Is Polygamy Next?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fred_conty said:
If I were a booky I would bet on polygamy becoming legal.
Click to expand...
The only remedy d be to abolish the Johnson Amendment so that Christians could openly organize, oppose and vote out of office any legislator who votes to make polygamy legal.

Likewise openly organize, oppose and vote out of office any politician who votes to remove all impediments to legalize the murder of the unborn.

Likewise openly organizes to oppose and vote out of office any presidential candidate who supports polygamy, the murder of the unborn, etc.

We either behave like Christians or become the willing slaves of the new pagans.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
The humanists will never tolerate slavery, unless the slaves are Christians. 🤷
Click to expand...
Why would humanists tolerate slavery if Christians were the slaves?

To the original question: Let’s not forget that marriage is a human construct. Christians defined it as one mand and one woman; Muslims defined it as polygamous. Recently, more enlightened nations have relaxed the gender constraint in recognition that homosexual love is no less valid than heterosexual love.

I can’t think of a single ethical reason why polygamy should not be legal. It wouldn’t be my cup of tea, but then neither is vegetarianism and I don’t go around demanding that people eat meat.
 
wanstronian said:
Why would humanists tolerate slavery if Christians were the slaves?
Click to expand...
It is the very essence of slavery that one’s free speech is denied, as the Johnson Amendment denies free speech to the pastors of the nation, who will be whipped into submission by losing tax exemption for their churches if they dare speak up against the corroding and corrupt influence of secular humanism.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
It is the very essence of slavery that one’s free speech is denied, as the Johnson Amendment denies free speech to the pastors of the nation, who will be whipped into submission by losing tax exemption for their churches if they dare speak up against the corroding and corrupt influence of secular humanism.
Click to expand...
Your individual free speech is not denied.The Johnson Amendment clarifies a necessary separation between church and state.

Furthermore, the amendment forbids ALL non-profits, not just religious institutions, from endorsing political viewpoints.

Nobody is forcing the churches to keep hold of their tax riches. The RCC is an incredibly wealthy institution and is getting a free ride from paying tax on its earnings. If funding politicians to further its own agenda were that important, it could always just start paying tax, like everybody else has to.

Really, your post just screams “Persecution Complex!”
 
wanstronian said:
Your individual free speech is not denied.The Johnson Amendment clarifies a necessary separation between church and state.

Furthermore, the amendment forbids ALL non-profits, not just religious institutions, from endorsing political viewpoints.

Nobody is forcing the churches to keep hold of their tax riches. The RCC is an incredibly wealthy institution and is getting a free ride from paying tax on its earnings. If funding politicians to further its own agenda were that important, it could always just start paying tax, like everybody else has to.

Really, your post just screams “Persecution Complex!”
Click to expand...
And your post just screams atheist bigotry.

Are we even? 😉
 
wanstronian said:
Not really, because I gave reasons and you just resorted to tu quoque.

But it was ever thus.
Click to expand...
You never gave reasons why the Johnson Amendment is not a corrupt instance of secular humanism effectively shredding the American moral compass while at the same time disarming the very instrument by which religion can combat evil.

Try harder. 🤷
 
Charlemagne_III said:
You never gave reasons why the Johnson Amendment is not a corrupt instance of secular humanism effectively shredding the American moral compass while at the same time disarming the very instrument by which religion can combat evil.

Try harder. 🤷
Click to expand...
Seeing as there are less than 10% of Americans who do not believe in God (pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/belief-in-god/) I’d say it’s religion that has to try harder. It’s not like you are a small minority fighting against hordes of secular atheists.

You are the most Christian nation on the planet and if we are to use you as an example of how that reflects in almost all measures of civilised behaviour, then you don’t come out of it looking too good.

Hope you had a good holiday by the way.
 
I’m not American, but living in a country that probably has similar laws in place, I can see the reasoning behind something like the Johnson Amendment. People of the same faith can have very dissimilar political views. Because one is a social conservative does not mean one would be economically conservative, and vice versa. The reader and I do not necessarily agree on what politician our church should support. Politics has to do with power, not with a change of heart. I’m afraid also that it would more likely bring corruption into the church than bring about any significant social change. I think it more effective to spend resources on maintaining our churches, supporting priests and religious and evangelizing. If someone wants to donate time and money to a political campaign, let them do so directly. I should be more charitable, but personally have no use for any politician. It doesn’t take long watching any news broadcast to elicit a rant. 🤷
 
Charlemagne_III said:
You never gave reasons why the Johnson Amendment is not a corrupt instance of secular humanism effectively shredding the American moral compass while at the same time disarming the very instrument by which religion can combat evil.

Try harder. 🤷
Click to expand...
“Try harder?” That’s not condescending at all.

Maybe you missed the part where I said the Johnson amendment enforces a separation between church and state.

The fact remains, claims of “slavery” or even “restriction of free speech” are just laughable.

By the way, I just got an infraction on another thread for calling a particular type of person a “bigot.” I wasn’t leveling that accusation at anybody on the actual thread. Given that you really DID call me a bigot, I’d be interested to hear whether you got an infraction. It would give some indication as to whether the mods on this forum are doing their job even-handedly!
 
wanstronian said:
“Try harder?” That’s not condescending at all.

Maybe you missed the part where I said the Johnson amendment enforces a separation between church and state.

The fact remains, claims of “slavery” or even “restriction of free speech” are just laughable.

By the way, I just got an infraction on another thread for calling a particular type of person a “bigot.” I wasn’t leveling that accusation at anybody on the actual thread. Given that you really DID call me a bigot, I’d be interested to hear whether you got an infraction. It would give some indication as to whether the mods on this forum are doing their job even-handedly!
Click to expand...
I just got another infraction for pointing out that I wasn’t levelling the term “bigot” at anybody on the thread in question. I’ve pointed out that Charlemagne’s post to me was a direct accusation of bigotry but for some reason it’s been allowed to remain. As I have dared to question the mod, I suspect I’m about to get banned.

It’s been… interesting. See ya.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
In Italy a Muslim leader is pushing to legalize polygamy since same-sex unions are now legal. Is that a logical deduction? Is that next on the American marital agenda? Stay tuned.

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/08/18/islamic-leader-wants-to-legalise-polygamy-in-italy/
Click to expand...
As logical as the split between church and state. What grounds is there to legally force or criminalise people who do not live according to the sexual guide lines of the church or any religion?
 
IWantGod said:
As logical as the split between church and state. What grounds is there to legally force or criminalise people who do not live according to the sexual guide lines of the church or any religion?
Click to expand...
So you would tolerate mothers marrying their sons or fathers marrying their daughters, if that is desired by people who “do not live according to the sexual guide lines of the church or any religion”?

Let me get this straight. As a Catholic you are for decriminalizing polygamy?

If so, how is that not a radically anti-Catholic notions?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Let me get this straight. As a Catholic you are for decriminalizing polygamy?

If so, how is that not a radically anti-Catholic notions?
Click to expand...
Morally and theologically, no i do not support it. Legally speaking however, i have no choice. I have no grounds to say that it ought to be criminalised! On what grounds?
 
IWantGod said:
Morally and theologically, no i do not support it. Legally speaking however, i have no choice. I have no grounds to say that it ought to be criminalised! On what grounds?
Click to expand...
I have yet to hear any reasonable non-religious/legal argument against adult consensual polygamy. It seems that it is here to stay and may even increase as more people look to alternative forms of relationships. If it’s here to stay and kids are involved then it would only be wise to have legal protections for these families. Otherwise, we can try what we’ve done in the past and break up their families, put the kids in foster homes, and imprison families who are causing little to no harm compared to all of the unwedded people out there having illegitimate children with different women. Yep, makes perfect sense!?
 
IWantGod said:
Morally and theologically, no i do not support it. Legally speaking however, i have no choice. I have no grounds to say that it ought to be criminalised! On what grounds?
Click to expand...
You just gave the grounds: moral and theological.

Polygamy is neither Christian nor sane.

A man has three wives and fifteen children by them. What happens if he is jobless? What burden does that put on society?

The same burden that some men put on society today when they have children by several different women but do nothing to support either the women or the children.

How is that not a crime against the women, the children, and civilization itself?
 
IWantGod said:
My Christian beliefs do not define what ought to be law.
Click to expand...
Perhaps this is why Christians have lost their moral authority in America?

“I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen… Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell.” John Adams, Second President
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Perhaps this is why Christians have lost their moral authority in America?
Click to expand...
Since the split between church and state, it has been inevitable. It doesn’t surprise me in the least. In fact me and my church have set up a gambling committee. We bet on when certain laws will come to pass. I’ve made allot of money and i donated a tenth of my winnings to the churches purse; now am i not a wonderful catholic!.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top