Legalize Polygamy!

[realibrad]

What I don't get is why you would tell me you don't get something and not have any internal curiosity as to why you don't get it. You will find in life, I think that telling people you don't get something is just like asking for an explanation. Understand that I undertook to respond to your stated lack of comprehension out of this convention even though you didn't ask a question. I don't need to be told you don't understand why I did what I did. That is a constant with me.

Well, first you are assuming the motive for pointing anything. 1 example of a different motive, is that he wants to point out a perceived flaw in your reasoning to stop you from talking. Or it could have been to make himself feel smart, or many other reasons.

There are many people who acknowledge their ignorance about something, and also don't care to learn about it. Perhaps to them, the time/effort it would take to find out the answer, is not worth the value the answer would bring.

Because people take so many shortcuts and make a lot of assumptions, you are going to misunderstand. You can believe that people have a typical motive, but you would be wrong to think you have the ability to understand everyone's motives all of the time.

 

[Moonbeam]

You may believe so, but I have come to a deeper understanding of the human experience and I know better then to try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes my time and annoys the pig.

I believe we were created in the image of what is sometimes referred to as God. I see that where you see pigs.

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonie is the consummate "liberal", feigning concern for others in order to project his imagine superiority and then exert control over others for what he believes to be their benefit.

Yes, poor Bober, not falling for Moonie's shtick.

You hate yourself and don't know it, but it makes you constantly feel inferior, but only that others are trying to make you feel that way.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I have enough trouble with one wife, why the hell would I want another one?

To commuserate with when the other one isn't talking to you.

 

[shortylickens]

In the 1995 version of Sahara, theres a whole speech about 4 wives being perfect.

I dont know if other versions of the movie had that dialog.

 

[BoberFett]

You hate yourself and don't know it, but it makes you constantly feel inferior, but only that others are trying to make you feel that way.

*yawn*

 

[cabri]

I have enough trouble with one wife, why the hell would I want another one?

To commuserate with when the other one isn't talking to you.

More than likely they will tag team you to an early grave:'(

 

[Moonbeam]

*yawn*

I mentioned you're asleep.

 

[piasabird]

Turner v. Safley (1987)
Based on state prisoners communicating between each other. Has nothing to do with getting married.

Zablocki v. Redhail (1978)
This has to do with a high school student who could not get married unless he paid his child support from when he was in high school. Wisconsin law stated he had to get a court order to get married. This is about prohibiting marriage base un unequal treatment under wisconsin law. It is too narrow to say it is strictly about marriage. It is about stupid laws of the state being invalid. It is not so much about getting married as it was about obtaining a court order to do so. Had a very narrow scope.

Baker v. Nelson (1972)
Gay Marriage Case. Fed Supreme court sent it back with one statement saying no Federal Statutes or Federal Constitutional law applied. It was sent back to the state.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
State law said a black and a white cant be married. This is actuall a Racial Discrimination case and based on equal rights of blacks and whites.

As you can see all of these cases were very narrow and limited in scope. However, you can probably find an awful lot of cases about marriage and polygamy that the federal supreme court either would not look at or were sent back to the state. It is kind of hard to find something in the Constitution or Federal Law which applies specifically to marriage because marriage is a state rights issue. So they only way the supreme court can rule on something is if they determine that the law is unequally applied. A lot of this is that the very definition of marriage has been eroded, even though there is no federal definition of marriage to base any rulings on.

The way I look at this is the federal government is rewriting state law case by case without the authority to do so. I see how some people can have a different opinion. To me the federal government is saying that marriage has no value or meaning.

 

[alkemyst]

You may believe so, but I have come to a deeper understanding of the human experience and I know better then to try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes my time and annoys the pig.

That's a very fancy *cough cough* Texan way to say you'd like to remain ignorant.

 

[BoberFett]

I mentioned you're asleep.

Your boring, predictable, template responses about self hate do that to people.

 

[alkemyst]

Out of curiosity, what's the point of a comment like this?

It seems like you are suggesting we should disregard most people's comments in this thread because they are childish. However, your comment is also childish, so shouldn't we apply the same logic to your comment and disregard it? Of course, once we disregard your comment, then we can't rely upon it to disregard the others, which puts us back in the exact same situation as before you posted - the need to evaluate the comments based on their substantive information.

Perhaps you would care to fulfill that need by offering substantive information as to why you think other people's comments are childish, so that we can properly distinguish them from your comment and disregard only those comments?

I would suggest you take the effort and learn the players you are talking to and what their other posts here say.

Some here professing Polygamy have posted in the past that they wouldn't date multiple people (which in my opinion is because they worry their lover may be dating others then).

