Ummm, the beard discussion is stupid, on both sides, but that's a particularly ignorant remark.
I'm pretty sure Washington, Adams, Jefferson, et al. were presidents....and in fact, until Lincoln, ALL US presidents were clean shaven.
Posted on 08/25/2013 9:09:36 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Tell that to Presidents Abe Lincoln, US Grant, Rutheford B. Hayes, James Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, and the millions of other men both in and out of government that have proudly sported beards over the last 237 years in this country.
France finally got around to banning incest a few years ago
“i’ve been noticing the push to make beards on men a culture norm. another islamic piece”
And in other news pulled out of thin air...
“I fear the day just years from now when marriage has absolutely no definition at all.”
I don’t believe the definition of marriage is determined by whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority happens to believe it is at any one time. That’s how the state determines the definition of marriage, at least in the modern era, thus the problems with ‘gay marriage.’
“More than 150 years ago, the delegates in the 1856 Republican Party Convention made a point to protect the people of the United States from the woes that can result from same-sex marriage.”
Maybe 150 years from now the delegates in the 2163 Republican Party Convention will make a point to protect the people of the United States from the woes that can result from hetero-marriage.
FReegards
Allowing homosexual “marriage” makes polygamy absolutely inevitable...from a natural law/common sense standard.
Polygamy historically, actually in the form of polygyny (a man with more than one wife), has been morally allowable in certain times and circumstances. In the Bible, in ancient subsistance-agricultural societies, where due to war, slavery and disease, they always had an excess of females, polygyny was the most straightforward way of caring for these extra women.
It’s been said in the ancient world, a woman could be a wife, or a desperately poor-and-vulnerable single-beggar, or a prostitute….these were the only 3 options. (This is why traditionally widows and orphans are seen as the most vulnerable of the poor—needing support. ) However, in the explicit cases of polygyny in the bible....family life is shown to be very dysfunctional, with severe jealousy and rivalry between wives—and their children. Clearly not an ideal—but a sin overlooked by God, since it was so deeply engrained in ancient culture.
The New Testament clearly frowns on polygyny—making monogamy (or celibacy) an absolute requirement for any kind of Church leadership (but not, interestingly—absolutely binding on laymen). (Since early Mormonism reversed & perverted this—making polygyny required for it’s leadership...this tells us Mormonism’s relationship to Christianity).
Pagan Romans, at various different times, banned polygyny from the empire—for purely practical/legal/cultural reasons—as in law, polygyny is a headache. Who inherits what, where do the wives live, what about the multitude of kids under the care of one man… All these things to law-and-order Romans, made them see polygyny as something to get rid of.
Christianity—in elevating marriage between one man and one woman, put the final nail in the polygyny coffin in the West, as it provided the moral basis which the Romans had been lacking, for doing away with polygyny entirely. (It is interesting that in the most Romanized of European countries (those with the Romance languages) the ancient pagan Roman practice of a married man with one, or several, mistresses on the side…never quite went away.)
Neither the pagan Romans, and of course not the later Christians, ever imagined elevating homosexual relationships to be considered “sacred matrimony.” Remember in the USA itself sodomy has only been struck down as being a crime by the Supremes for ten years now. Calling a couple dedicated to a life of disgusting perverted acts “married” would have horrified even pagans in the ancient world.
Therefore, since the USA is very fast in blessing sodomy, and sodomy-”marriages” as good and wonderful, it will certainly bless the much-less harmful and sinful relationships of polygamy as acceptable. Pressures of multi-culturalism from Muslims, I think, will be key—though perhaps lawsuits from fundamentalist-Mormons will also drag us into this.
I’m certain too—it will become a huge burden on our legal system, as we will find, like the pagan Romans did, polygamy is an affront to civil life and law.
I suspect this is much of the real whisper behind accomodating sexual fetishists.
History is repleat with aristocracy’s incestuous marriages. How many of europe’s current royal cluster is interrelated and hemopheliac. Their relaxing to allow for “commoner” marriages is probably more an issue of eugenic gene diversity.
eventually marriage will be a mere ecconomic manuver. Mother, Father, and Love will be four letter words. (see brave new world)
Ummm, the beard discussion is stupid, on both sides, but that's a particularly ignorant remark.
I'm pretty sure Washington, Adams, Jefferson, et al. were presidents....and in fact, until Lincoln, ALL US presidents were clean shaven.
Blurgh. Like I said, look at the fashion around the time of the civil war to around the time of Wilson.
These men would probably disagree with you:
The Society of Bearded Gentlemen:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Society-of-Bearded-Gentlemen/317184504224
The Beard Advocate:
http://www.beardadvocate.org/2010/01/society-of-bearded-gentlemen.html
The Beardo Blog:
http://beardedgents.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-society-of-bearded-gentlemen-mobile-main-page/
and ... they’d be wrong
do 66% of American men sport a beard? no. 50%? no.
more likely well under 20%, which is a small minority.
therefore... the US is not a ‘beard’ country
Okay, so now that we’ve established that 20% of American men sport facial hair, two conclusions follow: (1) there’s no huge sweep toward Islamic fashion in the US, and (2) since beards were more prevalent in the past (e.g. 19th Century), we’re further from Islamic fashion than in the past.
we didn’t establish 20% wear a beard... just that less then 20%, which could be 5% but I wasn’t bothering to push lower. 1 in 10? 1 in 20? prolly
my point being that there has benn an increase in the ‘buzz’ around beards in the last month or so.
this would be similar to the increase of homosexual content in tv shows and comedian monologues all geared to ‘normalize’ homosexuality back in the 90s (I’m aware they started sooner, but the big push for homos came in the 90s)
That's interesting. You've noticed more talk about it in the media as of late? As someone suggested to me, could there be more talk about it because maybe we are seeing more beards in the news...like the Duck Dynasty guys?
I can't flat out state your premise is not valid, even if only in a slight way, I just don't have enough information to draw that conclusion yet. But good food for thought.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.