been getting married before Abrahamic religion was even a thing. Gay/Polygamist marriages hurt no one. It's perfectly OK to find it gross, disgusting, immoral, etc. That's your opinion and while I don't agree, I don't care whatsoever to change your mind.

It honestly surprises me that conservatives are attempting to enact such pointless pieces of legislation on this matter, considering that's a point of criticism often brought up when deconstructing the liberal position.

Humans and animals? Father daughter? What is the argument against these that would promote a compelling government objective? There really isn't if you think about it; who else does it harm? I'm not talking about the social policy aspects but the legal ramifications of a court striking down marriage laws.

 

[cobber]

I honestly wish the marriage debate would end. So much conservative political capital is spent at the most arbitrary of issues.

Tradition is not a valid reason for anything. Besides, people have been getting married before Abrahamic religion was even a thing. Gay/Polygamist marriages hurt no one. It's perfectly OK to find it gross, disgusting, immoral, etc. That's your opinion and while I don't agree, I don't care whatsoever to change your mind.

It honestly surprises me that conservatives are attempting to enact such pointless pieces of legislation on this matter, considering that's a point of criticism often brought up when deconstructing the liberal position.

I'm not sure conservatives are the only ones who have burned up political capital on the issue. For all the supposed popularity of gay marriage, I doubt whether the GOP has really damaged itself, or the Dems made real headway.

Next comes the agitation for polygamy. There will be no rational basis to reject it, since the 'majority' are currently rejecting tradition and morality as criteria in placing lawful restrictions on marriage.

Then child brides. And why not? It is only a presumption that children are not competent to say, enter contracts or marry. And what is a child, anyway?

Not a parade of horribles, by the way, but only the inevitable next steps in the movement for social "progress".

Someday folks may look back and wish they had left well enough alone.

 

[squirrelhntr]

I hope these verse's don't mean nothin. LEVITICUS chapter 18 verses 22 - 25. And ROMANS chapter 1 verses 27 -32. But what if they do ?????

 

[squirrelhntr]

Our Founding Fathers took them serious


WallBuilders - Historical Writings - The Founders As Christians

 

[hornadylnl]

WallBuilders - Historical Writings - The Founders As Christians

A government big enough to legislate your Christian beliefs is big enough to impose sharia law.

 

[squirrelhntr]

A government big enough to legislate your Christian beliefs is big enough to impose sharia law.

ya, I've thought about that. good point. but, Our constitution is based on the Hebrew Bible not the Koran big difference me thinks. Your to love your neighbor not cut his head off.

 

[hornadylnl]

ya, I've thought about that. good point. but, Our constitution is based on the Hebrew Bible not the Koran big difference me thinks. Your to love your neighbor not cut his head off.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

 

[HARVEYtheDAMNED]

I do agree cobber that dems have also wasted their time on the issue.

The argument that gay marriage/polygamy will lead to child brides and/or bestiality is absolutely asinine. For a bunch of straight, so called normal people, your average conservative INGO member is absolutely obsessed with sex.

I hope these verse's don't mean nothin. LEVITICUS chapter 18 verses 22 - 25. And ROMANS chapter 1 verses 27 -32. But what if they do ?????

Let me save you some time, they don't.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Someone mention bestiality, this pic seems to fit

 

[HARVEYtheDAMNED]

Someone mention bestiality, this pic seems to fit

You cannot legally have sex with ANY animal in ANY state period. This is incorrect.

 

[Birds Away]

I'm just amazed that there are men who believe that having multiple wives is a good idea.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I'm just amazed that there are men who believe that having multiple wives is a good idea.

I know, right. Like I need two women complaining about stuff that needs fixed, and two women complaining that they were not satisfied

 

[mdmayo]

As I foresaw. Get ready, here comes the whole parade of things we were told would not happen.

Call me Cassandra.

Cassandra

 

[squirrelhntr]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1][/QUOTE

I agree with all those precepts but, I also believe our current government is trying to infringe on all of them by ramming immoral laws down our throats. Being a Christian and believing in the Bible as the actual written
voice of the living God. We have to be damned careful how we state our opinions these days, or we'll be branded as a haters. I hate the sin NOT the sinner. I'm also a sinner saved by Grace. Simple. Some of the opposition are strickley one sided, it's there way or no way. The founders knew they couldn't legislate morality. That's our current dilemma. American laws are based on Judeo Christian values or at least they started that way.

 

[squirrelhntr]

I do agree cobber that dems have also wasted their time on the issue.

Let me save you some time, they don't.

Iam an American, and to me they do.

 

[hornadylnl]

Iam an American, and to me they do.

Use them to govern yourself, not others.

 

[mdmayo]

Does the mere concept that States, or anyone else, feel the need to "ban" gay/multiple marriages infer that they are not illegal under current law?

 

[squirrelhntr]

Use them to govern yourself, not others.

No problem, exempt me from the collective cost. Where do I sign ?

 

[mrjarrell]

There is no "collective cost" to gay or even polygynous marriages. They have no affect on anyone outside of them. That's a statist and collectivist trope that hold no water.

 

[Johnny C]

Yes. The second wife insisted that I get a first wife, and the fifth wife insisted on the fourth, who really wanted a third. But it was the seventh who really was the pushiest about the whole thing.

Their right to be deviant exists until they attempt to infringe upon my right not to have to acknowledge their deviancy. If someone really likes their goat, they can 'marry' their goat. But I refuse to acknowledge their goat-love as legitimate. The same goes for homosexuality, bestiality, and all the rest of the deviancy masquerading as the oppressed in this world: "You're not acknowledging our love as legitimate, we're oppressed!" They can do as they please, but I refuse to acknowledge it as legitimate, which is really what they're pushing for. Tolerance is no longer acceptable. Forced acceptance is the new minimum: "You won't bake us a cake or acknowledge our love as legitimate! We're oppressed!" If consenting adults want to do whatever in the bedroom until they're sore, I say go for it, no skin off my nose. But do not attempt to utilize the State to force me to try to acknowledge deviancy as legitimate.

WELL SAID BROTHER!