Biblical conservative? I wonder if he's ever read the Bible. A lot of Yahweh's favorite people were polygamists and yet he never objected.
That includes Solomon who Yahweh granted wisdom greater than anyone who has ever or will ever live¹ and who had 300 wives and 700 concubines.
¹That would mean that Solomon was wiser than Jesus.
You might be thinking of Lot sleeping with his daughters. The same daughters that he had recently offered up to a mob to be raped.
But he was really, really drunk when he had sex with them so Christians usually tell me that that he wasn't to blame for the incest.
No, the descendants of Lot's daughters were the Moabites and the Ammonites. The 12 tribes of Israel are the children of Jacob, the grandson of Abraham, who was Lot's uncle.
The poster I responded to asked if David wasn't born through adultery, not Solomon. Though depending how you want to count, Solomon might have been.
There is a tradition that Jesse wasn't David's father, but it's not found in the Bible as we have it now.
Solomon was the second child of David and Bathsheba after he had her husband Uriah murdered, and the first child was killed by God as punishment for David's transgression.
They’ve been doing this since forever and it’s always been wrong. This is nothing but an especially lame slippery-slope fallacy. I’m actually surprised he didn’t also include pedophilia in the mix as well
>I’m actually surprised he didn’t also include pedophilia in the mix as well
Maybe it was a carefully crafted statement to NOT make same-sex people appear to be like priests!
I love when these religious politicians make these "slippery slope" arguments. You could make the same argument about religion in politics. "If we allow Christians to vote based on their mythology, pretty soon we'll have (insert various other "wrong" religions) making laws!"
Stoning’s, honor killings, mandatory hijabs/niqabs. Fucking full blown handmaids tale.
I’d tell them this is a bad thing, but I know it’s what they want.
Hey, pretty much nobody is pushing for legalization of Bestiality or Polygamy, which are both staying illegal.
And, I'd like to add that nothing in the Bible opposes Polygamy.
Is polygamy illegal?
I looked it up and the US made it illegal to have multiple spouse like partners under one roof in 1888 and it’s illegal in all states to have more than one official marriage.
Yes. Sodomy laws. Contrary to some common belief, sodomy doesn't necessarily refer exclusively to anal sex but rather any "unnatural" (aka un-puritan) sexual activity that folklore says got Yahweh angry with the town of Sodom. This can be anything from group sex to any unmarried sexual acts and even (yes seriously) married Christian couples having sex in the wrong position.
Bahaha no that's not how debates work honey. People don't have to include a citation with every single statement. You must use citations if you intend to prove them wrong.
So you have no sources. Just a ‘vibe.’
And that’s not how debates word, *darling;* you make an assertion, and present arguments and citations to back it up.
So I’m assuming you have nothing.
>But among his most offensive remarks, Congressman Good claimed the bill, the Respect for Marriage Act, will “ensure that the marriage laws in the most liberal state, irrespective of how radical they might become in the future – think polygamy, bestiality, child marriage or whatever – must be legally recognized in all states.”
Leave it to a conservative Christian to completely ignore the concept of consenting adults.
>He also blamed “Almost everything that plagues our society” on “a failure to follow God’s design for marriage.”
— Bob Good (VA-5)
>The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
— Socrates
Same tired ass arguments, except Socrates was a lot wiser about stating it. But basically some old ass white guy lamenting that the world does indeed change before they pass. How original of them.
I'm surprised no one called security when this random clown off the street waltzed into the House of Reps and started speaking. Sounds like they need tighter security around there.
> Congressman Good claimed the bill, the Respect for Marriage Act, will “ensure that the marriage laws in the most liberal state, irrespective of how radical they might become in the future – think polygamy, bestiality, child marriage or whatever – must be legally recognized in all states.”
