[frank4570]

Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454

So everyone is ok with the Scumbag that will not work to support his six wives that have ten kids and lives in Government housing ,on welfare and food stamps? You going to pay more in taxes just so they can live the life they want?

Compared to the bazillion single moms in the trailer parks and the ghetto?


How in the world do you figure that being a polygamist causes a person to become a deadbeat? Isn't that like how guns turn people into murderers?

[SPIN2010]

Originally Posted by NMG26

I'm not against either. Why have such laws? .

That is a great question!

Here is one problematic view of polygamy issue:

A person can marry several wives and they all can be on the system as none of them "have" to work (making a great number to set benefit amounts). Let's use a family of six as an example (hubby and his five wives). It would make that sixteen people to draw off your taxes by the act of polygamy if they just decide to have two kids per wife.

Sound good? Not to me.

EDIT: I see I got beat to the punch, good post gunnut 45

[frank4570]

Why is that different than a piece of crap in the trailer park who gets a bunch of women pregnant and they all are on welfare RIGHT NOW?

If you are saying you don't want MORE people on that system, then ok, I get that. But I don't see how making polygamy illegal accomplishes that. The women are just as pregnant and on govt assistance whether they are married or not. I think?

Originally Posted by SPIN2010

That is a great question!

Here is one problematic view of polygamy issue:

A person can marry several wives and they all can be on the system as none of them "have" to work (making a great number to set benefit amounts). Let's use a family of six as an example (hubby and his five wives). It would make that sixteen people to draw off your taxes by the act of polygamy if they just decide to have two kids per wife.

Sound good? Not to me.

EDIT: I see I got beat to the punch, good post gunnut 45

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by SDDL-UP

There will be no end to it as long as they get to "re-define" marriage. It sure looks like government shouldn't be involved AT ALL!

My opposition to homosexual "marriage" is largely because a homosexual couple will raise children with a warped sense of relationships between the sexes. Now.... if children weren't involved then who really cares?

Exactly. Two women can't teach a boy how to be a man.

[frank4570]

Originally Posted by Paul7

Exactly. Two women can't teach a boy how to be a man.

Really? What knowledge is there that a human male can teach, but a human female can not?

[Gundude]

Originally Posted by SPIN2010

That is a great question!

Here is one problematic view of polygamy issue:

A person can marry several wives and they all can be on the system as none of them "have" to work (making a great number to set benefit amounts). Let's use a family of six as an example (hubby and his five wives). It would make that sixteen people to draw off your taxes by the act of polygamy if they just decide to have two kids per wife.

Sound good? Not to me.

EDIT: I see I got beat to the punch, good post gunnut 45

So these people wouldn't exist or "draw off my taxes" if it wasn't for polygamy? What is it about them being married that suddenly makes me have to pay for it?

[Rabbit994]

Originally Posted by Paul7

Exactly. Two women can't teach a boy how to be a man.

Maybe not, but neither can single mothers. I think two people in loving relationship have better chance then single mother who is constantly trying to find love and failing.

For those who are lamenting the break down of traditional families, I'm not sure what to tell you. That broke down a long time ago and gay marriage is not going to do any damage that hasn't been already done. You can blame godless heathens (that's fine, I get blamed for alot of things), lack of school prayer, women voting or the 60s. At some point, to quote John Ross "You have to stop building sand castles and take up surfing."

As for original post about polygamy, I don't really see the issue with it because at least they are trying to be all proper about it.

Sam, how many calls have you taken about BS Baby Mama drama that involves two ladies fighting over the same dude? Polygamy is here whether or not it's official.

[frank4570]

Originally Posted by Rabbit994

Sam, how many calls have you taken about BS Baby Mama drama that involves two ladies fighting over the same dude? Polygamy is here whether or not it's official.

That might be sig line material right there.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by Rabbit994

Sam, how many calls have you taken about BS Baby Mama drama that involves two ladies fighting over the same dude? Polygamy is here whether or not it's official.

True. The reason I object to the laws here in Kentucky against both Bigamy/Polygamy and snake handling is that they both penalize something on purely religious grounds.

You can have a house full of snakes and handle them all you want, in Kentucky, but if you do it during a religious ceremony it becomes a crime - clearly an unconstitutional law, where the practice of religion is the only difference between legal and illegal.

The same is true of bigamy/polygamy - as many men and women as want to can live together, have sex, etc., but if they have a religious ceremony to declare themselves married, they become criminals (it apparently doesn't require an actual government marriage license and certificate to make it a crime). Obviously, that same argument applies equally to gay marriage, except that gay marriage isn't a crime.

[Beware Owner]

And what is your opinion of gays fighting to lower age of consent laws so they can have sex with minors? If they can have sex with them, they'll be able to marry them, too.

[Gunnut 45/454]

frank4570
I see no difference at all! Still dead beats feeding off my tax dollars! Cause the Government lets them! Where as if the welfare queens didn't get one dime more for having a baby out of wedlock then I'd bet money she wouldn't have those children! If they made the dead beat dad pay for those kids they wouldn't go around knocking up women for fun! Would not give them the tax break for a dependant child either unless they prove it was born in wedlock or the father was named! I know I'm a heartless SOB so be it!

[frank4570]

Originally Posted by Beware Owner

And what is your opinion of gays fighting to lower age of consent laws so they can have sex with minors? If they can have sex with them, they'll be able to marry them, too.

Exactly the same as my opinion of straight people who fight to lower the age of consent laws. Children can't give consent. There is nothing complicated about it.

[frank4570]

Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454

frank4570
I see no difference at all! Still dead beats feeding off my tax dollars! Cause the Government lets them! Where as if the welfare queens didn't get one dime more for having a baby out of wedlock then I'd bet money she wouldn't have those children! If they made the dead beat dad pay for those kids they wouldn't go around knocking up women for fun! Would not give them the tax break for a dependant child either unless they prove it was born in wedlock or the father was named! I know I'm a heartless SOB so be it!

If we stopped paying people to have children, a bunch of our problems would just go away, and our culture would change for the better.

[G17Jake]

Originally Posted by countrygun

"Polygamy": A Crime that is also it's own punishment.

[jtull7]

A cult is an unpopular religion, whereas a religion is a popular cult.

[Davegrave]

Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454

So everyone is ok with the Scumbag that will not work to support his six wives that have ten kids and lives in Government housing ,on welfare and food stamps? You going to pay more in taxes just so they can live the life they want?

I hate this argument so much that it causes me physical pain. I hate it now, I hate it when it's applied to seatbelt and helmet laws. It's so wrong. It's everything that's wrong with humanity. It's every bit of illogical, horrendous thinking that ever get's spewed out to the public as truth.

If you don't like paying for peoples stupid mistakes, e.g. having children they can't afford, having children with multiple wives they can't afford, getting in car wrecks with no insurance- why is the answer in your mind ALWAYS to legislate away their right to make a mistake, and not to legislate away your duty to pay for it????

I can't stand it. THAT is the problem. Not seat belt laws, not consenting ADULTS (this has nothing to do with kids) living the sexual existence that brings them to peace...the problem is you paying for that. Legislate that away.

But I suspect people that use this argument don't care about paying as much as they care about forcing people to live the life that they themselves see fit. The tax money is just a pathetic excuse that sound less nosy than "I hate what you do and my way is better".

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Davegrave

I hate this argument so much that it causes me physical pain. I hate it now, I hate it when it's applied to seatbelt and helmet laws. It's so wrong. It's everything that's wrong with humanity. It's every bit of illogical, horrendous thinking that ever get's spewed out to the public as truth.

If you don't like paying for peoples stupid mistakes, e.g. having children they can't afford, having children with multiple wives they can't afford, getting in car wrecks with no insurance- why is the answer in your mind ALWAYS to legislate away their right to make a mistake, and not to legislate away your duty to pay for it????

I can't stand it. THAT is the problem. Not seat belt laws, not consenting ADULTS (this has nothing to do with kids) living the sexual existence that brings them to peace...the problem is you paying for that. Legislate that away.

But I suspect people that use this argument don't care about paying as much as they care about forcing people to live the life that they themselves see fit. The tax money is just a pathetic excuse that sound less nosy than "I hate what you do and my way is better".

The first three paragraphs are laced with intellectual dishonesty. You obviously well know that this Country and Society do not vote to pull the carpet out from under a group once "we" have decided that they are "special" or require help. You are obviously intelligent enough to be aware of this and know that it is an unrealistic expectation.

After constructing your three paragraph "straw man" you demolish it by saying you don't "think they care about paying as much as they care about forcing people to live....blah...blah"

Just so you can say that you think it's all about morals any way, was that it?

[Davegrave]

Originally Posted by countrygun

The first three paragraphs are laced with intellectual dishonesty. You obviously well know that this Country and Society do not vote to pull the carpet out from under a group once "we" have decided that they are "special" or require help. You are obviously intelligent enough to be aware of this and know that it is an unrealistic expectation.

After constructing your three paragraph "straw man" you demolish it by saying you don't "think they care about paying as much as they care about forcing people to live....blah...blah"

Just so you can say that you think it's all about morals any way, was that it?

The first three paragraphs are as intellectually honest as can be. The absolute epitome. Saying that if you don't want to pay for someone...then fight to not have to pay for them, don't instead fight to illegalize activities that you MIGHT lead to you having to pay for them.

Those paragraphs broke down and trivialized the "I don't want to pay for it argument"

The last paragraph was for the majority who I think use that argument falsely. I think most who say that only say it because it seems more socially acceptable than voicing their true concerns.

There's no more to it than that.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Davegrave

The first three paragraphs are as intellectually honest as can be. The absolute epitome. Saying that if you don't want to pay for someone...then fight to not have to pay for them, don't instead fight to illegalize activities that you MIGHT lead to you having to pay for them.

Those paragraphs broke down and trivialized the "I don't want to pay for it argument"

The last paragraph was for the majority who I think use that argument falsely. I think most who say that only say it because it seems more socially acceptable than voicing their true concerns.

There's no more to it than that.

Show me an honest example of the people/society/government turning someone "out on their own" once they have become, in some way, "protected" by society.


The "I don't want to pay for it" argument is very valid and I do believe a large percentage of the folks that put it forth believe it, and simply don't want more "Protected" groups on the "payroll" since there are no examples of us being able to get them off.

I think you have a prediliction to try and blame some type of "bigotry"

[Davegrave]

Originally Posted by countrygun

Show me an honest example of the people/society/government turning someone "out on their own" once they have become, in some way, "protected" by society.


The "I don't want to pay for it" argument is very valid and I do believe a large percentage of the folks that put it forth believe it, and simply don't want more "Protected" groups on the "payroll" since there are no examples of us being able to get them off.

I think you have a prediliction to try and blame some type of "bigotry"

I'm not saying we HAVE turned them away yet. I'm saying it's what we should be fighting for.

It seems the same, at least in my eyes, as all of our arguments against gun control. I'm assuming you are in the GT majority on that subject since you're here.

We all say, "regulate the ones causing damage". "Prosecute the criminals, not he innocent citizens exercising their rights".

We all (or so we say) use guns responsibly and want the right to keep doing so to remain un-infringed. The crimes committed shouldn't affect US. We aren't doing wrong.

Same with polygamists. They aren't necessarily doing wrong. They just may affect you badly IF THEY DO. So why not worry about protecting yourself from the IF THEY DO part of it, and not the part that involved consenting adults that aren't infringing on your rights or your paycheck?

I'm sure we'll never see eye to eye on this. I've never seen a debate here end with someone changing their mind. But I enjoy it either way and bare you no ill feeling for your opinions. I'm a hypocrite on more than a few issues, but unwavering opinions isn't one of them.

[frank4570]

Maybe we should take a vote. "How many people would be ok with making polygamy legal as long as you don't have to pay for the children."
I absolutely think that way. But there are a lot of people who want it to be illegal "because it's just wrong."

Originally Posted by countrygun

Show me an honest example of the people/society/government turning someone "out on their own" once they have become, in some way, "protected" by society.


The "I don't want to pay for it" argument is very valid and I do believe a large percentage of the folks that put it forth believe it, and simply don't want more "Protected" groups on the "payroll" since there are no examples of us being able to get them off.

I think you have a prediliction to try and blame some type of "bigotry"

[janice6]

Originally Posted by NMG26

Well they can't hire their own lawyers so there is little chance............



.

True. Lawyers always make the difference.


(maybe a pubic defender?)

[OctoberRust]

Originally Posted by NMG26

I'm not against either. Why have such laws?




.

WHAT ?!?! POLYGAMY AND HOMOSEXUALITY?!@#!

[steveksux]

Dogs and cats living together!!!!!


Randy

[Davegrave]

Originally Posted by jtull7

A cult is an unpopular religion, whereas a religion is a popular cult.

I like the quote, and I'm paraphrasing...

"The difference between a cult and a religion is: In a cult there is someone at the top of the chain who know's it's a scam. In a religion, that person is dead."