Polygamy

[daniel]

Isn't that adding alot too it daniel?

wanting it to be there when its not!

and you can also wish it wasn't there when it is.

[Digby]

Jonathan loved David as he loved his own soul

take the word loved to hebrew and you get (to have affection for) (sexual OR OTHERWISE) remember or otherwise it could mean just good friends .

I think most know David was very much a hetrosexual .

So much so that when he seen belsheba ,he wanted her so bad that he plotted to kill her husband so he could have this very attractive woman.

When david was old they had a beauty contest and the winner a young lady was put in bed with him. Seems nobody that knew him figgured he was lusting for a man ,they picked a woman.

Calling David a homosexual is adding alot to scriptures that is not there ! Davids big sin was lusting for a woman so bad he killed her husband.

[Black Dog]

ezekiel 5:6

Yet in her wickedness she has rebelled against my laws and decrees more than the nations and countries around her. She has rejected my laws and has not followed my decrees.

Pbbth. You know, given the choice between idle threats from a dusty book penned by nomasdic tribesmen 2,000 yars ago and the Enlightenment principle of equality under the law, I'll take my chance with the latter.

In any case, most Christisan should accept the Christ's commandment to love one another is superior.

I think most know David was very much a hetrosexual .

So much so that when he seen belsheba ,he wanted her so bad that he plotted to kill her husband so he could have this very attractive woman.

When david was old they had a beauty contest and the winner a young lady was put in bed with him. Seems nobody that knew him figgured he was lusting for a man ,they picked a woman.

Gee: murder, lust, infidelity: that Bible sur emakes for a greta moral guidebook!

[Digby]

Time will tell !

You just don't understand how much the bible has been predicting .

Canada = part of Ephrium (british commanwealth)

Ephrium and manasah(america) ,take isreals name

The hear ye house of Isreal verses are speaking to Canada .

Ezekiel wrote to end time Isreal . look ezekiel 22 over ,You don't think God Knew what our present state would be ?

Read Hosea 4 its all happening .

According to the haircut in ezekiel 5 we will be sorry for some of our actions soon.

[Black Dog]

[daniel]

It's all in the interpretation, which is very subjective, especially when it's been translated for the umpteenth time.

If the bible can predict the existance of Canada, please have it guide NASA to the exact nearest location so that they can confirm the existance of life in the universe other than our own. Should save billions of dollars.

[Digby]

Im just telling you the bible will shock you with what it predicts if you learn to unlock it .

First of all rember the bible is not ment to be understood by most , its wrote with here a little there a little , line apon line precept upon precept .

Sometimes writers who never met ,who lived hundreds of years apart finish each others message . This is how you know this book has more then human orgins .The way it time travels and predicts the future .

The koran on the other hand was wrote by a group of men in one place who was talking and agreeing on what to put in and not to put in .The koran has been very poor at future predictions and what few it can be said to have made could of been made bye the writers reading the bible.

Is Canadas future in the Bible ? Yes

Canada is part of the british comman wealth which is ephrium , ephrium was told he would be a multitude of nations . and that he would have a brother who would be a great nation (america) mannasah. these 2 boys was josephs children.

Joseph is a tribe of Isreal . the tribe of joseph got the biggest blessing of any tribe and they also was told they would carry isreals name .

You can see Josephs blessing in gen 49 , it hits right on.

if you keep reading the bible you will find Isreal gets sick in the last days .Very sick , and god who has helped them all through history will actually turn his back on them and allow great tribulation to happen to them.

If you really want to study you will find what makes isreal sick , their churches , Mystery Babalon the great = modern christianity the mother lives in seven hills = Rome (catholics) and she has many daughters (protestants) modern christianity is a satanic counterfiet in almost all cases ,the people may be sincere .

ya the whole earth is decieved. Why ?

Maybe the truth is dangerous .

[The Terrible Sweal]

Excellent! This foum has long needed an injection of badly written, empty-headed, overwrought religious drivel.

[PocketRocket]

EUREKA: You speak intelligently, and in a civil manner, but I feel I must address your points here.

