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.
A smart move since the 9th circuit is overturned more often than any other circuit. They are a contra-indicator. If they say yes, the answer is usually "NO".
You will get your "NO soon, and decency an common sense will, once again, prevail. The shock to your sensibilities will be double or triple when it hits.
Marriage, is, has always, and will always be what it is, the union of 1 man and 1 woman.
Decency and common sense shall prevail once again, you're right. And this is one step closer to that happening.
It wasnt a difficult question. You can have a contract with 100's of parties, not just two (purchase of Empire State Building for example. Does this mean we should allow marriages with 100's of individuals just because a contract allows it?
No, it's not a difficult question, just not easily comprehensible (to me, at least) the way it was originally phrased. Honestly? I don't have a problem with polygamy, either. They want to get married, go for it. What difference does it make to me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
yes, there are states that dont allow two legal adults to adopt if they are not married, regardless of sexial orientation if they arent married.
That should also be changed, IMO. However, if same-sex marriage was allowed, it would at least be *closer* to being fair, IMO.
Location: San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties
6,390 posts, read 9,735,484 times
Reputation: 2622
Quote:
Marriage, is, has always, and will always be what it is, the union of 1 man and 1 woman.
This laddie does not know his history.
In America where the union of 1 man and 1 woman is common, it is also common to have serial polygamy, that is, men and women commonly have more than one spouse, serially. A practice condemned by the bible and that condemnation ignored by those who claim the bible as their "book of rules"
Quote:
Fraternal polyandry was traditionally practiced among nomadic Tibetans in Nepal, parts of China and part of northern India, in which two or more brothers are married to the same wife, with the wife having equal 'sexual access' to them.
Quote:
According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.[3] At the same time, even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely. There are exceptions: in Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple
Quote:
Polygamy was practiced in many sections of Hindu society in ancient times. There was one example of polyandry in the ancient Hindu epic, Mahabharata, Draupadi marries the five Pandava brothers. Regarding polygyny, in Ramayana, father of Ram, King Dasharath has three wives, but Ram has pledged himself just one wife.
Quote:
n Buddhism, marriage is not a sacrament. It is purely a secular affair and the monks do not participate in it, though in some sects priests and monks do marry (e.g. Japan). Hence it receives no religious sanction
Quote:
Judaism
[edit]Biblical practice
See also: Pilegesh
Multiple marriage was considered a realistic alternative in the case of famine, widowhood, or female infertility[14] like in the practice of levirate marriage, wherein a man was required to marry and support his deceased brother's widow, as mandated by Deuteronomy 25:5–10. Despite its prevalence in the Hebrew bible, scholars do not believe that polygyny was commonly practiced in the biblical era because it required a significant amount of wealth.[15]
Polygyny continued to be practised well into the biblical period, and it is attested among Jews as late as the second century CE
Quote:
polygamy still occurs in non-European Jewish communities that exist in countries where it is not forbidden, such as Jewish communities in Yemen and the Arab world. Technically, polygamy is not forbidden in Jewish law.
And of course there are today people who identify themselves as Mormons who practice polygamy. As polygamy was permitted under Mormonism until Utah had to end it in order to join the Union as a state.
Anyone who thinks
Quote:
Marriage, is, has always, and will always be what it is, the union of 1 man and 1 woman.
It wasnt a difficult question. You can have a contract with 100's of parties, not just two (purchase of Empire State Building for example. Does this mean we should allow marriages with 100's of individuals just because a contract allows it?
yes, there are states that dont allow two legal adults to adopt if they are not married, regardless of sexial orientation if they arent married.
Well, why don't you find 100 people who want to enter a "marriage contract" together and then we'll have that discussion. But until you find those 100 people, it's a stupid comparison.
No, it's not a difficult question, just not easily comprehensible (to me, at least) the way it was originally phrased. Honestly? I don't have a problem with polygamy, either. They want to get married, go for it. What difference does it make to me?
Well using the argument that a group of people can enter into a contract to buy a building, or anything else for that matter, should mean that another group of individuals should be able to get married, is a stupid argument on its face. For example, my children can enter into a contract to work for me, according to your argument, this means I should be allowed to marry my children as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
That should also be changed, IMO. However, if same-sex marriage was allowed, it would at least be *closer* to being fair, IMO.
That argument can only be made if one believes in legalized gay marriages, or polygamy for that matter. Should 20 people be allowed to adopt 1 individual?
Well using the argument that a group of people can enter into a contract to buy a building, or anything else for that matter, should mean that another group of individuals should be able to get married, is a stupid argument on its face. For example, my children can enter into a contract to work for me, according to your argument, this means I should be allowed to marry my children as well.
That argument can only be made if one believes in legalized gay marriages, or polygamy for that matter. Should 20 people be allowed to adopt 1 individual?
Should a toaster be allowed to marry a butterfly? AAAAHHHH!!! Where does it all end! lol!
You're on the losing (bigoted) side of the argument. Gay people will have the right to marry anywhere in the U.S. at some point.
Should a toaster be allowed to marry a butterfly? AAAAHHHH!!! Where does it all end! lol!
Neither a toaster, or a butterfly can enter into a contract
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian
You're on the losing (bigoted) side of the argument. Gay people will have the right to marry anywhere in the U.S. at some point.
FAIL. I've stated here numerous times that gay marriages will ultimately be deemed legal by the Supreme Court. That doesnt mean I shouldnt point out stupid arguments in support of it. Like the one you just made..
hahaha.. ooh the stupidity
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.
