Report: "Massachusetts Town Legalizes Polygamy Using Same Arguments For Gay Marriage,"

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
meltzerboy2 said:
I am not making my assessment based on my religion or any other religion. My point is that if there is no harm being done and there is mutual consent and transparency, the relationship should be legal.
Click to expand...
The community has the obligation to protect its members and insure the survival of the community itself. This confers rights to the community to impose and enforce laws on its members.

A community that does not procreate will not not survive. A community that does not procreate in an orderly manner, e.g., provide for the children’s welfare, does not protect its most vulnerable members. Marriage laws result. It’s not theocracy, it’s civility 101.

The OP is about polyamorous relationships. Three males or three females would not impose problems for the community. Polygamy, if the father was a responsible person (as in the OT), could be manageable but does introduce a risk to society that the “family” will dissolve. Two men and one women, potentially bigger problems of dissolution. If these “families” dissolve then the community must care for the children.
 
You are correct. We do not live in a theocracy (definition: government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided). We do not have a theocratic rule making our decisions. We live in a democratic Republic guided by our constitution and is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and the representatives we elect are subject to, serve, and are beholden to, the people. We elect them to represent us.

This means that if the people were to want just laws that impact some form of morality (e.g.: prostitution, pornography, etc.), and the laws were just, then yes, we can have laws that impact issues that are morally based. Also, simply because an issue may generally be classified as a moral one, it does not preclude it from having a legal side to it as well.

Our founding fathers knew that the success of our nation was based on the people being able to self govern. This includes following our consciences and doing what is morally upright. When those things break down, so does our system of government. Hence what we have today.
 
Last edited:
RuthAnne said:
40.png
Anesti33:
Uh, no, marriage is regulated by the states.
Click to expand...
Government needs to stay out of the marriage business altogether.
Click to expand...
Government used to have a vested interest in promoting marriage for the stability of society and the growth of the population. Seeing as how they have reduced it to nothing more than a fancy roommate contract, they may want to rethink their motives.
 
The homosexual activists laughed at conservatives when we said redefining marriage will lead to this. We were apparently fear mongering apparently. The floodgates have been opened …no turning back now…

Lord have mercy on us and Christians like me who knew better but kept silent !
 
blackforest said:
the state shouldn’t be sticking its nose into the business of marriage,
Click to expand...
Do you wish the State to recognise any types of Interpersonal relationships and bestow any particular protections, obligations and benefits on them?
 
Well, that was a long time coming. No surprise.

Perhaps the divorce courts need more business. 🤣 🤣 🤣
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
meltzerboy2:
I am not making my assessment based on my religion or any other religion. My point is that if there is no harm being done and there is mutual consent and transparency, the relationship should be legal.
Click to expand...
The community has the obligation to protect its members and insure the survival of the community itself. This confers rights to the community to impose and enforce laws on its members.

A community that does not procreate will not not survive. A community that does not procreate in an orderly manner, e.g., provide for the children’s welfare, does not protect its most vulnerable members. Marriage laws result. It’s not theocracy, it’s civility 101.

The OP is about polyamorous relationships. Three males or three females would not impose problems for the community. Polygamy, if the father was a responsible person (as in the OT), could be manageable but does introduce a risk to society that the “family” will dissolve. Two men and one women, potentially bigger problems of dissolution. If these “families” dissolve then the community must care for the children.
Click to expand...
I marvel at how much money the government must spend on family court and the collection of child support / enforcement of custody arrangements.
Maybe there could be a system where if parents couldn’t manage this (support and custody arrangements) themselves, they would have to pay a fee for court maintenance as well.
 
Last edited:
I’m shocked. Haha. What a total, unforeseeable surprise!

Kidding.
 
o_mlly said:
If these “families” dissolve then the community must care for the children.
Click to expand...
Hands up if you think we should not allow any partnership arrangement where there is a chance that they people may split up.
 
How about we just make those parents pay their share.
Publicize it in advance.
Billboards that say “recreational sex – an expensive hobby” or “choose your domestic partner carefully – is he likely a deadbeat?”

I see billboards against drunk driving that say “you just blew $10,000”.
Maybe there could be some that say “Sleeping around” just cost you $200,000".
 
Last edited:
Well, that is exactly how gay recognition started - all they wanted was recognition of their “Domestic Partnership” … then cities began to provide for Domestic Partnership registries for hospital visitation rights, and power of attorney … employers began providing insurance benefits for gay couples, then their were parental rights . then states started to recognize Domestic Partnerships and … people said next think you know they will want to redefine marriage … and the liberal voices sad you are crazy that will never happen and dont talk about the slippery slope argument - it is not real

Then …Domestic Partnerships were not enough - they wanted marriage - they wanted marriage redefined from one man and one woman to any two people … and when people said then plural marriage [polygamy - polyamory] would follow and people said … you are crazy - dont bring up the slippery slope argument … that will never happen …

The we redefined marriage to any two people - Now gay marriage is the law of the land … that was followed by the targeting bakers and florists and photographers to compel the to celebrate marriage between same sex couples …We they have what they said they were not asking for - until they asked for it …

Now we have people seek affirmation for plural marriage [polygamy - polyamory] … So here we are … and you say … nope - not going to happen …

I say give it 5 years and a SCOTUS decision - especially if the make up of the court goes back to the left …
 
YADA said:
Then …Domestic Partnerships were not enough - they wanted marriage - they wanted marriage redefined from one man and one woman to any two people … and when people said then plural marriage [polygamy - polyamory] would follow and people said … you are crazy - dont bring up the slippery slope argument … that will never happen …
Click to expand...
What do you think will be next? Incest?
🤔
 
NEXT … You mean after they legalize plural marriage [polygamy - polyamory]? … Gee - I dont know … not sure my brain can think about the next rendition of sexual depravity …

You ask if it will be Incest? … Legalized??? We know it happens

Inter species sexual relationships? … there were news articles about a guy raping a horse in Washington State a few years back and some guys neighbor in Oregon coming over to his barn and making out with his horse … and other obscene actions …

Perhaps it will just be reducing the age of consent down to 4 or 5 years - which just legalizes pedophilia … urgh 🤬 … the North American Man Boy Love Association [do they still exist?] used to advocate for that …

I actually dont want to contemplate that future as I have grandchildren …we live in very sad times …
 
YADA said:
Well, that is exactly how gay recognition started - all they wanted was recognition of their “Domestic Partnership” … then cities began to provide for Domestic Partnership registries…
Click to expand...
People who were in a gay relationship - as meaningful and as loving and as potentially as long term as any heterosexual couple, were denied the same rights for matters such as visitation rights. Even those heterosexual couple who weren’t married bad them. But vay people were denied.

Hence the resort to domestic partnership agreements. Not as a precurser to a movement to obtain the same right to marry, but as a way of obtaining some of the rights prior of heterosexual couples.

So it wasn’t a case of ‘we’ll start with this and build on it’. It was a case of ‘we’re not allowed to have the same rights as married couples so until we get those rights, this will have to do’.
 
Guest1 said:
40.png
YADA:
Then …Domestic Partnerships were not enough - they wanted marriage - they wanted marriage redefined from one man and one woman to any two people … and when people said then plural marriage [polygamy - polyamory] would follow and people said … you are crazy - dont bring up the slippery slope argument … that will never happen …
Click to expand...
What do you think will be next? Incest?
🤔
Click to expand...
It’s not a slippery slope argument. If a couple is married then tbey have all the rights associated with being married. Gay or not. If you want someone other than your partner to have those rights then you can enter into a domestic partnership. It’s not something that would be required for closely related people so the point is moot.
 
YADA said:
NEXT … You mean after they legalize plural marriage [polygamy - polyamory]? … Gee - I dont know … not sure my brain can think about the next rendition of sexual depravity …

You ask if it will be Incest? … Legalized??? We know it happens

Inter species sexual relationships? … there were news articles about a guy raping a horse in Washington State a few years back and some guys neighbor in Oregon coming over to his barn and making out with his horse … and other obscene actions …

Perhaps it will just be reducing the age of consent down to 4 or 5 years - which just legalizes pedophilia … urgh 🤬 … the North American Man Boy Love Association [do they still exist?] used to advocate for that …

I actually dont want to contemplate that future as I have grandchildren …we live in very sad times …
Click to expand...
You do know that you have insulted, in the most obscene and shameful manner available, all those who are legally entitled to have more than one partner. Including all our Muslim brothers and sisters.

And have also described as sexually depraved all those in the bible whom we know were in polygamous relationships.

Are you really sure you want to do that?
 
I do not know how old you are … but I lived through this evolution and in the beginning recognition of the Domestic Partnerships was all they said they wanted … not marriage but a legal relationship recognized as a Domestic Partnership … the gay rights movement specifically stated they sought equality in rights - not gay marriage … but once they gained ground with the Domestic Partnerships they pivoted to the redefinition of marriage … you can deny that all you want - but it is a fact … and when Christians and other traditional marriage voices raised the idea that the Domestic Partnerships would open the door for same sex marriage they were called names and the denials flew and the “slippery slope” argument was vilifies and laughed at … The Church - our Church - was vilified and attacked for standing up against the redefinition of marriage and the tradition of marriage being between one man and one woman
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top