Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 05, 2014, 06:32:13 AM
-
Gay marriages just became legal.
Interesting method
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
Yes, it seems denying anyone a marriage license is "unconstitutional" . . .
-
using the eric holder method states attorney generals opinion is law
-
Funny how there's not even a constitutional amendment protecting marraige :lol:
-
Funny how there's not even a constitutional amendment protecting marraige :lol:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Remember, the government is only supposed to have the authority delegated to it. The government would need an amendment giving it the right to restrict marriage.
I'm unaware of the Constitutional amendment granting the government said authority over marriage. Lemme guess. Interstate commerce? General welfare clause? =D
-
Funny how there's not even a constitutional amendment protecting marraige
What is this constitution thing you speak of, and why would it matter?
-
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Remember, the government is only supposed to have the authority delegated to it. The government would need an amendment giving it the right to restrict marriage.
I'm unaware of the Constitutional amendment granting the government said authority over marriage. Lemme guess. Interstate commerce? General welfare clause? =D
The Federal Government has no such authority.
However: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
-
Meanwhile we can't get any meaningful pension reform passed nor a balanced budget. But letting the gayzors get married will ensure that they go out and vote enmass for those that have brought this state to the point of bankruptcy.
And the leading candidate from both parties (Rauner-R/D) has heavy ties to a bunch of Illinois folks already behind bars and PA's Gov. Rendell. Where a $300,000 campaign contribution got him $100,000,000 (or thereabouts I disremember the actual number) in bond business for Rauner's company.
I predict that we'll go 5 for the last 8 in the "Governors behind bars" standings, should Rauner win.
Yea us. =| =|
-
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Remember, the government is only supposed to have the authority delegated to it. The government would need an amendment giving it the right to restrict marriage.
I'm unaware of the Constitutional amendment granting the government said authority over marriage. Lemme guess. Interstate commerce? General welfare clause? =D
Your days of taking me seriously are certainly at a middle ;)
-
It will be interesting to see if the polygamy proponents gain any ground.
There really is no compelling reason to keep loving sister wives from legally being with the man they love.
-
Well, there isn't
If you think there really is, Ron, feel free to expound
-
Well, there isn't
If you think there really is, Ron, feel free to expound
Well, at least that would somewhat resemble an actual marriage. Not exactly a proper marriage, but whatever.
-
Well, at least that would somewhat resemble an actual marriage. Not exactly a proper marriage, but whatever.
It's very Biblical ;)
-
It's very Biblical ;)
I bet the Islamic extremists wouldn't hate us as much if we abandoned this newfangled one man/one woman thing and went back to traditional marriage.
;)
-
Hmmm, I think Ron's on to something there! :lol:
-
It's very Biblical ;)
Not sure if serious. Polygamy, like slavery, is something the Bible seems to tolerate for a while, and then mildly rebukes in the New Testament. I think God had bigger fish to fry, so he let the humans slide on a couple of things. For a while.
-
Polygamy, like slavery, is something the Bible seems to tolerate for a while, and then mildly rebukes in the New Testament.
I'm curious, where in the NT is this?
-
I'm curious, where in the NT is this?
I can only think of a couple places:
1) Gospel(s): Jesus says women at the well had many husbands and current one is not her husband
2) Paul says something about an elder being the husband of only one wife
Slavery seems to be affirmed in the NT.
So Abraham, Jacob etc were just "tolerated" ? =|
BTW, I mostly just like poking holes in any argument in a jesting fashion. ;)
-
I can only think of a couple places:
1) Gospel(s): Jesus says women at the well had many husbands and current one is not her husband
2) Paul says something about an elder being the husband of only one wife
I don't think the first relates to polygamy. The second is what I'm talking about with "mild rebuke." Not an outright condemnation, but clearly a statement that monogamy is the ideal.
Slavery seems to be affirmed in the NT.
Not affirmed at all. Tolerated, but the NT suggests it is not ideal. "Man-stealing" is condemned, and masters must view Christian slaves as brothers. Doesn't make sense to enslave your brother. And since you're commanded to love even your enemies, it doesn't make much sense to enslave anyone.
