Polygamy isn't just religious beliefs
Posted By: sbMT on 2009-05-05
In Reply to: The polygamy and animal arguments are irrelevant - pxmt
There are others, such as "swingers" who engage in group sex. Who's not to say that they wouldn't start to fight for the right to marry, even if only for the massive tax break they would get?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Sorry you have no religious beliefs....... that is sad!
--
Religious beliefs are not the issue here...
We were discussing the law...the phrase concerning Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is actually in the Declaration of Independence, and does not mention "citizens" at all. Regardless of your religion or lack thereof, I'm not aware of any nation in which murder or the taking of a human life is not outlawed.
As far as the ultimate decision resting with God, of course all decisions ultimately rest with God. But does that mean we should not govern ourselves or our behavior while we are here on this earth? Of course not. Laws protect the innocent - few are as innocent as an unborn child. It never ceases to amaze me that people can condone the killing of unborn babies, but are horrified if someone kills one that is 3 days old...or leaves one in a dumpster shortly after birth...or on the doorsteps of a church. I think it has been drilled into our heads for so long that this is a choice for women and our RIGHT that we actually never step back and think about the fact that we are talking about killing babies. If someone were to propose a law that men...simply because they were men...had the right to, oh, kill 3 year olds, people would laugh their heads off at the absurdity of it. Yet that is exactly what we are doing - giving women the right to kill their own children, simply because they are women and the child is in their body. Why not give the fathers the right to abort the child? After all, it is half theirs? Again, an absurd notion. But because we are women and the children grow in our bodies, we have the right to kill them? I'm sorry, I can never understand the justification for this. There are alternatives. There are choices. Choosing to kill the child should not be an option. In what other situation is it acceptable to kill another human being as a viable choice? I can think of only one - self-preservation. Self defense. So I supposed under the law, if the unborn child is killing you, you should probably be able to protect yourself. I would have to agree with that argument, but sadly, that is rarely the reason for an abortion.
Any group that insists its beliefs are the only true beliefs,
works actively to force those beliefs on me, have reduced sex to "expression" and the more partners the better, needs to control their reproductive organs a little bit better, not my enemies either, but their way is not the only way...hellooo democracy...it's part of your name isn't it?
As to Jehovah's Witnesses, I take their booklet, thank them kindly, and throw it in the trash.
No one is forcing anything on you.
That is not polygamy
That's bigamy...sort of. Bigamy is the act of entering into a marriage with 1 person while still married to another. Polygamy is most certainly a component of the Mormon faith, even though many of them have discarded it. As for group sex, that has nothing to do with any of the above OR gay marriage. Still 150% irrelevant. Gay marriage is about 2 people who love each other wanting to be married. Period. That's all there is to it. We don't care any more about multiple marriages than we care who you marry. Irrelevant.
I would rather condone polygamy than
same-sex marriages.
But to me both are wrong and I wished Miss California would have won.
No bashing and insulting, please!
Polygamy is predominately
one man married to many women. The early Mormons espoused (pardon the pun) it in order to increase their numbers quickly. Muslims practice it (the harem) for tribal and dynastic reasons; everybody is related to everybody (but I believe the primary reason is recreational.) Behind all this I think there is a very strong element of a guy thinking he is just too great to be wasted on one woman. Male ego, in other words.
I think the motivation is entirely different from two people caring deeply and wanting to commit to one another.
I personally feel that polygamy is
just as bad as SSM. I'm against both really. I don't see how you could be for one and oppose the other.
The polygamy and animal arguments are irrelevant
Seriously. Being gay is not a religious belief. It's who a person is. Polygamy is a religious practice, or a component of a religious practice. Polygamy is not a "group of people." One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. I won't even go into the animal thing I hear all the time. That's just crazy. People whose minds go straight from gay marriage to animal and multiple marriage are the scary people. Not gays. We just want to be left the heII alone to live our lives as we see fit just like everyone else without religious or any other type of interference that is uninvited. Those beliefs are about you. No one else.
Christian beliefs. sm
Then, I suppose my next question would be, why do posters who do not agree with how boards are handled and who do not agree with the political spirit continue to come here? And my second question would be why, with two boards, posters could not have maintained their thoughts to those boards. Objectively, I believe that is why TWO boards were set up. The people you seem to have the biggest problem with made a pact not to come here. They kept that pact. By the way, I see sickness of spirit on both sides. There were occasions on the other board when posters were were wished death and to burn in hell. Would you fight back against that? Personally, I would have left then. Both of these boards are a mess. And it solves nothing to sit here and talk about posters who will no longer be here. Move on.
I am not pushing my beliefs on you...
I am merely standing for what I believe in, just as you do. You seem defensive, and when people are defensive, that generally means they feel guilty. If you believe in a woman's right to choose to abort a child, that is your right, and you do not need me to endorse that. Just as I do not need you to endorse my feeling that life does begin at conception, I believe the soul begins at the same time. I do not believe a child growing in the womb is soul-less. We agree to disagree.
This is where our beliefs differ...sm
*...and we need to support our country's efforts in Iraq and support the men and women who are there trying to keep just this thing from happening.*
Your Rush Limbaugh cup runneth over. Sure anything can happen in America, but it is ridiculous to believe that us pulling out of Iraq is going to be our death certificate. That somehow we will just lie down and surrender the USA to Arabs.
where our beliefs differ....
I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis (unlike some liberals, I am fully capable of forming an opinion without the help of others), and the opinion I stated is my own. Ever heard the old saying the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step...? Well, every time we pull out of somewhere or ignore an opportunity (like Bill Clinton did out of Somalia, like Bill Clinton did in NONreponse to HOW many terrorist attacks during his presidency) we lay the groundwork for defeat. What makes you think that the same waffling liberals now won't be the same waffling liberals who run to Canada or anywhere else they can if we are attacked here? Tell me, Democrat, why should I believe you or put faith in your party who want to run yet again, to NOT to just lie down and surrender the USA to terrorists? Please tell me how I can have confidence in that? Because you SAY you will?? You need to understand these people...every weakness you show empowers them. They would see us pulling out now as a great victory. Maybe YOU want to give them that. I DO NOT.
False beliefs
On the flip side, what good will the war do us when we lose our house, our jobs, can no longer afford the food in the stores, can't buy gas to get to work (if you still have a job), you and your family now have to find a campground or shelter to live at (or worse) and the banks close and now you can't get any of your money out that you may have in there (this has already happened somewhere - would have to research again to find the exact location but its here in the US). This is exactly the scare tactics/agenda McCain is trying to push (gotta keep up the war, keep up the war, everyone is the enemy, lets keep it going for 100 years) - give me a break! They are trying to get enough people to be afraid (which is in itself a form of terrorism) that we are going to be attacked again. You know what...get our troops home and we will have more troops to protect our borders and increase security here in the US) Well first the economy is the most important issue (at least to me), unless of course you plan to pack up your stuff and go join the service and fight over there. If the economy collapses where are you going to be. How bout your parents/grandparents who cannot just pick up so easily and move to another area. McCain keeps pushing the war issue because he has no clue about the economy. He doesn't even remain consistent with his issue on gay marriage. My feeling is I don't care if George & John down the street or Mary & Sue down the road want to get married - that will not effect my day-to-day life however the economy does, my job does, eating and paying bills does affect me each day. McCain was at a meeting and he said he was for gay marriage, then 11 minutes later he said he was not for gay marriage. He's too old and out of touch with reality. Do you really want someone with his temper ready to hit the launch button in in whim? He is not a stable man (in my opinion).
Christian beliefs
The Lord's Prayer:
...Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven....
This is a Christian prayer, for those of you who are unfamiliar. There is nothing radical about what she is saying. She is a faithful Christian woman.
OP said not to force beliefs on others...
if you don't want to read religious toned posts, don't open them.