  I have stayed away from this argument so far since it is nothing more than a name calling exercise: and an offensive one. 

I've likewise stayed away from this particular one for a while, but for a different reason; been there, done that. Argued this same argument many times in many forums. I should have kept copies of my posts as copy/paste is a lot quicker than writing a new blurb.

Those who think this is a "Rights" issue have no argument other than to call those who believe in the sanctity of marriage, bigots and intolerant.

Perhaps a few who have little skill in debate. But on the other hand, those who are against it have no argument based on logic, they simply cite religion and tradition.

Traditions change, and religion is not the basis for law in a secularly-governed society.

They should look a little more closely at their reasoning.

Or lack thereof...

There are many religious bigots on the anti SSM side:

Truer words were never spoke.

there are many who believe in the accepted definition of marriage and who do think that a change of that definition is a cheapening of the basic human contract.

I believe that an abusive husband cheapens the sanctity of marriage. I believe people who break their vows cheapens the sanctity of marriage. I believe divorce cheapens the sanctity of marriage. I believe adultury cheapens the sanctity of marriage.

No individual marriage is "sanctified" in and of itself. It's sanctity is based on the fidelity of the parties involved in the marriage.

Celebrity marriages broadcast on live TV cheapen the sanctity of marriage. Gimmick weddings wherein a couple is wed while skydiving/scuba diving/bungee jumping etc...cheapens the sanctity of marriage.

How do you feel about the sanctity of Bill Clinton's marriage??? I am sure that Monica would call it into question.

The latter is my opinion and belief. This new "marriage" is not marriage since it has to alter the meaning to suit a new idea; an idea that is the ultimate in the political correctness that most of the proponents in any other context would profess to despise.

Marriage has been altered many times in history. The "traditional" vows were, for the woman, to "love, honor and obey". These vows were used in virtually all Christian churches for hundreds of years. Few women these days will utter the "obey" line.

What about ceremonies??? Is a Maori wedding ceremony with drums and goat's blood and naked dancers less valid than a Christian ceremony??? What about some of the tribal ceremonies where the newlywed bride had to spend her wedding night in bed with the groom's father??? Since some of these traditions went on for hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of years, you should consider them valid as long standing traditions. But they certainly don't bear much resemblance to our Christian/western concept of marriage.

The word "Marry", in it's most basic context, means "to join". Two pieces of rope may be married by a knot. Two pieces of wood married by a screw, or a nail (interesting how those two words are also used in slang to describe the physical joining of two people).

By this definition, any joining of two, or even more, people would fit quite nicely.

But, "He was not married to the idea of radical change".

Currently, western society is, by and large, "married" to the concept of marriage as the lifetime union of a man and a woman.

BTW, what do you think of a married couple, when one of the people has had a sex change??? A woman who used to be a man, or vice-versa. Should she/he be marrying a man or a woman??? Which would be proper??? Obviously, one of the choices, by your thoughts, would cheapens that good ol' sanctity of marriage. Please answer that one question if no other. Anyone.

The new "marriage" would, I suggest, be better named a civil union for the facilitation of sexual communion. That is what they would transform marriage into. 

Nonsense. As per various examples I have given above, and many many more all over the world, marriage is many different things to different people.

Marriage is a word, nothing more. It is a noun meaning "a joining together of". Period.

My own marriage is not affected by the actions, attitudes, customs, traditions or opinions of anyone else.

Anyone who IS affected by any of the factors above, is simply insecure in their own marriage.

My contention is simply this, the opposition to SSM is nothing more than people clinging to tradition in the face of world change.

Tradition. Little else.

Religious reasons have been given, but that too is simply tradition in disguise as there are too many examples of things that have been previous condemned as being "sinful" which are now accepted by Christians everywhere.

Well, here's a news flash. Traditions change. Always. All traditions.

Think of any single tradition that has stood the test of time, and I will point out some way in which the tradition itself has changed.

Thanksgiving??? It wasn't originally meant to be a "football" celebration.

Christmas??? Think commercialism. Think Santa Clause.

