Sure if youre a mormon, like Romney or Huntsman. Ask them. I havent heard either one of them condemning the mormon practice of sister wives.
Peace.
New York Legalizes Same Sex Marriage
- Thread starter UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
- Start date
Sure if youre a mormon, like Romney or Huntsman. Ask them. I havent heard either one of them condemning the mormon practice of sister wives.
Peace.
tourists24
Well-Known Member
Something wrong with that? If you are wanting equality, shouldnt it cover everyone, not just the ones you approve of?
moreluck
golden ticket member
Multiple marriages is only practiced by excommunicated Mormons....not mainstream Mormons . So the mormon candidates do not believe in plural marriages!!
When Utah was becoming a state the Mormon church did away with polygamy (1890) to comply with US laws against bigamy. The die hard polygamists went to practice their ways elsewhere. They are automatically excommunicated from the Mormon church.
From the late Pres. Gordon B. Hinkley.........
“I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter.
“If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, ‘We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law’ (Articles of Faith 1:12). One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time.
“There is no such thing as a ‘Mormon Fundamentalist.’ It is a contradiction to use the two words together.”
I thought you were the superior intelligence when it came to this crap!! I was wrong!!
When Utah was becoming a state the Mormon church did away with polygamy (1890) to comply with US laws against bigamy. The die hard polygamists went to practice their ways elsewhere. They are automatically excommunicated from the Mormon church.
From the late Pres. Gordon B. Hinkley.........
“I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter.
“If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, ‘We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law’ (Articles of Faith 1:12). One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time.
“There is no such thing as a ‘Mormon Fundamentalist.’ It is a contradiction to use the two words together.”
I thought you were the superior intelligence when it came to this crap!! I was wrong!!
trplnkl
555
Thanks Buddy, but I have grown accustomed to defending my positions. The sad thing is, what I posted then and since then will either be ignored or twisted into something I never said nor meant. The funny thing is they have no idea how I stand on the gay issue or why, they take just part of what I said and try to make that the definitive, when it is not.
trplnkl
555
True it is against the law of the land, but should it be?
tourists24
Well-Known Member
my whole point... not the governments job to begin with... and none of their business
P
pickup
Guest
More, I don't mean this to be disrespectful. But just because a law is a law doesn't make it right.
Aiding runaway slaves in their pursuit of freedom was once against the law , yet many broke that law.
A black man and a white woman marrying was once against the law. I think in the late 60s, Virginia tried to enforce that law and the case went to the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court was ruled the law as unconstitutional, the remaining states that had the same law dropped it as well.
It was once illegal for women to vote, that changed in 1919 , I believe or around that time.
Things change More. I wish it was called a civil union with all the rights that the gays needed. But they now call it marriage in New York State. It strikes me in the gut as a little odd calling it that. But I think I can live with it.
moreluck
golden ticket member
"You can rationalize all you want BUT you are still not bringing another woman into this household !".....(Mrs Pickup)
trplnkl
555
Even if they legalized polygamy and my wife didn't object, I would have no desire to have more than one wife. My hands are full enough thank you very much."You can rationalize all you want BUT you are still not bringing another woman into this household !".....(Mrs Pickup)
browndevil
Well-Known Member
I heard on our local radio station here that Chaz is the Grand Marshall foerthe San Francisco Pride Parade this weekend
moreluck
golden ticket member
Chaz is now legally a man (per state of CA.) . So as a man (legally), He can marry his girlfriend and it's a regular marriage (man&woman). However, Chaz doesn't have a penis and doesn't plan on getting one. This is some big gray area to me. Not a made up "what if". If you really want to be a man, then just do it!! And, how can the state decide you are now a man??
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Civil unions will not be equal to marriages until same-sex couples can inherit each others Social Security and pension benefits. This would require recognition of civil unions on a Federal level. You can call it a "marriage" or a "civil union" or whatever you want as long as its equal. Until it is equal, it is unfair. The gay couples that I know could really care less what sort of "label" is placed upon their relationship by those who disagree with them; for them it is an issue of economic fairness. They are paying the same amount of money into a system that will give them fewer benefits solely by virtue of the fact that the number of penises in that relationship equals two or zero instead of one. That is discrimination, plain and simple.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
It is not against the law for a man or woman to have sex with, or even live with, someone other than their "legal" spouse. Nor is it against the law for the 3 or 4 or 5 or more of them to live in the same home in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs. The only thing that is against the law is for a person to be legally married to multiple spouses at the same time.
As an issue of economic fairness, it would be wrong for those who choose "plural marriages" to receive the same Social Security or pension benefits as a couple, since there would be multiple beneficiaries instead of a single one.
While I personally find plural marriages to be disgusting, chauvanist and degrading to the women involved (would the men allow the women to have "brother husbands?") I would not object to some sort of recognition of them as civil unions provided that the payouts for Social Security and pensions were reduced accordingly to reflect the disparity of what is being paid into the system vs. what is withdrawn from it. As with gay marriages or civil unions, my own personal/religious beliefs should not entitle me to insist that our government practice economic discrimination against those whose beliefs conflict with my own.
moreluck
golden ticket member
In Utah, your tax money supports a lot of these kids. The other wives show as single mothers and pretty poor and receive welfare. A guy with 6 wives and 50 kids can collect a lot of state money and still make a great living on his own. Of course, the wives all turn over the money to the support of the whole family.
island1fox
Well-Known Member
Upstate'
Do not understand your point.
My post was very tolerant. I am a realist.
The sky is the sky, the ground is the ground. Black is black, white is white.
Man is man. Woman is woman. Penis is man. Vagina is woman.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Intercourse is between a man and a woman.
Gayrarriage or civil union is between two men or two women.
Sodomy is sodomy.
Etc,etc, etc.
Equal rights for all, legal rights for all.
Gay is not straight --straight is not gay --see they are even spelled differently.
I am not claiming one is better than the other --just different !!
Why as more has asked do the gays insist that their union be called the same as straights ??
Call it as it is --what is intolerant about the truth ???
Mens room --urinals -- etc etc ----not every thing is the same.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Island, read post #74--this will answer your question for you.
moreluck
golden ticket member
You learned #4 from Kindergarten Cop. I tried to post the clip, but the security shut me down. I thought it was more cute than offensive.
Similar threads
