Is this not logical?

[Jogeephus]

Earlier today I listened to GaPR discuss the supreme court's decision on gay marriage. Personally I don't think its anyone's business what people do behind closed doors and I don't think the government has any business meddling in church business but the church is just as guilty for allowing the government to bribe church leaders with special tax advantages when the church should have reminded them of the constitution.

But it is what it is so we have to go on from here. Now the proponents of this decision all seemed to have the same summary of what the supreme court said which was basically that it was wrong for the government to deny the happiness of a segment of society when their actions did not harm society. I can agree with that to a point but if that is how they feel then could this same logic not be given to those who wish to have more than one spouse? After all, what are the hurting? Quite frankly, I don't know if I could handle more than one wife but this isn't about me. This is about people's freedom and liberty and those who want more than one spouse. Seems to me some of those in Utah might see this as a golden opportunity to exercise their beliefs if this is what makes them happy. Besides, some of their teachings encourage this does it not? This should also be good for the Muslims since they feel you should have more than one wife and you have to say having more than one spouse of the opposite sex is more natural than what the supreme court just said was alright. So using their own argument and their own logic do you think its fair for the government to deny someone the right to take more than one spouse?

 

[Rafter S]

This was touched on in the other discussion. In my opinion it may open a lot of doors that would have been better left closed.

 

[ga.prime]

It's pretty easy to see how polygamy could foster resentment among the flock. The part of flock not getting any.

 

[M-5]

They is folks in Mississippi that will prolly marry their livestock

 

[cow pollinater]

I think the government should not have any involvement at all in morality between consenting adults. From what I've seen of plural marriage(which I admit is very limited) I'm more comfortable with it than gay marriage.

 

[highgrit]

I feel like it's not the government's job to try and force morals on folks. And to answer your question, our government is out of touch and out of control. So there's nothing you or I can do besides what we feel is right. And you have to be out of your mind to want more than one wife. A sweetie here or there might not be so bad though.

 

[HDRider]

This was touched on in the other discussion. In my opinion it may open a lot of doors that would have been better left closed.

Wide open.

 

[HDRider]

I feel like it's not the government's job to try and force morals on folks. And to answer your question, our government is out of touch and out of control. So there's nothing you or I can do besides what we feel is right. And you have to be out of your mind to want more than one wife. A sweetie here or there might not be so bad though.

This board is filled with geniuses. The ideas that are discussed here amongst us. Big ideas.

 

[Jogeephus]

This was touched on in the other discussion.

Yeah, I saw that after I posted this. Sorry to whoever. Its just I've been thinking on this pretty well all day after listening to the interpretations of the people on the radio. I agree the door is wide open now because I don't see how you could NOT allow someone to pursue their happiness if that involved having multiple spouses.

I blame the church itself for not standing up and demanding their independence from the government when the government first got into the marriage business. IMO, the church leadership was bought with the promise of a tax break for the married people so no one balked. This seems to happen a lot. People take the carrot but they don't see the stick. Budda had a point when he said "you don't play leap frog with a unicorn" yet so many of use do it and think we can win at the game.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

I've thought the same. Seems many are owed restitution for their persecution in the past.

Wonder what polygamy would do for the insurance industry?

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

The way I heard some discussions today. This shouldn't have any thing to do with the church. Only that the state can't refuse marriage license. Deeply held believes can't be stepped on. But lower court judges may not see it that way.

 

[greybeard]

Why would any sane person want 2 or more spouses?

 

[Jogeephus]

The way I heard some discussions today. This shouldn't have any thing to do with the church. Only that the state can't refuse marriage license. Deeply held believes can't be stepped on. But lower court judges may not see it that way.

In one side of the mouth they said that but in the other they said differently. Religious institutions denying services to gay couples could lose their tax exempt status.

But what I'm saying is this had everything to do with the church forever. Just like we fight tooth and nail to defend our second amendment right the church should have fought to keep the government out of the marriage business but they were bought by promises of favorable taxation to married couples and churches. They bit the carrot and now look at the mess its caused. Had the church's fought to keep the gov't out of the marriage business and the gov't treated everyone the same this would be a non issue.

The folks that wrote the constitution were wise.

 

[HDRider]

The way I heard some discussions today. This shouldn't have any thing to do with the church. Only that the state can't refuse marriage license. Deeply held believes can't be stepped on. But lower court judges may not see it that way.

In one side of the mouth they said that but in the other they said differently. Religious institutions denying services to gay couples could lose their tax exempt status.

But what I'm saying is this had everything to do with the church forever. Just like we fight tooth and nail to defend our second amendment right the church should have fought to keep the government out of the marriage business but they were bought by promises of favorable taxation to married couples and churches. They bit the carrot and now look at the mess its caused. Had the church's fought to keep the gov't out of the marriage business and the gov't treated everyone the same this would be a non issue.

The folks that wrote the constitution were wise.

Jo,
I agree they were very wise, but I think the Constitution assumed something that is slipping away. They assumed a consistently moral populace.

I think John Adams said these things...
Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.

We have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

And then throw in this little bit of unattributed wisdom...

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

 

[dieselbeef]

can i marry a cpl lesbians? that might be fun

 

[ga.prime]

can i marry a cpl lesbians? that might be fun

Maybe you should start with a bi. And I don't mean polar.

 

[Jogeephus]

The way I heard some discussions today. This shouldn't have any thing to do with the church. Only that the state can't refuse marriage license. Deeply held believes can't be stepped on. But lower court judges may not see it that way.

In one side of the mouth they said that but in the other they said differently. Religious institutions denying services to gay couples could lose their tax exempt status.

But what I'm saying is this had everything to do with the church forever. Just like we fight tooth and nail to defend our second amendment right the church should have fought to keep the government out of the marriage business but they were bought by promises of favorable taxation to married couples and churches. They bit the carrot and now look at the mess its caused. Had the church's fought to keep the gov't out of the marriage business and the gov't treated everyone the same this would be a non issue.

The folks that wrote the constitution were wise.

Jo,
I agree they were very wise, but I think the Constitution assumed something that is slipping away. They assumed a consistently moral populace.

I think John Adams said these things...
Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.

We have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

And then throw in this little bit of unattributed wisdom...

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

Good post. Adams was a smart fella for sure.

 

[gimpyrancher]

I agree they were very wise, but I think the Constitution assumed something that is slipping away. They assumed a consistently moral populace.

Wise? Moral? Only white men were allowed to vote and own and/or kill slaves, just to name a few definitions of Morality of the time.

 

[TexasBred]

I agree they were very wise, but I think the Constitution assumed something that is slipping away. They assumed a consistently moral populace.

Wise? Moral? Only white men were allowed to vote and own and/or kill slaves, just to name a few definitions of Morality of the time.

No free blacks could also own and kill slaves....took a while longer to get voting rights though but white women had to wait too.