Do you believe the Earth is round??? Christianity rejected that idea as "sinful".

Does the Earth Orbit the Sun??? See above.

Is the Earth flat??? No??? You guessed it. At one time it was "sinful" to think otherwise.

How do you "traditionally" treat an adulturess??? I haven't seen too many women walking around lately with a big letter "A" on their foreheads.

Haven't heard about any witches being burned at the stake lately.

And yet these were religious-based traditions in their time.

Interestingly enough, any change to most of the examples above was resisted by the conservatives of each era.

But that's what "conservative" means, to resist change and to cling to tradition.

But, as a famous man once said, "The only constant is change itself".

Or, if you prefer, the reverse French spin "Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose". (loosely, the more things change, the more they stay the same)

BTW, sexual communion, as you call it, has never required the formality of being wed. The only "facilitation" it requires is for two (or more) people to just go ahead and do it.

The word "Marriage" is simply a word. Nothing else. If you or anyone else feels threatened by the fact that it means something different than your personally approved perception of the word, that's too bad.

Sooner or later, SSM will be approved and legislated. It's called progress, and it continues in the face of conservative opposition.

As it always has, and it always will.

[Digby]

Goes well with the over educated ,wisdom lacking ,homosexual supporting reprobate minds .

Sometimes you need balance so the boat don't get too much of a list on it.

[Black Dog]

if you keep reading the bible you will find Isreal gets sick in the last days .Very sick , and god who has helped them all through history will actually turn his back on them and allow great tribulation to happen to them.

God has been helping Israel? What happened, did he sleep through the whole Holocaust thing?

I believe that an abusive husband cheapens the sanctity of marriage. I believe people who break their vows cheapens the sanctity of marriage. I believe divorce cheapens the sanctity of marriage. I believe adultury cheapens the sanctity of marriage.

No individual marriage is "sanctified" in and of itself. It's sanctity is based on the fidelity of the parties involved in the marriage.

Exceleent post, PocketRocket. Bang on.

[PocketRocket]

And some more stuff, just for fun....

  bring on polygamy! i got a vote... and i want polygamy! 

No problem. No argument from me.

  you guys who have one wife and don't think anyone should have more than one are just jealous that you couldn't get more than one.

Just a quick question; how would you feel if your wife decided she wanted to add another husband to the mix???

Would having one wife, and a co-husband or two bother you??? Would you be willing to share the same bed with a woman ond another man or two???

Be careful how you answer.

now, i've had a couple of threesomes with some very nice girls... really, you don't know what you're missing! 

Been there. Done that. You're right. It's quite a lot of fun. But I'm not sure if I'd want to do it on a nightly basis. There is something to be said for being able to dedicate all your attention and affection on one person.

But hey, whatever gets you through the night is fine by me. Knock yourself out, buddy.

Thanks. All we white middle-class heterosexuals want is the same rights as everyone else who's rights we've traditionally trampled on.

ROFL

Gay marriage=apples.

Polygamy=oranges.

Whatever. Any doctor will tell you that fresh fruit is good for you, so either one is fine by me.

If one guy chooses to have three wives, there is less to go around,

Ah, but the three wives have to agree to having that one guy. It may not be as easy as everyone thinks.

its just not fair, there is already more males then females in the lower demographics in Canada no need to make it worse.

Let's look at this from a practical standpoint. One guy, no matter how big his libido, is only capable of sexually satisfying a limited number of women in any given period of time. Not so for a woman. She doesn't need to "get it up". A woman's sexual endurance is limited only by her sexual appetite. She can go on giving and receiving for as long as she desires to do so.

So, it might end up that polygamous marriages would favour two or more men to one woman.

Hmmm. I wonder how the guys would feel about that???

I'm sure the girls wouldn't mind.

So I choose to marry my 10 year neice, who cares, it's no one elses business.

Well, her father may have an opinion on that. Her mother as well. They may have a shotgun to back up that opinion.

But hey, if the niece agrees, and the parents are for it, it's none of my business. If you're into that kind of thing, bobo, go for it.

But watch out for the RCMP.

Edited to say: Hmmm, the quote boxes didn't seem to work that time. Oh well.....

Edit again. PLEASE NOTE, to correct the quote box situation, I had to put time and date in each quote box that has a name. I did this by copy/paste (lazy), so post times in the quote boxes are inaccurate.

Sorry about that.

[PocketRocket]

Excellent post, PocketRocket. Bang on.

Thanks, Dog. But wait, there's more.

I think most know David was very much a hetrosexual .

Heterosexual

...nobody that knew him figgured he  was lusting for a man ,they picked a woman.

Figured

Calling David a homosexual  is  adding alot  to scriptures that is not there ! Davids big sin  was lusting for a woman so bad  he killed her husband.

And yet David is considered to be a highly respected biblical figure.

Hmmm. No contradiction there.

Isn't that adding a lot too it daniel?

The word you wanted here was "to".

"Too" means "also" or "excessively, as in "too much beer" or "I want some beer, too".

wanting it to be there when its not!

And here you need an apostrophe in the word "it's". This makes a contraction meaning "it is".

"Its" is a possessive adjective.

  Most in this society now days have given up looking to the bible as a source of picking right from wrong.

Good thing, too. (In this context, "too" means "also")

But if one did they could find way better arguements for allowing polygamy then for allowing gay marriage .

Cool

I don't know of a case in the bible of homosexual union being ok with men of God .

Perhaps not, but in the past, Men of God have condoned, and even approved of gay marriage. I am NOT going to do the search all over again that I did for another forum. But if you search online, you can find records dating back to before the middle ages wherein several SSM's were sanctioned by the Vatican. Go ahead, give it a try. It's easy ("it's", in this context, meaning "it is").

But you do see many cases of polgamy with men who was friends of God involved . Isreal had 4 wives , Abraham had 2 , solomon had 700 and on the list goes .

"Were". "Were friends of God." Plural. Not singular.

I want to grow up to be Solomon. 700 wives. Hmm. That's one a day for almost two years. Hopefully they aren't all nymphomaniacs or I'd die in a very short time.

But where did homosexuality ever bring anything but Gods wrath ? When we see Hindue

India actually haveing to remind Canada of what is morally right you wonder how close we are getting to the haircut of ezekiel 5

"Hindu"

I guess what it comes down too is does the great barber in the sky exist ? And if he does how much is he going to take before he gives us a haircut.

I need a shave, not a haircut.

....I beleave....

Me too (also). But what I "believe" (not "beleave") is that until you improve your writing ability, you should look into a spell-check program. Good grammar and spelling lends credibility, which some of your posts have been sorely lacking.

(No offense intended. This post was meant (mostly) in the spirit of fun. It is not meant to cast derision.)

And speaking of fun, I haven't had this much fun in a forum in quite a while.

(Hmmm. Again the quote boxes not working right. I don't know if it's ("it is", Digby) my computer or the website. Oh well, too lazy to keep trying to correct it. Sorry folks)

Edited again to fix the quote boxes.

Thanks to BlackDog for the corrective advice.

[Digby]

This may not make sence .

The jews are not Isreal ,they are the house of judae

judea . jew = judae

actually the jews are 2.5 tribes of isreal ,so they are part of isreal .But they do not carry isreals name .In our modern world they do ,but they don't in bible prophecy .

In bible prophecy ,the tribe of Joseph carrys isreals name . Joseph gets the biggest blessing of all tribes of isreal to make a long story short . Joseph is the Brittish .

France = Rueben

Holland = Zebulon ect.

Joseph was to become a Multitude of nations and also a great nation gen 48:19

Joseph was to have most the worlds wealth , the worlds greatest fishing grounds (blessings of the deep) ,greatest weather patterns (blessings of heaven)

his bow would run over the wall (his language ,his media ,his movies would spread) he would be hated but very strong in war fare . Strong economy .

he would have the sheperd stone of Isreal (the stone of Scone which his monarchs are crowned on).

He got the worlds greatest blessing untill Paul Martin came and took it all away!

[Guest eureka]

PR!

