Op-Ed Calls For Polygamy Next
Frederik deBoer, a writer and academic, says it’s now time to legalize polygamy.
Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it…
Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.
Why the opposition, from those who have no interest in preserving “traditional marriage” or forbidding polyamorous relationships? I think the answer has to do with political momentum, with a kind of ad hoc-rejection of polygamy as necessary political concession. And in time, I think it will change.
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
139 responses to Op-Ed Calls For Polygamy Next
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Chris June 27th, 2015 at 00:30
deBoer: “Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable…”
And that’s why it won’t happen. I was expecting something like this since Huckabee and Santorum have been in the vanguard of bleating about this.
Not gonna happen in this lifetime.
Robert M. Snyder June 27th, 2015 at 16:48
Nearly everyone was uncomfortable with homosexuality twenty years ago. Obama was opposed to same-sex marriage when he ran for office. I don’t see how the supreme court could possibly rule against polygamy now that they have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. In order to do so, they would have to find some reason why three women who are deeply in love cannot be married, while any two of them can be. Tax codes and employee benefit packages already accommodate different numbers of children in a family. Surely they could be adjusted to accommodate different numbers of spouses. If a polygamy case comes before the supreme court, I think their hands will be tied. Polygamy is coming.
Chris June 27th, 2015 at 18:02
I respect your opinion. You seem to have thought a lot about this subject.
But I disagree. One mate of either gender would be the limit. Why do I say this? Because the rest of the first world has not embraced polygamy, nor is it anywhere close to doing so.
I think the reason why we have allowed gays to marry so relatively quickly is that more and more are coming out and most people can point to a positive role model they know who is gay now. This even includes pop culture figures like Ellen DeGeneres. It’s sad that society is still slower in eliminating racism compared to homophobia.
There are NO societal role models for polygamy today. Ain’t gonna happen.
Robert M. Snyder June 27th, 2015 at 19:42
I think you just insulted the Supreme Court. You seem to be implying that their decisions are influenced by popular opinion or opinion polls. You seem to be implying that if the majority of Americans did not support gay marriage, that their latest ruling would have been different.
Chris June 27th, 2015 at 22:36
My Sarcasm-O-Meter is pegged at 9 with your post.
Even Kennedy could sense that the times, they were a-changin’. Yes, we ALL are products of our time.
Much the same that very few white Americans would even think of extending the power of the vote to black Americans in the 1850s.
Let’s not pretend that attitudes don’t change with time.
frambley1 June 27th, 2015 at 00:43
Sure, why not. Why would I care? That tevee family seemed just fine last time I watched their show. Besides isn’t there plenty of people in the bible with multiple wives?
However, I don’t see it as equivalent to same sex marriage because it would complicate the legal issues. If one of the spouses dies, who has legal claims to their property? But when has complicated legal issues ever stopped anything from happening? So whatever, let the games begin.
ValianThor June 27th, 2015 at 00:43
Alan- Your forum is the perfect place to advance this next judicial hurdle. Just think of it Alan, no more playing “footsie” with Monica, under the table at Thanksgiving! You’re a lucky man!
Dwendt44 June 27th, 2015 at 00:55
Well polygamy is biblical, and the Mormons would love to get back to their roots. Some of their roots that is, the pedophile part; not so much.
johnnybizzoy June 27th, 2015 at 01:14
I got no problem w polygamy. Who cares?
ValianThor June 27th, 2015 at 01:20
Hey Alan- Can you imagine if the high courts rule favorably on incest; or age restrictions next? You may be invited to dine on ‘Crow’ at Casa DUGGARS!
Budda June 27th, 2015 at 08:34
You are projecting your fantasies not Alans
TuMadre, Ph.D June 27th, 2015 at 01:23
People have been saying for a while now that legalizing gay marriage would lead to polygamy rights, incest rights, and pedophile rights. People shouted, “Slippery slope fallacy!” every time it was mentioned.
As of this article, I have seen articles advocating for all 3 in websites as prominent as The economist. Personally, I don’t care (I’m happily married with my single wife, and won’t be looking to add another, and actually do agree with same sex marriages), but people really shouldn’t argue “Slippery slope!” when there is a call for polygamy within a day of gay marriage being legalized, and people are already on board.
Dwendt44 June 27th, 2015 at 12:51
And sometimes one wife is one to many.
whatthe46 June 27th, 2015 at 14:40
lol
greenfloyd June 27th, 2015 at 01:37
I think it’s a no-brainer. Of couse consenting adults should have the freedom to associate and if they desire a formal (legal) arrangement, the state must accomodate them.
rg9rts June 27th, 2015 at 01:42
not the way its practiced in the US…
greenfloyd June 27th, 2015 at 03:09
It’s illegal in the US, under law the participants are considered bigamist and any additional “marriages” null and void. I understand a man or woman can go to jail if convicted of bigamy. Although it’s very, very rare.
Legal matters are one thing, but the subject of polygamy, rare as it may be, goes to the heart of some people’s beliefs and religious practices that have existed for millennium.
The act of polygamy can not be effectively banned, it is another essentially meaningless law. People will procreate, raise children and build communities as they please. But, driving underground those few Americans who practice polygamy, assures us charlatans and evil doers will use it as an excuse for what’s essentially child-prostitution and exploitation for personal gain which too often ends in mass-murder, suicide and mayhem. As we saw in Waco, TX with David Koresh and the Branch Davidians back in 1993.
So how does polygamy fit into America 2015?
rg9rts June 27th, 2015 at 04:18
I strongly suggest that you google the issue and see how it is being practiced in 2015 in the southwest…..have you been sleeping for the past 20 years???
greenfloyd June 27th, 2015 at 05:13
Yep! Sound asleep… polygamy is not high on my list of things to pay attention to. I looked-up Warren Jeffs, as you so “strongly” suggested. He’s now serving life for child sexual assault. I rest my case above and repeat the only relevant question I can pose: “How does polygamy fit into America 2015?”
rg9rts June 27th, 2015 at 05:30
Because it still exists…don’t be so republican and ignore reality…the community that Jeffs is from is completely polygamist…from the police on down…it is a cult..with women being the prime victims…young boys are driven out of the community so that they won’t be competition … Jeffs was just the most outrageous but there still are entire communities that exist …THAT is how they fit into 2015…and no one has stopped it.
greenfloyd June 27th, 2015 at 06:03
I don’t deny it exist. I am not “republican” and I will never surrender my right to “ignore reality…” sometimes you just got to get away from that screen and take a walk :)
When you return, give us your thoughts on what you think should be done, especially with regard to preventing the kinds of extremes we both pointed out?
rg9rts June 27th, 2015 at 06:06
Enforcing the law as it exists for a change…it is tolerated and shouldn’t be…its about human rights not freedom of religion….
greenfloyd June 27th, 2015 at 07:54
I think the problem is you assume all cases of polygamy involve child abuse and exploitation. While I can’t say for sure, I suspect that’s an overreaction.
rg9rts June 27th, 2015 at 08:43
It is at the least female enslavement. Read the stories from the women that have escaped…its a cult with the alpha male keeping all the females to himself to be used as he sees fit…swap off for new bed fodder.. I’ll wager you’d try to minimize the nazis too…well they weren’t all that bad
greenfloyd June 27th, 2015 at 09:05
Remember “enslavement” of anyone, male or female, is already illegal and it is vigorously enforced whenever it comes to the attention of law enforcement. Besides, there could be polygamy with no children involved whatsoever, there’s also the possibility of same-sex polygamy.
So, since you’ve lost this argument you resort to calling me a Nazi apologist? How childish!
rg9rts June 27th, 2015 at 09:14
I didn’t lose anything…you are an apologist ….YOU are the real loser.
Glen June 28th, 2015 at 10:16
OK, so that particular group is a problem, and are doing things that society would be pretty quick to call wrong. They also practise polygamy. Would you suggest we should ban halal food because there are muslim terrorists? Would you suggest we ban bibles because of the abortion clinic bombers?
Real polygamy isn’t an issue. It’s entirely possible for a man to simultaneously love two wives and for those wives to also love the man (and each other). And same in reverse (woman and two husbands). It’s also possible for polygamy to lead to enslavement of one or more people… and that’s also true of monogamy. Should we ban marriage entirely because domestic violence exists?
As greenfloyd has pointed out, you invoked the Nazis in order to try to claim victory. That’s always the last resort of the person losing their argument – to such a point that a corollary to Godwin’s law deals specifically with it.
More generally, you used the classic logical fallacy of Reductio Ad Hitlerum (and more generally, guilt by association), basically asserting that, because evil people do it, therefore it is evil. Would you mandate that all people must smoke cigarettes, because the Nazis banned them? Would you ban Hugo Boss, Volkswagen, IBM, Bayer, and Siemens? You can’t, legitimately, argue against an idea because someone you dislike (for good reasons or bad) supports them. Kind of like how, if the Republicans came out in support of something, you shouldn’t reject the idea on that basis. It might invite greater scrutiny, but the fact that they support it isn’t justification for rejecting it.
rg9rts June 28th, 2015 at 10:19
Typical bagger response…don’t like the answer change the question…well how about??? Get lost imbecile
Glen June 28th, 2015 at 11:42
There’s irony, here. The discussion was polygamy in general. You decided to focus on a particular case, and generalise as though it was typical (and it clearly isn’t). I call you on it, and you go for ad hominem attack rather than actually respond to any of my points.
You might want to look back over things you’ve said, vs things other people have said, in this discussion. You may just be surprised at what you find.
rg9rts June 28th, 2015 at 12:00
You still don’t …why am I wasting my time on you…hopeless
Glen June 28th, 2015 at 12:17
So far you haven’t “wasted your time” on me. Instead, you’ve completely ignored every point I made (and every point that greenfloyd has made, for that matter), and have done nothing but repeat your assertions and then call us names. If someone here is behaving like a Republican, it’s you. You’re the one that is picking out a single instance, and turning it into a general trend (that sounds like Fox News’ approach to anything they disagree with). We’re the ones arguing for less discrimination, less social restriction, and more tolerance. And you have the GALL to call US names, etc? You have the gall to say I’m behaving like a “bagger” and greenfloyd is “ignoring reality like a Republican”? When YOU are the one ignoring everything that doesn’t agree with your worldview, and calling others names, like a tea party republican?
You’ve used a long list of logical fallacies to try to assert the correctness of your claim, yet you haven’t once responded to an actual argument put forward by others. And when you’ve been called out on it, all you’ve done is called greenfloyd a “loser” and an “apologist” (show me where he actually suggested that what the guy did was acceptable!), and then call me an “imbecile” and “hopeless”.
Come on – if your assertion is so valid, surely you can back it up with something stronger than “Wikki Warren Jeffs” (which is another example of irony, since you called me an “imbecile”, but you can’t even spell “wiki”). Surely you can do better than to point to a single example and claim it to be a general pattern.
Actually, based on all evidence I’m seeing, you can’t do it. I don’t know if it’s intelligence, ignorance (which is not the same thing), or intentional misrepresentation and belligerence, but I’m betting that you aren’t able to respond to any of our points with anything but ad hominem and repeating of your assertion that polygamy is female enslavement because one polygamist abused his wives and children.
As greenfloyd pointed out, the guy you have a problem with is now in jail. And yet, your response to what should be done about polygamy in general in America is “enforce the law”… with no indication of why, or any sign of self-awareness that, even as you mock those disagreeing you for being right-wing or being like the right-wing, you’re using right-wing reasoning. Can’t have muslims in America, because they’re terrorists! Can’t have atheists in America, because they’re trying to force everyone to give up their religion! Can’t have same sex marriage in America, they’ll force us all to become gay, whether we like it or not!
So I challenge you – provide me one shred of evidence that your view on this topic is any more nuanced than a Republican’s. And if your response to this post is to mock me again, then you’re only proving to everyone that you have no substance to your argument.
whatthe46 June 27th, 2015 at 14:39
it does and has involved child abuse. those girls in jeff’s camp, some were as young as 13 and married off. that’s child abuse.
rg9rts June 27th, 2015 at 04:23
Wikki Warren Jeffs
Gindy51 June 27th, 2015 at 09:40
He had ulterior motives like all the FLDS do, bleed the beast is what they call it. Those extra wives and kids collect welfare benefits, all live under one roof, and share the wealth among themselves.
Glen June 27th, 2015 at 03:08
I have no problem with legally allowing polygamy so long as it’s limited to rights, and not benefits. It would allow people to be recognised as family, but not allow people to use it to spread their tax burden in order to reduce the amount of tax they pay (spreading it between two people is reasonable – between five isn’t).
I feel the same way, by the way, about incestuous marriage – if siblings want to marry each other, and are both adults, let them. We should have some extra precautions put in due to the risks associated with incestuous pregnancy, but at the end of the day, it’s up to the two consenting adults.
Note that this reasoning blocks out paedophilic marriage and bestial marriage, as children and animals don’t have the ability to enter into contracts. I say this in part in response to what TuMadre posted.
greenfloyd June 27th, 2015 at 03:28
I think a “right” is a benefit, but let’s not quibble over what would certainly be a very trivial amount of money… Repeal of the laws against polygamy would have to be redrawn and the tax code adjusted to account for such concerns.
Glen June 27th, 2015 at 03:37
I think you’re confusing my use of the two terms. When I refer to rights, I’m talking about things like “the right to hospital visitations”, etc, whereas I’m talking about benefits in the sense of financial benefits.
greenfloyd June 27th, 2015 at 04:01
I don’t think I’m confused, at least not any more than usual… :)
I meant Constitutional rights, like the freedom to associate… for example.
What kind of “financial benefits” are you referring to?
Glen June 27th, 2015 at 04:31
As I said, one of the main ones is the way that the tax system is designed. If a couple are married, then the government doesn’t tax each one individually, they tax them as a couple, basically (approximately) splitting their total income evenly between the two and taxing on that basis. So if one earns $10,000 and the other earns $190,000, then they’re taxed as though each earns $100,000 (again, this is just a rough estimate of how it works).
So to put it another way, by “rights” I mean permissions (things you’re allowed to do) and by “benefits” I mean perks and assistance.
greenfloyd June 27th, 2015 at 05:02
The “tax system” can be changed. I’m sure the folks down in accounting can address your concerns. I certainly can not.
I don’t think a “right” (as I’m using it) is the same as “permissions.” The freedom to associate, to speak or write, non-violently protest or commit random acts of kindness require no “permission.”
Defining “perks and assistance” as simply “benefits” seems highly redundant. Are you referring to anything in particular? A govt program or subsidy? Or the general notion of taxation itself?
Glen June 27th, 2015 at 07:31
You do understand that I was describing *my* usage of the terms, right? What YOU mean by “right” is irrelevant to my comment.
And did you actually read the rest of what I said? In many countries, married couples get a kind of “tax burden spreading” to reduce their total income tax. That’s the primary example. Here in Australia, there’s a different income test for couples when it comes to the dole (unemployment benefits). Health insurance in Australia also has different premiums for married couples. Another example is visa cost. So it’s not just taxation. But taxation is the main one… and again, it’s not taxation in general, but the question of how taxation laws are different for people who are married.
greenfloyd June 27th, 2015 at 08:07
Over the years the same thing has happened here in the States. We call them child credits, deductions for dependents, etc. I am no tax expert but I think they are intended to offset the additional cost of a child, especially if the parents are low income. I don’t see anything evil in that. Or am I missing something?
Glen June 27th, 2015 at 08:38
You seem to be missing that I was specifically talking about the extension into polygamy. For the purposes of those sorts of benefits, there should be an assigned partner among the various partners in the marriage. So as far as those particular factors are concerned, it’s between two (specific) people, not more than two people. I don’t mind having special support for families, and I don’t mind allowing couples to share their income for tax purposes, etc… but these factors shouldn’t get stronger for polygamous families over monogamous ones.
greenfloyd June 27th, 2015 at 09:26
The one thing this discussion has shown me is that here in the US we don’t seem to know a lot about polygamy. How widespread is it? Is it full of pedophiles, human traffickers or tax cheats? Or is it more benign perhaps even less harmful, than divorce (which has also been illegal and in modern times, repealed)?
Gindy51 June 27th, 2015 at 09:38
When you consider taxes, maybe not evil but unfair. Why should I pay more in taxes with no kids than someone who has kids. Same with health care benefits, a person can have 10 kids and pay the SAME as a person with one kid. THAT is unfair.
greenfloyd June 27th, 2015 at 09:56
I’m not so sure it’s unfair. If a single individual makes 10 times what a family with 10 kids makes. And if we have too many 10 kid families, then it’s clear we need to increase our investment in Family Planning.
Dwendt44 June 27th, 2015 at 12:47
Is that any real difference than say the Duggars or the Banes with 19 little robots? All those deductions kills most of what little income taxes they might pay.
But then again, I think churches should be paying income taxes like any other business and property taxes like any citizen does as well.
Glen June 28th, 2015 at 09:58
I don’t support those sorts of things, either. I accept the idea that society should ensure that a child is taken care of, and if that means a bit of financial help from the government for the family, that’s fine. But if the same people keep having children despite knowing they can’t really afford to have more without serious financial help, then they should be warned that further support will disappear, and if that means they can’t care for their children to a sufficient standard, then the children will be adopted out. It sounds harsh, but parents who keep selfishly having children despite not being able to afford to provide those children with a basic standard of living are bad parents, and the children would be better off removed from them.
So you’re right, there’s no real difference. I take issue with any kind of system that is so open to being “gamed”. We can design our laws, our benefits, the whole system in a much better way.
For those who would invoke the current state of child services and adoption, etc… that’s another thing needing fixing. I’m not suggesting this change in isolation. There are many elements of how governments operate that need repair.
rg9rts June 27th, 2015 at 01:43
So sayeth the Utah Journal
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker June 27th, 2015 at 07:06
Nonsense! The issue of gay marriage was about equality under the law.
An Op Ed about polygamy at this time is nothing more than an opportunist filling column inches with red herring nonsense unrelated to equal rights and with the sole purpose being to scare rednecks.
ExPFCWintergreen June 27th, 2015 at 10:00
This cat is one of Andrew Sullivan’s acolytes. Go figure.
Anomaly 100 June 27th, 2015 at 07:18
No. Just STFU.
Obewon June 27th, 2015 at 09:46
Lets all move to the polygamists paradise of Utah! Geez even Bristol and her already married fiancé could have been wed there in a three-way! Polygamy Is Legal In Utah. http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/polygamy-is-legal-in-utah-for-now#.rbPjNgPn2
Mike June 27th, 2015 at 12:58
It’s a bit disingenuous to compare polygamy to gay marriage.
I’m not sure what the objection to polygamy would be from the right…weren’t most biblical marriages polygamous…???
Isiah Abraham June 27th, 2015 at 18:23
Mike: “It’s a bit disingenuous to compare polygamy to gay marriage.”
And the reason being?
#2 Mike: “I’m not sure what the objection to polygamy would be from the right…weren’t most biblical marriages polygamous…???”
I’m with you on this one. I’ve never understood the objection to polygamy from “Bible-believing Christians.” It’s quite interesting because I’ve talked to more “Christians” who were in favor of “gay marriage” than ” polygamous marriage.” Go figure that one out because I’m still trying to. LoL!
Mike June 27th, 2015 at 21:06
I believe the comparison fails because polygamy has been around, same sex marriage is new.
Traditionally, polygamy has been men with multiple wives, It’ll get tricky when some babe wants a harem
Isiah Abraham July 1st, 2015 at 20:10
Mike: “I believe the comparison fails because polygamy has been around, same sex marriage is new. ”
But since the people that are out there comparing the two are not comparing their “newness” or “oldness,” I still don’t see the reason why a comparison between the two fails? Maybe you can explain why it does.
2. Mike: “Traditionally, polygamy has been men with multiple wives, It’ll get tricky when some babe wants a harem’
Yes, some could see a lesbian polygamist as being kind of tricky. LoL!
Mike July 1st, 2015 at 20:14
Marriage started as a polygamist union and changed into monogamy. Nothing new about that….gay marriage on the other hand….
Isiah Abraham July 2nd, 2015 at 18:12
Mike: “Marriage started as a polygamist union and changed into monogamy. Nothing new about that….gay marriage on the other hand….”
…..is a homosexual union and was homosexual marriage in old Rome and now in…
I. Same-Sex Marriage in History: What the Supreme Court Missed
Laura Geggel, May 05,
2015 LiveScience
Excerpts From Article:
“Ancient Romans, or at least Roman men with power and wealth, could marry same-sex partners, said Elizabeth Abbott, author of “A History of Marriage” (Seven Stories Press, 2011).
Emperor Nero (ruled A.D. 54 to A.D. 68) castrated a boy named Sporus to make him womanlike, and then married him in a traditional ceremony, which included a bridal veil and a dowry, according to the Roman historian and biographer Suetonius (circa A.D. 69).
Emperor Elagabalus (ruled A.D. 218 to A.D. 222) married Zoticus, a famous male athlete, and referred to his slave, a man named Hierocles, as his husband, Abbott said…..”
II. Gay-Marriage—Nothing New Under The Sun
Benjamin Wiker The Catholic World Report
May 22, 2012
Excerpts From Article:
“Contrary to the popular view—both among proponents and opponents—gay marriage is not a new issue. It cannot be couched (by proponents) as a seamless advance on the civil rights movement, nor should it be understood (by opponents) as something that’s evil merely because it appears to them to be morally unprecedented.
Gay marriage was—surprise!—alive and well in Rome, celebrated even and especially by select emperors, a spin-off of the general cultural affirmation of Roman homosexuality. Gay marriage was, along with homosexuality, something the first Christians faced as part of the pagan moral darkness of their time.
What Christians are fighting against today, then, is not yet another sexual innovation peculiar to our “enlightened age,” but the return to pre-Christian, pagan sexual morality.
In Nero, Tacitus tells the reader, tyrannical passion, the hubris of proclaimed divinity, the corruption of power, and “every filthy depraved act, licit or illicit” seemed to reach an imperial peak. He not only had a passion for “free-born boys” but also for
quite literally marrying other men and even a boy, sometimes playing the part
of the woman in the union and sometimes the man.”
It appears that there’s nothing new about that also, so I still don’t see the
reason why a comparison “between the two fails just from the simple fact that you believe that “polygamy has been around, same sex marriage is new.”
Mike July 2nd, 2015 at 18:51
Isn’t that what we’re talking about…another false comparison?
When Nero and those like him married men they didn’t do so sanctioned by God, Jesus, Allah, Mohammad, Buddha, Krishna, or any other god that is worshiped today. He was a pagan that worshiped Jupiter, Apollo, and others.
Everything I know about Roman Mythology tells me those gods would more than likely condone gay marriage.
Early christians or any other modern religion for that matter, never sanctioned gay marriage. (to my knowledge)
If you have to go back to Nero to make a point you think is relative to today’s argument, I submit you might be reaching.
Isiah Abraham July 3rd, 2015 at 14:06
Mike: “Isn’t that what we’re talking about…another false comparison?”
Actually, I thought that we were talking about a comparison failing because one of the things being compared was said to have “been around” while the other was said to have been “new.” In fact,
I recall you saying these exact words: “I believe the comparison fails because polygamy has been around, same sex marriage is new.” So in return, all I did was pull articles that showed that both can be
said to have “been around.” And since both can be said to have “been around,” then the belief that leads you to state that a comparison fails because one “has been around” and the other is “new,”
should be questioned.
2Mike: “If you have to go back to Nero to make a point you think is relative to today’s argument, I submit you might be reaching.”
Well Mike, then you have to submit that I’m reaching because of you. Look, if you hadn’t stated that “I believe the comparison fails because polygamy has been around, same sex marriage is new.”
then I wouldn’t have had to reach. But since you did make it a point to make that statement, then I’m
allowed to reach into history to go all the way back to Nero to make the point that is actually
relative to today’s argument or the argument at hand. So there is no “might” in it, Mike; I
did reach.
Mike July 3rd, 2015 at 15:07
Your comparing a chariot to rockets…certainly both are a vehicle of transportation, but that’s where the similarities end.
Christian marriage started as a polygamous union plain and simple, it morphed into a monogamous union. The fact that Muslim’s or ancient Romans (or anyone else for that matter) did/still practice polygamy has no bearing whatsoever on the law today… We are not them…We have legislation outlawing polygamy that has passed constitutional muster (Reynolds v. United States) where the court decided that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment. In other words the Constitution is supreme to any edict from a god.
If your religion said you must sacrifice a virgin once a year would you be surprised if the authorities arrested you before, during, or after, the ritual…???
Anti-Polygamy laws are Constitutional (right now)
Anti-Gay marriage laws are not.
You want to compare an illegal activity with a legal activity…a false comparison.
Gay marriage is allowed for the exact same reason polygamy is banned…because it makes no difference what a god says, we base our laws on the Constitution.
The gay marriage argument is about equal rights, the polygamy argument is a demand the state comply with a person’s perceived religious edict.
Transportation did not begin with rockets, it’s origin is more closely associated with chariots, and comparing a chariot to a rocket is a false comparison.
Isiah Abraham July 7th, 2015 at 19:10
Mike: “Your comparing a chariot to rockets…certainly both are a vehicle of transportation, but that’s where the similarities end.”
No, it appears that maybe you have misunderstood what was being compared. Based on
your earlier assertion where you stated that “I believe the comparison fails because polygamy has been around, same sex marriage is new.” I was actually comparing “oldness” and “newness” as they pertain to “homosexual marriage” and “polygamy.” But you can continue believing that I was comparing “a chariot to rockets.”
Secondly, since you have chosen to ignore the fact that both are made by men then maybe in does appear to you that “that’s where the similarities end.”
2.Mike: “Christian marriage started as a polygamous union plain and simple, it morphed into a monogamous union.”
Interesting. And here I was under the impression that Christians have taught that marriage started as a monogamous union.
Genesis 2: 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Imagine that, Mike. It looks like you’re right again. No wonder you believe that I’m comparing “a chariot to rockets.”
3.Mike: “The fact that Muslim’s or ancient Romans (or anyone else for that matter) did/still practice polygamy has no bearing whatsoever on the law today…
But it does have a bearing on a statement that asserts that “I believe the comparison fails because same-sex marriage has been around, polygamy is new.”
Secondly, with your track record, I wouldn’t hang my hat on that statement.
4.Mike: “We are not them…We have legislation outlawing polygamy that has passed constitutional muster (Reynolds v. United States) where the court decided that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment. ”
Mike, I have no idea why you feel the need to tell me all of this. All I have done was show you that
since homosexuals “marrying” and polygamy have “been around,” then the belief that leads you to state that a comparison fails because one “has been around” and the other is “new,” should
be questioned. But since I don’t mind, let’s continue with what you are saying.
tracey marie July 7th, 2015 at 19:45
and yet the bible is chock full of polygamy, forced marriage, incest and consubines.
Isiah Abraham July 8th, 2015 at 18:56
Tracey marie: “and yet the bible is chock full of polygamy, forced marriage, incest and
consubines.”
You’re kind of jumping in here at the end Marie, but what’s your point?
Secondly, what exactly is your definition of “chock full”? And can you please name at least
seven places in the Bible where you find each of the things that you’ve mentioned?
tracey marie July 8th, 2015 at 19:22
rotflmao, go with denial thumper, it is your schtick
Isiah Abraham July 9th, 2015 at 18:59
Tracey Marie: “rotflmao, go with denial thumper, it is your schtick”
Denial??? Tracey, do you even understand what a denial entails? If you do
then please show me where I’ve denied anything? Show me where I’ve denied anything by simply asking “what exactly is your definition of “chock full”? “And can you please name at least seven places in the Bible where you find each of the things that you’ve mentioned?” To my knowledge, all I’ve done so far is to ask you to present
evidence that substantiates the claim that you made that asserts that “ the bible is chock full of polygamy, forced marriage, incest and consubines.”
Now, since I’m not just going to take your word at face value, if the act of me
asking you to substantiate your claims by presenting verifiable evidence is itself an act of denial, then I guess I’ll have to be a denier, and you’ll have to stay on the floor rolling in laughter .
Look, I’m even willing to start you on your way by providing one of the more notable stories on incest: Genesis 19: 30-35
30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not
a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay
down, nor when she arose. 34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn
said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make
him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 35 And they made their father drink wine that night also:
and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay
down, nor when she arose.
Now just provide the rest and we might just have an agreement.
Mike July 7th, 2015 at 20:51
You said “Interesting. And here I was under the impression that Christians have taught that marriage started as a monogamous union.”
Now you’ve just shown all of us on this board how ignorant you are about the history of your own beliefs. (I’m assuming you’re christian)
See the bible for untold numbers of polygamous unions. You probably don’t even know when the first church sanctioned marriage occurred, do you…???
I’m gonna let you look that up so you can discover for yourself that the majority of marriages before the 15th century had nothing to do with the nuptials, but rather were agreements between the parents without having anything whatsoever to do with the church..
Isiah Abraham July 9th, 2015 at 18:14
Mike: “Now you’ve just shown all of us on this board how ignorant you are about the history of your own beliefs. (I’m assuming you’re christian)”
You do know what they say about “assuming,” don’t you?
Secondly, Mike, you are doing such a wonderful job appearing to be devoid of comprehension that I’m debating wether to chalk that up to actual ignorance or a pretence of one. Look, you stated: ““Christian marriage started as a polygamous union plain and simple, it morphed into a monogamous union.”” In return, I wrote:
“Interesting. And here I was under the impression that Christians have taught
that marriage started as a monogamous union: Genesis 2: 22……”.
In other words, while you claim that “Christian marriage started as a polygamous union plain and simple, it morphed into a monogamous union.,” “Christians” teach that marriage started out as a monogamous union in Eden:
A. Adam, Eve, and the Covenant of Marriage
05/13/13
MarriageToday
From Article:
“Early in the biblical narrative, God reveals His purpose and plan for marriage. In fact, marriage is a central part of the Creation story. The Lord didn’t just create marriage; he
wove it into the very fabric of our existence.
Despite being two unique creations, God binds Adam and Eve by a common identity unlike anything else in all of creation. They are two separate individuals—with different needs, appearances, and personalities—but God declares them “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).
In doing so, God performs the world’s first marriage ceremony. He is the first “Father of the Bride” and the first presiding minister……”
B. Adam’s Rib: How God Arranged the First Marriage
May 26, 2002
From Article:
“Our text is very simple. It contains just three things: Adam naming the animals, God fashioning Eve from Adam’s side, and Adam and Eve getting married. This passage makes it very clear that marriage is a central part of God’s plan for the human race.”
2. Mike: “See the bible for untold numbers of polygamous unions.”
If “untold,” then do tell who told you?
3. Mike: “You probably don’t even know when the first church sanctioned marriage occurred, do you…??? I’m gonna let you look that up so you can discover for yourself that the majority of marriages before the 15th century had nothing to do with the nuptials, but rather were agreements between the parents without having anything whatsoever to do with the church..”
Interesting. So Mike, before there can be agreement on this, what are “nuptials”? What is your definition of one? And also, what makes a “church”?
Mike July 9th, 2015 at 21:19
The context I’m speaking in are the first marriages sanctioned by the church…almost all were agreements of the parents and had nothing to do with the 2 people getting married…concubines and second wives were included…Abraham the very first person god came to eventually had his first born with Hagar, not Sarah…she was too old. Explain that…
You’re talking fairy stories in Gen…there is a possibility Abraham existed…the garden of Eden is fantasy.
Isiah Abraham July 11th, 2015 at 18:35
Mike: “The context I’m speaking in are the first marriages sanctioned by the church…almost all were agreements of the parents and had nothing to do with the 2 people getting married…concubines and second wives were included…
Because what you have just written is making such little sense, please help me to understand what you are saying here, Mike: Would you agree that the agreements of the parents are one that is about the two people who are getting married? Now since
the agreements of the parents were about the two people getting married, then how in the world do the “agreements not have anything to do with the two people that are getting married”? How in the world do agreements about two people getting married not have anything to do with the two people getting married?
2. Mike: “Abraham the very first person god came to eventually had his
first born with Hagar, not Sarah…she was too old. Explain that…”
He married Hagar.
Secondly, how is Sarah “too old” to have a child when it is written that she too eventually gave birth to a child? In other words, if an individual is “too old to have a child,” then doesn’t this mean that the individual shouldn’t be found having children?
3. Mike: “You’re talking fairy stories in Gen…there is a possibility Abraham existed…the garden of Eden is fantasy.”
Lol!! Funny, but after reading your comments, it’s hard to see you as an someone who would have a problem with fantasies.
Mike July 11th, 2015 at 18:59
Mike: Would you agree that the agreements of the parents are one that is about the two people who are getting married?
No, many were because of debts owed, political alliances, etc…you know this, why ask me…???
you wrote…He married Hagar.
Secondly, how is Sarah “too old” to have a child when it is written that she too eventually gave birth to a child? In other words, if an individual is “too old to have a child,” then doesn’t this mean that the individual shouldn’t be found having children?
So the first person the christian god came to had 2 wives…thanks for validating my claim that he was a polygamist.
About her being too old…well Sarah was the one who said that to Abraham in Gen chap 16.
Do you think I make this stuff up…???
Isiah Abraham July 20th, 2015 at 19:32
Mike: “Mike: Would you agree that the agreements of the parents are one that is about the two
people who are getting married?
No, many were because of debts owed, political alliances, etc…you know this, why ask me…???”
And why do you seem to believe that this answers the question, and here is why I’m asking
this: In response to your statement stating that almost all of the first marriage sanctioned by the church were “agreements of the parents and had nothing to do with the two people who were getting married,” I don’t see it where I had asked you for the reason for the agreements that occurred. Instead, I see where I had asked you if the agreements of the parents are one that is about the two people who are getting married? In other words, did the agreements involve the two people who are getting married. Again, here is your statement:
Quote Mike: “The context I’m speaking in are the first marriages sanctioned by the church…almost all were agreements of the parents and had nothing to do with the 2 people getting married…concubines and second wives were included…”
And here is my response:
Isiah Abraham Quote: “Because what you have just written is making such little sense, please help me to understand what you are saying here, Mike: Would you agree that the agreements of the parents are one that is about the two people who are getting married? Now since the agreements of the parents were about the two people getting married, then how in the world do the “agreements not have anything to do with the two people that are getting married”? How in the world do agreements
about two people getting married not have anything to do with the two people getting married?”
Now, the fact that you are telling me that many of the agreements arose from “ debts owed, political alliances, etc..” fails to show me that those agreements were not about the two people who are getting married . After all, those people were the ones who were used to pay off debts and form political alliances etc… And so with this in fact being the case, I don’t know why you would believe that the agreements about the two people who were getting married did not have anything to do with the two people who were getting married.
Secondly, for all its worth, the reply should have been : The agreements were about the two people who are getting married because of debts owed, political alliances, etc…
Isiah Abraham July 20th, 2015 at 19:43
2. Mike: “So the first person the christian god came to had 2 wives…thanks for validating my claim that he was a polygamist.”
And where was that claim of yours made? I went back and I don’t recall seeing such a claim: In fact, here is exactly what you had initially stated:
Mike Quote: “The context I’m speaking in are the first marriages sanctioned by the church…almost all were agreements of the parents and had nothing to do with the 2 people getting married…concubines and second wives were included…Abraham the very first person god came to eventually had his first
born with Hagar, not Sarah…she was too old. Explain that…”
So where did you make the claim that Abraham was a polygamist?
3. Mike: “About her being too old…well Sarah was the one who said that to Abraham in Gen chap 16…16:1-3 Sarai, no longer expecting to have children herself, proposed to Abram to take another wife,”
So Sarah made a claim that went against reality and you ignore what is said to be the reality to go with the claim. So I guess this means that where claims are concerned, we’re supposed to follow your
lead and ignore reality and simply believe the claim. Is that your point? Is that why you went ahead and said that Sarah was “too old”? In fact, from reading many of your comments, one has to
conclude that ignoring reality to simply focus on claims is your usual way of doing things.
4. Mike: “ Do you think I make this stuff up…???”
Do you really want me to answer that?
Isiah Abraham July 7th, 2015 at 19:32
5. Mike: “In other words the Constitution is supreme to any edict from a god.
Interesting, So this appears to be what a number of Christians have just discovered and now are worrying and fretting about. It makes sense. After all, if “the Constitution is supreme to any edict from a god,” then every edict of a god is not safe. And in terms of such things as homosexual marriage, this would then mean that it’s just a matter of time before some Constitutional edict goes forth that demands that Christians must perform homosexual matrimonies or some other practice that is in
opposition to their own edict from their God.
Secondly, I’m just curious, Mike: If the Constitution is supreme to any edict from a god, then what does this really say about the “freedom of religion?” Doesn’t this say that the “freedom of religion” that many believe that they have is itself illusory at best, for religion itself in America has been and is controlled by the Constitution? Therefore, as long as an edict or religion is approved by the Constitution, one is “free” to
practice it. But heaven forbid if an individual should listen to an edict or practice religion that is not Constitutionally approved, right?
tracey marie July 7th, 2015 at 19:44
believe all you want, just do not presume you have the right to discriminate. We are a secular country.
Isiah Abraham July 8th, 2015 at 19:38
Tracey Marie: “believe all you want, just do not presume you have the right to discriminate. We are a secular country.”
And so this means what? That being a “secular country” somehow precludes one from actually having the right to discriminate… well at least that’s what you want us to believe, right? So how does being a “secular country” mean that one does not have the “right to discriminate”?
Secondly, with all the cries of discrimination that have been going on in a “secular country” where you aren’t supposed to “presume you have the right to discriminate,” it appears that not only do people have the “right to discriminate,” but whoever they are, they are doing a lot of
discriminating:
1. Official’s Lawsuit Claims
Discrimination Against Men at U.S. Immigration Agency
By KIRK SEMPLE 08/12/12 NYTimes
From Article:
“A discrimination and retaliation lawsuit has embroiled the upper reaches of the
federal government’s immigration enforcement agency, contributing to a sense of
turmoil in a bureaucracy that has been suffering major labor conflicts between
senior officials and employees.
The lawsuit, filed by a top federal immigration official in New York, alleges that he was
shunted out of a high-level position in the agency in favor of a less-qualified
woman because he was a man.”
2. Government settles lawsuit with Native American farmers
Tom Cohen & Alyse Shorland, CNN
10/20/2010
From Article:
“Washington (CNN) — The government will provide $680 million in compensation to settle a
class-action lawsuit by Native American farmers against the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, according to a proposed agreement announced Tuesday.
Under the agreement, which requires federal court approval, Native Americans can file
claims for discrimination involving farm loans that occurred in the period from
1981-1999, said statements by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Attorney
General Eric Holder.”
3. Drug Enforcement Agency ‘Repeatedly, Purposefully’
Discriminated Against Women Agents
May 26, 2011 By ARIANE de VOGUE
From Article:
“Late last month, a federal administrative judge ruled that the DEA had “repeatedly
and purposefully” discriminated against the class of female agents in the
early ’90s, and that the women had been treated less favorably than their male counterparts
at the DEA. “
There sure is an awful lot of discrimination lawsuits for a place where I’m supposed to not presume that a right to discriminate is believed to be had.
Mike July 7th, 2015 at 20:44
Do you even know what the constitution is…???
It is a limitation on government….your ignorance is astounding when it comes to not just the history of the founding of this nation and the constitution.
I don’t want to be cruel, but it’s like I’m speaking with a child about grown up issues…..
Good night, and have a great life.
Isiah Abraham July 9th, 2015 at 18:26
Mike: “Do you even know what the constitution is…???”
Now, I must say that in reading some of your comments, I have to conclude that you have to be sitting in front of a mirror at this point, and therefore a yes or no response is not actually expected from me.
2. Mike: “It is a limitation on government….”
How and where? Please show us how and where it is simply what you say it is….. a
“limitation on government”?
3. Mike: “your ignorance is astounding when it comes to not just the history of the founding of this nation and the constitution.”
Yes indeed, and that’s why I took the time to come in here to learn from the likes of you whose knowledge and wisdom on the subject is itself astounding .
4. Mike: “I don’t want to be cruel, but it’s like I’m speaking with a child about grown up
issues…..”
Well, since you’ve seen my ignorance, then you shouldn’t be surprised.
5. Mike: “Good night, and have a great life.”
I hope you’re not planning to just leave me stranded here in ignorance? Otherwise, how are you expecting me to have that “great life” if you are planning to leave me here in ignorance?
Mike July 9th, 2015 at 20:58
OK Isiah…let’s read the constitution together…
I’ll pick a couple things at random…you are free to question me about any others if you still don’t understand
1st amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance
Nothing in that wording is directed at you, me, my mom, or any other American living or dead.
It doesn’t say you have the “right” to do anything…it is a limitation on what actions the government can take against you concerning these issues and nothing more. It merely protects your “rights” it cannot grant you a right because the Declaration (which has been incorporated into the constitution) clearly states “…we are endowed with certain unalienable rights from our creator” not from the government
Google Locke v Hobbs…these were the two competing philosophies at the time…Hobbs believed government granted you rights, Locke said you were born with them. Locke won, and this is the cornerstone of the Dec of Ind and Constitution.
Let’s move on
5th amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It says nothing about you, me, or anyone else. It is a limitation on the government once they have arrested a citizen…again, it doesn’t say you have the right to anything.
You might think this is a circular argument but I assure you, if you want to understand how our Constitution is interpreted, you need to star thing this way.
The 2nd doesn’t say you have the right to bear arms…it say the right of the people shall not be infringed…get it???? It is a restriction on the government…
I could go down the entire document and it’s the same thing…how about some articles????
Art I
Section 8 – Powers of Congress
Section 9 – Limits on Congress
Section 10 – Powers Prohibited of States
The titles alone show they have nothing to do with you or me…they are limitations on what the government can do…not you and I…need more proof, watch???
9th amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Madison is saying just because he numbered something 1 or 5 doesn’t mean it’s more important than the other and even if he forgot to include a right the government can’t take it away…like voting…nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say you have the right to vote. Doesn’t have to, Art I tells us all legislative power in this country is vested in a congress which consists of a house and senate…and goes on to say these will be chosen by the people of the several states…
Are you getting it yet…???
I’ll answer any question you may have.
Isiah Abraham July 14th, 2015 at 19:50
Mike: “OK Isiah…let’s read the constitution together…
I’ll pick a couple thingsat random…you are free to question me about any others if you still don’t
understand
1st amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance
Nothing in that wording is directed at you, me, my mom, or any other American living or dead.
It doesn’t say you have the “right” to do anything…it is a limitation on what actions the
government can take against you concerning these issues and nothing more.”
I believe here that you’re trying to answer my questions of “How and where?” and “Please show us how and where it is simply what you say it is….. a “limitation on government”?” So let’s see if I’m understanding you: A “limitation” fails to tell me that whatever has been “limited” can’t in any way engage in any action at all. Instead it says to me that whatever has been “limited” can engage
in conduct or actions with the exception being that the conduct or actions have been confined in some way. This then means that in regards to the “limitation on government” found in the 1st amendment, government can still engage in those conducts or actions with the exception being that the engagement has been limited where a certain part or branch is concerned. And in this case the part or branch concerned is Congress. Therefore, as far as religion, speech, assemblage, and petition goes, a limitation on government that is so far present is one that has been placed on Congress to limit it
in terms of lawmaking. This doesn’t mean that all other parts or branches of government can’t use their own abilities to somehow accomplish things and overcome the limitation in the area of
lawmaking that has been placed on Congress.
So, to state that the 1st Amendment is “a limitation on what actions the government can take against you concerning these issues and nothing more” is not exactly accurate. After all Congress is not “the government” alone, and the limitation as stated is directed at Congress.
Secondly, since the 1st Amendment is directed at members of Congress, and members of Congress are taken from America’s communities, then why in the world would you falsely claim that “Nothing in that wording is directed at you, me, my mom, or any other American living or dead.”? Please explain that
teacher?
Mike July 14th, 2015 at 21:30
You wrote…I believe here that you’re trying to answer my questions of “How and where?”
No, I was responding to your claim the government could force you to do something. You think the government can force you to gay marry…as much as I think you’d enjoy that, they can’t. The government also cannot force a minister, priest, Rabbi, etc., to perform a marriage they believe their religion doesn’t condone. (as long as they are a non-profit…wedding chapels that charge a fee are a business and not tax exempt.)
Isiah Abraham July 22nd, 2015 at 20:08
Mike: “No, I was responding to your claim the government could
force you to do something. You think the government can force you to gay
marry…as much as I think you’d enjoy that, they can’t.”
Even though, I don’t recall making that exact claim, it wouldn’t be a bad one to make.
Secondly, if you are arguing that the government can’t force the individual to do something, then why does the Constitution exist? What is the purpose of attempting to limit the government with the Constitution? If government is incapable of forcing the individual to do something, then why write a Constitution that attempts to limit government? In other words, Mike, your argument would be more convincing if there was not a Constitution that you yourself admit is there to limit the government.
2. Mike: “The government also cannot force a minister, priest, Rabbi, etc., to perform a marriage they believe their religion doesn’t condone. (as long as they are a non-profit…wedding chapels that charge a fee are a business and not tax exempt.)”
Again, if the government can’t do any of those things, then there is no need for a Constitution that you yourself say is there as a means to limit the government. The fact that there is a Constitution that is there to try to limit the government says that the government can. The fact that a limiting implement is placed for an object
says that said object can do what that limiting implement is there to prevent. The fact that you put a leash around your dog as a means to prevent it from running into the street says that your dog can get into the street. Otherwise, there is no need for a leash where a dog without legs can’t even walk to get into the street.
So Mike, what it appears that you have here is a contradiction: On one hand you are
saying that the Constitution is there to limit or prevent the government from doing; while on the other hand you are saying that the government can’t do a thing that the
Constitution is there trying to prevent it from doing.
Isiah Abraham July 15th, 2015 at 17:23
2. Mike: “It merely protects your “rights” it cannot grant you a right because the
Declaration (which has been incorporated into the constitution) clearly states
“…we are endowed with certain unalienable rights from our creator”
not from the government”
How? How does the 1st Amendment “protect your rights?” In other words, how does
limiting Congress in terms of lawmaking “protect your rights”? Before you answer
that question, don’t forget that in regards to those “rights” the 1st Amendment limits Congress when it comes to lawmaking. Congress is not supposed to make a law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievance.” But I don’t recall where it is that lawmaking by Congress is the only thing that is involved when it comes to laws and rights. For instance, what about the other parts or branches of government. Notice how their mention is conspicuously absent in the 1st Amendment.
So the best that you may probably be able to argue at this point is that the 1st Amendment protects those rights from having certain laws made against them by Congress. Even then, since there is more to government than just Congress making
laws, that’s hardly comforting. The fact that an individual has limitations with his right hand fails to say to me that he can’t use his left and any other part of his body to accomplish the feat of knocking you out or locking you up
Secondly, notice the “certain unalienable rights” in the Declaration Of Independence when it says “we are endowed with “certain” unalienable rights from our creator.”
3. Mike :“Google Locke v Hobbs…these were the two competing philosophies at the time…Hobbs believed government granted you rights, Locke said you were born with them. Locke won, and this is the cornerstone of the Dec of Ind and Constitution.”
And with there being the allowance of the exercise of rights, what exactly is the big point of the arguments? Being born with rights and being granted rights mean what exactly when it is that I can choose not to allow you to exercise those rights?
Secondly, does it mean that there is no way that government can prevent you from exercising those rights in either situation? If it does, then why does birth right simply mean that a government can’t prevent you from exercising those rights?
4. Mike: “Let’s move on”
No problem.
Isiah Abraham July 15th, 2015 at 17:46
5. Mike: “5th amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation.
It says nothing about you, me, or anyone else. It is a limitation on the government once they have arrested a citizen…again, it doesn’t say you have the right to anything.”
The fact that someone is believed to have a right to anything is understood within the scope of the limitation or limitations that have been placed on the parties involved. For example, let’s say that I go out and I buy a pizza for a couple of children who desire it. I then proceed to divide the two pizzas into thirteen slices, after which I limit the oldest of the two by instructing him that he should save at least five slices for
his younger brother.
Now, here are a couple of things that should be understood about the
limitation: First, the older brother does not have to assent to the limitation.
As far as he’s concerned, since he’s hungry, bigger, older, stronger, etc…, he has a right to more of the pizza than he has been allotted. Therefore, he will, if he so chooses, eat more pizza and leave the younger brother anywhere from zero to four slices.
Secondly, the limitation in the agreement says that it is believed that the younger brother has a right that, if he is allowed, he should exercise in order to receive at least
five pieces of this pizza. In other words, the limitation is there because of the younger brother and the existence of what is believed is his right as it pertains to the pizza.
Thirdly, the fact that the older brother is in control of the pizza says that the younger brother’s ability to exercise his right to receive at least five pieces of the pizza partly depends on the older brother allowing him access to the five pieces.
Now, what it seems that you are arguing is that the limitation on the older brother does not say that the younger brother has a right to anything simply because it is a limitation. I can’t see how you have come to that conclusion when there is the
limitation that exists because of the younger brother’s right to the pizza. Care to explain?
Isiah Abraham July 16th, 2015 at 18:02
5b. Mike: “5th amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation.
It says nothing about you, me, or anyone else. It is a limitation on the government once they have arrested a citizen…again, it doesn’t say you have the right to anything.”
Now as has been stated previously, “ The fact that someone is believed to have a right to anything is understood within the scope of the limitation or limitations
that have been placed on the parties involved.” Therefore, just as in the case of
the children and the pizza, if we were to examine the 5th amendment, rights will be found within the scope of the “limitation” or “limitations” that have been placed on those involved. So what are some of the limitations for the authorities?
A. With the exception of those in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger, the authorities are limited to holding for an answer those individuals accused of capital or infamous crimes who have been indicted by a Grand Jury.
B. The authorities are limited to subjecting an individual accused of an offense to one
instance of jeopardy of life or limb for said offence.
C. The authorities are limited in their ability to force an indivudal to testify against himself in any criminal case.
D. The authorities are limited to removing or taking away life, liberty, or property only from those indivudals who have had what is said to be “due process”
E. The authorities are limited to taking “private property” for public use where there is said to be “just compensation.”
These are some of the limitations that are found in the
5th amendment. Now notice that in D and E that it does not say that the
authorities can’t take away life, liberty, or property period. Instead,
it says that the authorities are limited to taking it from those who have had what is said to be “due process” and “just compensation.” But what is “due process” and “just compensation”? Who or what defines the two? This then means that the exercising of right to “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” may itself be limited to the point that it does not have to be allowed.
Mike July 16th, 2015 at 18:28
Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person.
Just Compensation is required to be paid by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (and counterpart state constitutions) when private property is taken (or in some states, damaged then Inverse Condemnation is the relevant description of eminent domain) for public use.
The last sentence is nonsense you invented and is not in the Constitution or any legal precedent I am aware of…
Isiah Abraham July 22nd, 2015 at 18:21
Mike: “Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person.”
What??? A person is “owed legal rights?” Well Mike, sorry to be so ignorant, but how does the person get the rights that he’s owed when you’ve already taught me that
you can’t “give rights”? In fact, what is the point of owing something that by your own admission can’t be given?
2. Mike: “ Just Compensation is required to be paid by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution (and counterpart state constitutions) when private property is taken (or in some states, damaged then Inverse Condemnation is the relevant description of eminent domain) for public use.”
Now let me see if I’m understanding what you are saying here: So whenever private property is taken from an individual, the Fifth Amendment is required to pay the U.S. Constitution? What????? So why is the Fifth Amendment paying the US Constitution? Why isn’t someone paying the individual from whom the property is taken or removed ?
3. Mike: “The last sentence is nonsense you invented and is not in the Constitution or any legal precedent I am aware of…”
Nonsense??? Have you seen your last sentence where you have the Fifth Amendment making payments to the US Constitution?
Secondly, here is the last sentence in question:
Quote-Isiah Abraham: “And by the way, it’s not just a limitation on “government.” As I have pointed out before, notice in D and E that with “due process” and “just compensation” the individual can have his life, liberty and property taken away. This then would mean that, because the exercising of the right to “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” can itself be taken away by the authorities, it does not have to be allowed.”
So what do you mean? What “nonsense” or “invention” are you referring to?
Isiah Abraham July 16th, 2015 at 18:27
5c. Mike: “5th amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation.
It says nothing about you, me, or anyone else. It is a limitation on the government once they have arrested a citizen…again, it doesn’t say you have the right to anything.”
Since rights will be found within the scope of the limitation or limitations that have been placed on those involved in an agreement, and since we have defined some of the limitations for the authorithies that are found in the 5th amendment, then let’s look at some of the rights that the indivudal is believed to have:
AA. An individual accused of capital or infamous crimes is believed to have the right to be free if there has not been a presentment or indictment by a Grand Jury to answer for said accusations.
BB. An individual accused of an offense is believed to have the right to be subjected by the authorities to one instance of jeopardy of life or limb for said offense.
CC. An individual is believed to have a right to be subject to such force or pressure from the authorities that will not cause him to testify against himself in any criminal case.
DD. An individual has a right to “due process” before the taking away of his life, liberty, or property.
EE. An individual has a right to” just compensation” when his property is taken for
public us.
So Mike, contrary to your asserting that the 5th amendment “says nothing about you, me, or anyone else. It is a limitation on the government once they have arrested a
citizen…again, it doesn’t say you have the right to anything.” these are some of the rights that are believed to be had in the 5th amendment within its “limitation” or “limitations” on authority.
And by the way, it’s not just a limitation on “government.” As I have pointed out before, notice in D and E that with “due process” and “just compensation” the individual can have his life, liberty and property taken away. This then would mean that, because the exercising of the right to “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” can itself be taken away by the authorities, it does not have to be allowed.
Mike July 16th, 2015 at 18:36
Read it again slowly….you are given no rights, the government is merely limited in the actions it can take because you are born free i.e. you were endowed with all those rights from your creator (as in the Dec of Ind)
Government can’t give you any rights according to our Constitution, it can merely limit or take them away.
Isiah Abraham July 22nd, 2015 at 18:45
Mike: “Read it again slowly….you are given no rights, the government is merely limited in the actions it can take because you are born free i.e. you were endowed with all those rights from your creator (as in the Dec of Ind)”
My goodness, who has so far argued that Government is giving the individual any rights? I thought that it was clear that at this point I was arguing about the rights found in the claim of the “limitations” that you say are placed on government. In fact Mike, in a couple of places you’ve stated that the Constitution is simply about limitation on government, and it doesn’t say that citizens have a right to anything. Here are your
quotes:
Mike Quote #1: “It says nothing about you, me, or anyone else. It is a limitation on the
government once they have arrested a citizen…again, it doesn’t say you have
the right to anything.”
Mike Quote #2: “The 2nd doesn’t say you have the right to bear arms…it
say the right of the people shall not be infringed…get it???? It is a
restriction on the government…”
In response, I was just pointing out the fact that the rights that someone is believed to have may be understood within the scope of the limitation or limitations that are in place. In other words, just because you say that the Constitution is simply a limitation on government it doesn’t mean that it fails to say anything about rights that are believed to be had by the individual. Therefore, by examining constitutional limitations, you can see the rights that the Constitution says that those involved are believed to have.
#2 Mike: “Government can’t give you any rights according to our Constitution, it can merely limit or take them away.”
What about government allowing you to keep those rights while not allowing you to exercise them? Is that not an option?
Secondly, would it be right to conclude that what you are saying here is that once those rights are taken away then they cannot be received or returned? If so, then what happens when government takes those rights away?
Mike July 16th, 2015 at 18:42
Here’s right wingers who might help you out.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/12/13/you-dont-have-constitutional-rights/
Isiah Abraham July 17th, 2015 at 17:32
6. Mike: “You might think this is a circular argument but I assure you, if you want to understand how our Constitution is interpreted, you need to star thing this way.”
Thanks for the invite, but when did “thinking like you” become a prerequisite for understanding “how our Constitution is being interpreted”?
7. Mike: “The 2nd doesn’t say you have the right to bear arms…it say the right of the people shall not be infringed…get it???? It is a restriction on the government…”
Aw come on! You can’t actually be serious??? Look, how can someone or
something else be restricted from encroaching on something whose right is not believed to be possessed in any way shape or form? And how do I restrict the individual from encroaching on your property without my restriction saying
or acknowledging that it is believed that you have the right to that property? If I restrict the individual from encroaching or infringing on your property, then my restriction itself says that you are believed to have some sort of right to the property in question. Otherwise, there is no need for a restriction on the infringement or encroachment of a property whose right is not believed to be yours. In the same manner, how in the world does a Constitutional restriction restrict government from infringing or encroaching on “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” without a Constitutional restriction saying or acknowledging that the people are believed to have “the right to keep and bear Arms”?
So Mike, though it appears that you would like us to believe that the 2nd doesn’t say that the people have a right to bear arms, the fact remains that when someone or something says that some right of a person shall not be infringed, you’re being told that someone or something believes that a person has a certain right. Therefore when the 2nd amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, it tells us that someone or something believes that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Now whether the people who have that right choose to exercise it is another question.
Mike July 17th, 2015 at 17:42
Now you’ve resorted to lying Isiah…
Please show me where I said “you need to think like me…???” This is like your wish to be forcibly gay married…never happened, never will.
Not another word till you retract your lie…
Isiah Abraham July 17th, 2015 at 18:32
Mike: “Now you’ve resorted to lying Isiah…
Please show me where I said “you need to think like me…???” This is
like your wish to be forcibly gay married…never happened, never will.
Not another word till you
retract your lie…”
Mike, I assure you that I don’t need to resort to lying. Here is your exact quote:
Mike’s Quote: “You might think this is a circular argument but I
assure you, if you want to understand how our Constitution is interpreted, you
need to star thing this way.
The 2nd doesn’t say you have the right to bear arms…it say the right of the people shall not be infringed…get it???? It is a restriction on the government…”
So let’s continue.
Mike July 17th, 2015 at 18:54
No, you said I told you you had to start thinking my way.
A bit different….Go back to the tenth amendment site, all your questions will be answered there.
or any of these places…
http://oregoncatalyst.com/99-Does-the-Constitution-Grant-Us-Rights.html
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/12/13/you-dont-have-constitutional-rights/
http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/few-reminders-constitutionally-challenged
https://whitewraithe.wordpress.com/the-constitution-does-not-grant-rights/
http://coloradopols.com/diary/19117/the-constituittion-doesnt-grant-your-rights-it-protects-them
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFoQFjAIahUKEwjloOLAn-PGAhVVjpIKHZDXCcI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fanswers.yahoo.com%2Fquestion%2Findex%3Fqid%3D20100305184019AAdLwVv&ei=8oWpVeXfAtWcygSQr6eQDA&usg=AFQjCNFG_ixOOZPjTUKW2Rmg4Hj45S3QXA&sig2=QyNCE6wSqHCWghMgRNwenA&bvm=bv.98197061,d.aWw
Or you can remain ignorant, you are “free” to choose…
Goodbye.
Isiah Abraham July 22nd, 2015 at 19:00
Mike: “No, you said I told you you had to start thinking my way.
A bit different….”
Oh come on now, Mike, don’t start being intellectual dishonesty again. Let’s look at what has taken place. First, here is what you stated:
Quote -Mike: “It says nothing about you, me, or anyone else. It is a limitation on the government once they have arrested a citizen…again, it doesn’t say you have the right to anything.
You might think this is a circular argument but I assure you, if you want to understand how our Constitution is interpreted, you need to star thing this way.
The 2nd doesn’t say you have the right to bear arms…it say the right of the people shall not be infringed…get it???? It is a restriction on the government…”
In response, I asked you a question about “thinking like you”:
Quote-Isiah Abraham: “Thanks for the invite, but when did “thinking like you” become a prerequisite for understanding “how our Constitution is being interpreted”?
Now, first thing that you’ll notice here is that I asked you a question in regards to your comment about “if you want to understand how our Constitution is interpreted, you need to start thinking this way.”
Secondly, maybe you didn’t learn this, but to say to someone that you’ve been having a conversation with that “ if you want to understand how ourConstitution is interpreted, you need to start thinking this way” is to tell them that understanding the way the Constitution is interpreted starts with thinking this way or the way of the individual making the comment who himself has been making interpretations of the Constitution. So, I don’t see what is the “bit different” that you are referring to. Maybe you can explain?
Isiah Abraham July 17th, 2015 at 17:52
8. Mike: “ I could go down the entire document and it’s the same thing…how about some articles????
Art I
Section 8 – Powers of Congress
Section 9 – Limits on Congress
Section 10 – Powers Prohibited of States
The titles alone show they have nothing to do with you or me…they are limitations on what the government can do…not you and I…”
Since these articles are directed at members of Congress, and members of Congress are taken from America’s communities, then why in the world would you delusively
believe and then falsely claim that “The titles alone show they have nothing to do with you or me”? Look, the titles are addressed to Congress, and the last time I checked the members of Congress are American people. So unless you can show us that the members of Congress are not Americans who are taken from America’s communities, then this is just another example of you denying that a section in the Constitution has
anything to do with the American people when in fact it does. So where are members of Congress from?
Secondly, once again, contrary to what you believe and assert, just because something is a “limitations on what the American government can do” does not mean that that thing has nothing to do with the American people. After all, unless you want to argue that American government is not made up of the American people and the limitation has nothing to do with the American people, then contrary to your belief and assertion, the limitation has something to do with the American people.
Thirdly, there is another option out there that may be the reason behind why you keep arguing that it has nothing to do with you: Maybe the reason why you keep arguing that it has nothing to do with you is because you don’t consider yourself an American. That could also very well be the case.
Mike July 17th, 2015 at 17:56
You lied , our conversations are over….
Have a nice evening.
Isiah Abraham July 17th, 2015 at 18:09
9. Mike: need more proof, watch??? “9th amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Madison is saying just because he numbered something 1 or 5 doesn’t mean it’s more important than the other and even if he forgot to include a right the government can’t take it away…like voting…nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say you have the
right to vote. Doesn’t have to, Art I tells us all legislative power in this country is vested in a congress which consists of a house and senate…and goes on to say these will be chosen by the people of the several states…
Are you getting it yet…???
I’ll answer any question you may have.”
And you call this “proof”? What a definition of “proof” you must have. Yes, I see what you’re saying that Madison is saying, but here’s the thing: Though Mr. Madison is free to say what he believes he needs to say, what does the actual reality say? In fact,
before we get into that, I can almost guarantee you that Madison would not agree that the 18th amendment is just as important as the 2nd. In fact, judging from their
actions, many of the Founders would not even agree with such an assertion.. If
they would then here is a simple question for them: Why didn’t Mr. Madison and the other Founders use the 18th amendment or any of other enumerated rights to successfully extricate themselves from the grip of England? Instead they turned to the 2nd Amendment, and won their freedom through exercising the right to bear arms,
right? So then the actual reality and not what you say that Madison says tells us that it is hard to fathom that Madison even really believes that. Otherwise he and the others should have turned to using or exercising some other right to successfully free themselves from England. Why turn to the right to bear arms when all the other rights would have sufficed? Lol!
So, I find it the height of irony that the same individual who would say that “no right is more important than the other” leaned more on the right to bear arms so that he could stand up to try to convince others that “no right is more important than the
other.” That is definitely irony at its
finest.
Isiah Abraham July 7th, 2015 at 19:41
6. Mike: “If your religion said you must sacrifice a virgin once a year would you be surprised if the authorities arrested you before, during, or after, the ritual…???”
No, but after similar incidents where people were arresting, I can say that I’ve been surprised to hear others cheerfully invoking the 1st amendment while speaking about how religiously free everyone is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
NYC case highlights African monkey meat ritual
AP 11/24/2007
Excerpts From Article
“NEW YORK — From her baptism in Liberia to Christmas years later in her adopted New York City, Mamie Manneh never lost the longing to celebrate religious rituals by eating monkey meat.
Now, the tribal customs of Manneh and other West African immigrants have become the focus of an unusual criminal case over alleged illegal meat smuggling, and touching on issues of religious freedom, infectious diseases and wildlife preservation.
Manneh, 39, testified last year that before arriving in the United States more than 25 years ago, monkey meat was critical to her religious upbringing.”
Imagine that.
Mike July 7th, 2015 at 20:38
She lost the case and got probation…what’s your point…???
Or are you trying to strengthen my argument…???
Isiah Abraham July 9th, 2015 at 18:35
Mike: “She lost the case and got probation…what’s your point…???”
That’s the point. In a place where others cheerfully invoke the 1st amendment while speaking about how religiously free everyone is, she lost the case and got probation. In other words, here is an example of an individual who is obviously not free to practice her religion sans the threat of arrest hanging over her head. In fact, she was actually arrested and tried for practicing the tenets of a religion that are prohibited. And yet, even after such an example is seen, it is said by rote and with great zeal that “Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
2. Mike: “Or are you trying to strengthen my argument…???
Sure.
Mike July 9th, 2015 at 20:22
Isiah, once again you have twisted religious liberty with forcing all of us to accept the strange tenets that might come with your religion.
You are free to do as you wish until it interferes with others or violates the law.
One of the elements of the case was how she actually was procuring this meat…you just can’t import anything you want into this country.
This is the argument I presented about my Satanist congregation wanting to sacrifice a virgin…even if she agreed it would be illegal…that is not a religious infringement…how hard is that to grasp…???
Isiah Abraham July 18th, 2015 at 18:40
Mike: “Isiah, once again you have twisted religious liberty with forcing all of us to accept the strange tenets that might come with your religion.”
Mike, you’re projecting again. Please stop it. Now where do you find this being accomplished? Don’t just make an accusation without providing the “proof.” Where have I “twisted religious liberty with forcing all of us to accept the strange tenets that might come with your religion”?
2 Mike: “You are free to do as you wish until it interferes with others or violates the
law.“
And yet we see others doing as they wish even when it interferes with some and violates laws.
3. Mike: “One of the elements of the case was how she actually was procuring this meat…you just can’t import anything you want into this country.”
Yes, and unless you have another meaning for “infringe,” having a law that prevents the individual from procuring meats that allow him to practice aspects of his religion is an infringement upon the individual that prevents him from practicing his
religion. And the fact that you support such a measure speaks to your
advocation and support for religious infringement. But after many of your comments attacking the rights of certain people, I can’t say that this comes as much of a surprise.
4. Mike: “This is the argument I presented about my Satanist congregation wanting to sacrifice a virgin…even if she agreed it would be illegal…that is not a religious
infringement…how hard is that to grasp…???”
Well, according to homosexual marriage proponents, the fact that something is made “illegal” does not mean that it being made “illegal” really prevents it from being an infringement on someone’s right. Or did you forget that in places were homosexual marriage was banned or made illegal, homosexual marriage supporters successfully
argued that making homosexual marriage “illegal” was an infringement on their
rights? So if we follow that precedence then evidently something can both be said to be ” illegal” while at the same time infringing. Now, based on what the homosexual marriage supporters themselves argue, just because you have made virgin sacrifice to be “illegal” does not mean that the religious liberty of the individual who believes in virgin sacrifice is not being infringed upon. So what gives? here you are approving of infringement on the basis of “illegality” even as you speak against infringement on the basis of “illegality.’ Interesting..
Isiah Abraham July 7th, 2015 at 19:59
7. Mike: “Anti-Polygamy laws are Constitutional (right now)
Anti-Gay marriage laws are not.
You want to compare an illegal activity with a legal activity…a false
comparison. “
Interesting. So I’m wondering if you were making the same argument before the Supreme Court ruling and when homosexual marriage was “illegal” and heterosexual marriage was “legal?” Because I’m pretty sure that you do know that comparing an ‘illegal activity” with a “legal activity” did not just begin with the comparison of “polygamy” and “homosexual marriage”? In fact, such a comparison has been in effect during the whole homosexual marriage argument. Funny, but I don’t recall you
making this argument at that time. And even funnier is the fact that I don’t recall any homosexual supporter say that such an argument should not be made because “Anti-Homosexual marriage laws are Constitutional. Anti-Heterosexual marriage laws are not.” So what gives, Mike? What’s your point? If
comparing an “illegal activity” with a “legal activity” is indeed a false comparison, then why were such comparisons made and encouraged during the argument for homosexual marriage?
8. Mike: “Gay marriage is allowed for the exact same reason polygamy is banned…because it makes no difference what a god says, we base our laws on the Constitution.”
Yes, I think everyone is really starting to see that now. And by the way, the Constitution is itself based on what?
Secondly, why should we believe, as you seem to believe, that the fact that you would ignore what a
god says means that what a god says makes absolutely no difference?
9. Mike: “The gay marriage argument is about equal rights, the polygamy argument is a demand the
state comply with a person’s perceived religious edict.”
So then what of the heterosexual marriage argument? Isn’t that also an argument that demands that the state comply with a person’s “perceived religious edict?” And if so, then since you are against polygamy on the basis that it is a demand that the state comply with a person’s perceived religious edict, then dare we say that you’re against heterosexual marriage for the same reason.
10. Mike: “Transportation did not begin with rockets, it’s origin is more closely associated with chariots, and comparing a chariot to a rocket is a false comparison.”
Mike, if you want to believe so. By the way, what makes a “true comparison”?
Mike July 7th, 2015 at 20:34
I’m wondering if you were making the same argument before the Supreme Court ruling and when homosexual marriage was “illegal” and heterosexual marriage was “legal?”
I stopped reading right there because of your ignorance of the legal argument….
Gay marriage was never illegal…the definition was defined as between a man and a woman only…if you don’t understand the difference please search for a case where a person or persons were ever arrested or charged with being a gay couple.
The Constitution’s very words prove it to be superior to any words of a god…see the Supremacy Clause.
I’m not against polygamy, I merely stated there is legislation banning it that has stood the test of a constitutional challenge.
Obviously, you have little to no real understanding of the legal argument this case entailed, hence all the incorrect assumptions and conclusions….
Gay marriage is an equality issue, polygamy is a demand to allow your perceived religious beliefs to take come before the will of the people.
This is not a christian nation and never was, nor was it founded on christian principles…that is a fantasy perpetrated by religious fanatics for the last 239 years
George Washington said it best…(from the Treaty of Tripoli)
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
Like minded quotes can be found on this website where every single Founding Father says the same thing. Jefferson, Adams, Frankli, Madison, etc…
My favorite is Paine’s ;
“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. “
The fact you believe the Constitution was based on some type of christian belief only means you failed history and now need a remedial course to catch up with the rest of the nation.
Isiah Abraham July 10th, 2015 at 18:24
Mike: “I’m wondering if you were making the same argument before the Supreme Court ruling and when homosexual marriage was “illegal” and heterosexual marriage was “legal?”
I stopped reading right there because of your ignorance of the legal argument….
Gay marriage was never illegal…”
Wow! Maybe it should’ve been me one who should’ve stopped reading on that basis. Or perhaps, you should tell the media who seem to think that it was illegal that
they should’ve stopped placing false articles in the news that described it as “banned” and “illegal.”
A. Gay Marriage Is Still Illegal for 70 Percent of Americans
Same-sex couples challenge Florida ban on gay marriage
By Warren Richey, S
CSM January 21, 2014
From Article:
“The Florida suit is the latest in a string of lawsuits filed nationwide challenging state statutes and state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. Currently 17 states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages. Thirty states have banned the
practice.”
B. The Misdirected Zeal of Same-Sex Marriage Converts
Conor Friedersdorf 04/01/15 The Atlantic
From Article:
“The biggest affront to gay equality in America today is the fact that same-sex couples in 13 states are still prevented from marrying. The laws of Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Ohio, and Tennessee are discriminatory, callous in their effects, and may violate the Constitution. Overturning those laws is the most urgent gay-rights cause. Once they fall, whether through a Supreme Court decision or legislation, the benefits that marriage confers on couples and society will increase.”
C Map: Which States Allow Gay Marriage?
By the Mother Jones news staff
From Article:
“Just a few years ago, the fight for marriage equality looked incredibly bleak. More than half of all states had banned same-sex marriage through ballot initiatives or legislation, with some states going so far as to inscribe same-sex marriage bans into their constitutions.”
So Mike, maybe you can help us out here by explaining to us why gay marriage
has been referred to as “banned’ or “illegal” in various media except yours?
Mike July 10th, 2015 at 18:29
Easy…like I said…can you show me a single person, or couple that has ever been arrested for being married to another person…??? You can’t
The fact that a state won’t comply with the Constitution makes them the criminal, not the victim or victims of their crimes.
Lastly, it is an argument from authority, or in this case an argument from ignorance. In any case both are fallacious in the context you are attempting to use them.
What else ya got…???
Isiah Abraham July 17th, 2015 at 18:48
Mike: ”Easy…like I said…can you show me a single person, or couple that has ever been arrested for being married to another person…??? You can’t”
Mike you’re trying to argue that since I haven’t shown you a single person, or couple that has ever been arrested for being married to another person” then “Gay marriage was never illegal…” Look, have you shown me a single person who has been arrested for carrying an ice cream cone in his back pocket? You haven’t…. but guess what? Carrying an ice cream cone in the back pocket is said to be illegal in Alabama.
A. In Alabama it’s Illegal to Carry an Ice Cream Cone in Your Back Pocket
05/01/14 BENJAMIN STARR
Visual News
From Article:
“In Alabama for example, it’s illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket. Besides the obvious messy offense to fashion, why would this be illegal? The only thing I can dig up, suggests that some states (like Kentucky) may have had this rule:
if a horse followed you home, it wasn’t considered stealing. Carrying a sugary
cone in your back pocket was an easy way to get a horse to follow you. It
sounds suspect, but it makes a good story.”
Again, have you shown me a single person that has been arrested for playing a violin while walking down the street? How about for tickling a girl under the chin with a feather duster? You haven’t… but guess what? Both are said to be illegal in Maine:
B. LIST OF STUPID
LAWS OF AMERICA & AROUND THE WORLD
http://www.usattorneylegalservices.com/stupid-laws.html
From Article:
“MAINE Funny Laws
In Portland, it’s illegal to tickle a girl under the chin
with a feather duster.
You may not step out of a plane in flight.
In Augusta to stroll down the street playing a violin is
against the law. ‘
So, as I’ve stated before, “not being arrested” for something doesn’t necessarily prove that something is not illegal. “ In this case, what you are trying to assert is that
the absence of an arrest equates to legality. But since many people are not
arrested for committing “illegal” acts, we know that your argument is moot.
Therefore I will not put much credence into you asking me to show you “a single person, or couple that has ever been arrested for being married
to another person. I’ve already posted the news articles in which homosexual marriage has been described as being illegal in various states.
Mike July 17th, 2015 at 19:05
Just name the statute like I said…this article names a specific statue that outlaws carrying an ice cream cone.
Looks like 6 people were tried and convicted also…that’s what I’m looking for….show me.
I went down the list on your link and found no statute pertaining to our conversation…just link me to it…plain and simple….
Isiah Abraham July 24th, 2015 at 18:37
Mike: “Just name the statute like I said… this article names a specific statue that outlaws
carrying an ice cream cone. ”
Actually you did’ nt say that I should “just name the statute.” Instead, what you said was that I should show you a person or persons who had been arrested. Here is your statement:
Quote-Mike: ”Easy…like I said…can you show me a single person, or couple that has ever been arrested
for being married to another person…??? You can’t”
Mike, you have a habit of making claims that fail to match up with the actual reality.
2. Mike: “Looks like 6 people were tried and convicted also…that’s what I’m looking
for….show me.
I went down the list on your link and found no statute pertaining to our
conversation…just link me to it…plain and simple….”
Again, here are more articles that speak of those statutes:
A. North Carolina passes ban on gay marriage
May 09, 2012|By David Zucchino, Los Angeles Times
From Article:
“The amendment not only outlaws same-sex marriage —already illegal in the state — but bans civil unions and domestic partnerships for gay or straight couples. Family law experts say it will threaten domestic partnership health benefits for local government workers and strip unmarried couples, both gay and straight, of their rights to make financial or emergency medical decisions for an incapacitated partner.
Passage of the measure, called the Defense of Marriage Act by Republican sponsors, makes North Carolina the final state in the South to pass an amendment banning gay marriage, and the 29th state overall, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Ten states have statutes defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Proponents said the amendment was needed to keep
“activist judges or politicians” from overturning the state’s 1996 law.
B. A timeline of same-sex marriage in the US
Boston Globe 07/03/ 2015
From Article:
“On June 26, the Supreme Court declared that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States. The court’s ruling meant the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, would
have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, just as he did in the court’s previous three major gay rights cases dating back to 1996.
C. List of former U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
“This list only covers bans of civil unions, private contracts between same-sex couples and same-sex marriage in state constitutions; state statutes are not listed. The text of these amendments sometimes runs several paragraphs. In this event, excerpts of the most important phrases or sentences are included in this list.
State constitutional amendments are typically approved first by the legislature or special constitutional convention and then by the voters in a referendum. [a] In some states, one or both of these steps is repeated.[b]The percentages shown in the list are results from the referendum stage,
not the legislative stage’
Isiah Abraham July 17th, 2015 at 18:56
2. Mike: “The fact that a state won’t comply with the Constitution makes them the criminal, not the victim or victims of their crimes.”
If not complying with the Constitution makes a state the “criminal,” then what does it make a state if and when the Constitution requests that a state engage in something that is considered “illegal” or “criminal”?
Secondly, what does it make the Constitution when it requests that a state engage in something that is considered “illegal” or “criminal”?
3. Mike: “Lastly, it is an argument from authority, or in this case an argument from ignorance. In any case both are fallacious in the context you are attempting to use them.
What else ya got…???”
Yes, may you please explain how it is an “argument from ignorance”?
Mike July 17th, 2015 at 19:15
An Argument from ignorance is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).
As in….. there is a god because you can’t prove there isn’t…or like you trying to tell me something was illegal but you can’t locate a staute or a single person that was charged…
Isiah Abraham July 24th, 2015 at 19:05
Mike: “An Argument from ignorance is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).
As in….. there is a god because you can’t prove there isn’t…or like you trying to tell me something
was illegal but you can’t locate a staute or a single person that was charged…”
Well Mike, there is a difference in this instance: As it pertains to “proof” and “locating.”
First, you are concluding that just because there is an Internet, all information is immediately accessible to everyone everywhere.
Secondly, you are concluding that you have not received any “proof” that accurately proves that the statutes exist. In other words, I’ve given you the articles from more than one reputable news organization ( LA Times, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor) that refer to these statutes. Shouldn’t those articles have been taken as “proof” of these statutes? If not, then tell us why you believe that articles referring to these statutes should not be taken as “proof” of these statues?
Now, if those articles should be taken as accurate “proof” of those statutes, then tell us why we
shouldn’t consider it a fact that you are purposefully trying to deceive? This is to say, that it would appear that what you are trying to do is to discredit my argument on the basis of there being “no
proof.” But to do that, you would have to ignore those articles that speak of the statutes and say that there is “no proof.” In other words, in order to try to label my argument afallacy, you are purposefully refusing to accept a form of “proof” as “proof.” This then allows you to say that my argument is a “fallacy.”
So Mike, you know as well as I do that at the end of the day, I can’t make you recognize and
accept “proof” that you do not want to recognize and accept. Therefore, unless you can prove to me why we shouldn’t accept the statements from the LA Times, The Boston Globe, and The Christian
Science Monitor, as “proof” of these statutes, then I don’t know why your cry of “argument from
ignorance” should itself not be seen as some type of fallacy or at least an intellectually dishonest attempt to label my argument as a fallacy.
Isiah Abraham July 10th, 2015 at 18:45
2. Mike: “the definition was re-defined as between a man and a woman only…
Interesting. So then let me see if I’m understanding you accurately: It appears that what you are arguing is that the original definition for marriage was one that was re-defined to say that marriage was only between a man and a woman, right? This would then mean that what you are saying is that the original definition of marriage was something other than what we currently have and included other marriages like homosexual marriage, right? But someone or something decided to exclude all other marriages in order to redefine marriage as being only between a man and a woman, right?”
3. Mike: “if you don’t understand the difference please search for a case where a person or persons were ever arrested or charged with being a gay couple.”
Actually, since “not being arrested” for something doesn’t necessarily prove that
something is not illegal, I wouldn’t put much credence into that. There are many factors that could go into why an arrest is not made or has not been made.
After all you can go barreling down the highway doing 100mph and not get
arrested. Does that mean that barreling down the highway doing 100 is not
illegal? And dare I even bring up the fact that there is the argument out there
that revolves around the lack of arrest and charge of millions of illegal
immigrants.
4. Mike: The Constitution’s very words prove it to be superior to any words of a god…see the Supremacy Clause.
Now Mike, I’m not denying that it may seem that way to you, but do you know anything
about it being superior to a congregation of the most powerful gods? How about
it being superior to any words of what people say is the GOD?
Secondly, how do the words alone “prove it to be superior to any words of a god?’ Don’t you have to have something else besides a word or words to establish “proof?”
5. Mike: “I’m not against polygamy, I merely stated there is legislation banning it that has stood the test of a constitutional challenge.”
Okay, but do you have any idea why that legislative banning has stood the test of a
constitutional challenge when, according to you, the original definition included
all marriages?
Mike July 10th, 2015 at 19:03
Answer guide
#2 A false dichotomy- “…what you are saying is that the original definition of marriage was something other than what we currently have and included other marriages like homosexual marriage, right?”
No, that’s merely one of many possibilities that you “think” I selected. I did not.
#3 Just show me a statute where you could possibly be arrested or charged with a crime fro merely being a married gay couple. Like in Mildred Loving, (Loving v. Virginia)
#4 Roe v Wade shows the SCOTUS doesn’t give a damn what your god might think or say. The 9th amendment prevailed and the Constitution was held supreme.
#5 Easy- the people make the laws, not gods. Polygamous couples are not being denied the right to marry, only to marry multiple partners…get it…???
Next…..
Isiah Abraham July 18th, 2015 at 17:58
Mike: “#2 Answer guide
A false dichotomy- “…what you are saying is that the original definition of marriage was something other than what we currently have and included other marriages like
homosexual marriage, right?”
No, that’s merely one of many possibilities that you “think” I selected. I did not.”
Do you even know what a false dichotomy entails? If so, then how is that a “false dichotomy” You stated that “Gay marriage was never illegal…the definition was re-defined as between a man and a woman only…if you don’t understand the difference please search for a case where a person or persons were ever arrested or charged with being a gay couple.” In response, I asked you, “So then let me see if I’m understanding you accurately: It appears that what you are arguing is that the original definition for
marriage was one that was re-defined to say that marriage was only between a
man and a woman, right? This would then mean that what you are saying is that
the original definition of marriage was something other than what we currently
have and included other marriages like homosexual marriage, right?”
Now, a false dichotomy is defined as occurring “when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives.” In other words, in order for my argument to be a “false dichotomy” it has to give you
two options and purposefully ignore other options that are there. So the
question then becomes, what other options or possibilities were ignored? Let’s see: If you say that marriage’s “definition was re-defined as between a man and a woman only,” then the only other option that I’m aware of is one that says that before the definition was redefined to one that was limited to a man and woman only, it had to include other marriages. So what are the ‘many” other options or possibilities to you asserting that “the definition of marriage was re-defined as between a man and a woman only”? If there are no other options , then you have yet another assertion that has turned out to be inaccurate.
Secondly, it appears that as some sort of strategy, you are simply yelling fallacy at any and everything that you don’t agree with. So instead of the boy who cried wolf, we now have the boy who cried fallacy. Lol!
Isiah Abraham July 18th, 2015 at 18:16
2. Mike: “#3 Just show me a statute where you could possibly be arrested or charged with a crime fro merely being a married gay couple. Like in Mildred Loving, (Loving v. Virginia)’”
We’ve already had this discussion. Mike, I’ve already shown you the newspaper articles that alluded to those statutes that banned or made homosexual marriage illegal in certain states.
3. Mike: “#4 Roe v Wade shows the SCOTUS doesn’t give a damn what your god might think or say. The 9th amendment prevailed and the Constitution was held supreme.”
Yes, but apparently they do care a lot about what the Almighty Constitution might think or say. But unfortunately, as you have stated, “ the “Acknowledgement of an Almighty is not a validation of your claim.”
Secondly, speaking of the 9th, if your interpretation of the 9th amendment is to be believed, then the fact that there was the Revolutionary War invalidates the 9th amendment, so what’s your point?
4. Mike: “#5 Easy- the people make the laws, not
gods.”
I guess that would be true if people weren’t gods who were treated as such.
5. Mike: “Polygamous couples are not being denied the right to marry, only to
marry multiple partners…get it…???”
Next….”
Mike if that’s the case then why were homosexual even allowed to “marry”? In fact why wasn’t it allowed to be argued that “homosexual people are not being denied the right to marry, only to marry same-sex partners.” After all, the last time I checked, homosexuals were not being denied the right to marry when it came to the opposite sex, or were they? And yet, even with that option being available, were you all not arguing that homosexuals were being denied the right to marry? Yes, I
think the record bears that out. So I don’t know what your point is exactly?
Maybe you can clarify?
Isiah Abraham July 10th, 2015 at 19:01
6. Mike: “Obviously, you have little to no real understanding of the legal argument this
case entailed, hence all the incorrect assumptions and conclusions….”
I’m sorry, but should I step away while you finish the conversation with yourself? Or do you mean that no one else is allowed to follow you by making such “tried and
true” “accurate” assumptions as “I believe the comparison fails because polygamy has been around, same sex marriage is new.” Or, “Your comparing a chariot to rockets…certainly both are a vehicle of transportation, but that’s where the similarities end.”
7. Mike: Gay marriage is an equality issue, polygamy is a demand to allow your perceived religious beliefs to come before the will of the people.”
So then if this is indeed accurate, then we shouldn’t be able to find it where the demand for homosexual marriage has allowed the perceived beliefs of the proponents of “homosexual marriage” to come before the will of the people, right? So
let’s look:
A. Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California
ADAM NAGOURNEY 02/07/2012
From Article:
“LOS ANGELES — A federal appeals court panel on Tuesday threw out a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage passed in 2008, upholding a lower court’s ruling that the ban, known as Proposition 8, violated the constitutional rights of gay men and lesbians in California.”
B. Arkansas’ gay marriage ban overturned by federal judge
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 11/25/14
From Article:
“LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A federal judge struck down Arkansas’ voter-approved gay marriage ban Tuesday but stopped any rush to the altar by putting her order on hold so the state can consider an appeal.”
C. Appeals court upholds decision overturning Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban
Robert Barnes/Jenna Portnoy 07/28/14
Washington Post
From Article:
“A federal appeals court on Monday struck down Virginia’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, saying that withholding the fundamental right to marry from gay couples is a new form of “segregation” that the Constitution cannot abide.”
So Mike, since we have it where the demand for homosexual marriage has allowed the perceived beliefs of the proponents of “homosexual marriage” to come
before the will of the people, then I don’t understand why you seem to believe
that only polygamy is “a demand to allow your perceived beliefs to come before the will of the people.” in fact, If polygamy is banned on that basis, then based on what you have stated, one would think that homosexual marriage should also be included.
Mike July 10th, 2015 at 19:18
#6 Just because you believe something doesn’t mean it’s true or can be backed up with fact or empirical evidence.
Kinda like every assertion you’ve made in this thread, whereas I have backed up everything with a proof in the form of a link to a law, SCOTUS case, citation of the Constitution, or Declaration of Independence.
#7 Back to the Supremacy Clause, the Constitution is Supreme, and the 14th Amendment. We protect the right to equal treatment, not the right to discriminate.
You can’t pass a law that is unconstitutional. What could be simpler.
We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. The entire premise of the Constitution is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority (T. Jefferson paraphrased) We don’t have majority rule…that was ancient Greece and Rome.
Anything else…???
You now understand what the Constitution is and how it doesn’t grant you rights because they came from your creator and not the government. You understand the majority can’t do whatever they want because our founders knew about the oppression of the minority by the majority. You should know the difference between the words ban, outlaw, and illegal. Hopefully, you have googled argument from authority and discovered just because it printed in the paper or on the internet doesn’t always mean it’s true, and you discovered what an argument from ignorance is.
Isiah Abraham July 20th, 2015 at 19:58
Mike: “#6 Just because you believe something doesn’t mean it’s true or can be backed up with fact or empirical evidence. “
To remind yourself of this is the first step. The second step which entails that you actually listen to that may be the hardest. In other words, for someone who has done otherwise, it may in fact be easier said than done.
2. Mike: “Kinda like every assertion you’ve made in this thread, whereas I have backed up everything with a proof in the form of a link to a law, SCOTUS case, citation of the Constitution, or Declaration of Independence.”
Yes, I hear you claiming that in regards to your assertions, you “have backed up everything with proof in the form of a link to a law, SCOTUS case, citation of the Constitution, or Declaration of Independence”, but what does the reality say? What does the reality say when, despite
evidence to the contrary which has shown that to believe and assert that Pres. Washington said “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian
religion,” is questionable, you still believe and assert that Pres. Washington “said it best…(from the Treaty of Tripoli) As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;”? Where is the “proof” that backs that up?
Secondly, again, what does the reality say when, despite evidence to the contrary which has shown that both polygamy and homosexual marriage have both been around, you still believe and assert that
“I believe the comparison fails because polygamy has been around, same sex marriage is new.”? Where is the “proof” that backs that up?
So it looks like when you say, “I have backed up everything with a proof in the form of a link to a law, SCOTUS case, citation of the Constitution, or Declaration of Independence,” you’re treating us to
another one of your claims that we are just supposed to believe over the reality.
Isiah Abraham July 20th, 2015 at 20:08
3. Mike: “#7 Back to the Supremacy Clause, the Constitution is Supreme, and the 14th Amendment. We protect the right to equal treatment, not the right to discriminate.
How do you protect the right to equal treatment without protecting the right to discriminate? I’m asking this because I was under the impression that in saying that you protect the “right to equal treatment,” you mean that you have to treat everyone equally or the same? If so, then doesn’t this mean that you would also have to treat those individuals who discriminate equally or the same as
everyone else?
Now, if you do have to treat those individuals who discriminate equally or the same as
everyone else, then doesn’t that mean that you have to equally protect them also? And if so, then why are you here bragging about “protecting the right to equal treatment,” when afterward you yourself admit that you do not treat the right to discriminate equally? In other words, if you are not equally protecting the right to discriminate then what in the world makes you believe that you are protecting the right to equal treatment? Or are you just saying that in an effort to make yourself appear more
“magnanimous”?
4. Mike: “ You can’t pass a law that is unconstitutional. What could be simpler.
The fact that laws that are “unconstitutional” are passed, and therefore you can pass a law that is unconstitutional.
Isiah Abraham July 21st, 2015 at 20:07
4. Mike: “We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.”
And what’s the difference?
5. Mike: “The entire premise of the Constitution is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority (T. Jefferson paraphrased) We don’t have majority rule…that was ancient Greece and Rome. “
If we don’t have “majority rule,” then what kind of rule is there? Would you say that we then
have “minority rule”? And if so, what makes “minority rule” more virtuous and prefreable to “majority rule”?
Secondly, what prevents “tyranny of the minority”? Or are we supposed to conclude that there is no
such thing? And if there is a such thing, then why is the “entire premise of the Constitution to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority”?
Thirdly, since you say that the “entire premise of the Constitution is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority,” then where is the “equal treatment” in that? Where is the “equal treatment under the law” when there is a Constitution with an entire premise that is geared to protect one group? And how can you go around bragging about “protecting the right to equal treatment” with such knowledge?
Fourthly, just from what you have taught me, one would have to come to the conclusion that the Constitution is itself unconstitutional.
6. Mike: “You now understand what the Constitution is and how it doesn’t grant you rights because they came from your creator and not the government.”
Yes, and one must admit that thanks to you I have also learned that the Constitution is itself
unconstitutional.
7. Mike: “You understand the majority can’t do whatever they want because our founders knew about the oppression of the minority by the majority.”
But evidently, since the Founders were not aware of the oppression of the “majority” by the
“minority,” we have a much “better” system where it is that the “minority” can do whatever they want.
8. Mike: “You should know the difference between the words ban, outlaw, and illegal. “
I don’t recall you going over that, so can you please go over it? What is the difference between “ban,”
“outlaw,” and “illegal?”
9. Mike: “Hopefully, you have googled argument from authority and discovered just because it printed in the paper or on the internet doesn’t always mean it’s true, and you discovered what an argument from ignorance is.”
Well, with much thanks going to you, I have to admit that I could not have made such a discovery without your unceasing help.
Secondly, then what makes it true? What makes whatever is printed in the paper or on the Internet true? How do you know when what is printed in the paper or on the Internet is true?
Isiah Abraham July 10th, 2015 at 19:42
8. Mike: “This is not a christian nation and never was, nor was it founded on christian
principles…that is a fantasy perpetrated by religious fanatics for the last
239 years”
Since I regularly hear that Christianity is responsible for the principle of
slavery seen in the founding of America, would you blame me if I am hesitant
in agreeing?
Secondly, would you classify the people of Gallup and ABC News as religious fanatics?
And the reason why I ask this is because they keep running these polls that
seem to show that a nation of people say that they are Christian…..well, at
least 70% of them.
A. Poll: Most Americans Say They’re Christian
July 18 Analysis By Gary Langer ABC
From Article:
“Ask Americans their religion and you’ll get an earful — 50 individual answers in an
ABCNEWS/Beliefnet poll, ranging from agnostics to Zen Buddhists. The vast
majority, though, have something in common: Jesus Christ.
Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the rest, 13 percent, have no religion. That leaves just 4 percent as adherents of all
non-Christian religions combined — Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and a smattering of
individual mentions.’ ”
B. In U.S., 77% Identify as Christian
by Frank Newport
Gallup
From Article:
“PRINCETON, NJ — The large majority of Americans — 77% of the adult population — identify with a Christian religion, including 52% who are Protestants or some other non-Catholic Christian religion, 23% who are Catholic, and 2% who affiliate with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Another 18% of Americans do not have an explicit religious identity and 5% identify with a non-Christian religion.”
C. Gallup: Only 5% of Religious Americans Are Non-Christians
By Barbara Hollingsworth | December 30, 2013 CNS News
From Article:
‘Gallup found that three quarters of all Americans – a supermajority – identify themselves as Christians, with only five percent saying they are practicing members of a non-Christian faith.
“We find, looking at our data, that America does in fact remain a predominantly Christian nation,” Dr. Frank Newport, Gallup’s editor in chief, said of the poll released
on Christmas Eve.
“Now, does that mean that a quarter of Americans identify with a non-Christian religion? Not so, because we have about 17, 18 percent of Americans who don’t identify with any religion, the so-called ‘religious nones’ as we call them.
“And so that reduces down to about only 5, or maybe 6 percent, again depending on how we do the definitions, of Americans who explicitly identify with a non-Christian faith.”
So Mike, one should think then that you agree with the premise that says that the people at Gallup and ABC are part of the dangerous religious fanatics who, despite there being no evidence to back such a “delusion,” are responsible for perpetrating the “fantasy” of a Christian nation, right?
Mike July 10th, 2015 at 19:57
Yes, I would blame you for agreeing…especially since I just taught you what an argument from authority is. Google it please so you can see the fallacy you are constantly being drawn into.
Merely because racists and traitors make a biblical claim (or anyone else for that matter including the Founders) doesn’t make it a valid excuse…it was found to be unconstitutional…which means that even thought the majority wanted slavery it didn’t matter…the constitution is supreme…
I don’t care if 100% of the population is christian…this country was not founded on christianity or christian principles., that is the argument..I showed you the words of every founding father who said that.
Isiah Abraham July 21st, 2015 at 20:26
Mike: “Yes, I would blame you for agreeing…especially since I just taught you what an argument from
authority is. Google it please so you can see the fallacy you are constantly being drawn into.”
Mike, can you please explain to me what exactly an “argument from authority” entails?
2. Mike: “Merely because racists and traitors make a biblical claim (or anyone else for that matter including the Founders) doesn’t make it a valid excuse…it was found to be unconstitutional…which means that even thought the majority wanted slavery it didn’t matter…the constitution is supreme…”
So then Mike, what makes “it” a “valid excuse”? In fact, including claims that are said to be based on the Constitution, what makes anything a “valid excuse”?
3. Mike: “I don’t care if 100% of the population is christian…this country was not founded on christianity or christian principles., that is the argument..
Yes, I know that’s your argument. So how goes that motto of yours go again: Claim over reality. Therefore, if reality shows that 100% of the population is Christian gladly ignore the reality to delude
yourself with a claim that says otherwise.
Secondly, if what you are arguing is really the case then I wonder why people would insist that countries with close to 100% Muslim population are founded on Islam and Islamic principles. So, wouldn’t you then agree that Muslim countries in the Middle East where practically everyone is a Muslim are not Islamic countries founded on Islam or Islamic principles?
4. Mike: “I showed you the words of every founding father who said that.”
Actually, you showed me a questionable statement that has been attributed to Pres George Washington. That was then followed by some link on the Internet that I had to dismiss on the account of you telling me that “just because it printed in the paper or on the internet doesn’t always mean it’s true.” Again, here is what you had stated:
Quote Mike: “George Washington said it best…(from the Treaty of Tripoli) As the
Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the
Christian religion;
Like minded quotes can be found on this website where every single Founding Father says the
same thing. Jefferson, Adams, Frankli, Madison, etc…http://www.earlyamerica.com/early-ame…
My favorite is Paine’s ;
“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the
Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more
contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. “
So that’s what you’ve actually shown me.
Isiah Abraham July 11th, 2015 at 17:57
9. Mike: “ George Washington said it best…(from the Treaty of Tripoli)
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the
Christian religion;”
Mike, with all of my ignorance far be it for me to question your vast and unerring knowledge, but I don’t recall it anywhere besides here where it has been believed that it is accurate to state that George Washington made this quote. The best that I’ve seen so far is where it says that the quote may be found in the Treaty of Tripoli where it may have been written by Joel Barlow:
A. The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816
Treaty with Tripoli 1796 : Hunter Miller’s Notes
avalon.law.yale.edu
From Article:
“As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a
letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of
Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be
regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point “
B. Joel Barlow And The Treaty With Tripoli
Rob Boston
candst.tripod.com
From Article:
“The reality is that no one is certain how Article 11 got into the Treaty with Tripoli.
“It’s an interesting question – why this was put into the treaty,” says Robert J. Allison, a Suffolk University history professor who authored the 1995 book The Crescent Obscured: The United States and the Muslim World, 1776-181 S. Allison’s research did not turn up any definitive clues, but, he adds, “I don’t think you can ascribe a treaty to any one author. There are too many interests at play. Whether it came from Barlow or Tripoli will remain unknown.”
Nevertheless, Barlow seems a likely candidate. Although he served as a military chaplain representing the Congregational Church during the Revolutionary War, Barlow later in life drifted into the Deist camp championed by his friend
Jefferson….”
I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t make a habit out of using a quote of questionable origin to try to substantiate such a serious claim.
Mike July 11th, 2015 at 18:29
You wrote…Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” does not exist at all. There is no Article 11.
I was able to get a copy of what you claim doesn’t exist in 2 clicks…
http://www.nobeliefs.com/document.htm
Who do I believe, you or my own eyes…???
Another perfect of why an argument from authority is a fallacy
Isiah Abraham July 14th, 2015 at 19:24
Mike: “You wrote…Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” does not exist at all. There is no Article 11.
I was able to get a copy of what you claim doesn’t exist in 2 clicks…
http://www.nobeliefs.com/docum…”
Mike, since nowhere can you find that as my claim, you will probably find that copy of “my claim” in far less clicks. Anyway, what you have there is a sliver of a quote from a Yale article that I posted while trying to show you that Article 11 is questionable. Here’s the rest: ““As even a casual examination
of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The
Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so.”
In other words, the Article 11 that you believe exists does not exist in the Arabic text in that manner. Here are other articles which mention this:
A.Treaty
Between the United States and Tripoli
usconstitution.net/tripoli
FromArticle:
“The text reproduced below is what was signed and ratified by the United States. An examination of the Arabic text, however, reveals that Article 11 does not exist in the Arabic text, at least not in the form presented in the English text. In the Arabic version, the text between Articles 10 and 12 is a letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. State Department review of the translation in 1800 called it “extremely erroneous.””
B.Treaty of Tripoli
From Wikipedia:
“Article 11 has been a point of contention in popular culture disputes on the doctrine of separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of the United States. Some religious spokesmen claim that—despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate in English—the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the treaty.[11]”
So Mike, how you came to the conclusion that a silver of a quote from Yale was an actual claim of Article 11 not existing is very troubling and speaks volumes.
Mike July 14th, 2015 at 19:29
Now you’re arguing against yourself…LMAO
Please continue, this is fun.
Isiah Abraham July 14th, 2015 at 19:32
2.Mike: “Who do I believe, you or my own eyes…???”
You are free to believe whatever or whomever you wish, but so far it seems that either your
eyes are blind or your mind refuses to comprehend and acknowledge what has been seen by your eyes. Or either that those are not your eyes.
3. Mike: “Another perfect of why an argument from authority is a fallacy”
Since you are the one in authority here whose arguments have so far been proven fallacious, you are doing a great job in proving your own statement to be true…at least as far as you are concerned. In fact, it
appears that you are trying your very best to validate that statement as best as you can.
Mike July 14th, 2015 at 19:34
Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong…???
Google argument from authority…you have it backwards, as usual.
Isiah Abraham July 11th, 2015 at 18:19
10. Mike: “Like minded quotes can be found on this website where every single Founding Father says the same thing. Jefferson, Adams, Frankli, Madison, etc…http://www.earlyamerica.com/early-ame…
My favorite
is Paine’s ;
“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more
contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. “”
So “every single Founding Father says the same thing,” or just those guys?
Secondly, you might want to tell the people at Wikipedia to edit their “fantasies” about the Founders beliefs:
1. Founding Fathers of the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Religion
“Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and
two were Roman Catholics (D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons). Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two
were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.[18]
A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians such as Thomas Jefferson, who constructed the Jefferson Bible, and Benjamin Franklin. Others, notably Thomas Paine, who challenged institutionalized religion in The Age of Reason, were deists, or held beliefs very similar to those of deists.”
Historian Gregg L. Frazer argues that the leading Founders (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington) were neither Christians nor Deists, but rather supporters of a hybrid “theistic rationalism”
Thirdly, did you by any chance notice that Mr. Paine acknowledged an “Almighty” in that “favorite” verse of yours: “Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty,” So Mike, you can probably argue all day that that they were not all Christians, but could you honestly and accurately argue that all did not believe in God?
11. Mike: “The fact you believe the Constitution was based on some type of christian
belief only means you failed history and now need a remedial course to catch up
with the rest of the nation.”
And the fact that you would believe and expect all others to accept the notion that says that a nation full of Quakers, Puritans, Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists and Anglicans would not base any part of their governance on any of their beliefs speaks to a type of disassociation from Reality that is mind-boggling. You want me to accept as a premise that all of these individuals escaped religious persecution only to come here and not
base any part of their government on the beliefs that led them to risk their
lives to come to a new world. Some others may readily swallow such fantasy, but
I can’t when it makes such little sense to the rational mind.
Mike July 11th, 2015 at 18:36
You are free to edit the wiki page yourself…I never linked it to you. Another fallacy attempting to link me to something you did.
Acknowledgement of an Almighty is not a validation of your claim this is a christian nation founded on christian beliefs. Jews, Muslims, and about a thousand other religions acknowledge an Almighty.
You wrote…I can’t when it makes such little sense to the rational mind.
I never claimed you have a rational mind so I’m not surprised you’re having trouble making sense of it.
What else you got…???
Isiah Abraham July 18th, 2015 at 17:02
Mike: “You are free to edit the wiki page yourself…I never linked it
to you. Another fallacy attempting to link me to something you did”
What?? Is this another manifestation of those delusions? Where did I say anything about you linking the page to me? And where did I attempt to link you to something that I did? Bring the quote, please? Mike, since you appear lost, let’s go over what has
happened here: This argument was in regards to your assertion that was two-fold:
First, you asserted that Pres. George Washington had said that “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;”
Secondly you asserted that “Like minded quotes can be found on a website where every single Founding Father says the same thing” as what you claim was a quote from Pres. GW. Here is that quote in its entirety:
Quote Mike: “George Washington said it best…(from the Treaty of Tripoli)
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the
Christian religion;
Like minded
quotes can be found on this website where every single Founding Father says the
same thing. Jefferson, Adams, Frankli, Madison, etc…http://www.earlyamerica.com/early-ame…”
In response, first, I simply pointed out that your initial assertion regarding Pres. GW and that quote was inaccurate:
Quote Isiah Abraham: “Mike, with all of my ignorance far be it for me to question your vast and unerring knowledge, but I don’t recall it anywhere besides here where it has been believed that it is accurate to state that George Washington made this quote. The best that I’ve seen so far is where it says that the quote may be found in the Treaty of Tripoli where it may have been written by Joel Barlow:”
Secondly, since the implication in your second assertion is that every
single Founding Father said the same thing as was found in that quote, I simply responded to that assertion by posting a section from Wikipedia that spoke to the religious beliefs of the founders, and I told you to tell the people at Wikipedia that
they need to edit their “fantasies” regarding the Founding Fathers beliefs.
Here is my response with the link to Wikipedia:
Quote Isiah Abraham: “So “every single Founding Father says the same thing,” or just those guys?
Secondly, you might want to tell the people at Wikipedia
to edit their “fantasies” about the Founders beliefs:
1. Founding Fathers of the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”
So Mike you might want to re-examine the discussion so that you can be aware of what is really going on and not what you want to go on.
Isiah Abraham July 18th, 2015 at 17:30
2. Mike: “Acknowledgement of an Almighty is not a validation of your claim this is a christian nation founded on christian beliefs. Jews, Muslims, and about a thousand other religions acknowledge an Almighty.”
And where did I say that the “acknowledgement of an Almighty is validation of any claim”? I just simply pointed out that your “favorite” quote acknowledged an Almighty. Again, here is how the conversation went: You said:
Quote Mike: “Like minded quotes can be found on this website where every single Founding Father says the same thing. Jefferson, Adams, Frankli, Madison, etc…http://www.earlyamerica.com/early-ame…
My favorite is Paine’s ;
“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more
contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. “”
I responded:
Quote Isiah Abraham: “Thirdly, did you by any chance notice that Mr. Paine
acknowledged an “Almighty” in that “favorite” verse of yours: “Of all the
systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the
Almighty,” So Mike, you can probably argue all day that that they were not all
Christians, but could you honestly and accurately argue that all did not
believe in God? “
So Mike, where did I say that the “acknowledgement of an Almighty is a
validation of my claim this is a christian nation founded on Christian beliefs.”?
Secondly, since you say that the “Acknowledgement of an Almighty is not a validation of your claim” then why do you seem to believe that your acknowledgement of an “Almighty Constitution” validates any of your claims?
3. Mike: “You wrote…I can’t when it makes such little sense to the rational mind.
I never claimed you have a rational mind so I’m not surprised you’re having trouble
making sense of it.
What else you
got…???”
Lol! Where have I claimed that I’m “having trouble making sense of it” Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it? This is what was stated:
“You want me to accept as a premise that all of these individuals escaped religious persecution only to come here and not base any part of their government on the beliefs that led them to risk their lives to come to a new world. Some others may readily swallow such fantasy, but I can’t when it makes such little sense to the
rational mind.”
So where did I say that I was “having trouble making sense of it.”?
Warman1138 June 27th, 2015 at 14:43
Primitive, alpha male primate behavior.
bpollen June 27th, 2015 at 17:33
Polygamy doesn’t do it for me. It takes a lot of work to keep a relationship with ONE person working right. What I think would make a lot of sense are trial marriages. After, say, 5 years, you could choose to dissolve the marriage or renew. And fewer divorce lawyers would just be serendipity!