We know your beliefs....... O lover
If you're not an O lover, then one must be pyschotic. At least they're not led by a nose ring.
Exactly and that's the basis for my beliefs. n/m
x
Though I think this is more beliefs than political . . .
I would never want to be kept alive like that. Would you? I have voiced this to my whole family, and they are well aware that when God tells me it is time to go, they need to let me go. I would much rather starve to death than be kept here on earth miserable in my own flesh.
Not at all. I was summing up Chomsky's beliefs. sm
In direct response to your remark about the quotes I posted.
An example - UW professor still under attack for beliefs.sm
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=90930&ntpid=1
not questioning your ideas or beliefs -
I am just wondering how is that? Are you and your husband both American? I am just being nosy and I guess you don't have to answer me if you don't want to... just curious how that happened or how it works and if it was something you chose.
No, it's not a human right.....contrary to your beliefs
marriage is supposed to be a gift from God for those that actually understand what that means in the first place. No where in the Bible does it talk about 2 men or 2 women having a relationship as blessed by God, but it sure tells us it is WRONG!
How do you manage to be so screwed up that you don't know the difference between homosexuality and difference in color of skin? Last time I checked, blacks go to school with whites and have for a long time, at least they do in my community.... blacks have every right whites have..... homosexuals have every right we ALL have.
I personally feel that our beliefs
of right vs wrong come from our own personal upbringing. I was raised in a very strict family. My mom attended church every Sunday and took us three kids with her. Dad smoked and swore and refused to go to church on Sunday because he didn't want to be a hypocrit because he wasn't going to give up his cigarettes, etc. My dad believed in God, but he just didn't want to be one of the people in the pews on Sunday talking about how great of a Christian he was when he knew he was going to walk outside and light up a cigarette.
My husband is an atheist. He believes in evolution and says that he doesn't need a higher power or supreme being to tell him what is right and what is wrong. However, he has no problem with his two boys going to church because he feels the morals that are taught at church are good for the boys. If they believe in God, he has no problem with that. If they decided not to, he has no problem with that. I don't push religion on my husband and he doesn't push his beliefs or lack thereof on me either and we've been happily married for 8 years now with two wonder boys and another baby on the way.
I feel that rules do change with time. We no longer stone people who commit adultry. We don't cut hands off of people who steal. We don't kick people out of our communities for being "unclean" even though there are a few I'd like to kick out. LOL! I don't see anyone sacrificing virgins or children either.
I feel that right and wrong should be based upon what is best for the majority of people and not small minority groups. We are never going to do everything that makes everyone happy, but we have to do what is best for a majority of people.
They stop trying to push YOUR beliefs on
--
Who belittled Kfir's Jewish beliefs?
I might be missing something here but I can't find posts by Kfir discussing her Jewish faith. It was all about the war. It was about the state of Israel not about the Jewish religion. Isn't that 2 different things?
No matter how long ago it was, Ayers still has the same beliefs sm
He has shown that by not apologizing, but even saying right after 09/11 in 2001 saying that he still didn't feel they had done enough and wished they had done more. People died in those bombings. He was and is a terrorist right here in homeland. He has posed in recent years with himself standing on top of a crumpled American flag - and yet we buy Obama's excuses as to why he won't acknowledge respect of our flag? You really think those two things are not related? That Obama on national television is in essence giving a "wink and a nod" to his cohorts? It screams obvious. And now all the voter fraud with Acorn, and I guess Obama is just coincidentally involved with them too?
Stay out of my bedroom, my beliefs and my uterus first of all.
Then, provide a sound infrastructure (low crime rate, low poverty rate) with my hard earned and eagerly paid taxes with is all a citizen can do for his country besides obeying the laws and living the Golden Rule.
"Muslim is wrong?" "I don't judge anybody or their beliefs?"
explaining away the conflict in this statement TO YOURSELF before you take it upon yourself to explain it to others.
Emanuel had beliefs that align with both parties.
he is not necessarily a president's top advisor.
Rahm Emanuel supported Bush on Iraq from the get go. "Lefties" NEVER did...not for a single moment. His poolitical views align with the Democratic Leadership Council, the core belief of which is that the party should shift itself away traditional populist positions and toward the more "third way" centrist views. It has been called the "republican wing" of the democratic party by progressives and the left of centers. His views on Israel are decidedly republican and are more extreme than even the shrub.
Having said that, the chief of staff is not primarily and advisory position. In fact, the nature of the position is primarily defined by the president himself, and the chief of staff can operate only within the parameters that his president allows. JFK did not even have a COS. Obama has not indicated one way or the other how he views his relationship with the COS or how much he will or will not rely on him for advice.
For every single other aspect of those job responsibilities, Rahm Emanuel is undeniable strongly qualified by his experience. The president's chief of staff first and foremost must be trusted by the President, perhaps more than any other person in his cabinet or ministry. I would say the most important qualification for that job is that of impeccable discretion. We have no evidence to indicate that Rahm Emanuel does not posses that trait.
I don't understand...you are saying Hitler's beliefs are factual and sane?
I am very puzzled. When challenged on your historical knowledge, you cite Hitler as a source for your information? Remember, he also planned to exterminate the Poles and all Catholics eventually. I don't think the reasons he cites for hating the Jews are really the basis for any historical reality. He was, after all, one the greatest propagandists.
You're right, I cannot change your beliefs, not directed solely at you (sm)
But at anyone who supports partial birth abortion really. It is just an overwhelmingly horrible thought to me.
and I'd like to keep my religious freedom sm
without having to answer to the Christian right. If they had their way, we'd all be wearing babuskas and having a kid or two every year, paying homage to them at a tithe of 10% and having to hate all other religious ideologies.
If Coulter is so religious...
...why doesn't anyone know her at the church she says she attends?
No, not a religious board.
I'm referring to posts on the conservative political board under the post about Michelle Malkin.
What is a religious wacko?
Someone who believes that a fetus is a human being? Your label "religious wacko" is very disrespectful and unkind. I am pro-life and I am not mentally unstable.
Like it or not, the fight to protect the unborn will NEVER EVER stop.
A religious wacko is...
Someone who does not understand the separation between church and state, that freedom of relgion also means freedom FROM religion, sees nothing wrong with imposing/ legislating their own religious beliefs and values on everyone else, goes bannas whenever anybody disagrees with them, and would just as soon replace our democratic system with Christian theocracy.
Can we say religious whacko.....
xx
I am not even religious. I like Palin because she is
nm
Religious Right has already messed up too much in this
and the rest of the misguided 'faithful' to step out of the picture so that our leaders can actually do their jobs, without all the holy rollers tripping them up.
Religious freedom.
dd
You don't have to be religious to be hated by
xx
This was not a religious post, but..(sm)
since you mentioned it, it is actually possible to have hope without God. Athiests represent only a small portion of the general public as well as Obama supporters. Your post assumes that everyone who supports Obama must be athiest. You might want to revise that one. LOL.
Religious Right and Gay Marriage
Gay marriage is an important issue for the religious right.
What exactly do they want a president to do about it?
Take this to the religious board
Many of us do not believe that. Many on the religious board do not believe that, but this is a religious statment. Show me the proof of what you just said.
Religious hierarchy...
I wonder what they call the homosexual henchmen who try to browbeat everyone who doesn't love and accept their behavior?
I am not even religious. Take your useless
nm
Do you actually believe only religious people think
--
Many religious people are pro-choice.
.
I SAID most religious people...I did NOT say most Christians.
You guys don't rule the world, ya know. Just your little corner...just your own lives, not everyone else's.
Religious Protest from the Left
A Religious Protest Largely From the Left
Conservative Christians Say Fighting Cuts in Poverty Programs Is Not a Priority
By Jonathan Weisman and Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 14, 2005; A08
When hundreds of religious activists try to get arrested today to protest cutting programs for the poor, prominent conservatives such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell will not be among them.