This answer may disappoint you since it will be short and you obviously put considerable effort into your missive.

I agree with, and accept, almost everything you said. However, you have not made any case for "rights. and that is what I am waiting to see from anyone. Rights in this issue is simply an emotive, and very hollow, call.

Tradition can change, and thankfully does, but human nature and biology does not. Marriage may be just a word, but words are symbols and are the most powerful things in the ordering of the human condition. To change the usage of the "word" is a sea change in human affairs and no light matter.

As it stands, homosexuals have the same right as heterosexuals in the exercise of the ability to marry. For me, it seems an absurdity to say that marriage in the "traditional" sense must cease to exist because it does not fit an anomaly.

When I talk about sexual communion, that is what marriage now will be and any concept of love goes with the word into oblivion. The supporters of SSM have given little thought to the change in mores that will follow: change for the whole of society.

As for those who have had sex changes! I can't answer that. That, I would leave to medical science to confirm that it is actually a change of sex. If it is, then they will be heterosexual and capable of marriage.

[Digby]

The first time the word Jew is found in the bible what do you think they are doing?

Fighting a war against Isreal

just had to ad that.

[Black Dog]

PR, you're messing up the coding by adding the name of the poster you're quoting.

On to business:

This may not make sence .

There's a first.

I agree with, and accept, almost everything you said. However, you have not made any case for "rights. and that is what I am waiting to see from anyone. Rights in this issue is simply an emotive, and very hollow, call.

Bull. When one group of sceity is entitled to a set of legal privileges and another is denied the same privilages on an arbitrary basis, it's a rights issue.

As it stands, homosexuals have the same right as heterosexuals in the exercise of the ability to marry. For me, it seems an absurdity to say that marriage in the "traditional" sense must cease to exist because it does not fit an anomaly.

The same arguments could be applied for other civil rights issues. For instance: why did blacks in the pre-civil rights South want to use common water fountains? They had their own water fountains, so they had the same right to drink water as white people did. What was the big deal?

When I talk about sexual communion, that is what marriage now will be and any concept of love goes with the word into oblivion. The supporters of SSM have given little thought to the change in mores that will follow: change for the whole of society.

No. Civil marriage has nothing to do with sex and less to do with love. It's a legal contract.

Anything deeper is between the couple involved, not society.

As for those who have had sex changes! I can't answer that. That, I would leave to medical science to confirm that it is actually a change of sex. If it is, then they will be heterosexual and capable of marriage.

I know someone who was born female, initially identified as lesbian, but, as a transexual, now identifies as a man. He has had top surgery and hormone treatments to rid himself of some of his female physical charateristics, but still has female reporductive parts and, at the base genetic level, will always be a female. Now, if he and his girlfriend decide they want to marry, can they?

[Digby]

Oh and thankyou pocket rocket for showing me the error of my ways .

been a fishing captain 21 years and i guess never used a pen much . But I bet I can find the flood tide place faster then you . lol

[PocketRocket]

Oh and thankyou pocket rocket for showing me the error of my ways .

been a fishing captain 21 years and i guess never used a pen much . But I bet I can find the flood tide place faster then you . lol

That's why whenever I'm near the sea, I wear flood pants

We all have our own calling, Digby.

Your's is fishing (an honorable trade), and spreading the word.

Mine is being an internet fool.

Glad to see you took my silliness in good spirit.

For He too was a fisher, a fisher of men.

May you always have a good catch, and may your feet stay dry.

[PocketRocket]

EUREKA :Yet another intelligent and courteous post, which again I must address.....

PR! 

EUREKA!!! How's it going??? Always great to hear from you!!!

This answer may disappoint you since it will be short and you obviously put considerable effort into your missive.

Now come on, It's not THAT short. And as for effort, well, it's no effort for me to ramble on aimlessly

It is, however, an effort for those around me to stay awake once I get on a roll.

Thanks for managing to keep your eyes open

I agree with, and accept, almost everything you said. However, you have not made any case for "rights. and that is what I am waiting to see from anyone. Rights in this issue is simply an emotive, and very hollow, call.