I am fully comfortable that a vagina is a self-cleaning organ and don't get caught up in ownership of a woman.

 

[Moonbeam]

Your boring, predictable, template responses about self hate do that to people.

I told you your problem is with your ego. You believe yourself to be uniquely gifted that when you hear the truth it will instantly appeal rather than unconsciously cause you to turn away. As with all things rare it can be had only at enormous price. It will cost you the thing you value the most, your ego. People think that the truth will set them free. That is true, but people don't realize that they don't want freedom because they've fallen in love with their prison which is the ego.

 

[Zebo]

I told you your problem is with your ego.

lol says person who claims he holds all truths and wisdom. I already know I don;t know shit thus I allow ppl to choose without regulation. Thats no ego. You have super ego.

 

[alkemyst]

I told you your problem is with your ego. You believe yourself to be uniquely gifted that when you hear the truth it will instantly appeal rather than unconsciously cause you to turn away. As with all things rare it can be had only at enormous price. It will cost you the thing you value the most, your ego. People think that the truth will set them free. That is true, but people don't realize that they don't want freedom because they've fallen in love with their prison which is the ego.

I agree with this, I suffer from ego issues at times. I can still fall against the sword of reason though.

 

[Zebo]

If my ego were talking
I'd ban inkies - hate tattoos besides god made you perfect as untatted baby why ruin yourself?
Single mothers. No woman can raise a boy properly IMO. They end up XX chromo or gay metro beta males.
I could go on but who am I to say? No one.

 

[Moonbeam]

If my ego were talking
I'd ban inkies - hate tattoos besides god made you perfect as untatted baby why ruin yourself?
Single mothers. No woman can raise a boy properly IMO. They end up XX chromo or gay metro beta males.
I could go on but who am I to say? No one.

To me to be a no one is to have dies to what you were taught to believe, to have emptied yourself of all cultural garbage, to have reduced yourself to only that which is really you and can't be taken away. It is all of that which is false that makes up the ego, the programming we went through to survive by conforming so we could receive our parents love, love, of course, which was always conditional so they really didn't have.

I believe also that when you are truly nothing you recognize instantly the garbage that others believe, the same shit you died to previously. So the state of knowing nothing is the state of ultimate knowledge, because while you know nothing you know more that anybody who believes in things.

What you cannot do is empty yourself of what is truly real, your own true nature. That shines forth when all the garbage it was buried beneath is washed away by tears.

To be empty, to cling to no beliefs, is to be free of unconscious motivations. Beliefs that are driven by ego needs are delusions, in my opinion.

You may, in my opinion, be motivated by a need not to appear certain of what you feel instinctively. You don't want many women yourself beyond fantasy, but are afraid that applying that universally will make you a bigot. I don't worry about that.

 

[Moonbeam]

I agree with this, I suffer from ego issues at times. I can still fall against the sword of reason though.

I enjoyed your points of view you presented here. I too wondered about the motivations for supporting ideas one oneself doesn't hold to, for example.

 

[JEDIYoda]

To me to be a no one is to have dies to what you were taught to believe, to have emptied yourself of all cultural garbage, to have reduced yourself to only that which is really you and can't be taken away. It is all of that which is false that makes up the ego, the programming we went through to survive by conforming so we could receive our parents love, love, of course, which was always conditional so they really didn't have.

I believe also that when you are truly nothing you recognize instantly the garbage that others believe, the same shit you died to previously. So the state of knowing nothing is the state of ultimate knowledge, because while you know nothing you know more that anybody who believes in things.

What you cannot do is empty yourself of what is truly real, your own true nature. That shines forth when all the garbage it was buried beneath is washed away by tears.

To be empty, to cling to no beliefs, is to be free of unconscious motivations. Beliefs that are driven by ego needs are delusions, in my opinion.

You may, in my opinion, be motivated by a need not to appear certain of what you feel instinctively. You don't want many women yourself beyond fantasy, but are afraid that applying that universally will make you a bigot. I don't worry about that.

Dude if I may.....you are one amazingly gifted human being!! May Peace be forever in your life!!

 

[Orignal Earl]

Single mothers. No woman can raise a boy properly IMO. They end up XX chromo or gay metro beta males.

My dad taught me to drink as much as he did and taught me it was ok to sleep around on the women I was with.
I suppose that may be some alpha male crap.
It took me decades to see that my mom was the one who really sacrificed and held things together.
Without a doubt, I would of been better off if he was out of the picture.
Near the end of their lives, we had all come together in agreement with this.

edit- You learn to accept the shit, learn from it and pass it on
I wouldn't have the 3 perfect children I have, that I had with 3 different women
They are all well aware of my mistakes and I think they have learned from them too

 

[shortylickens]

Yeah, I learned a lot from my dad but it retrospect it was mostly bad lessons.

