TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:On polygamy: Clearly you've never watched Big Love. More wives = exponentially more trouble. Not worth it!

You raise an interesting relationship. On what rational basis do we have for barring polygamy? And by allowing same sex marriage, do we still have this rational basis?

not long ago many types of marrage were also taboo like interracial and interfaith. the same claims im seeing hear and now were made for and aginst as they are now. some still find it ichy and perverse while most have learned to deal with it.
the world has moved on despite the masses dislike of such things.
was alloing this behavior the start of the decline?
ive had a stable and happy interfaith marrage that will be 17 years in long come july. that so many people said it would fail for that one reason.
to each there own. I didnt need a church to approve my wedding or of my wife.

TxA wrote:You raise an interesting relationship. On what rational basis do we have for barring polygamy? And by allowing same sex marriage, do we still have this rational basis?

Polygamy has a long tradition in Human history. It also appears in The Bible, and not in a negative light. So whether we're arguing from a secular or religious basis, there's a much better argument to allow polygamy than there is to sanction same sex marriage.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Taxation is different in terms of the different marriage deduction for federal income tax purposes, but apparently you forgot about the so-called "marriage penalty"

I think "so-called" is a good choice of words. Whenever a proposal is floated to eliminate the four tax categories based on family status, and replace it with one category for all income earners, it's the married people who oppose equal rates. In sharp contrast, I never heard a Single person complain at the prospect of paying the same rates as Married (or Head of Household) income earners.

TxA wrote:One can compare a unhealthy heterosexual marriage—one featuring drug addiction, for example, or a single mother with 5 kids by different men - to a relatively healthy same-sex relationship, and easily conclude that a child will fare better under the care of a stable homosexual couple than with an unstable heterosexual one. But pitting the worst-case scenario of one against the best-case scenario of the other hardly proves the point. One could also argue that a child is better off with a healthy single mother than with an abusive couple, but we’d still conclude that a two-parent father/mother home is more desirable.

I said nothing at all about how children would be affected in any of those scenarios. My statement specifically referred to MY 29 year marriage (to only ONE woman...not women ), and that same-sex marriage posed no harm to MY marriage. My opinion stated that a single mother with 5 kids by 5 different dads DOES harm me because I am taxed to take care of them, whereas a long term committed civil union between a same sex couple imposes no additonal burden on me or my family. I see that "all to common" 3rd generation welfare situation as more of a moral issue than same-sex marriage which is primarily about achieving legal status to claim the benefits they are being taxed to provide for others.

Sorry about that! Got ahead of myself

talltex wrote:One can compare a unhealthy heterosexual marriage—one featuring drug addiction, for example, or a single mother with 5 kids by different men - to a relatively healthy same-sex relationship. But pitting the worst-case scenario of one against the best-case scenario of the other hardly proves the point.

There, I fixed it...

sunny beach wrote:Polygamy has a long tradition in Human history. It also appears in The Bible, and not in a negative light. So whether we're arguing from a secular or religious basis, there's a much better argument to allow polygamy than there is to sanction same sex marriage.

Hmmm...I think you might want to review the text. While polygamy has a long tradition in human history as you state and was common in antiquity and described in the Old Testament, the practice was never condoned and actually specifically condemned. The text never shies away from people’s warts and misgivings but displays them as they were.

talltex wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

TxA wrote:

talltex wrote:I've been married to the same woman for 29 years...who someone else wants to marry has no effect on my marriage and I don't have a problem with it.

While I commend you for your 29 year marriage to the same women, I would ask you to rethink your statement that someone else's marriage "has no effect on your marriage."

This is like saying the value of a real dollar in Texas would not be affected by flooding the market with counterfeits in California. Yes, it would be affected because counterfeits degrade the value of all real dollars. Enshrining a false definition of marriage in our laws will inevitably harm all marriages and society. Same-sex marriage does not expand the meaning of marriage, but replaces its historical meaning with a counterfeit.

Please define exactly how it would harm his marriage.