So Abraham, Jacob etc were just "tolerated" ? =|
I don't recall Abraham having more than one wife at a time. He had another wife (Keturah, or something?), but I think she was after Sarah died.
You can't read about Jacob without understanding that he was a very flawed individual. His name means something like cheater, or liar. His polygamy was a result of his being cheated into marrying the wrong sister, and was hardly presented as something to be emulated.
-
I couldn't remember any.
2) Paul says something about an elder being the husband of only one wife
"Many critics of polygamy also point to the Pauline epistles that state that church officials should be respectable, above reproach, and the husband of a single wife. Hermeneutically, the Greek phrase mias gunaikos andra, is an unusual Greek construction, and capable of being translated in three possible ways: 1) "one wife man," (prohibiting plural marriage) or 2) "a wife man" (requiring elders to be married) or 3) "first wife man" (prohibiting divorcees from ordination). Some claim that if these verses refer directly to polygamy (definition 1 above) it supports the acceptance of polygamy because if polygamy were outlawed there would be no need to have laws prohibiting leaders from being polygamists. One would only need a law prohibiting polygamy by leaders if polygamy was accepted among lay persons."
So... For everyone not an elder there doesn't seem to be a problem. :D
-
I'm curious, where in the NT is this?
Right next to the part where Jesus ordered the pork chops for the last supper.
-
And again, we run smack into the issue of basing laws on one group's faith
Telling me something should be legal/illegal based on what the Bible says carries as much water as telling me it should be legal/illegal based on the Chronicles of Narnia
Laws banning things should be based on harm being caused. Murder, rape, theft... all have obvious victims, so therefor are proscribed by law.
Tell me... exactly who is hurt if Spoon and I bring another woman into our relationship as a spouse?
-
Tell me... exactly who is hurt if Spoon and I bring another woman into our relationship as a spouse?
please send pics, then we'll talk..... :angel:
-
Tell me... exactly who is hurt if Spoon and I bring another woman into our relationship as a spouse?
More than likely, you. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
The definition of bigamy is having one too many wives. Which also happens to be the same definition of monogamy.
-
Tell me... exactly who is hurt if Spoon and I bring another woman into our relationship as a spouse?
Some guy who doesn't have any. He is certainly gonna blame you for hoarding. Never mind that even with it not begin allowed he still doesn't have any.
I'm reasonably certain this is the driving force behind the anti-polygamy laws.
-
And again, we run smack into the issue of basing laws on one group's faith
:rofl: Actually, no, we were just talking about the Bible.
-
See, I want to take that as a joke. I REALLY do.
But it's not a joke. Not really
-
Huh?
-
The definition of bigamy is having one too many wives. Which also happens to be the same definition of monogamy.
As a fellow divorcee, I see what you did there. =D
-
See, I want to take that as a joke. I REALLY do.
But it's not a joke. Not really
When did this become not funny? [/wash]
-
What I like is the "immediate" part. No extensions so the license issuers could figure out how to make it work. =|
-
I don't care who or how many someone decides to make a commitment to.
Using government fiat to change the definition of marriage, forcing other folks to assent to the legitimacy of such unions by force of law is what I have a problem with.
I also have always advocated getting government out of the marriage business altogether. Bestowing benefits upon any arrangement that the individual cannot enjoy is social engineering and I would prefer my government functionaries not be involved in social engineering.
-
I don't recall Abraham having more than one wife at a time.
Genesis 16:3-
And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
-
I couldn't remember any.
"Many critics of polygamy also point to the Pauline epistles that state that church officials should be respectable, above reproach, and the husband of a single wife. Hermeneutically, the Greek phrase mias gunaikos andra, is an unusual Greek construction, and capable of being translated in three possible ways: 1) "one wife man," (prohibiting plural marriage) or 2) "a wife man" (requiring elders to be married) or 3) "first wife man" (prohibiting divorcees from ordination). Some claim that if these verses refer directly to polygamy (definition 1 above) it supports the acceptance of polygamy because if polygamy were outlawed there would be no need to have laws prohibiting leaders from being polygamists. One would only need a law prohibiting polygamy by leaders if polygamy was accepted among lay persons."
