Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
November 28, 2014, 07:03:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: SBC's Land: Polygamy Will Follow Gay Marriage  (Read 1779 times)
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42309

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« on: March 26, 2013, 11:52:17 AM »

Is he right?

SBC's Land: Polygamy Will Follow Gay Marriage
Monday, 25 Mar 2013
By David A. Patten

With the Supreme Court set this week to hear two historic challenges to the traditional definition of marriage, pro-family advocates are charging that legalizing gay marriage would “inevitably” lead to the legalization of polygamy as well.

“No question about it,” Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview Monday afternoon. “If you make the ultimate value a person’s right to express their sexuality with another person and to have that identified as marriage, then how do you keep polygamy from happening?

“How do keep consensual adult siblings from getting married?” he added. “How do you keep a consensual father and adult daughter from getting married? Incest and polygamy will come right after it.”

Land’s conclusion: “You shatter the definition of marriage if you try to expand it to include same-sex marriage.”

Land is far from the only social conservative making that argument. The Christian legal organization Liberty Counsel filed a brief with the Supreme Court that states: “Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships.”

The remarks of Land, a leading social conservative, came in the context of what is expected to be one of the most important weeks in the history of the battle that pro-family forces are waging to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, as the Supreme Court holds two hearings on gay-marriage cases.

On Tuesday, the justices will hear arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the high-profile challenge to California’s Proposition 8 vote that struck down legalization of gay marriage in California. That case is being directed by two high-profile attorneys, Ted Olson and David Boies. They argue that those trying to stop gay marriage have failed to demonstrate legalizing would harm society.

Then on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which effectively prohibits any federal recognition of the validity of same-sex marriage.

Land told Newsmax that it is no coincidence that a court which apparently prides itself of judicial restraint – the notion that courts should wield their power modestly in order to minimize the social and political impact of their rulings – opted to hear two cases on the same issue. Doing so, he said, enables them to render a mixed verdict.

“I actually think that the court is going to rule on narrow grounds. This is why they took these two cases in tandem with each other,” Land told Newsmax. “This court has a predilection for doing this. They did this with the Ten Commandments case; they took two Ten Commandments cases at once. They ruled in favor of one and against the other, sort of split the difference, and took the path of least resistance. So the issue did not become the court and the court’s role, and it has left as much as possible to democratic processes.”

Land predicted the Court will rule that the states, including California, have the right to define what marriage means. But he believes they will also rule that once a state recognizes same-sex marriage, as nine of them do plus the District of Columbia, then those individuals must be eligible for the same federal benefits as other couples.

“They’ve learned from Roe v. Wade,” Land said. “Even Justice Ginsberg who’s the most liberal justice in the history of the Supreme Court, said that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision because it tried to take the abortion issue out of the democratic process, and made the abortion issue much more contentious than it would have been otherwise.”

If the Supreme Court, which is not expected to rule on the cases until June, does make the states the decider when it comes to gay marriage, Land told Newsmax : “We will continue to try to defend traditional marriage in the states where it is the only option and we will try to overturn same-sex marriage in the states that have passed it. We will continue to make the argument that when you try to extend the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage, you shatter the definition of marriage.”

Social conservatives are sparing no effort to make their views known on the issue. Last week, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission issued an alert that “The sacred institution of marriage has reached an hour of great need for prayer.” Thousands of pro-family supporters are expected to descend on the Nation’s Capital Tuesday for a “March for Marriage.”

Gay-marriage proponents have countered that there is no social reason for denying same-sex couples the same protection under the law that heterosexual couples enjoy. They also contend that expansion of marriage to polygamy could be avoided by pointing out the social ills of being married to more than one spouse.

Land also addressed the view that public opinion is beginning to shift in favor of gay marriage.

“My reaction is that their celebrations are premature. Certainly, opinion has shifted to some degree but America is still very, very closely divided on this issue and it’s not nationwide.”
He added that as voters see the repercussions of same-sex marriage laws, opinion against it will strengthen.

“The longer that same-sex marriage exists in the states that it exists in,” said Land, “the more problems people are going to see with it .… You’re going to see appeals in the courts for polygamy. You’re going to see significant issues arise from same-sex marriage that the American people are not going to like and there’s going to be a backlash.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/land-gay-marriage-polygamy/2013/03/25/id/496264
Report to moderator   Logged
LurkerNoMore
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 12923

Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay


« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2013, 12:56:45 PM »

No.
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16086


Getbig!


« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2013, 01:08:17 PM »

Is he right?

SBC's Land: Polygamy Will Follow Gay Marriage
Monday, 25 Mar 2013
By David A. Patten

With the Supreme Court set this week to hear two historic challenges to the traditional definition of marriage, pro-family advocates are charging that legalizing gay marriage would “inevitably” lead to the legalization of polygamy as well.

“No question about it,” Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview Monday afternoon. “If you make the ultimate value a person’s right to express their sexuality with another person and to have that identified as marriage, then how do you keep polygamy from happening?

“How do keep consensual adult siblings from getting married?” he added. “How do you keep a consensual father and adult daughter from getting married? Incest and polygamy will come right after it.”

Land’s conclusion: “You shatter the definition of marriage if you try to expand it to include same-sex marriage.”

Land is far from the only social conservative making that argument. The Christian legal organization Liberty Counsel filed a brief with the Supreme Court that states: “Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships.”

The remarks of Land, a leading social conservative, came in the context of what is expected to be one of the most important weeks in the history of the battle that pro-family forces are waging to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, as the Supreme Court holds two hearings on gay-marriage cases.

On Tuesday, the justices will hear arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the high-profile challenge to California’s Proposition 8 vote that struck down legalization of gay marriage in California. That case is being directed by two high-profile attorneys, Ted Olson and David Boies. They argue that those trying to stop gay marriage have failed to demonstrate legalizing would harm society.

Then on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which effectively prohibits any federal recognition of the validity of same-sex marriage.

Land told Newsmax that it is no coincidence that a court which apparently prides itself of judicial restraint – the notion that courts should wield their power modestly in order to minimize the social and political impact of their rulings – opted to hear two cases on the same issue. Doing so, he said, enables them to render a mixed verdict.

“I actually think that the court is going to rule on narrow grounds. This is why they took these two cases in tandem with each other,” Land told Newsmax. “This court has a predilection for doing this. They did this with the Ten Commandments case; they took two Ten Commandments cases at once. They ruled in favor of one and against the other, sort of split the difference, and took the path of least resistance. So the issue did not become the court and the court’s role, and it has left as much as possible to democratic processes.”

Land predicted the Court will rule that the states, including California, have the right to define what marriage means. But he believes they will also rule that once a state recognizes same-sex marriage, as nine of them do plus the District of Columbia, then those individuals must be eligible for the same federal benefits as other couples.

“They’ve learned from Roe v. Wade,” Land said. “Even Justice Ginsberg who’s the most liberal justice in the history of the Supreme Court, said that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision because it tried to take the abortion issue out of the democratic process, and made the abortion issue much more contentious than it would have been otherwise.”

If the Supreme Court, which is not expected to rule on the cases until June, does make the states the decider when it comes to gay marriage, Land told Newsmax : “We will continue to try to defend traditional marriage in the states where it is the only option and we will try to overturn same-sex marriage in the states that have passed it. We will continue to make the argument that when you try to extend the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage, you shatter the definition of marriage.”

Social conservatives are sparing no effort to make their views known on the issue. Last week, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission issued an alert that “The sacred institution of marriage has reached an hour of great need for prayer.” Thousands of pro-family supporters are expected to descend on the Nation’s Capital Tuesday for a “March for Marriage.”

Gay-marriage proponents have countered that there is no social reason for denying same-sex couples the same protection under the law that heterosexual couples enjoy. They also contend that expansion of marriage to polygamy could be avoided by pointing out the social ills of being married to more than one spouse.

Land also addressed the view that public opinion is beginning to shift in favor of gay marriage.

“My reaction is that their celebrations are premature. Certainly, opinion has shifted to some degree but America is still very, very closely divided on this issue and it’s not nationwide.”
He added that as voters see the repercussions of same-sex marriage laws, opinion against it will strengthen.

“The longer that same-sex marriage exists in the states that it exists in,” said Land, “the more problems people are going to see with it .… You’re going to see appeals in the courts for polygamy. You’re going to see significant issues arise from same-sex marriage that the American people are not going to like and there’s going to be a backlash.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/land-gay-marriage-polygamy/2013/03/25/id/496264

They just played some clips from the oral arguments on Hannity's show. Sotomayor brought up that slippery slope routine you just mentioned. She asked what state limits on marriage wouldn't be subjet to removal, if the gender one goes away.

I believe Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ and Tamara Holder are up next on the show. I'm sure they're going to bring these arguments up.

Chief Justice John Roberts compared legalizing gay "marriage" to kids being forced to call other kids friends and redefining what the definition of "friend".

Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2013, 01:58:53 PM »

typical slippery slope argument.

In time we will all be married to each other, all 7 billion.
Report to moderator   Logged
Roger Bacon
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21015


Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails


« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2013, 02:09:13 PM »

Why shouldn't it? Huh

Same deal right?
Report to moderator   Logged

tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15970


Robot


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2013, 02:38:42 PM »

As long as everyone is an adult and of sound mind, I'm perfectly fine with it... Adults who are mentally sound can decide to marry each other ALL DAY LONG.

WHO CARES?!
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2013, 03:12:23 PM »

As long as everyone is an adult and of sound mind, I'm perfectly fine with it... Adults who are mentally sound can decide to marry each other ALL DAY LONG.

WHO CARES?!

The Tax man
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25432



« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2013, 06:51:33 PM »

Why shouldn't it? Huh

Same deal right?
most libtards disagree
Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15970


Robot


WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2013, 07:06:10 PM »

The Tax man
Get rid of the loop hole on married couples and boom... done.
Report to moderator   Logged
syntaxmachine
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2533



« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2013, 07:24:19 PM »

Land is absolutely correct.

Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and nine U.S. states allow same-sex marriages. If you go to any of these places, the effects of their stance toward gay marriage is apparent: everybody is fucking everybody, raping animals is commonplace, family members are pounding each others' asses and eating each others' pussies -- it's really ghastly.
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2013, 07:27:38 PM »

Land is absolutely correct.

Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and nine U.S. states allow same-sex marriages. If you go to any of these places, the effects of their stance toward gay marriage is apparent: everybody is fucking everybody, raping animals is commonplace, family members are pounding each others asses and eating each others pussies -- it's really ghastly.


Thumpers shouldn't worry anyway......regardless of Gay Marriage or not, those Homo's are still all going to hell.  Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
Shockwave
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20872


Decepticons! Scramble!


« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2013, 07:29:36 PM »

Land is absolutely correct.

Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and nine U.S. states allow same-sex marriages. If you go to any of these places, the effects of their stance toward gay marriage is apparent: everybody is fucking everybody, raping animals is commonplace, family members are pounding each others asses and eating each others pussies -- it's really ghastly.

Sounds like Tbombz little slice of heaven.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10124


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2013, 07:32:35 PM »

FAGS and Twinks getting married is good for lawyers - more divorce cases. 
Report to moderator   Logged
LurkerNoMore
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 12923

Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay


« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2013, 08:07:43 PM »

FAGS and Twinks getting married is good for lawyers - more divorce cases. 

Imagine Divorce Court on tv with a gay couple.  Ratings overload.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10124


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #14 on: March 26, 2013, 08:09:47 PM »

Imagine Divorce Court on tv with a gay couple.  Ratings overload.

Correct - if we on GB can get that going we will be bilionaires! 
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25432



« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2013, 08:13:14 PM »

Imagine Divorce Court on tv with a gay couple.  Ratings overload.
LOL two emotional fairies crying and babbling on...that would make for good tv

I bet that woman would stop liking the skinny jean wearing, no weight lifting metro sexuals in a heart beat after watching that.
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16086


Getbig!


« Reply #16 on: March 26, 2013, 08:25:48 PM »

As long as everyone is an adult and of sound mind, I'm perfectly fine with it... Adults who are mentally sound can decide to marry each other ALL DAY LONG.

WHO CARES?!

But, what happens when "love" goes beyond the adults? Isn't that "bigotry"? After all, in certain states, minor girls can get abortions without their parents' permission. Who's to say that adult-child marriage is off the table?

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10124


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #17 on: March 26, 2013, 08:27:01 PM »

Gay divorce court is going to be Epic!!!!
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25432



« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2013, 08:47:56 PM »

But, what happens when "love" goes beyond the adults? Isn't that "bigotry"? After all, in certain states, minor girls can get abortions without their parents' permission. Who's to say that adult-child marriage is off the table?


absolutely it is, afterall if the argument is that b/c they are genetically predisposed to attraction to the same sex it should be allowed. How do you split hairs and say that a person genetically predisposed to attraction to young children is wrong?

Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10780


Be honest...


« Reply #19 on: March 26, 2013, 09:59:36 PM »

absolutely it is, afterall if the argument is that b/c they are genetically predisposed to attraction to the same sex it should be allowed. How do you split hairs and say that a person genetically predisposed to attraction to young children is wrong?



Homosexuality is not considered by medical science and mental health experts to be a disease or a  mental disorder. Such is not the case with pedophilia. Thus at this point in time there is no evidence to support your theory that pedophiles are genetically disposed to their attraction to young children. Your argument is overreaching and based on false assumptions, thank goodness.
Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15970


Robot


WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 26, 2013, 10:04:58 PM »

But, what happens when "love" goes beyond the adults? Isn't that "bigotry"? After all, in certain states, minor girls can get abortions without their parents' permission. Who's to say that adult-child marriage is off the table?



I see where you are going, but most laws have some cut off... They look at ages and they determine that people of certain ages can make decisions and certain ages can not.

You can drink at 21, not before... Vote at 18, not before... Choose to sleep with someone of a certain age at a certain age.

So obviously if you are old enough to choose to get married without any parental supervision, you can choose to marry or be in a marriage with one or more.

This "slippery slope" does not truly exist.

People just try to use it to have a talking point, but it's truly very silly.
Report to moderator   Logged
doison
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3033


Rum Ham


« Reply #21 on: March 27, 2013, 05:20:47 AM »

Do what feels good
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20663


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #22 on: March 27, 2013, 07:28:32 AM »

I see where you are going, but most laws have some cut off... They look at ages and they determine that people of certain ages can make decisions and certain ages can not.

You can drink at 21, not before... Vote at 18, not before... Choose to sleep with someone of a certain age at a certain age.

So obviously if you are old enough to choose to get married without any parental supervision, you can choose to marry or be in a marriage with one or more.

This "slippery slope" does not truly exist.

People just try to use it to have a talking point, but it's truly very silly.

The slippery slope seems to be the only thing left.
Report to moderator   Logged
bears
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1825


« Reply #23 on: March 27, 2013, 07:28:45 AM »

Get rid of the loop hole on married couples and boom... done.


its a toss up actually.  some couples see a benefit some don't.  it depends on a bunch of different factors but generally the couples who benefit from filing MFJ are the ones who have one spouse earning a significant amount more than the other.  for the most part if you have two people with similar taxable incomes they usually would be better off if they filed single.  but you can't...if you're married.

i've had to amend a bunch if returns where people prepared them themselves and thought that they could just file single even though they were married because their refund was bigger that way.

Report to moderator   Logged
bears
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1825


« Reply #24 on: March 27, 2013, 07:35:22 AM »

i think the underlying argument in this article is that polygamy is somehow worse then homosexuality or heterosexuality and the argument is "look at the monster we have created!!!" 

it's funny but if you lash out and disagree that "just because we allow homosexual marriages doesn't mean it will lead to something as disgusting as polygamy" you're just as bigoted as the author. 

what's wrong with polygamy?  they're people just like you and me.  they can't control who they love. 

it just goes to show that both sides are bigoted.  they have just mutually agreed that being bigoted towards polygamy is acceptable but still disagree that being bigoted against homosexuality is OK.  if you agree with homosexual marriages then it should stand to reason that you accept polygamous marriages as well.  if you don't you're being hypocritical.  period.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!