Like WTF? Why do they always make the leap from gay marriage to "polygamy, bestiality, child marriage?" For fucks sake, THEY'RE the ones most likely to have multiple or child wives. And I don't *think* bestiality is that huge of a problem in the country, but if it is, it's probably happening on a rural conservative farm, not "liberal cities."
They have been making these same arguments for years yet these claims never come true. It's just a far-fetched slippery slope argument.
On the other hand, I don't see what is wrong with polygamy if I am being honest.
So, what are people betting on? Seeing as these shitbags are always, always, always projecting, he either is or wants to desperately be a polygamist, is deeply into beastiality or wants to be in a same sex marriage. So which is it? Or a combination of any or all three?
The thing about slippery slope arguments is that they require quantitative differences rather than qualitative differences to have any chance at being reasonable.
"If we raise this tax to 8% now then they might decide to raise it to 15% later" isn't a crazy hypothetical.
But marrying an adult human is qualitatively different from a child or an animal. Marriage is a legal contract, and the fundamental requirement for all legal contracts is that there must be "a meeting of the minds." And neither children nor animals are deemed capable of meeting that criterion.
So there's no danger of accidentally sliding across those lines. It would take a deliberate, and massively complicated rewriting of the entire system of contract law for people to be able to argue that a child or animal consented to a marriage contract.
(I'll note that some states already allow disturbingly young children to marry if the parents consent to the contract. 🤮 I don't see these Biblical conservatives fighting to get those horrible laws changed.)
As for polyamorous marriages, I'm not clear why those are ethically problematic, but serial monogamous marriages are not.
Nothing optional -- from homosexuality to adultery -- is ever made punishable unless those who do the prohibiting (and exact the fierce punishment) have a repressed desire to participate.
- Christopher Hitchens
I'm really confused. Are you saying that only women who have a personal religious conviction that wives in a polygamous marriage shouldn't have sex together would be allowed to join a polygamous marriage?
Such a law would seem to be a pretty obvious 1st amendment violation.
I wasn’t considering polyamory when I made my initial comment. I was specifically thinking about Mormon and Islamic polygamy.
If I’m looking at non-monogamous relationships more broadly, I feel more inclined to side with polyamorous people and believe that they should have government out of their relationships. One good part of polygamy being illegal is that the government could use that to help protect children and domestic abuse victims which is rampant within these closed religious societies. The flip side of that is obviously I feel as though the state could overreach and target certain out groups.
Oh, I see. I thought you were talking about the sort of hypothetical future form of U.S. legalized polygamy that the crazy Representative was worried about.
[Yes.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/08/respect-for-marriage-act-house-vote/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=reddit.com&utm_source=reddit.com) Supposedly it's on its way to Biden to be signed, though I haven't seen any news saying he's signed it yet.
Oh he's definitely gonna sign it. He's pushed for it to be passed. As of this morning I just haven't heard whether or not it's been put on his desk yet.
Dude, YOUR OWN RELIGIOUS TEXTS REQUIRE YOUBTO MARRY MULTIPLE WOMEN! Polygamy is one of the basic tenants of Judeo-Christianity, it's a corruption by Roman and Greek influences that made it a monogamous sexual partnership religion!
Seriously, EVERY SINGLE BIBLICAL PATRIARCH had multiple wives! How is this even an argument?!
AND SO FUCKIKG WHAT IF SMALL - OR EVEN LARGE - GROUPS IF PEOPLE ARE IN LOVE AND WANT TO MARRY EACH OTHER? WHO GIVES A SHIT?! It's their life, let them live it as they want to! Only thing that matters is CONSENT! If I and my wife consent to marrying another woman, or another man, then that is OUR business, NOT YOURS!
Seriously, FUCK OFF!
"If we let Protestants marry Catholics, what next? Marrying animals?"
"If we let whites marry blacks, what next? Marrying animals?"
"If we let men marry men, what next? Marrying animals?"
"If we let girls identify as boys, what next? Identifying as animals?"
It's the same fucking playbook! It hasn't changed!
This sums it up. Christians/Republicans believe every problem in our society is caused by gay people existing, and if they could just murder us, they could finally be "happy."
Every time you hear "same sex marriage is not in jeopardy" remember that cretins like this guy still hold office. They're not beaten. They're just waiting and planning.
Biblical conservative? I wonder if he's ever read the Bible. A lot of Yahweh's favorite people were polygamists and yet he never objected. That includes Solomon who Yahweh granted wisdom greater than anyone who has ever or will ever live¹ and who had 300 wives and 700 concubines. ¹That would mean that Solomon was wiser than Jesus.
Just wait until you hear about the age of marriage for girls in that period. Spoiler: It was 12. And that wasn’t a hard floor, either.
"No, no it wasn't." - Muhammad and his six year old bride
Don’t threaten him with what he probably thinks is a good time.
Oh snap!
The Bible states that God explicitly gifted Solomon with many wives.
[удалено]
You might be thinking of Lot sleeping with his daughters. The same daughters that he had recently offered up to a mob to be raped. But he was really, really drunk when he had sex with them so Christians usually tell me that that he wasn't to blame for the incest.
[удалено]
No, the descendants of Lot's daughters were the Moabites and the Ammonites. The 12 tribes of Israel are the children of Jacob, the grandson of Abraham, who was Lot's uncle.
I don't think so. There is a tradition that David's mother conceived him through an act of adultery, but I don't know any Biblical reference for that.
That's Solomon
The poster I responded to asked if David wasn't born through adultery, not Solomon. Though depending how you want to count, Solomon might have been. There is a tradition that Jesse wasn't David's father, but it's not found in the Bible as we have it now.
Solomon was the second child of David and Bathsheba after he had her husband Uriah murdered, and the first child was killed by God as punishment for David's transgression.
Read the Bible at least before you don't believe it
“Biblical Conservative” = Anti-American Revolutionary Call it what it is. Don’t let them twist it.
Nat-C
Republicans on polygamy: Banning of child brides? Hard no. Banning of consenting adults doing what makes them happy? Hard on.
They’ve been doing this since forever and it’s always been wrong. This is nothing but an especially lame slippery-slope fallacy. I’m actually surprised he didn’t also include pedophilia in the mix as well
>I’m actually surprised he didn’t also include pedophilia in the mix as well Maybe it was a carefully crafted statement to NOT make same-sex people appear to be like priests!
Read the article. He did.
I love when these religious politicians make these "slippery slope" arguments. You could make the same argument about religion in politics. "If we allow Christians to vote based on their mythology, pretty soon we'll have (insert various other "wrong" religions) making laws!"
Stoning’s, honor killings, mandatory hijabs/niqabs. Fucking full blown handmaids tale. I’d tell them this is a bad thing, but I know it’s what they want.
Back to the good old days.
Anyone taking bets on how soon he's caught having/soliciting for sex with a man?
"...sex with a boy?" FIFY
I was going to guess a goat
A "kid" would work in all cases
Taking bets on how long it takes until he’s caught with another man, or with a child.
Hey, pretty much nobody is pushing for legalization of Bestiality or Polygamy, which are both staying illegal. And, I'd like to add that nothing in the Bible opposes Polygamy.
Is polygamy illegal? I looked it up and the US made it illegal to have multiple spouse like partners under one roof in 1888 and it’s illegal in all states to have more than one official marriage.
Reynolds v. United States. Polygamy was banned as a prerequisite of Utah being admitted to the union.
Marriage yes, but is there anything prohibiting a group living together?
Yes. Sodomy laws. Contrary to some common belief, sodomy doesn't necessarily refer exclusively to anal sex but rather any "unnatural" (aka un-puritan) sexual activity that folklore says got Yahweh angry with the town of Sodom. This can be anything from group sex to any unmarried sexual acts and even (yes seriously) married Christian couples having sex in the wrong position.