I disagree. I did not trumpet the "rights" perspective because so many others have taken that tack. I simply set out to debunk some of the less valid arguments against usage of the "M" word.

But I'll leave this for a moment. Don't want to put anyone to sleep

Tradition can change, and thankfully does, but human nature and biology does not. Marriage may be just a word, but words are symbols and are the most powerful things in the ordering of the human condition. To change the usage of the "word" is a sea change in human affairs and no light matter.

Consider the recent usage of the following words, along with their traditional meanings which I have endeavoured to supply here:

(Note: for comedic purposes, and for reasons of applicability to this thread, I have stuck to words applied to the homosexual condition)

Fag (or Faggot)........(A log. More recently a cigarrette)

Flaming...(On fire)

Homo.....(A grade of milk)

Queer.....(Odd or Peculiar)

Gay........(Happy, Glad)

Queen.....(A female ruling monarch)

Hershey Highway....(The road to Hershey Penn)

Society doesn't seem to have a problem with changing the usage of words.

However, applying the word "marriage" to gays is not to change it's traditional meaning (the lifelong union of two people), simply the groups of people who are allowed, UNDER THE LAW, to use the word.

As it stands, homosexuals have the same right as heterosexuals in the exercise of the ability to marry. For me, it seems an absurdity to say that marriage in the "traditional" sense must cease to exist because it does not fit an anomaly.

Posh. No one is saying the traditional marriage will, or should, cease to be.

There is a legally married gay couple living a very short distance from my home. One of them happens to be a cousin of mine.

They married because they love each other. Their commitment to each other is total. To see them together, it's a beautiful thing.

Rarely have I seen a couple, straight, gay or otherwise, who are so happy together, and so COMPLETELY dedicated to each other's happiness and wellbeing.

Their "marriage" in no way cheapens, threatens, or invalidates my own.

Nor has it caused my marriage to "cease to be". (The wife and I managed to do that on our own)

(BTW, a few years ago, their next-door neighbour was furious to find out he was living next to a gay couple. Regular red-neck type. But, when you live next door to someone, you are, at times, forced to communicate. After a little while, he came around. Now they are all best of friends and regularly invite each other for dinner, movies, bbq's etc...)

When I talk about sexual communion, that is what marriage now will be and any concept of love goes with the word into oblivion. The supporters of SSM have given little thought to the change in mores that will follow: change for the whole of society.

Pish and posh (LOL). Do you seriously believe that Gays will be getting married in droves just to facilitate sex??? Nonsense. You don't buy a cow when milk is free.

Gays will be getting married because they love each other, want to commit their lives to each other, and want it legally recognized.

For them to use the word married, which as I pointed out in my previous post means "joined together" at it's most basic level, should not be a problem.

Rights are not an issue. At least not Gay rights. To me, it's more the other way around; What right do WE have to say a significant segment of our society is NOT allowed to use a particular word to describe their relationship???

As for the "change for the whole of society", I think once the issue is over and done with (and Gays WILL get the right to "marry", sooner or later), we will hear no more about it and most of us will just have a good laugh about how it ever became such an issue in the first place.

As for those who have had sex changes! I can't answer that. That, I would leave to medical science to confirm that it is actually a change of sex. If it is, then they will be heterosexual and capable of marriage.

Good answer. Hopefully I'll never have to find out first-hand.

EUREKA: Thanks for the replies. You debate from a logical standpoint, and in a respectful manner. It's truly a pleasure, even when we disagree.

BLACK DOG: Thanks for the heads-up on the quote boxes. (When the name is in there, the date must be as well. First time I've run into that particular little nag, but I'm still pretty new here. Live and learn. Thanks.)

[Digby]

Fishing use to be a honourable Trade Pocket rocket .

Because Iniquity shall abound the love of many shall grow cold !

Its getting worse every year , im at the point where its either drop the fishing in Canada or drop the faith

And you know I Can't Drop the Faith

So what do i Do ? Head for The Land ?

Or head for a less developed part of the world?

Never been on the land in my life ,so thats a little scary .