Exactly.Originally Posted by RandBlade
Exactly.
Immigration and military service would be more relevant Romney topics. His great grandfather apparently fled to Mexico when polygamy was outlawed in the US, then came back to avoid Mexican wars. Mitt was proselytizing in France and avoided the Viet Nam war.
Sure you can! At least from a benefits angle, where too many beneficiaries muck up the actuarial tables.How do other countries where Christianity is not a powerful influence view Bigamy? And no I'm not suggesting I want multiple wives (one is enough for me!) but from a freedom prescriptive I don't get the justification for the state nixing it.
Clearly Santorum is reading these forums.
Hope is the denial of reality
The Bible says nothing of the sort.
So, for the rest of the guys, you want to jump on me again for suggesting that Lewk has not changed at all, or what?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Santroum's homophobic comments comparing gay sex to adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality are from back in 2003
You're not trying to do that same thing now are you? Cause that would result in a nice amount of egg on Randblade's face.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Oh, too bad, I actually thought it was quite smart for his core voters; he re-inforces his anti-gay credentials while making a connection with polygamy that would most of those voters think about how Mormons once had polygamy as a core value which they only gave up because they were forced to do so.Santroum's homophobic comments comparing gay sex to adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality are from back in 2003
You're not trying to do that same thing now are you? Cause that would result in a nice amount of egg on Randblade's face.
Congratulations America
I'm not up in arms.
But I am wondering how he compared polygamy to gay sex.
edit: Just read OM's post. Lewk, Lewk, Lewk. *shakes head*
Alright then
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Uhm, Ziggy, that doesn't actually seem to prove anything about polygamy. AFAIK polygamy was practiced (though not widely) throughout the OT, and it is clearly allowed (subject to some specific limits), and the NT doesn't say anything directly against it, either. I'm not a NT scholar, but that seems to be what google says. There are plenty of people in the Church later on who were deeply opposed to polygamy, and I doubt it ever had much traction in the Roman world, but Lewk seems to be correct about the Bible itself. Neither you nor Khen have provided much proof otherwise, when there's plenty of evidence that it was practiced and not completely prohibited. If you'd like to quote NT verses with only passing relationship to 'proof', why not this gem from Matthew?
1 “At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3 The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4 The wise ones, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5 The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep. 6 “At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’ 7 “Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.’ 9 “‘No,’ they replied, ‘there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.’ 10 “But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut. 11 “Later the others also came. ‘Lord, Lord,’ they said, ‘open the door for us!’ 12 “But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.’ 13 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.
He's being called Dog-on-Man-Santorum because of his recent comments.Santroum's homophobic comments comparing gay sex to adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality are from back in 2003
Isn't that passage against divorce? And as far as I'm aware divorce is legal.
I like Savage's campaign better
http://spreadingsantorum.com/
#1 Google (and Feeling Lucky) result
The joy of possibly millions of clueless republicans googling his name after his quick rise and showing at the Iowa caucus...
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 01-07-2012 at 01:53 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
It's a passage regarding no-fault divorce, which is a relatively "new" legal concept in society.
I'd be interested to see how Roman Catholics define "bigamy". Priests and Nuns "marry" (Jesus and/or The Church) and take vows of sexual celibacy. That seems to be the Vatican's argument against clergy having marital spouses, but it didn't seem to matter when priests were sexually molesting children.
Parishioners can't divorce according to Vatican dogma, but they can "apply for annulment", and re-marry in the church. Even if there are [marital] children involved, essentially making them bastards created outside "holy wedlock"? That's much more confusing than latter day Mormon bigamy.
My reading of it goes against divorce for "any reason" - which was the situation for centuries and still is the Catholic law.
Widely or not it would be a bit hard to overlook the polygamy in the story of Abraham.
Congratulations America
Hang on, I'm not out to prove something. Simply googled something like Bible and monogamy. Some biblical site referred to these quotes as the Bible talking about marriage being one man and one woman.
But you have to admit that this
each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband
doesn't speak in plurals
Yes Rand. But Lewk was looking for Biblical insight.
Last edited by Ziggy Stardust; 01-07-2012 at 02:55 PM.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Exactly. So quoting a passage against divorce doesn't provide that much biblical insight into why society has bigamy wrong and illegal from a biblical perspective.
Actually, that's a very poor example. It's clear that the patriarchs did not follow biblical law - Jacob, for example, married two sisters (explicitly forbidden in Leviticus). Abraham served meat and milk together to his guests. There's no indication whatsoever that they observed the Sabbath (it seems very clear that the first observed Sabbath happened after the Exodus). Etc, etc. So while one might draw vague moral lessons from the actions of the patriarchs, you have to look later to determine whether or not the Bible advocates for polygamy. That being said, there are plenty of examples throughout the Hebrew Bible of polygamous marriages - Elkana (the father of Samuel) was married to Penina and Chana, for example. Many kings (including David and Solomon) had a number of wives and concubines. Etc.
I agree it can possibly be read that way, but it's hardly explicit, and given the weight of evidence to the contrary about its wide practice and the much more explicit Parable of 10 Virgins I quoted above, I think we can safely discount that quote as figurative. I also haven't read it in the original language - that might give some insight into the specifics.
That's what I said. No-fault divorce is a common and often-used modern legal concept. So, if our marital laws aren't based on religious texts, and have been updated over time, people (like Santorum) who oppose same-sex marriage should stop trying to use religious reasons.
You misunderstood my intent, by the way. I'm not out to prove that poligamy is right or wrong (I actually couldn't care less).
I was talking about the fact that the Bible is NOT specific on this issue and that all we have is conjecture from some passages which can be interpreted either way. This fact stands in stark contrast to Lewk's usual perspective that the Bible has one and only one perspective on certain issues.
Not to mention the idea that a several millenia old book is able to give us true and infallible guidance on how to lead our lives. And his interesting philosophy that whatever his Buddy Jesus himself said can be overridden by some minor prophet or other. Just because it's somewhere in the book. I mean, what good is calling yourself a Christian if what Christ said doesn't have absolute priority?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Your logic is incredibly faulty. Just because he believes the Bible has only one perspective on certain issues doesn't mean he should believe it only has one perspective on all issues.
Hope is the denial of reality
You haven't said much since Christian objections were connected to "those polygamist Mormons" (who were/are often not considered Christians), even though some interpretations of the Bible 'permit' polygamy.
Maybe you're not so interested in questioning society after all, as Rand suggested? Too bad, really, because that's where the heart of the debate starts.
Firstly how to define marriage (civil, legal, religious). Common Law spouses still have some legal recognition when it comes to estates and probate court. Any "union" that results in children (heirs) includes legal legacy rights---whether it's recognized by any church, religious group, or not. Marriages/unions that don't produce children are recognized (honored in court) for heterosexual couples, but not homosexual couples. That seems to be clear discrimination, based on either religious and/or social "norms". Especially since "norms" for heteros can include no marriage, open marriage, arranged marriages, IVF and surrogates for procreating, adoptions....and everything in between.
That leads to definitions of Spouse, Family, and how they're recognized (or ignored) by courts of law. Religion shouldn't matter one iota in these legal contracts. Leona Helmsley left a chunk of her fortune to her dogs for crying out loud. GLBT couples and their families shouldn't have to fight like dogs to be recognized as people with human rights.
/rant
How is that remotely relevant to what's being argued in this thread?
Hope is the denial of reality
My post was based on Lewk's original question, and his agreement with Rand's reply. See post #31. Entirely relevant.
That doesn't mean others can't continue to discuss theological, biblical, or religious interpretations of marriage, bigamy, polygamy, polyandry...or what's wrong or right within those realms. I happen to think the more important sphere is what's structured legally, based on social norms.
Uh, but that's exactly what he's usually spouting when it comes to stuff like the death penalty or homosexuality...
His theme is "But the Bible says so!" when confronted with the clash of his "beliefs" with what his Buddy Jesus actually says. Also: How dense does one have to be to not recognize that when his precious book is not exactly precise on one issue, it might also not be that precise with other issues? It's pick-and-choose Christianism, the worst kind there is.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Again, that's a terrible argument. His argument is that the Bible "says so" on a particular issue. That doesn't imply that the Bible says so on every issue.
Hope is the denial of reality
Lewk didn't start this thread with an "argument", he began with a question. Khen also makes a valid point.
Y'know what? I'm starting to wonder why Lewk has been targeted for spouting right v wrong, black v white, liberals v all others....when Loki does the same damn thing, all the damn time.
Right. You don't actually read what Lewk says, do you? Besides, you're missing the point completely and totally.
Probably on purpose, knowing you. Nothing new there, Mr. Strawman.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Considering all the ammunition you have to attack Lewk with, you shouldn't grasp at straws? The fact that GGT thinks you're making a valid point is pretty convincing evidence of this by the way.
Hope is the denial of reality
You guys are being completely lame and bitter, to even suggest that GGT can't make valid points or hasn't in her life time, or doesn't know more than you on given subject matters is beyond ludicrous. You need to learn to accept your own failures and weaknesses, you're not perfect, the more you think you must always be right, the more idiotic you will be, and the more idiotic you will be percieved.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
