Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
They will argue that 18 years is too old for consent. First they will lower the age of consent to 16, then to 14 then to puberty. This is what they will do. It is very predictable. They will incrementally "normalize" all forms of sexual deviancy.
Ummm.. not really.
If anything, the law has increased the age of consent to marriage, not decreased it. In the 19th century, it used to be very common for 14 year olds to get married (albeit usually to other 14 year olds after a pregnancy).
There's really no movement to lower the marriage age. In fact, women are putting off marriage until they are older and older.
Median Age at First Marriage, 18902010 — Infoplease.com
Gay activists like Kevin Jennings, Obama's safe school czar are pushing to lower the age of consent.
Ummm.. not really.
If anything, the law has increased the age of consent to marriage, not decreased it. In the 19th century, it used to be very common for 14 year olds to get married (albeit usually to other 14 year olds after a pregnancy).
There's really no movement to lower the marriage age. In fact, women are putting off marriage until they are older and older.
Median Age at First Marriage, 18902010 — Infoplease.com
Gay activists like Kevin Jennings, Obama's safe school czar are pushing to lower the age of consent.
We're talking about marriage, not consent, here. Please try to stay on topic, will you?
Age of consent is kind of meaningless when most teens have sex with other teens. Not a whole lot of teens wanting to go have sex with a 30 year old. That's like an old person.
See the poll
Once a state redefines marriage to be also between two men and two women, they open the flood gates to any person's belief of what constitutes marriage.
It should be interesting to see how a state that recognizes gay marriage deals with any other type of marriage. How could a state not legalize a marriage between two men and one women and /or marriage between one man and two woman? Believe me the definition of marriage could get even more bazar.
two women
OK, how about this as a secular argument against changing the definition of marriage?
We have evolved as a society to have the cultural norms we have had up till about 1960. Against some very incredible odds we managed to survive against a very harsh environment (compared to Europe at the time) and even thrive. By 1940, the United States had the majority of industry in the world and we were the decivie push in defeating the Germans in Two World Wars while over coming a Great Depression in the latter war.
But rather than leave our society basically the same with some tweaks here and there, like Womens Sufferage and ending Jim Crow, the social re-Engineers have pursued further changes that impact the most fundamental institutions of our nation. While we have the advantage of the world largest economy, military and technological advancement, we have begun to think of our national culture not in terms of what will help us to survive, but what is 'nicest' (in a Mr Rogers Neighborhood sort of way) to each individual no matter how bizare or deviant thier behavior maybe.
To compare the situation to early attempts to modify our environment and discovered that we inflicted harm on ourselves that was not apparent at the time, it seems to me that our leaders know not what secondary and tertiary affects these grand schemes they entertain may have on the strength of our nation. We already see demographic growth rates falling, the total of our nation only held up by large hispanic immigration. We see our financial system in chaos and on the verge of a nother HUGE collapse. We have spent billions in tax payer funds and shed thousands of limbs and lives propping up two nations that we tried to engineer from thin air to ape Western democratic behavior though the largest segments of these populations have made it clear that they dont want much if not most of the changes we have forced on them.
The biggest broad categorical effect of this redesign of institutions like marriage and who we are as a nation is that it introduces chaos. No one knows what to expect next. No one knows what is off limits or off the table for consideration. Each person begins to think primarily of how these things will affect them personally and their family and the scope of their concern contracts to little more than that, and most feel little or no connection to each other as a community or nation.
The biggest flaw to redifining marriage specifically and other behavioral norms is that it destroys the social normalcy that reminds us that we are part of a larger community. That sense of being part of a greater good is vital for any nation to endure, and we are simply tossing our cultural baby out with the bathwater.
When adversity returns and we are no longer the richest, the strongest, the most advanced and most powerful but see the world filled with rivals and competitors that seem to do things with far more efficiency and purpose, most of us will then realize the true value of what we have been sacrificing in order to feel we are part of a secular culture that is based on hedonism, greed, and narciscism.
But then it will be too late as these things take generations upon generations to produce and we will be without recourse except to go into a Byzantine decline, slowly trading territory, technology and wealth to stave off the inevitable and final collapse that we brought onto ourselves by rejecting social norms established in almost every human tribe for millenia.
See the poll
Its not wrong as long as they are all consenting adults, if I want to marry both of my girlfriends it should be only my business.
Gay activists like Kevin Jennings, Obama's safe school czar are pushing to lower the age of consent.
We're talking about marriage, not consent, here. Please try to stay on topic, will you?
Age of consent is kind of meaningless when most teens have sex with other teens. Not a whole lot of teens wanting to go have sex with a 30 year old. That's like an old person.
Gay activists use that excuse to lower the age of consent because they want young boys, Just like the gay catholic priests.
None of those reasons are sufficient.
The answer is because plural marriage is only valid when God commandments. When He doesn't command it, it's not allowed.
We are in a period where it's been prohibitted. Should God decide that we should engage in it for some reason, He can freely command otherwise.
The Bible is silent on God's will for man at the present. That's ultimately why the Bible is not enough. Because if the Bible is true, we have to live off every word that proceeds from the Mouth of God. We are told to seek wisdom and knowledge from His hands. If we deny that God continues to reveal His will, we are in essence, denying the message contained in the Bible.
God is the God of the Living, not the dead.
Ah, so Polygamy is only okay when your imaginary sky friend says it's okay.
"No, seriously, honey, I had a talk with God this morning, and he totally said I should marry our maid, too!"
"Now, Joseph Smith, there you go making stuff up again!"
"and God said I was a General, too... Weeeeeee"
None of those reasons are sufficient.
The answer is because plural marriage is only valid when God commandments. When He doesn't command it, it's not allowed.
We are in a period where it's been prohibitted. Should God decide that we should engage in it for some reason, He can freely command otherwise.
The Bible is silent on God's will for man at the present. That's ultimately why the Bible is not enough. Because if the Bible is true, we have to live off every word that proceeds from the Mouth of God. We are told to seek wisdom and knowledge from His hands. If we deny that God continues to reveal His will, we are in essence, denying the message contained in the Bible.
God is the God of the Living, not the dead.
Ah, so Polygamy is only okay when your imaginary sky friend says it's okay.
"No, seriously, honey, I had a talk with God this morning, and he totally said I should marry our maid, too!"
"Now, Joseph Smith, there you go making stuff up again!"
"and God said I was a General, too... Weeeeeee"
No. Only when God says so. It requires Keys that most individuals dont have. But as I know you dont really care about that stuff, I wont say more on the subject.
And actually, no it wasnt God who made Joseph a General. That was the Illinois Legislature.
Although the charter authorizing the Nauvoo Legion created an independent militia, it could be used at the disposal of the state governor or the President of the United States as well as for the mayor of Nauvoo. Joseph Smith himself was Nauvoo's second mayor, and the Nauvoo court martial also appointed him as highest ranking officer of the Legion, a Lieutenant General. This rank is one step above Major General which most contemporary militias employed as their commanding rank. One motive for the higher rank was to prevent Smith from being tried in a court martial by officers of lesser rank.
Most of these arguments against are based on religious precepts, but what about secular arguments for or against polygamy?
The General Accounting Office issued a report in 1997 identifying "1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor".[26] In updating its report in 2004, the GAO found that this number had risen to 1,138 as of December 31, 2003.[27] With respect to Social Security, housing, and food stamps, the GAO found that "recognition of the marital relationship is integral to the design of the program." The other major categories the GAO identified were veteran's benefits, including pensions and survivor benefits; taxes on income, estates, gifts, and property sales; and benefits due federal employees, both civilian and military. Among many specifics, it noted the rights of the widow or widower of the creator of a copyrighted work and certain financial disclosure requirements that include the spouses of members of Congress and certain officers of the federal government. Education loan programs and agriculture price support and loan programs also implicate spouses. Financial aid to "family farms" is restricted to those in which "a majority interest is held by individuals related by marriage or blood."[26]
We're talking about marriage, not consent, here. Please try to stay on topic, will you?
Age of consent is kind of meaningless when most teens have sex with other teens. Not a whole lot of teens wanting to go have sex with a 30 year old. That's like an old person.
Gay activists use that excuse to lower the age of consent because they want young boys, Just like the gay catholic priests.
Well, no, then they wouldn't be gay, they'd be pedophiles... which is a completely different psychological thing.
Since some pedophiles molest people of the opposite sex, we should ban straight relationships by your faulty logic.
— to head up “Safe Schools” efforts at the Department of Education. Jennings is a vicious, anti-religious bigot who once said “[F–k] ‘em” to the “Religious Right.” He supports promoting homosexuality and gender confusion as normative to even young students. He made that comment in a New York City church.
You are legally allowed to marry a woman and keep a mistress on the side. But if you try to be legally responsible to both you are breaking the law
We're talking about marriage, not consent, here. Please try to stay on topic, will you?
Age of consent is kind of meaningless when most teens have sex with other teens. Not a whole lot of teens wanting to go have sex with a 30 year old. That's like an old person.
Gay activists use that excuse to lower the age of consent because they want young boys, Just like the gay catholic priests.
Well, no, then they wouldn't be gay, they'd be pedophiles... which is a completely different psychological thing.
Since some pedophiles molest people of the opposite sex, we should ban straight relationships by your faulty logic.
Gay activists use that excuse to lower the age of consent because they want young boys, Just like the gay catholic priests.
Well, no, then they wouldn't be gay, they'd be pedophiles... which is a completely different psychological thing.
Since some pedophiles molest people of the opposite sex, we should ban straight relationships by your faulty logic.
Joe, we do have well financed organizations that are led by homosexuals like NAMBLA, but if heterosexual pedos are just as determined, where is their organization? Why wouldnt NAMBLA organize in such a way as to represent them as well?
Well, no, then they wouldn't be gay, they'd be pedophiles... which is a completely different psychological thing.
Since some pedophiles molest people of the opposite sex, we should ban straight relationships by your faulty logic.
Joe, we do have well financed organizations that are led by homosexuals like NAMBLA, but if heterosexual pedos are just as determined, where is their organization? Why wouldnt NAMBLA organize in such a way as to represent them as well?
NAMBLA is a Urban myth....
You are legally allowed to marry a woman and keep a mistress on the side. But if you try to be legally responsible to both you are breaking the law
You unwittingly described what is wrong with "no fault divorce" laws. Cheating on your wife or husband is a "breach of contract" and the guilty party should be held liable and forced to pay damages.
Marriage is about rights and responsibilities to each other. Modern society has taken all of the responsibility out of marriage. If people were held accountable for their actions, we would see much fewer divorces and much less gays wanting to get married.
Joe, we do have well financed organizations that are led by homosexuals like NAMBLA, but if heterosexual pedos are just as determined, where is their organization? Why wouldnt NAMBLA organize in such a way as to represent them as well?
NAMBLA is a Urban myth....
excerpt from Wikipedia:
NAMBLA's website states that it is a political, civil rights, and educational organization whose goal is to end "the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships."[9] According to the NAMBLA, some of the organization's primary positions are:
Supporting and promoting man/boy relationships: they hold that when consensual these relationships are not harmful or child sexual abuse.[10] One study they cite is the controversial Rind et al. paper.[11]
Age-of-consent reform: what NAMBLA describes as "empowerment of youth in all areas, not just the sexual."[9]
link: North American Man/Boy Love Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
