Married but not legally?

Ask the question you always wanted to ask, and were afraid to. There is no dumb question. Be courageous, for here you will find people ready to talk.<P>All Villagers may post here.

Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators

Re: Married but not legally?

Postby Petros » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:00 am

"What concerns me is that the Federal Government has "borrowed" money from the Social Security fund for use for other things unrelated to Social Security. "

If someone outside the government does that, it is called embezzlement.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: Married but not legally?

Postby New_Adventurer » Sat Jan 17, 2015 12:39 am

In terms of getting married at an older age as an example to the young, YES, do not give anyone any slack or reason to call marriage old fashioned.


Aside from the prior discussion I have another point which could be relevant and possibly a future solution. I am not the first to suggest this, but I will restate my version of it.

Civil Union -- This would be a government-defined method for couples to share income, wealth, housing, children, and everything else that marriage as we know it now currently enables.

Marriage -- This would become a church-defined and church-administered union of believers, independent of the government. You could be married in the church and still not have a civil union.

I believe there are some countries where the couple needs to sign the church registry at the church and then sign the civil registry at the government office; only then can they call themselves married.
User avatar
New_Adventurer
Native Resident
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Fremont, California

Re: Married but not legally?

Postby Bare_Truth » Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:42 pm

natman wrote:"Zoosexuality"? Do you mean "beastiality"?

Well, Yes and NO. Just as the Homosexuals worked to alter the meanin of words (most recently the concept of "Marriage" They did not like that the term "Homosexual" focused on what are regarded as repugnant things that they do, and through great effort got people to use "Gay" and "Lesbian" because they do not carry such a heavy negative connotation.

We saw the same thing with the pro vs anti abortion camps. First the pro abortionists insisted on being called "Pro Choice" (because having choices sounds desirable) and the anti-abortionists changed to "Pro Life" in response because being "anti" anything makes you sound negative and life is such a desirable thing. Now those who would previously said to be engaging in bestiality, want it to be called zoophilia because "philia" means "LOVE" and that is so positive. They do use the word zoosexual as an umbrella term but make the distinction that zoophiles really do love and care about their animals well being, and would not hurt their lovers. They want the term "bestiality" reserved for those who behave like a cruel beast toward their animals and claim that those are the "horse rippers", "animal rapists" who abuse pets, and are not at all like true zoophiles.
--------------------
natman wrote:With Social Security, benefits are paid to those who have worked enough hours or to their dependents up to a certain age if they die.
My understanding is that "Supplemental Security Income" (another SS program) may be paid to anyone unable to work by reason of their physical condition (e.g. addicts on maintenance programs)regardless of being a dependent or not or having paid in or not. I believe this is the same program that covers some needs for the blind.
--------------------
natman wrote:What concerns me is that the Federal Government has "borrowed" money from the Social Security fund for use for other things unrelated to Social Security. Also, the demographics used to calculate the financial structure of Social Security no longer exist.
AND
petros wrote:What concerns me is that the Federal Government has "borrowed" money from the Social Security fund for use for other things unrelated to Social Security. "If someone outside the government does that, it is called embezzlement.
Perhaps they will defend their actions based on the infamous Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations law (AKA RICO statute) which allows the government to without a trial sieze the assets of a corrupt organization. The government creates a Ponzi scheme fraud. Then they sieze its assets (from themselves) for the government to use as it sees fit. :D (My dad used to say I had the makings of a "Philadelphia Lawyer").[1]

[1]
I hereby claim an unregistered copyright on this administrative proceedure, and if the government wants to use this scheme they should pay me royalties. :lol:
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: Married but not legally?

Postby Petros » Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:25 am

Royalties? Fair enough - though this is not a monarchy.

But of course, a Washington lawyer trumps a Philadelphia lawyer [alas, my family's lawyers were Cincinnati and Baltimore] and can likely trump up a way to repurpose those royalties.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: Married but not legally?

Postby natman » Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:46 pm

Bare_Truth wrote:They do use the word zoosexual as an umbrella term but make the distinction that zoophiles really do love and care about their animals well being, and would not hurt their lovers. They want the term "bestiality" reserved for those who behave like a cruel beast toward their animals and claim that those are the "horse rippers", "animal rapists" who abuse pets, and are not at all like true zoophiles.


So having sex with a "pet" does not cause harm????

Bare_Truth wrote:My understanding is that "Supplemental Security Income" (another SS program) may be paid to anyone unable to work by reason of their physical condition (e.g. addicts on maintenance programs)regardless of being a dependent or not or having paid in or not. I believe this is the same program that covers some needs for the blind.


For some time, I though that SSI was coming out of Social Security. "SUPPOSEDLY", it is funded by a completely separate program.