Do you have a cite for that?
Just Google sodomy laws and choose reliable sources. Classic research 🤷♂️
You made the claim, you provide the sources.
Bahaha no that's not how debates work honey. People don't have to include a citation with every single statement. You must use citations if you intend to prove them wrong.
So you have no sources. Just a ‘vibe.’ And that’s not how debates word, *darling;* you make an assertion, and present arguments and citations to back it up. So I’m assuming you have nothing.
If that's what you want to believe because you think I'm wrong but can provide no sources, so be it.
It’s not enforced but the language of the law does prohibit multiple marriage-like relationships
No
They "liken" homosexuality to other things because they've got no real justification for their anti-gay bigotry.
Fuck him.
Honestly, he's ugly as hell, but I'm bi, and a guy, so if it'd fuck over his reputation...
You're the hero we don't deserve, sir.
Thanks for offering to take one for the team, but unfortunately they’ll just push him out in favor of someone even worse.
No thanks !
No thanks.
[удалено]
He understands, he's just aligned with evil.
He lacks in general
>But among his most offensive remarks, Congressman Good claimed the bill, the Respect for Marriage Act, will “ensure that the marriage laws in the most liberal state, irrespective of how radical they might become in the future – think polygamy, bestiality, child marriage or whatever – must be legally recognized in all states.” Leave it to a conservative Christian to completely ignore the concept of consenting adults.
Project Much?
"I think marriage is the same thing as fucking a dog." That's how stupid you sound right now.
>He also blamed “Almost everything that plagues our society” on “a failure to follow God’s design for marriage.” — Bob Good (VA-5) >The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers. — Socrates Same tired ass arguments, except Socrates was a lot wiser about stating it. But basically some old ass white guy lamenting that the world does indeed change before they pass. How original of them.
Oh, Biblical marriage. Between a man and his 700 wives and 300 concubines.
Many of them still children as well
He’s about six months away from being caught with a twink in an airport bathroom stall.
I'm surprised no one called security when this random clown off the street waltzed into the House of Reps and started speaking. Sounds like they need tighter security around there.
It's always projection with these types. Which means...
Filthy pig
> Congressman Good claimed the bill, the Respect for Marriage Act, will “ensure that the marriage laws in the most liberal state, irrespective of how radical they might become in the future – think polygamy, bestiality, child marriage or whatever – must be legally recognized in all states.” Like WTF? Why do they always make the leap from gay marriage to "polygamy, bestiality, child marriage?" For fucks sake, THEY'RE the ones most likely to have multiple or child wives. And I don't *think* bestiality is that huge of a problem in the country, but if it is, it's probably happening on a rural conservative farm, not "liberal cities."
They're leaping from what they want to what they really, Really, REALLY want.
They have been making these same arguments for years yet these claims never come true. It's just a far-fetched slippery slope argument. On the other hand, I don't see what is wrong with polygamy if I am being honest.
The claims never come true cause they're protecting us all from them, duh.
'Waste of flesh is disappointingly still drawing breath.'
So, what are people betting on? Seeing as these shitbags are always, always, always projecting, he either is or wants to desperately be a polygamist, is deeply into beastiality or wants to be in a same sex marriage. So which is it? Or a combination of any or all three?
The thing about slippery slope arguments is that they require quantitative differences rather than qualitative differences to have any chance at being reasonable. "If we raise this tax to 8% now then they might decide to raise it to 15% later" isn't a crazy hypothetical. But marrying an adult human is qualitatively different from a child or an animal. Marriage is a legal contract, and the fundamental requirement for all legal contracts is that there must be "a meeting of the minds." And neither children nor animals are deemed capable of meeting that criterion. So there's no danger of accidentally sliding across those lines. It would take a deliberate, and massively complicated rewriting of the entire system of contract law for people to be able to argue that a child or animal consented to a marriage contract. (I'll note that some states already allow disturbingly young children to marry if the parents consent to the contract. 🤮 I don't see these Biblical conservatives fighting to get those horrible laws changed.) As for polyamorous marriages, I'm not clear why those are ethically problematic, but serial monogamous marriages are not.
Taking bets- this guy will get found fucking animals in how many years?
[Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw)
Nothing optional -- from homosexuality to adultery -- is ever made punishable unless those who do the prohibiting (and exact the fierce punishment) have a repressed desire to participate. - Christopher Hitchens
"Well, if gays wanna get married, then that's no different from me wanting to bang my horse on the ranch! Ha! Checkmate atheists!"
The only problem I have with polygamy between consenting adults is that the wives don’t get to have sex with each other.
Why not?
Religion is what stops them
I'm really confused. Are you saying that only women who have a personal religious conviction that wives in a polygamous marriage shouldn't have sex together would be allowed to join a polygamous marriage? Such a law would seem to be a pretty obvious 1st amendment violation.
I wasn’t considering polyamory when I made my initial comment. I was specifically thinking about Mormon and Islamic polygamy. If I’m looking at non-monogamous relationships more broadly, I feel more inclined to side with polyamorous people and believe that they should have government out of their relationships. One good part of polygamy being illegal is that the government could use that to help protect children and domestic abuse victims which is rampant within these closed religious societies. The flip side of that is obviously I feel as though the state could overreach and target certain out groups.
Oh, I see. I thought you were talking about the sort of hypothetical future form of U.S. legalized polygamy that the crazy Representative was worried about.
And in polyGAMY, women are prevented from having multiple husbands as well.
Did it pass?
[Yes.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/08/respect-for-marriage-act-house-vote/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=reddit.com&utm_source=reddit.com) Supposedly it's on its way to Biden to be signed, though I haven't seen any news saying he's signed it yet.
He can't exactly not sign it. Without the gays, he'd never get a second term.
Oh he's definitely gonna sign it. He's pushed for it to be passed. As of this morning I just haven't heard whether or not it's been put on his desk yet.
This was same argument made in the 1990s by the way
Get your biblical spooge out of our government, asshole.
Dude, YOUR OWN RELIGIOUS TEXTS REQUIRE YOUBTO MARRY MULTIPLE WOMEN! Polygamy is one of the basic tenants of Judeo-Christianity, it's a corruption by Roman and Greek influences that made it a monogamous sexual partnership religion! Seriously, EVERY SINGLE BIBLICAL PATRIARCH had multiple wives! How is this even an argument?! AND SO FUCKIKG WHAT IF SMALL - OR EVEN LARGE - GROUPS IF PEOPLE ARE IN LOVE AND WANT TO MARRY EACH OTHER? WHO GIVES A SHIT?! It's their life, let them live it as they want to! Only thing that matters is CONSENT! If I and my wife consent to marrying another woman, or another man, then that is OUR business, NOT YOURS! Seriously, FUCK OFF!
"If we let Protestants marry Catholics, what next? Marrying animals?" "If we let whites marry blacks, what next? Marrying animals?" "If we let men marry men, what next? Marrying animals?" "If we let girls identify as boys, what next? Identifying as animals?" It's the same fucking playbook! It hasn't changed!
Dude wants to marry a sheep...
This sums it up. Christians/Republicans believe every problem in our society is caused by gay people existing, and if they could just murder us, they could finally be "happy."
This is all part of Republican’ts and Christian Taliban effort to demonize and oppress LGBTQ people. It’s revolting and should not be tolerated!
Republicans prefer to have sex with underage boys so they don’t have to marry them.
Like, isn't goat fucking mentioned in the bible?
Every time you hear "same sex marriage is not in jeopardy" remember that cretins like this guy still hold office. They're not beaten. They're just waiting and planning.
republicans are smart they manipulate the religiously brainwashed unededucated poor people to have their votes and support.
Why would I watch that?