 

[Moonbeam]

Dude if I may.....you are one amazingly gifted human being!! May Peace be forever in your life!!

The only real thing I can think of that may be a plus in my favor is that just as others have unconscious motivations they are not aware of, and can't trace back to their source, I am very convinced by experiences that I am so motivated and have gone back to some of the sources. This makes me different in the following way:

When I feel anger of sorrow or any other negative emotion and am angry or have some feeling toward others, I do not believe myself that I am either right or justified in this. I am sure I am projecting and am being caused to feel something I don't want to know about myself. I can't then pretend to myself that I have any right to act out those feelings on others. My job is to feel the feeling so I can know myself and where it comes from. So except maybe for this I am just like everybody else, and it doesn't really take much to see things that way. It's rather obvious in my opinion, and if you do feel a feeling so strongly, say in a therapeutic setting, and it leads you back to some traumatic childhood event, you have all the proof you could ever ask for. You actually know because you remember. And you can also get a good taste of the healing that true grief for what happened to you can bring.

Anyway, thanks for your kind words but I feel there is only a difference of experiences that anybody, no special talent required, can have.

 

[f1sherman]

Sure. All these forms of discrimination are based on Christian traditions and need to go.

that's one way to put it, but make up your mind...
do you want state to regulate fruitless and non-conservative human relationships or not?

imho state should not care with whom you spend your time with, hang out or have sex with - all it should care about are the children

 

[alkemyst]

that's one way to put it, but make up your mind...
do you want state to regulate fruitless and non-conservative human relationships or not?

imho state should not care with whom you spend your time with, hang out or have sex with - all it should care about are the children

The problems come from things like insurance, SS benefits/disability, etc.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Turner v. Safley (1987)
Based on state prisoners communicating between each other. Has nothing to do with getting married.

Turner v. Safley struck down another regulation that prohibited inmates from marrying without the permission of the warden, finding that it was "not...reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives" and "impermissibly burdened" their right to marry.

Zablocki v. Redhail (1978)
This has to do with a high school student who could not get married unless he paid his child support from when he was in high school. Wisconsin law stated he had to get a court order to get married. This is about prohibiting marriage base un unequal treatment under wisconsin law. It is too narrow to say it is strictly about marriage. It is about stupid laws of the state being invalid. It is not so much about getting married as it was about obtaining a court order to do so. Had a very narrow scope.

It is not all that narrow. It set the precedence that a states interests is not more important than a persons right to marry. This ruling is one of the ones instrumental in the current rulings against laws prohibiting SSM, and clearly gives precedence that marriage is a right that is protected under the Constitution and can not be impinged by State law.

Baker v. Nelson (1972)
Gay Marriage Case. Fed Supreme court sent it back with one statement saying no Federal Statutes or Federal Constitutional law applied. It was sent back to the state.

Yes, it is a default decision, but it is a SCOUTS ruling on marriage that sets precedent. What is important about this is it is being used as precedent to state that anti-SSM laws are allowed on the state level. Of course the other argument is that Zablocki v. Redhail effectively reverses it.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
State law said a black and a white cant be married. This is actuall a Racial Discrimination case and based on equal rights of blacks and whites.

Yes, this is hands down a SCOUTS ruling on Marriage. This is where SCOTUS said that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the liberty element of the due process clause, and was only 47 years ago.

As you can see all of these cases were very narrow and limited in scope. However, you can probably find an awful lot of cases about marriage and polygamy that the federal supreme court either would not look at or were sent back to the state.

The SCOTUS's rulings are rarely very narrow in practice. They are always generalized to understand the law. There probably are lots of cases that SCOTUS did not hear, but that is harder to research.

It is kind of hard to find something in the Constitution or Federal Law which applies specifically to marriage because marriage is a state rights issue. So they only way the supreme court can rule on something is if they determine that the law is unequally applied. A lot of this is that the very definition of marriage has been eroded, even though there is no federal definition of marriage to base any rulings on.

Forty Seven years ago SCOTUS said that "the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the liberty element of the due process clause." That ruling gives it plenty of ability to rule on marriage laws, not just that they are unequal, but that they infringe on a protected right.

The way I look at this is the federal government is rewriting state law case by case without the authority to do so. I see how some people can have a different opinion. To me the federal government is saying that marriage has no value or meaning.

To me the federal government is saying that marriage has so much value and meaning that states have no right to deny it to people.