That is a great relief to Republican leaders, who have dismissed the burgeoning protests as the work of liberals. But it raises the question: Why in recent years have conservative Christians asserted their influence on efforts to relieve Third World debt, AIDS in Africa, strife in Sudan and international sex trafficking -- but remained on the sidelines while liberal Christians protest domestic spending cuts?
Conservative Christian groups such as Focus on the Family say it is a matter of priorities, and their priorities are abortion, same-sex marriage and seating judges who will back their position against those practices.
It's not a question of the poor not being important or that meeting their needs is not important, said Paul Hetrick, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, Dobson's influential, Colorado-based Christian organization. But whether or not a baby is killed in the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy, that is less important than help for the poor? We would respectfully disagree with that.
Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal Christian journal Sojourners and an organizer of today's protest, was not buying it. Such conservative religious leaders have agreed to support cutting food stamps for poor people if Republicans support them on judicial nominees, he said. They are trading the lives of poor people for their agenda. They're being, and this is the worst insult, unbiblical.
At issue is a House-passed budget-cutting measure that would save $50 billion over five years by trimming food stamp rolls, imposing new fees on Medicaid recipients, squeezing student lenders, cutting child-support enforcement funds and paring agriculture programs. House negotiators are trying to reach accord with senators who passed a more modest $35 billion bill that largely spares programs for the poor.
At the same time, House and Senate negotiators are hashing out their differences on a tax-cutting measure that is likely to include an extension of cuts in the tax rate on dividends and capital gains.
To mainline Protestant groups and some evangelical activists, the twin measures are an affront, especially during the Christmas season. Leaders of five denominations -- the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church USA and United Church of Christ -- issued a joint statement last week calling on Congress to go back to the drawing board and come up with a budget that brings good news to the poor.
Around 300 religious activists have vowed to kneel in prayer this morning at the Cannon House Office Building and remain there until they are arrested. Wallis said that as they are led off, they will chant a phrase from Isaiah: Woe to you legislators of infamous laws . . . who refuse justice to the unfortunate, who cheat the poor among my people of their rights, who make widows their prey and rob the orphan.
To GOP leaders and their supporters in the Christian community, it is not that simple. Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said yesterday that the activists' position is not intellectually right.
The right tax policy, such as keeping tax rates low on business investment, grows the economy, increases federal revenue -- and increased federal revenue makes it easier for us to pursue policies that we all can agree have social benefit, he said.
Dobson also has praised what he calls pro-family tax cuts. And Janice Crouse, a senior fellow at the Christian group Concerned Women for America, said religious conservatives know that the government is not really capable of love.
You look to the government for justice, and you look to the church and individuals for mercy. I think Hurricane Katrina is a good example of that. FEMA just failed, and the church and the Salvation Army and corporations stepped in and met the need, she said.
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said the government's role should be to encourage charitable giving, perhaps through tax cuts.
There is a [biblical] mandate to take care of the poor. There is no dispute of that fact, he said. But it does not say government should do it. That's a shifting of responsibility.
The Family Research Council is involved in efforts to stop the bloodshed in the Darfur region of Sudan as well as sex trafficking and slavery abroad. But Perkins said those issues are far different from the budget cuts now under protest. The difference there is enforcing laws to keep people from being enslaved, to be sold as sex slaves, he said. We're talking here about massive welfare programs.
The Rev. Richard Cizik, a vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, returned yesterday from the Montreal conference on global climate change, another issue of interest to evangelicals. Frankly, I don't hear a lot of conversation among evangelicals about budget cuts in anti-poverty programs, he said. What I hear our people asking is, why are we spending $231 million on a bridge to nowhere in Alaska and can't find $50 million for African Union forces to stop genocide in Darfur?
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
We certainly wouldn't want a president whose religious
Or impact how they view society or race relations or even science. We surely would not want religious beliefs to impact political decisions on any level, including voters.
|