So... For everyone not an elder there doesn't seem to be a problem. :D
I generally read it as all 3 at the same time. Monogamous, married, no divorce. The elder is also an overseer, bishop, presbyter, and shepherd. These terms are all used as interchangeable descriptors in the NT for the same office. If this is the form of the leadership (monogamous, married, no divorce), then that is an example of what the ideal Christian ought to be. No other virtue of the leadership is ever shown to be different or higher standard than the average Christian, only that the leadership has demonstrated actually achieving the ideal for years.
But there is further and more direct evidence of the ideal in 1 Cor 7, where Paul talks about each man and woman to have their own spouse. And for the sake of temptation, they are to never withhold sex from each other.
Finally, there is Jesus famous teaching from Genesis: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
To be fair, the context is about divorce for any cause, not polygamy.
-
What I like is the "immediate" part. No extensions so the license issuers could figure out how to make it work. =|
Err...and what exactly would the license issuers have to change in order to make it "work"?
They might have to change some of the gendered nouns that occur on the license, but that shouldn't take long.
-
Genesis 16:3-
Good catch; thanks. I thought of Hagar, but I didn't recall the part about her being a wife.
I couldn't remember any.
"Many critics of polygamy also point to the Pauline epistles that state that church officials should be respectable, above reproach, and the husband of a single wife. Hermeneutically, the Greek phrase mias gunaikos andra, is an unusual Greek construction, and capable of being translated in three possible ways: 1) "one wife man," (prohibiting plural marriage) or 2) "a wife man" (requiring elders to be married) or 3) "first wife man" (prohibiting divorcees from ordination). Some claim that if these verses refer directly to polygamy (definition 1 above) it supports the acceptance of polygamy because if polygamy were outlawed there would be no need to have laws prohibiting leaders from being polygamists. One would only need a law prohibiting polygamy by leaders if polygamy was accepted among lay persons."
So... For everyone not an elder there doesn't seem to be a problem. :D
Again, not sure if serious. Take a look at the other qualities expected of the elder. I think it would likely be "a problem" for a non-elder to be addicted to wine, or love money, among other things.
1Ti 3:2-4 NASB 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
-
Well, since you want to be all serious, I'll oblige.
And again, we run smack into the issue of basing laws on one group's faith
Due to a quasi-humorous comment from a non-Bible-thumping anarchist, we started talking about the Bible's position on polygamy. Nobody said there oughtta-be-a-law.
Telling me something should be legal/illegal based on what the Bible says carries as much water as telling me it should be legal/illegal based on the Chronicles of Narnia
Laws banning things should be based on harm being caused. Murder, rape, theft... all have obvious victims, so therefor are proscribed by law.
Tell me... exactly who is hurt if Spoon and I bring another woman into our relationship as a spouse?
I think it would enlighten the discussion to point out a couple of things.
While I agree with you on victimless crimes, there's no reason why a religious viewpoint should be less valid in politics than a secular one. I couldn't justify my belief in the rights of mankind, were there not a Bible to tell me that God created Man in His image.*
It is important to bear in mind that you are free (or should be free) to keep a [insert non-traditional arrangement here] household, whether your government recognizes your relationship(s), or not. FWIW, if we were to vote on polygamy, I think I'd probably abstain. I certainly couldn't vote for my government to recognize such relationships, but I don't know that I'd stand in the way, if the voters thought it should. It all comes back to the children of such unions, and the associated issues.
*And no, I'm not claiming that the Bible contains an Age of Enlightenment-style declaration of the rights of man. But I do find that modern (as opposed to post-modern) ideas about rights, libertarianism, etc, are the best way for a society to respect image-bearing Man in its politics. Because the Bible doesn't tell us what form of government we ought to have, if any, I must use my own judgment; as frightening as that may be.
-
It is interesting that a topic titled "illinois" would turn into a discussion of polygamy, when it was in Nauvoo, Illinois that Joseph Smith first began the practice.
-
Stupid Illinois... :mad:
:P
-
getting government out of the marriage business altogether
;)