Bare_Truth wrote:I hereby claim an unregistered copyright on this administrative proceedure, and if the government wants to use this scheme they should pay me royalties. :lol:


Unfortunately you are too late. They would win in court based on precedent. :(
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7364
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Married but not legally?

Postby Bare_Truth » Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:16 am

natman wrote:
Bare_Truth wrote:They do use the word zoosexual as an umbrella term but make the distinction that zoophiles really do love and care about their animals well being, and would not hurt their lovers. They want the term "bestiality" reserved for those who behave like a cruel beast toward their animals and claim that those are the "horse rippers", "animal rapists" who abuse pets, and are not at all like true zoophiles.


So having sex with a "pet" does not cause harm????


That is the argument that they put forth for their own case and practices. They of course claim that done in the manner that they advocate that it does not harm the pet.

But as you pose the question it is far broader than physical harm or physical suffering to the pet.

To look at this claim of the Zoosexuals from a Christian perspective and specifically from the new testament:
Consider what in his 1st epistle to the Corinthians, and the 6th chapter wrote: 15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Although a harlot is fallen from the high calling and role that God set for women, she is still made in the image of God, How much more lowering to the perpetrator and how much greater then insult to God then is zoosexuality In taking the members of Christ as making them members of an animal.

From what I can see, Humanist views of morality rest on the "harm principle": "If you cannot find harm outside of what risk the consenting adults choose to take, a thing ought not to be outlawed". Curiously they share that view with Wiccans as the "Wican Reed" in short form is "An' thou harm none, do what thou wilt" Since neither of these groups place much stock in the God of the Bible, they would not see reason to object. (Well, at least the ones I have met).

I am afraid that with respect to morals in society, all their efforts to refer to "The slippery slope" argument as a logical fallacy, seem to be misguided. We seem to be on a very slippery slope. And if you wonder what is next, I recommend cheking out the article at : (or maybe not)
###########################################################
WARNING: MAJOR ICK /YECH FACTORS
###########################################################
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/17/woman-plans-to-marry-her-father-after-two-years-dating/
followed up in detail with an interview.
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/01/what-its-like-to-date-your-dad.html
----------------------------
end of salacious Yucky stuff links that tend to make sin sound reasonable and engage in rationalizing it.
-----------------------------

The "slippery slope" argument is a fallacy except when it isn't. A may not cause B but A may set the stage to make B more probable.
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: Married but not legally?

Postby Petros » Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:05 am

And how does your significant llama other, hopefully adult and of sound mind, indicate consent?
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: Married but not legally?

Postby Bare_Truth » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:25 am

Petros wrote:And how does your significant llama other, hopefully adult and of sound mind, indicate consent?
Before answering that:

###########################
Disclaimer:
The following information falls into the category of information acquired when researching a negative social trend/movement that is developing. The information is often classified as "eeewwwww; too much information"! It is not presented for prurient titillation. It falls into an area described by the Apostle Paul in 1st Corinthians 5:1
....... such fornication (porneia) as is not so much as named among the Gentiles ......
###########################

The advocates of zoophilia assert that consent is signalled mostly by "posturing" or what is more commonly know as "body language" but also includes explicit actions e.g.
-- dogs, male or female, humping someone's leg,
-- in various species the female "presenting"
-- in equine mares, a "presenting" stance accompnied by "vaginal winking"
-- etc.
The actions are often of a type readily observed by breeders when a female come into oestrus, and are normally done by the female of the species in the presence of a male of that species, but are also done in domesticated animals in the presence of human males.
--------E.G.-----------
Our family had a female dog that would do that sort of thing in the presence of human males, be they family or visitors. This seemed all the more odd in that she was spayed. She was sufficiently blatant that others recognized the behavior. Ignoring her and/or removing her from the room did not seem to deter her on subsequent occasions. Other than that habit, she was a very good adopted dog.

#######################

Our society seems to have come to a point where behaviors that were previously regarded as so degrading to humanity as to be criminalized and punished, are
-- first widely talked about,
-- then studied dispassionately and non-judgementally by professionals
-- pronounced by professionals to be of no real harm
-- develop a subculture of advocates
-- struggle for toleration
-- demand acceptance
-- Move on to the next rung down on the ladder of biblically condemned practices.

What seems to be missing at about step 2 is sound judgement.
Paul seems to be speaking about this phenomenon in chapter 1 of his epistle to the Romans where he wrote: 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: Married but not legally?

Postby Petros » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:01 am

Thank you [sincerely] for that. Of course, if a human male presented evidence of similar reactions in a human female in a rape or harassment case it would not get him very far these days.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: Married but not legally?

Postby Petros » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:02 am

And - even for the llama, is it INFORMED consent?
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: Married but not legally?

Postby Bare_Truth » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:04 am

The last several posts seem to be taking this strip down a snowballing side issue, so let me try to put this in a larger persective more relevant to the original topic.

Western Society is rapidly running into a "Post Christian" mode. And let me say that the critics of Christian Naturism will shake a finger at us and say, "See you started us down this slippery slope, when you took your clothes off and said, 'See this freedom is good' ". But those critics are nothing more than modern Pharisees. They saw the law, that we ought not to violate, and fell into the trap of protecting it by "Hedging About the Law" with man made laws and interpretations that would keep people from even getting close to violating the law. In their "self righteous human zeal" they lost sight of where God drew the line between good and evil. They made the laws of God which were for mankind's protection and to keep God's program on track, an unworkable burden. They turned God's instruction into a bit of nit picking rules. Then they found ways of getting around their rules, then they used their skill at making "work arounds" to violate the very law of God that they had set out to protect. [1]

The Bible does not really say all that much to define the "Institution of Marriage" Most of what we have in the way of definition actually arises from various societies. It is clear that God established a physical and emotional bonding between a man and a woman. It is part of how he created us. When mankind started perverting that, and going his own way, (Sodom and Gomorrah being extreme examples), he gave us laws to let us know what is perversion of his intent and malfunctional in a society, e.g. Leviticus 18. And in that chapter he points out to the Israelites, that the country they escaped from and the the one he was giving them were rife with perverted sexual practices, (verses 3 -5 and 24-30).

Now in "Post Christian" western culture, we see the same sort of situation surrounding us. In particular, we see that western society cannot even keep the definition of marriage straight (pun-not intended albeit accurate) and we see the whole of society moving in a direction that is clearly "Sodomite" in an ever fuller sense.

What we really have conceptually in the title of this strip is a discussion of how do we separate a godly institution from the counterfeit that society at large is creating under the same name. It is a necessary and God ordained institution! So how do we honor that institution without incorporating the mess that the world is making of it and other godly institutions and principles?.

[1]
Allow me to assert an example:
By imposing a protective man made rule on top of the exclusion of unmarried sex, "that no one could ever see a member of the opposite sex naked unless they were married", they created a problem in the matter of medical examination. So they made an exemption that placed Doctors above the rest of us on the scale of deciding what is morally permissible. Decades down the line, Psychiatrists (who are Doctors) decided that various perversions should be called "paraphilias", which is a less pejorative term, and subsequently redefined homosexuality as atypical but still normal sexual attraction that can be morally acted upon.
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: Married but not legally?

Postby Bare_Truth » Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:54 pm

Petros wrote:Thank you [sincerely] for that. Of course, if a human male presented evidence of similar reactions in a human female in a rape or harassment case it would not get him very far these days.
And
And - even for the llama, is it INFORMED consent?
It is my understanding that body language is recognized in some circumstances as implicit consent, and if not followed by objection or resistance, it may be deemed to be actual consent.

Of course with humans verbal consent is usually possible but the argument is that body language coupled with compliance may be deemed consent particularly with the absence of verbal communication. For instance if a police officer comes to your house and you hold the door open while standing aside and you say absolutely nothing, you will have no grounds to claim an unwarranted search as it will be deemed that you consented by your actions, demeanor, and body language. Any claim that you merely chose not to resist an illegal search will be disregarded. On the contrary if you are pulled over and the officer asks you to step out of the car and you set the lock and close the door behind you it may be regarded as asserting a right to require a warrant for a search.

But with respect to the original purpose of the strip this is a side issue to the theme of this strip about marriage.
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: Married but not legally?

Postby jochanaan » Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:19 pm

In short, there is a big difference between trying to define something that the Bible does not clearly define (perhaps because it was so well understood when the Bible was written that it needed no definition), such as marriage, and trying to justify something that God, through the Bible writers, clearly condemns, such as homosexual activity or sexual activity between humans and other animals.
You can live your life in fear--or you can live your life.
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Re: Married but not legally?

Postby nudie66 » Wed Jan 21, 2015 7:04 pm

Jochanaan summed it up right there. :like:

Warren
I transfer camcorder tapes & other family memories to DVD. http://prosservideodubs.com/
User avatar
nudie66
Native Resident
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 12:54 pm
Location: Atlantic County, New Jersey

Re: Married but not legally?

Postby Petros » Thu Jan 22, 2015 1:06 am

And so - after the manner of this comedy of errors -

we move on one side of our face toward insisting the humans provide unambiguous statements of sexuazl readiness [ http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/06 ... lly-means/ ]

while on the other side we move toward accepting apparent non opposition as consent where a non-humazn is involved.

And in one corner of the room the otherwise lusty seek to garner the benefits conveyed by the State on what it calls marriage, while the conventionally sexed seek ways to avoid the penalties involved in what the State calls marriage.

Oy!
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

PreviousNext

Return to Unanswered questions about Christianity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests