Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well... it was good for Abijah, Abraham, Ahab, Ahasuerus, Ashur, Belshazzar, Benhadad, Caleb, David, Eliphaz, Elkanah, Esau, Ezra, Gideon, Jacob, Jehoiachin, Jehoiada, Jehoram, Jerahmeel, Joash, Lamech, Machir, Manasseh, Mered, Moses, Nahor, Rehoboam, Saul, Simeon, Solomon, and Zedekiah of the bible.
I don't see why polygamy should be illegal.
sarcasm? I hope so.
No I'm serious. Why should it be illegal. Name one reason. Name one person harmed by a plural marriage.
We use government to manage legal contracts between parties. Marriage is no different. Everyone in a marriage benefits from the management by government at special points in time. For example, when one of the parties die, or during a divorce. Additionally, some marriages receive tax benefits based on their marriage contract. Further, in some states governments dictate to care givers that marriage partners are to be given special access to their partner and to decisions about their partner. These are just a few.sarcasm? I hope so.
No I'm serious. Why should it be illegal. Name one reason. Name one person harmed by a plural marriage.
True, then again name one person helped by government marriage.
If government got out of the marriage business, we could stop having these stupid discussions about what marriages government should recognize and who gets to make that choice.
We use government to manage legal contracts between parties. Marriage is no differentNo I'm serious. Why should it be illegal. Name one reason. Name one person harmed by a plural marriage.
True, then again name one person helped by government marriage.
If government got out of the marriage business, we could stop having these stupid discussions about what marriages government should recognize and who gets to make that choice.
Everyone in a marriage benefits from the management by government at special points in time. For example, when one of the parties die, or during a divorce. Additionally, some marriages receive tax benefits based on their marriage contract. Further, in some states governments dictate to care givers that marriage partners are to be given special access to their partner and to decisions about their partner. These are just a few.
We use government to manage legal contracts between parties. Marriage is no differentTrue, then again name one person helped by government marriage.
If government got out of the marriage business, we could stop having these stupid discussions about what marriages government should recognize and who gets to make that choice.
Actually it is completely different. Contracts are negotiated between parties, not dictated by government. Contracts also cannot be changed without the consent of the parties who made the agreement. Marriage as a "contract" is changed at the whim of government and binding retroactively.
Everyone in a marriage benefits from the management by government at special points in time. For example, when one of the parties die, or during a divorce. Additionally, some marriages receive tax benefits based on their marriage contract. Further, in some states governments dictate to care givers that marriage partners are to be given special access to their partner and to decisions about their partner. These are just a few.
Fair enough, let me rephrase. Who has ever benefited from marriage other than arbitrary decisions by government to benefit them which there was no reason they needed to tie to marriage, but just did because they chose to?
Government could accomplish any of those things without government "marriage." And in fact that they do it through "marriage" is a far better argument of violation of the 14th amendment then that not having "gay" marriage is a violation.
We use government to manage legal contracts between parties. Marriage is no different
Actually it is completely different. Contracts are negotiated between parties, not dictated by government. Contracts also cannot be changed without the consent of the parties who made the agreement. Marriage as a "contract" is changed at the whim of government and binding retroactively.
Everyone in a marriage benefits from the management by government at special points in time. For example, when one of the parties die, or during a divorce. Additionally, some marriages receive tax benefits based on their marriage contract. Further, in some states governments dictate to care givers that marriage partners are to be given special access to their partner and to decisions about their partner. These are just a few.
Fair enough, let me rephrase. Who has ever benefited from marriage other than arbitrary decisions by government to benefit them which there was no reason they needed to tie to marriage, but just did because they chose to?
Government could accomplish any of those things without government "marriage." And in fact that they do it through "marriage" is a far better argument of violation of the 14th amendment then that not having "gay" marriage is a violation.
the government provides benefits to married people because it is generally held that marriages are good for the society as a whole. Financial encouragement of marriage has been around for many years.
the society as a whole should decide if more than one form of marriage should be permitted and encouraged----its not a constitutional issue.
Actually it is completely different. Contracts are negotiated between parties, not dictated by government. Contracts also cannot be changed without the consent of the parties who made the agreement. Marriage as a "contract" is changed at the whim of government and binding retroactively.
Fair enough, let me rephrase. Who has ever benefited from marriage other than arbitrary decisions by government to benefit them which there was no reason they needed to tie to marriage, but just did because they chose to?
Government could accomplish any of those things without government "marriage." And in fact that they do it through "marriage" is a far better argument of violation of the 14th amendment then that not having "gay" marriage is a violation.
the government provides benefits to married people because it is generally held that marriages are good for the society as a whole. Financial encouragement of marriage has been around for many years.
the society as a whole should decide if more than one form of marriage should be permitted and encouraged----its not a constitutional issue.
I get marriage, what I don't get is government marriage. Why would recognition or lack thereof by government make your marriage any more or less meaningful to you?
And if you think about the "benefits," there actually is a better solution for them all.
1) Eliminate the death tax entirely
2) Allow people to chose things like who makes medical decisions for them instead of tying it to government marriage
3) Flatten income taxes, or better yet go to the fair tax and eliminate them.
4) Let people make their own agreements with their employers, insurance companies and so forth regarding the "benefits" they get.
And if you think about children, that is so loosely tied to marriage today we really need to re-think how we do paternity rights and responsibilities regardless or marriage.
In fact, what does government marriage accomplish where there isn't a better solution by doing it without involving government "marriage?"
You appear to be confusing "marriage" with marriage license. I don't know what a government marriage is. Irregardless, you are correct that the rights of the people who are not engaged in heterosexual marriages licensed by the state, have been outlandishly infringed by the tyranny of the majority who appear to like the idea of lavishing themselves with beneficial statues to pat themselves on the back for being in the heterosexual monogamous marriage club.We use government to manage legal contracts between parties. Marriage is no differentTrue, then again name one person helped by government marriage.
If government got out of the marriage business, we could stop having these stupid discussions about what marriages government should recognize and who gets to make that choice.
Actually it is completely different. Contracts are negotiated between parties, not dictated by government. Contracts also cannot be changed without the consent of the parties who made the agreement. Marriage as a "contract" is changed at the whim of government and binding retroactively.
Everyone in a marriage benefits from the management by government at special points in time. For example, when one of the parties die, or during a divorce. Additionally, some marriages receive tax benefits based on their marriage contract. Further, in some states governments dictate to care givers that marriage partners are to be given special access to their partner and to decisions about their partner. These are just a few.
Fair enough, let me rephrase. Who has ever benefited from marriage other than arbitrary decisions by government to benefit them which there was no reason they needed to tie to marriage, but just did because they chose to?
Government could accomplish any of those things without government "marriage." And in fact that they do it through "marriage" is a far better argument of violation of the 14th amendment then that not having "gay" marriage is a violation.
the government provides benefits to married people because it is generally held that marriages are good for the society as a whole. Financial encouragement of marriage has been around for many years.
the society as a whole should decide if more than one form of marriage should be permitted and encouraged----its not a constitutional issue.
I get marriage, what I don't get is government marriage. Why would recognition or lack thereof by government make your marriage any more or less meaningful to you?
And if you think about the "benefits," there actually is a better solution for them all.
1) Eliminate the death tax entirely
2) Allow people to chose things like who makes medical decisions for them instead of tying it to government marriage
3) Flatten income taxes, or better yet go to the fair tax and eliminate them.
4) Let people make their own agreements with their employers, insurance companies and so forth regarding the "benefits" they get.
And if you think about children, that is so loosely tied to marriage today we really need to re-think how we do paternity rights and responsibilities regardless or marriage.
In fact, what does government marriage accomplish where there isn't a better solution by doing it without involving government "marriage?"
I agree completely.
the gays on the board make a big deal out of this because they want to file as married on their 1040 forms.
But, face it, equality is not their real agenda. The want to govt to mandate how we all think about gay marriage. They want the govt to punish anyone who dares to say that gay marriage is wrong and an aberation of the human condition.
I get marriage, what I don't get is government marriage. Why would recognition or lack thereof by government make your marriage any more or less meaningful to you?
And if you think about the "benefits," there actually is a better solution for them all.
1) Eliminate the death tax entirely
2) Allow people to chose things like who makes medical decisions for them instead of tying it to government marriage
3) Flatten income taxes, or better yet go to the fair tax and eliminate them.
4) Let people make their own agreements with their employers, insurance companies and so forth regarding the "benefits" they get.
And if you think about children, that is so loosely tied to marriage today we really need to re-think how we do paternity rights and responsibilities regardless or marriage.
In fact, what does government marriage accomplish where there isn't a better solution by doing it without involving government "marriage?"
I agree completely.
the gays on the board make a big deal out of this because they want to file as married on their 1040 forms.
But, face it, equality is not their real agenda. The want to govt to mandate how we all think about gay marriage. They want the govt to punish anyone who dares to say that gay marriage is wrong and an aberation of the human condition.
That's just bull shit propaganda and you know it.
I agree completely.
the gays on the board make a big deal out of this because they want to file as married on their 1040 forms.
But, face it, equality is not their real agenda. The want to govt to mandate how we all think about gay marriage. They want the govt to punish anyone who dares to say that gay marriage is wrong and an aberation of the human condition.
That's just bull shit propaganda and you know it.
Clearly if you read the posts from the liberal homosexuals on the board, there is no disputing Redhawk in that validation of who they have sex with is as deserving of collective recognition as heterosexual relationship is a major objective.
However, you're right there is a lot more to it then that. As liberals, they also want to grow the power of government, increase discrimination between citizens and get handouts. So to say all the want is validation would be way insufficient to describe their objectives.
That's just bull shit propaganda and you know it.
Clearly if you read the posts from the liberal homosexuals on the board, there is no disputing Redhawk in that validation of who they have sex with is as deserving of collective recognition as heterosexual relationship is a major objective.
However, you're right there is a lot more to it then that. As liberals, they also want to grow the power of government, increase discrimination between citizens and get handouts. So to say all the want is validation would be way insufficient to describe their objectives.
"Everyone deserves equal rights"
Years ago I was at an event in Atlanta where Willie Nelson said that. The event was not a gay this or that event in any way but a reporter asked him his opinion of gay marriage.
Shocked the hell out of me but I took a close look and studied on it.
Willie is right. Leave gay folk alone and what the hell is wrong with them getting as much joy out of being legally married same as I am to my wife?
What satisfaction could you ever get out of denying them that?
Clearly if you read the posts from the liberal homosexuals on the board, there is no disputing Redhawk in that validation of who they have sex with is as deserving of collective recognition as heterosexual relationship is a major objective.
However, you're right there is a lot more to it then that. As liberals, they also want to grow the power of government, increase discrimination between citizens and get handouts. So to say all the want is validation would be way insufficient to describe their objectives.
"Everyone deserves equal rights"
Years ago I was at an event in Atlanta where Willie Nelson said that. The event was not a gay this or that event in any way but a reporter asked him his opinion of gay marriage.
Shocked the hell out of me but I took a close look and studied on it.
Willie is right. Leave gay folk alone and what the hell is wrong with them getting as much joy out of being legally married same as I am to my wife?
What satisfaction could you ever get out of denying them that?
What a stupid question to ask a libertarian. And what a stupid need they have to need to be validated by government.
I agree completely.
the gays on the board make a big deal out of this because they want to file as married on their 1040 forms.
But, face it, equality is not their real agenda. The want to govt to mandate how we all think about gay marriage. They want the govt to punish anyone who dares to say that gay marriage is wrong and an aberation of the human condition.
That's just bull shit propaganda and you know it.
Clearly if you read the posts from the liberal homosexuals on the board, there is no disputing Redhawk in that validation of who they have sex with is as deserving of collective recognition as heterosexual relationship is a major objective.
However, you're right there is a lot more to it then that. As liberals, they also want to grow the power of government, increase discrimination between citizens and get handouts. So to say all the want is validation would be way insufficient to describe their objectives.
This is a large problem with polygamy.
Say you have one man, 4 wives and 17 kids.
He can make a pant load of money and still qualify for food stamps at the highest payout, free lunches for kids at school and a ton of other benefits.
That is a huge problem now in Utah with underground polygamy and the kids being under the father's custody.
Of course we could end that overnight with restructuring the entitlement programs.
Other than that I could care less how many women a man bones legally, they do it now as it is.
This is a large problem with polygamy.
Say you have one man, 4 wives and 17 kids.
He can make a pant load of money and still qualify for food stamps at the highest payout, free lunches for kids at school and a ton of other benefits.
That is a huge problem now in Utah with underground polygamy and the kids being under the father's custody.
Of course we could end that overnight with restructuring the entitlement programs.
Other than that I could care less how many women a man bones legally, they do it now as it is.
I've seen some women with twelve kids and no daddy. What's better? One daddy and 17 kids with 4 wives two of which work and two stay home to watch the brood. Or no daddy and 12 kids?
But yeah there should be a limits to this welfare thing. 17 kids... lol I should not be paying for that guy's decision to have 17 kids.
We use government to manage legal contracts between parties. Marriage is no different. Everyone in a marriage benefits from the management by government at special points in time. For example, when one of the parties die, or during a divorce. Additionally, some marriages receive tax benefits based on their marriage contract. Further, in some states governments dictate to care givers that marriage partners are to be given special access to their partner and to decisions about their partner. These are just a few.No I'm serious. Why should it be illegal. Name one reason. Name one person harmed by a plural marriage.
True, then again name one person helped by government marriage.
If government got out of the marriage business, we could stop having these stupid discussions about what marriages government should recognize and who gets to make that choice.
Actually it is completely different. Contracts are negotiated between parties, not dictated by government. Contracts also cannot be changed without the consent of the parties who made the agreement. Marriage as a "contract" is changed at the whim of government and binding retroactively.
Fair enough, let me rephrase. Who has ever benefited from marriage other than arbitrary decisions by government to benefit them which there was no reason they needed to tie to marriage, but just did because they chose to?
Government could accomplish any of those things without government "marriage." And in fact that they do it through "marriage" is a far better argument of violation of the 14th amendment then that not having "gay" marriage is a violation.
the government provides benefits to married people because it is generally held that marriages are good for the society as a whole. Financial encouragement of marriage has been around for many years.
the society as a whole should decide if more than one form of marriage should be permitted and encouraged----its not a constitutional issue.
I get marriage, what I don't get is government marriage. Why would recognition or lack thereof by government make your marriage any more or less meaningful to you?
And if you think about the "benefits," there actually is a better solution for them all.
1) Eliminate the death tax entirely
2) Allow people to chose things like who makes medical decisions for them instead of tying it to government marriage
3) Flatten income taxes, or better yet go to the fair tax and eliminate them.
4) Let people make their own agreements with their employers, insurance companies and so forth regarding the "benefits" they get.
And if you think about children, that is so loosely tied to marriage today we really need to re-think how we do paternity rights and responsibilities regardless or marriage.
In fact, what does government marriage accomplish where there isn't a better solution by doing it without involving government "marriage?"
That's just bull shit propaganda and you know it.
Clearly if you read the posts from the liberal homosexuals on the board, there is no disputing Redhawk in that validation of who they have sex with is as deserving of collective recognition as heterosexual relationship is a major objective.
However, you're right there is a lot more to it then that. As liberals, they also want to grow the power of government, increase discrimination between citizens and get handouts. So to say all the want is validation would be way insufficient to describe their objectives.
This is comprehensively ignorant.
There are conservative homosexuals who understand that same-sex couples are also entitled to equal protection rights.
The only objective is to acknowledge those rights in accordance with the Constitution.
Otherwise, the issue has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, and compelling the state to recognize and respect same-sex couples equal protection rights actually decreases the power of government.
Clearly if you read the posts from the liberal homosexuals on the board, there is no disputing Redhawk in that validation of who they have sex with is as deserving of collective recognition as heterosexual relationship is a major objective.
However, you're right there is a lot more to it then that. As liberals, they also want to grow the power of government, increase discrimination between citizens and get handouts. So to say all the want is validation would be way insufficient to describe their objectives.
"Everyone deserves equal rights"
Years ago I was at an event in Atlanta where Willie Nelson said that. The event was not a gay this or that event in any way but a reporter asked him his opinion of gay marriage.
Shocked the hell out of me but I took a close look and studied on it.
Willie is right. Leave gay folk alone and what the hell is wrong with them getting as much joy out of being legally married same as I am to my wife?
What satisfaction could you ever get out of denying them that?
What a stupid question to ask a libertarian. And what a stupid need they have to need to be validated by government.
