is polygamy next?

Posted by johnpe1 10 years ago to Culture
177 comments | Share | Flag

what do you think of multiple wives / husbands??? -- j
.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by johnpe1 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    inventions can occur in parallel -- this is in practice;

    I have read about it but can't remember where....... -- j

    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    yes, if I took tithing seriously, I would have to start with

    taxes first, and estimate how much goes for dollars being

    redistributed to others -- maybe 75 percent? -- j

    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    yes, I carefully parked in a handicapped spot yesterday,

    to go to physical therapy for my emphysema. . then, inside,

    I walked a total of 2 miles (per my Omron pedometer)!!! -- j

    p.s. my passenger has a bad right hip joint and it was raining hard.

    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jabuttrick 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't follow your first paragraph. As to Common Law marriage, I'm not aware of any state that recognizes it that does so after six months without regard to the parties' intent. It would surprise me if that were true since it would mean people could be married in the eyes of the state without their knowing it and contrary to their wishes. Do you know what state does so?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The two individuals in question were in the military. Ceremony was in Ohio. Tennessee law did and probably does not all that. Apparently they applied for something perhaps it was separate housing allowances perhaps it was insurance and this was denied. The military has or had a don't ask don't tell rule but now is denying full housing allowance to any couple or whatever living in the same domicile owned or rented. Whatever the state law and the state of Tennessee began the legal conflict. The court simply ruled under 14th and 4th Article what had been law for 150 and 230 years respectively.Tennessee got caught and in doing so implicated the other 49. All laws complements of governments composed of Christians.

    Common law is real tricky. I some states living together for six months and one day establishes the rights of a wife or husband as if married. Many couples, especially the elderly gain higher tax deductions by not marrying, in some cases divorcing Each maintain separate addresses and legal documents. It's not just gays that are affected.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jabuttrick 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    It's not horse hockey (I love that phrase). I have read the law in other states on that issue. My state does not recognize common law marriages but others do. You can't be deemed married simply by living together. You have to tell the utility company or a credit card issuer or even neighbors that you consider yourself married. Any unambiguous expression of intent will do. But express it you must. How would a DMV clerk have any way of knowing the couple from Colorado was married in any sense unless the couple themselves said so or it had been previously decreed to be the case? By the way, if you still don't believe me go ahead and simply Google Colorado Common Law Marriage Rules. You will see what I'm saying is correct.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Ever think about why the military never recites the Pledge of Allegiance? Because they take their oath to the Constitution and only the Constitution, not the country, not to any individual,nor to the flag. We may treat it with respect as to what it represents especially the color red. But the oath of office has no mention to the flag, th country or any citizen.

    Bingo you got that one right.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    You make it too easy. 1787 Constitution written, 1865 14th Amendment just to be neat and tidy 16th Amendment and the 17th about 1913. Income tax also carries the onus of never being ratified.

    Let's see who was in government during those years? Islamics, Hindus, Jews - maybe a few. Why it was Christians. How about that? While and and 230 some years of the Couch Potato Party used throw away lines and did nothing. Talking the Talk is not walking the walk Try again.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by broskjold22 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, I suppose that a contract is a contract. But then my original point of more complicated legal arrangements would hold, since one of the proper functions of government is to enforce contracts. Now, legal contracts aren't a bad thing necessarily. Maybe increasing legal contracts between consenting adults would help bring objective principles into practice. My question is: the contracts would be between individuals, right? Or there would be group contracts too?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by KCLiberty 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Really??.....You are a member of an objectivist site and you rally for collectivism?

    I have no problem removing the American flag. Mine is upside down to show distress. It is now a symbol of genocide, empire, and tyranny - not freedom or a republic.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by KCLiberty 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Right.....

    Just like if they legalized heroine tomorrow I would grab a needle and join in. They said the same thing about "allowing" mixed marriages and alcohol.

    That is a specious argument without evidence. You must be a Christian.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by KCLiberty 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    A communal society by consent and willing intent of the members is absolutely in line with Objectivism. As is the act of charity according to Rand. If one of the men didn't want to share and they took his stuff anyway - that would be against the ideal.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by KCLiberty 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Government did not redefine marriage. Christians did. Marriage is a contract pure and simple. Less than 200 years ago marriage was a contract between two men, the groom and the father of the baby-maker. Marriage for thousands of years was between a man and multiple women as well.

    Not allowing a "type" of citizen to enter a contract of free association is unethical and unconstitutional.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't know who ever told you that, but it's horse hockey. I know a couple from Colorado who were declared married when they went to DMV to register a car together.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Study Julian Jaynes: the breakdown of the bicameral mind! You'll begin to appreciate the 'pre-conscious' bicameral man's outlook on his life, events and history. Now here is an interesting tie in to the way liberal progressives act and how bicameral man acted! intrigued? Non-conscious man was smart but unaware of himself, his view, if he 'Was' aware would be that 'He' was a brain and nothing more...everything was a consequence of something outside himself. (external), Just like liberal progressives? They blame everything on something; mostly us, on something beside themselves; where as 'We' (the conscious) are internal and look first upon ourselves for the consequences we experience;; accountability, individual responsibility with a conscience, a subconscious and a 'Mind', We are an entity that possess a 'Brain'. We have an 'I' and have chosen to 'Be' where as liberal progressives, at a very young age, for some reason, chose 'Not to be' and wish to be non individual and part of a collective...much like bicameral man, except he had not the choice; to be or not to be.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    that makes sense not to mention the sheer danger in legalities and jealousies a too common human traits but those are present in all relationships - so it wants some thinking about and sorting out. I did present that type of situation one time but it revolved around one supposedly legal wife (matriarch) for outside consumption. when it fact it was all girl friends and the agreement was all for insiders only I laughed when it was written as it reminded me of people from dysfunctional backgrounds and one Patriarch or ''stud bull" He nominated and entry required a 100% vote in favor by the insiders. They gradually developed their own rules and ceremonies and, again for outside consumption, played the unwed single mother role. The whole thing was of course fiction but it brought up some thinking or discussion points. To ensure outside legality in the areas that count....well it took some doing....being the author I made it come out happily ever after ... so the premise is agreement, no law breaking and complete child support. The hardest part was the continual supply of oysters and other such - aides. And sleep so I limited it to 51.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I have never seen much logic in the bible, but I can agree that it is interesting. I find the archeology of that area to be fascinating.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Your right, there were reasons for a break from tradition, one, as you state, economic conditions and the other was to rebuild society...a good example was the Mormons, (I forget the story), but they lost a lot of their People helping someone else fight for survival. That and only that is why they suggested polygamy. Once their population recovered, they outlawed it; but today you have some that insist on doing it anyway. Now, that was common sense, however, it also outlines the problem with all organized religions...every little sect concentrates on one particular area and not the Whole picture. It's amazing how much common sense there is in our biblical history once you eliminate the pagan mystical misconceptions. I have been studying it in a logical, objective, observational, 'Conscious' way. (was that a mouth full or what?) hahahahahha
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo