What's next after Homosexual Marriage? Let's be vigilant people

[Seraphignatius]

Not laughing. But we’ve seen most of it before:

Old man with child?
I read that Mary was between 12-14 and Joseph was “elderly”…so that’s been covered.

Polygamy?
In the bible we already have Lemesh, Esau, Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Gideon, Slkanah, Samuel, and Soloman…to name a few…had multiple wives at once.

Married brother and sister?
Did Adam and Eve’s children marry each other? And how about Noah’s children after the flood?

Father and daughter?
Lot and his daughters procreated together…

I don’t think we have to worry. We don’t want to repeat any of this.

.

I. A 14 year old isn’t considered a child in most civilizations throughout history.

II. Polygamy taking place in the old testament isn’t an endorsement of the practice. The old covenant was a prefiguring of the perfect law to come, but itself was not perfect.

III. There is room for argument on the morality of marriage along the collateral line, but it should be noted that iirc Noah’s children brought their wives with them.

IV. Far from being endorsed, the incest of lot was a mark of shame.

 

[EasterJoy]

If I didn’t know of cases where animals have inherited millions of dollars I would almost consider the possibility of that being a temporary barrier to legalizing bestial marriages, but seeing as we live in the crazy messed up world we do, I would never put it past them.

A legally incompetent person may inherit, but not marry. Even if a pet were to be legally considered a person, a pet will never be a person capable of giving legal consent. Short of some language and intellectual leaps akin to The Planet of the Apes, it isn’t going to happen.

 

[EasterJoy]

…Married brother and sister?..

Many siblings these days are either not related by blood or else are half-siblings.

 

[Seraphignatius]

A legally incompetent person may inherit, but not marry. Even if a pet were to be legally considered a person, a pet will never be a person capable of giving legal consent. Short of some language and intellectual leaps akin to The Planet of the Apes, it isn’t going to happen.

If right reason ammounted to a hill of beans in our world- which is a concrete reductio absurdium of the “enlightenment” philosophies- then I would agree.

 

[WilT]

TheWarriorMonk;12059215]I agree with the comments regarding plural marriages. Unlike gay marriage, plural marriages of various types have a history going back thousands of years, and is legal in various countries. Making it legal also solves the issues that can arise during the immigration of a polygamous family legal married in another country.

Child marriage? It simply won’t happen. It’s simply not supported on either side of the aisle, and I believe that it is one of the issues that if passed can actually cause a real revolt and violence against the legal system. FWIW, people can get married at relatively young ages, depending on state law. Generally, for states that allow it, 16-17 requires parental consent, 15 and under require parental consent and court approval.

Marriage to non-humans? Never. That’s based on the way marriage (and contracts in general) works in the U.S. You can’t marry something that can’t give consent. Futhermore, it would open a can of worms that would bog down the legal system for decades. For example, let’s say someone marries 99 weasels (not politicians, but the long skinny mammals). The husband is disabled, and the 99 weasels can’t work. That would mean that they can collect Social Security disability x100. Or if the human died, inheritance goes to the 99 weasels…etc.

nambla.org/social.html an article on child marriage and such
NAMBLA LOGO

What can I do to make you happy? I like hugs!

What’s New

 

[Cackles]

Not laughing. But we’ve seen most of it before:

Old man with child?
I read that Mary was between 12-14 and Joseph was “elderly”…so that’s been covered.

Polygamy?
In the bible we already have Lemesh, Esau, Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Gideon, Slkanah, Samuel, and Soloman…to name a few…had multiple wives at once.

Married brother and sister?
Did Adam and Eve’s children marry each other? And how about Noah’s children after the flood?

Father and daughter?
Lot and his daughters procreated together…

I don’t think we have to worry. We don’t want to repeat any of this.

.

Yes but later on Brother/Sister became outlawed. Also sleeping with family was also made illegal except for father and daughter. Till this day Father/Daughter is sanctioned only under special circumstances for pro creation purposes (based after the story of the two daughters that got their Dad drunk… Cant remember the names).

Also I’ll state again that women are not outlawed from girl/girl and this suggests that for women its part of their creation (and life experience should also indicate this). It demonstrates God’s truth…t hat’s why when i found it wasnt mentioned in the Bible i wasnt surprised. Just more evidence that the bible is truth.

As far as the women being young, the idea is the woman is very corruptable. She gets fooled easily by Satan. The more pure her soul is, the more better of a mum she’ll be. I’m just guesing, but by the time your 25 years old, and all that’s important to you is your degree, a pair of Dolce sunglasses, and a trip to Cancun, forgive me if i think you’ve been corrupted by Satan and will not be a good mother.

I think the kids should be married at 16. The earlier the better. There’s reasons for this.

 

[Cackles]

I think it safe to say no one back then envisioned that it would imply a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Well this is Gods punishment because Americans have began to idolize the constitution as religious scripture. In fact it was a sloppy doccument written be idealist Freemasons. The document was a reflection of Freemason religious ideals.

I like to think of the US in two ways:

1 - The settler era that lasted hundreds of years. The first written laws had direct Bible references. These are in PDF online and amazing to see just how religious these times were. There were witch trials. Jewish style courts with no deffence attorneys. 3 judges who were religious and righteous people of the community.

2 - Then came the ‘Statue of Liberty’ ‘New York’ era which involves the constitunion and that damned Greek goddess with the Torch enlightening the world. The US started to decorate their country with Greek goddess heresies like the blind justice goddess. And in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s the Jewish schools came with money and banking expertise from Germany and settled in New York and LA which permanantly changed the country until today. Im not biased or have a single slant, but honestly the US is pretty much a Jewish country. Womens rights, feminism, rosa parks, human rights, secular humanism, secularization (prayer removed) from schools - all of these were spearheaded by that group. I just leaned this in the last month and had absolutely no idea how the ‘fundemental’ Jews are to Americana. But the US is blessed because they have the most Jews so its not a bad thing. Me? I say you cant be an athiest and still be a Jew… I wanna see hat or yamicha… But the other self-identified ‘Jewish group/club/nation’ have almost everything to do with America as we know it today and obsolutely NOTHING to do with old America.

 

[Cackles]

Some of us are old enough to remember being told we were hysterical idiots for believing that striking down the right of a state to forbid certain sexual acts between consenting adults would lead to gay marriage. We were told that was preposterous, were we /QUOTE]

Yes you were right.

The Sodomy laws (actually still on the books in 15 states or so and many countries around the world) are geared towards married couples. Kosher married couples are not permitted to perform sodomy.

Jodi Arias and Travis Alexander are a testement to how sodomy can bring out the worst in men. Despite the legality of it between man and woman, during the court case it was spoken of as almost a rape or abuse on the woman. As a digust almost. The inner truth of Gods laws kick in.

Once sodomy becomes socially ok and legal, porn VHS tapes become popular. They start to have scenes of sodomy. Most would ffw’d and skip past those scenes, But some wondered and tried with their wife or gf. That was the big mistake. It becomes like a rush and pushes things to the next level. It becomes WAY better than what your used to. No you’ve eaten the fruit (pun intended for those that might know what Im talking about). Now you’re pure sex life is altered never to be the same. All you do is begin fixate on sodomy. You dont see a person anymore. Alll you see is sodomy in women. All the porn becomes sodomy. After all this then… Well you begin to think of men. And that raises it to a level off the charts. There is no one holding you back. Any hour, day, time, place with however many people it’s available. And then u become another husband that went down the wrong path.

So yes you’re right. The origional laws made it socially unacceptable regardless of man or women to practice sodomy. Thats real equality. People would know not to take the first step. It would be illegal in porn and not readily ‘offered’ to you.

Today, there is transgender and they look almost exactly like women. You simply cant tell anymore. I’ll never forget I researching on some Occupy protest website and one person asked about their favorite porn and I couldnt believe how many young straight kids said they liked the shemales vids. I thought that was completely gross. But go see some modern pics and you’ll see how Satan has blurred the lines that the kids litterally cant decide what they are anymore. The gender, preference, etc. is getting blurred and if we lose our marriage and normal sexual relations, then Satan has won. Marriage between man and woman will be seen as a form of abuse on the woman and children and outlawed. And it all starts from sodomy laws being retracted as you said.

 

[signit]

A legally incompetent person may inherit, but not marry. Even if a pet were to be legally considered a person, a pet will never be a person capable of giving legal consent. Short of some language and intellectual leaps akin to The Planet of the Apes, it isn’t going to happen.

And also, the pet doesn’t legally inherit the money.

Someone can leave the money in a trust to take care of the pet, but the pet doesn’t actually have the money; a trustee has legal title and is required to use it on behalf of the pet.

 

[frobert]

Before commenting I want to commend the many posters for moving the conversation from SS marriage being the root of all evil into more constructive avenues.

Then it really only matters what the supreme court justices think about any of this. If they decide that anti-polygamy laws are not constitutional, then that’s that.

But honestly, if we have no power whatsoever, why bother discussing any of this? I think we have to keep believing that we have some kind of say if we’re going to keep discussing the issue. Otherwise we should accept that which we have no power to change.

You are correct several Supreme court decisions have been problematic but taking a nihilist stand will not help anyone. There are many things we can do to help victims of all kinds of abuse while working towards prevention. It’s a matter of setting priorities. For example,in the case of bestiality, we can get involved in existing charitable organizations for prevention of cruelty to animals. For child sex abuse we can get involved in one or more of the many organizations working toward prevention. And how about parental educational programs to assist new and prospective parents.

Resources are limited and spending them down on trying to reverse civil rights for particular minorities misdirects our focus away from the potential good that we can do as well as being diversionary and destructive.

 

[WilT]

Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty comments on Homosexuality somewhat crude but none the less an opinion.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/duck-dynasty-s-phil-robertson-there-satan-out-there-evil-one

 

[lily22]

human trafficking of children. children will be bought and sold.

 

[holyrood]

Legally recognized marriage between two people provides a demonstrable value to society-it is a valuable safety net for individuals and provides a solid familial foundation.

…

…The push for gay marriage stems from the desire to allow gay couples to have the same social safety net as straight couples. Because polyamory is a lifestyle, not an inherent orientation and because there is no need for a 20-person wide social safety net, I just don’t see the movement catching steam.

Many of those who practice polyamory will tell you it is just as much an orientation as homosexuality.

The push for gay marriage has been largely sold as the ‘right’ of people to marry whom they love. Those practicing polyamory can say the same exact thing: they ought to have the right to marry whom they love, too.

 

[frobert]

Many of those who practice polyamory will tell you it is just as much an orientation as homosexuality.

The push for gay marriage has been largely sold as the ‘right’ of people to marry whom they love. Those practicing polyamory can say the same exact thing: they ought to have the right to marry whom they love, too.

Two thoughts:

1. 
   *]Anyone can love anyone they want and can say they have the right to do so. But do they have the legal right to do so? Or can they make the case that it is a civil right?
   
   *]If you believe that polygamy is such a threat to Christianity what are you doing about it? Perhaps you can find like minded people and form a political action group.

 

[holyrood]

Two thoughts:

1. 
   *]Anyone can love anyone they want and can say they have the right to do so. But do they have the legal right to do so? Or can they make the case that it is a civil right?
   
   *]If you believe that polygamy is such a threat to Christianity what are you doing about it? Perhaps you can find like minded people and form a political action group.

1. 
   I’m a little lost as to your intent or point.
   
   It appears a case has been made (or rather agreed to by activist judges) that marriage can be redefined to allow ‘people who love each other’ to marry. The question was what’s next, and this is not only next, it’s already happening behind not-very-closed doors. The push is already beginning among the poly crowd to demand that they, too, can ‘marry who they love.’
   
   Polygamy and polyamory, btw, are not the same thing.

 

[frobert]

I’m a little lost as to your intent or point.

It appears a case has been made (or rather agreed to by activist judges) that marriage can be redefined to allow ‘people who love each other’ to marry. The question was what’s next, and this is not only next, it’s already happening behind not-very-closed doors. The push is already beginning among the poly crowd to demand that they, too, can ‘marry who they love.’

Polygamy and polyamory, btw, are not the same thing.

The intent of the post was 2 fold:

1. 
   *]Whatever a polygamist might say or think, polygamy is not an orientation but more importantly it is illegal in the US. SS marriage bans were and are being ruled unconstitutional across the US by conservative, libertarian and progressive judges.
   
   *]If you perceive polygamy is the next big threat to life as you know it, use your passion as leverage to take an activist role and do something about it other that talk about it.
   
   Conflating polygamy with homosexuality is little more than a distraction used by some groups to appeal to our worse nature.

 

[Kamaduck]

human trafficking of children. children will be bought and sold.

Already happening, sadly.

frobert:

You are correct several Supreme court decisions have been problematic but taking a nihilist stand will not help anyone. There are many things we can do to help victims of all kinds of abuse while working towards prevention. It’s a matter of setting priorities. For example,in the case of bestiality, we can get involved in existing charitable organizations for prevention of cruelty to animals. For child sex abuse we can get involved in one or more of the many organizations working toward prevention. And how about parental educational programs to assist new and prospective parents.

Sorry if my post came off as “nihilistic”. For the record, I don’t think we should sit around doing nothing. I simply think that it’s silly to claim that we as a people have no power whatsoever. If the Supreme Court has all power over what constitutes a marriage, then there really is no point in discussing our own opinions about the matter. But I have to believe that that isn’t true- that how we act on a daily basis is also important. Laws aren’t the only things that matter in this world, or which affect how society views the institution of marriage.

If it happens that it IS true that the Supreme court has complete and total control over what constitutes a marriage, and if they use that power in consistently immoral and destructive ways, then I suppose we’ll have to do something to stop them. The only legal action dramatic enough to reverse or stop something like that would probably be a constitutional amendment.

Cackles:

Also I’ll state again that women are not outlawed from girl/girl and this suggests that for women its part of their creation (and life experience should also indicate this). It demonstrates God’s truth…t hat’s why when i found it wasnt mentioned in the Bible i wasnt surprised. Just more evidence that the bible is truth.

I don’t know where you’re getting this idea that lesbian relationships are acceptable, but it flies in the face of any ideas about purity. Just because the Bible doesn’t specifically forbid something doesn’t mean that it is acceptable.

Cackles:

As far as the women being young, the idea is the woman is very corruptable. She gets fooled easily by Satan. The more pure her soul is, the more better of a mum she’ll be. I’m just guesing, but by the time your 25 years old, and all that’s important to you is your degree, a pair of Dolce sunglasses, and a trip to Cancun, forgive me if i think you’ve been corrupted by Satan and will not be a good mother.

I think the kids should be married at 16. The earlier the better. There’s reasons for this.

I’d ask how many 16-year-olds you know, but I’m afraid to know the answer.

If a 16-year-old has carefully weighed their options and decided that getting married now is best, then I’m not going to say that that is always the wrong decision. However, I think that most 16-year-olds do not have anywhere near the level of maturity necessary for raising children, nor enough education or a high enough paying job to provide for those children.

I mean, I’m almost 18 and still consider it an accomplishment when I drive to a new place and take fewer than three wrong turns. I’m still a long, long way from getting some of the basic life skills that parents ought to have. It takes more than purity to successfully raise a family.

 

[frobert]

…
Sorry if my post came off as “nihilistic”. For the record, I don’t think we should sit around doing nothing. I simply think that it’s silly to claim that we as a people have no power whatsoever. If the Supreme Court has all power over what constitutes a marriage, then there really is no point in discussing our own opinions about the matter. But I have to believe that that isn’t true- that how we act on a daily basis is also important. Laws aren’t the only things that matter in this world, or which affect how society views the institution of marriage.

I didn’t want to imply you were nihilistic, in fact you are doing the exact thing that I advocate namely, using your passion as leverage to do something. I may not agree 100% with what you want to do and will do but I am 100% for you.

I was surprised to learn that you are still a teenager. I think your ability to reason far surpasses many of us, including myself, that post on here.

 

[EasterJoy]

The Sodomy laws (actually still on the books in 15 states or so and many countries around the world) are geared towards married couples. Kosher married couples are not permitted to perform sodomy…

Having said that, by the 18th century in the US heterosexual couples were only rarely charged with sodomy. The law was primarily enforced with regards to homosexual behaviors.

 

[EasterJoy]

Here is the main issue, as I see it. By the passage of laws in favor of contraception and no-fault divorce, for instance, the raison d’être of marriage was obscured. Even Social Security and the willingness of society to free the divorced and unwed mothers from being socially ostracized–and I am not saying those were not needed–changed the nature of marriage, because it freed the unmarried from the necessity of marriage before having children they intended to raise themselves and freed married couples of the need to produce children to look after them in their old age. Unintended side effects, but very real ones. IOW, while it was good to stop shunning unwed parents and the divorced, lifting that societal consequence was not without its price. The price was that the meaning of marriage needed to be articulated all the more strongly. It really was not.

**On that account, most Americans do not think marriage exists primarily in order to give children a secure place in which to grow up with both biological parents, nor do they see the institution as a protector of chastity. **No-fault divorce, the elimination of alienation of affection laws, and the elimination of laws forbidding unchaste behaviors have especially made civil marriage not as an institution to protect children and a faithful spouse from abandonment or infidelity, but as a way to protect the financial assets of both spouses, both the abandoned and the abandoning, in the event of abandonment.

Civil marriage is currently about giving status to the couple, enforcing recognition of their relationship by society, and about protecting each of the spouses financially from an unjust division of assets in the event of a split. That’s pretty much it. It has no necessary connection to children at all. With this sea change in the understanding of why marriage exists–for children, for preservation of chastity, and for mutual aid in the pursuit of sanctity–only the idea of mutual care and societal recognition of that mutual care remains.