That example is ludicrous. Marriage doesn't have a set "value" that can be diluted by having more of them as dollars do...it doesn't degrade the value of mine in any shape, form or fashion, and it doesn't harm me. I'd much rather see a stable, long term same-sex union than a single mother with kids by 5 different men, that you and I are supporting....THERE'S something that has a demonstrable harm to me. I think that is far less "moral" than a same-sex couple wanting to receive the same legal protections and benefits as you or I, since they pay the same taxes. I've only been married to one...thank goodness!

Indeed I've heard this argument, but have no had an explicit example of how it exactly harms someone who is married.
I have two aunts in law (is that a correct term). Good people. They are married. They've raised their kids and now tour the US. It doesn't impact my marriage one bit other then occasionally they show up, bring some excellent baked deserts for us and our kids, and tell stories of their travels. So where is the devalue again?

TxA wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Please define exactly how it would harm his marriage.

If we are to begin discussing exactly how it would harm marriage, first we need to define our terms and what marriage "is" first. Then we could begin to see how it might be harmed. Once we have a definition of what marriage "is" then we might ask, what is the "end" of the marriage act?

Translation: you can't define harm to another person's marriage as a result.
Has marriage been harmed because people of different skin tones are now married?
Has marriage been harmed because people of different faiths are now routinely married?
Has marriage been harmed because people who have divorced are now routinely remarried?
If you answer yes then I have to ask, where you asleep the last two centuries?

TxA wrote:

sunny beach wrote:Polygamy has a long tradition in Human history. It also appears in The Bible, and not in a negative light. So whether we're arguing from a secular or religious basis, there's a much better argument to allow polygamy than there is to sanction same sex marriage.

Hmmm...I think you might want to review the text. While polygamy has a long tradition in human history as you state and was common in antiquity and described in the Old Testament, the practice was never condoned and actually specifically condemned. The text never shies away from people’s warts and misgivings but displays them as they were.

Was common? It still is common in much of the world, and approved by the largest religion on the globe. I don't think its sane as having one is too much work for me, but I don't have to do it either.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

TxA wrote:

sunny beach wrote:Polygamy has a long tradition in Human history. It also appears in The Bible, and not in a negative light. So whether we're arguing from a secular or religious basis, there's a much better argument to allow polygamy than there is to sanction same sex marriage.

Hmmm...I think you might want to review the text. While polygamy has a long tradition in human history as you state and was common in antiquity and described in the Old Testament, the practice was never condoned and actually specifically condemned. The text never shies away from people’s warts and misgivings but displays them as they were.

Was common? It still is common in much of the world, and approved by the largest religion on the globe. I don't think its sane as having one is too much work for me, but I don't have to do it either.

If I am not mistaken polygamy is required in certain circumstances in the Old Testament.

philip964 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

TxA wrote:

sunny beach wrote:Polygamy has a long tradition in Human history. It also appears in The Bible, and not in a negative light. So whether we're arguing from a secular or religious basis, there's a much better argument to allow polygamy than there is to sanction same sex marriage.

Hmmm...I think you might want to review the text. While polygamy has a long tradition in human history as you state and was common in antiquity and described in the Old Testament, the practice was never condoned and actually specifically condemned. The text never shies away from people’s warts and misgivings but displays them as they were.

Was common? It still is common in much of the world, and approved by the largest religion on the globe. I don't think its sane as having one is too much work for me, but I don't have to do it either.

If I am not mistaken polygamy is required in certain circumstances in the Old Testament.

Please give a reference for required polygamy. I have never heard of this.

If your brother dies, you're supposed to marry his wife too.

Beiruty wrote:If SCOTUS allowed gay marriage, I would petition for my religious right to marry up to 4 ladies at the same time. Enough of the hypocrisy. I love my hypothetical 2nd to 4th wives too. They should be all treated equally. Where is the justice?!

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013 ... age-Ruling" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cedar Park Dad wrote:If your brother dies, you're supposed to marry his wife too.

That's what I remember.

We are starting down a slippery slope.

sarcasm on/ Why is the age of consent so high? Shouldn't "marriage" be allowed once puberty has been reached, isn't that what nature intended. sarcasm off/