Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage cited by polygamy case

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
What a coincidence, the same thing was written in an agenda 43 years ago.

8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.
http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissu...atform1972.htm

And as SCOTUS ruled in Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges: It's all a matter of the "right to privacy".

Even though Obergefell v Hodges says something about the right of "2 persons" to marry, because gender and procreation have been taken out of the equation (one man/sperm + one woman/egg to create human life) there is NO logical reason any longer to limit marriage to only two persons. And this is how polygamy will get in.

Since you followed the SCOTUS ruling closer than I did, could you show where in the ruling it was specified that only "2 persons" could marry?

While you're at it, show where those "2 persons" can't be related, thus ruling out incestuous marriages.

And while you're at it, show where the SCOTUS ruling specified "adults", thus ruling out the golden egg of the LGBTQueer movement: adult-child sex/marriage.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

...And welfare and public aid benefits are based on household need/income, not on individual need/income. So I don't see how multiple spouses would game the system.

In fact, I would think polygamy might have the opposite effect: in that one spouse could take care of the kids while all the others went to work, increasing the household income significantly.

I wonder why single women with kids don't choose to live together, already, for exactly that reason? They could even pay the woman that stays home and takes care of all their kids a wage for doing it, creating their own extended family. The kids would have more "siblings", would be watched over in the home, and all the moms would have jobs. It would require a big house but with everyone sharing expenses that would still be a relatively cheap way to live.

(And who says that those who promoted the homosexual 'marriage' movement aren't behind polygamy?).

Multiple sexual partners (adultery with another name), jealousy, confused children ("which one is my mom?"), etc. etc. etc. Sounds like the real deal ey PureX?

 

[TracerBullet]

It wasn't the Mormons who were behind redefining marriage, it was the homosexual movement.

Regarding "almost no one wants to engage in it" : A very small percent of homosexuals will partake in the institution of marriage as well (it's that Judeo-Christian "commitment" thing that turns off many LGBTQueer's when it comes to marriage).

it's always fun to watch you make facts up

 

[TracerBullet]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
What a coincidence, the same thing was written in an agenda 43 years ago.

8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.
http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissu...atform1972.htm

how can something written in 1991 be 43 years old?

 

[GFR7]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
What a coincidence, the same thing was written in an agenda 43 years ago.

8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.
http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissu...atform1972.htm

And as SCOTUS ruled in Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges: It's all a matter of the "right to privacy".



Since you followed the SCOTUS ruling closer than I did, could you show where in the ruling it was specified that only "2 persons" could marry?

While you're at it, show where those "2 persons" can't be related, thus ruling out incestuous marriages.

And while you're at it, show where the SCOTUS ruling specified "adults", thus ruling out the golden egg of the LGBTQueer movement: adult-child sex/marriage.

It was in the Kennedy opinion. Something about the rights of "two people" to love.( I can't look it up because my Google browser has been hijacked. Need a techie in on Monday.) Of course once you allow same sex marriage, number and age will eventually fall like dominoes.

 

[PureX]

(And who says that those who promoted the homosexual 'marriage' movement aren't behind polygamy?).

Multiple sexual partners (adultery with another name), jealousy, confused children ("which one is my mom?"), etc. etc. etc. Sounds like the real deal ey PureX?

And it's all so … biblical, too! :chuckle:

 

[PureX]

So after reading up on this a bit, this is definitely going to be an entertaining case.

The Brown's (the polygamists) can't be prosecuted for bigamy, since the father (Cody) is only legally married to the first woman, and his relationships with the other women are merely "commitments". Even though Cody had private marriage ceremonies with all the women, they only sought a marriage license from the state for the first one.

However, the state of Utah argued that the nature of their relationship made them common law marriages and their relationship fit under the "cohabitation" prohibition in its anti-bigamy law. They maintained that portion of the law made it illegal to "participate in a wedding ceremony between a legally married individual and a person with whom he or she is cohabitating and/or to call that person a wife".

The cohabitation part of the law basically banned a married couple from cohabitating with another adult.

Interestingly, when the federal circuit court ruled on this, the judge really dug deep into the history of anti-polygamy laws. He found that the primary reason for their enactment and affirmation in the Supreme Court was to prevent "social harm". And what was that harm? "The social harm was introducing a practice perceived to be characteristic of non-European people—or non-white races—into white American society." IOW, the law had a racist basis, which he described as "unthinkable as part of the legal analysis in a modern Supreme Court decision".

But the main reason the judge struck down the cohabitation portion of the law was because it violates the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment because the point of that provision in the statute is “to infringe upon or restrict” people practicing religious cohabitation “because of their religious motivation.”

IOW, this was about religious freedom. And that raises an interesting question for this forum. A lot of conservative Christians here cite religious freedom in cases where Christians are on the receiving end of government action (e.g., fire chiefs fired for anti-gay rhetoric, clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples, bakers not baking cakes for gay weddings).

Should polygamist Mormons also have the freedom to practice their religion without government interference?

Ah, "what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive" …


And thank you, by the way, for looking up and presenting us with the info.

 

[annabenedetti]

And it's all so … biblical, too! :chuckle:

 

[PureX]

Keep in mind, there is also a big polyamory movement , too ...

Yes, in your imagination there is. But by now we all know that you have quite a bizarre obsession with this sort of thing, and that in the real world, the huge majority of people have no interest whatever in engaging in a multiple marriage.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

Since you followed the SCOTUS ruling closer than I did, could you show where in the ruling it was specified that only "2 persons" could marry?

While you're at it, show where those "2 persons" can't be related, thus ruling out incestuous marriages.

And while you're at it, show where the SCOTUS ruling specified "adults", thus ruling out the golden egg of the LGBTQueer movement: adult-child sex/marriage.

It was in the Kennedy opinion. Something about the rights of "two people" to love.( I can't look it up because my Google browser has been hijacked. Need a techie in on Monday.)

I look forward to your response after your browser problem is resolved.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
(And who says that those who promoted the homosexual 'marriage' movement aren't behind polygamy?).

Multiple sexual partners (adultery with another name), jealousy, confused children ("which one is my mom?"), etc. etc. etc. Sounds like the real deal ey PureX?

And it's all so … biblical, too! :chuckle:

You obviously don't own a Bible or you'd know that God defined marriage in Genesis 2: 18-25.

24: That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

Here's another:

1 Corinthians 7:2

But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

Let me know where I missed the plural in those verses.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Spoiler

I would love to talk about the homosexual activism of Professor Robert Cargill, can we please?

Dr. Robert R Cargill ‎@xkv8r

SCOTUS declares DOMA unconstitutional. Let the fear mongering, hatred, and bigotry from fundies in the name of Jesus begin!

http://robertcargill.com/tag/gay-marriage/

 

[Granite]

Yes, in your imagination there is. But by now we all know that you have quite a bizarre obsession with this sort of thing, and that in the real world, the huge majority of people have no interest whatever in engaging in a multiple marriage.

And if a few adults are nuts enough to give it a go, well...feel free to knock yourself out.:bang:

Seriously, what's the exact issue here? Does it play to the prurient, salacious imagination and drive some folks bonkers, or something? Fundamentally there's no problem to be had.

An arrangement between consenting adults is of course worlds away from where we typically see polygamy play out: Patriarchial, perverse cults interested in collecting pretty young things for procreation and sexual slavery.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ah, "what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive" …


And thank you, by the way, for looking up and presenting us with the info.

It was a fun read. It'll be very interesting to see this work its way through the courts.

 

[shagster01]

Of course , it follows logically:



https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/s...y-marriage-ruling-in-bid-to-legalize-polygamy

Yet it didn't seem to work. No need for your aneurism yet.

 

[bybee]

Yet it didn't seem to work. No need for your aneurism yet.

People are free to do all kinds of disgusting and depraved things.
So far, people are free, at least in their homes, to avoid people who do disgusting and depraved things.
In public? we are not free to show disgust or contempt for things repulsive to us.

 

[PureX]

In public? we are not free to show disgust or contempt for things repulsive to us.

It depends on how you do it. And I don't see why you'd feel the need to show disgust and contempt for others, anyway. What possible benefit could there be in it? Would it make you feel superior to them? Well, you're not. Would you be trying to shame and humiliate them? That makes you worse than they are. Do you think you're 'teaching them a lesson' of some sort? The only lesson I'd take from it is that you're a jerk. So really, what IS the point of insisting on showing your disgust and contempt for others?

 

[Quetzal]

I think it's inevitable, because the SCOTUS ruling on same sex "marriage" (despite the drivel about "two people") really is about consenting adults (revisionist view vs traditional view of marriage). Keep in mind, there is also a big polyamory movement , too (you'd be surprised at the people living this way without marriage)---in other words, maybe 3 women and two men all living together, sharing sex, parenthood.

I feel like this is a very small minority of people. So small, in fact, that they could easily be skipped in all surveys on the issue.

 

[bybee]

It depends on how you do it. And I don't see why you'd feel the need to show disgust and contempt for others, anyway. What possible benefit could there be in it? Would it make you feel superior to them? Well, you're not. Would you be trying to shame and humiliate them? That makes you worse than they are. Do you think you're 'teaching them a lesson' of some sort? The only lesson I'd take from it is that you're a jerk. So really, what IS the point of insisting on showing your disgust and contempt for others?

Oh like abusing an animal? If one intervenes one is subject to possible litigation? What I might call child abuse may not line up with the methods of other parents?
I am disgusted by violent mob activity that some call justified civil disobedience? I am disgusted by the slaughter in cold blood of police officers? I am disgusted by drunken orgies during spring breaks on our public beaches wherein young males line up to have sex with a drunken young woman?
You know, stuff like that.
You contemptible knobhead! I am not insisting on anything.
I am lamenting the loss of civility in our society.

 

[Quetzal]

Oh like abusing an animal? If one intervenes one is subject to possible litigation? What I might call child abuse may not line up with the methods of other parents?
I am disgusted by violent mob activity that some call justified civil disobedience? I am disgusted by the slaughter in cold blood of police officers? I am disgusted by drunken orgies during spring breaks on our public beaches wherein young males line up to have sex with a drunken young woman?
You know, stuff like that.
You contemptible knobhead! I am not insisting on anything.
I am lamenting the loss of civility in our society.

I count four instances of faulty comparison fallacies (we are not discussing animal cruelty, child abuse, murder of police officers, or sexual acts of college co-eds; are we?) and yet his question still stands.