Welcome to the brand new TST! Click the title of this announcement to read more about what's new and different here at The Sand Trap! We're using some new software to power this forum, and while this means some change, it's for the better. However, there will be a few bumps, and one of those may be that you may have a little trouble logging in to your account. So try this: Log in with your existing username and password.If that fails, reset your password here: http://thesandtrap.com/lostpassword/ .If that fails, PM either @mvmac or @iacas and we'll help you out.After that, check out this thread to share any bugs you find along with your likes/dislikes, and check out this thread to see what awesome new features you can use on this site. Finally, once you're on the site, do a few things if you don't mind: Check your account settings. This is where you can clean up your signature.Edit your profile (to possibly include your GAME Golf account). Do this by clicking "Edit Profile" on your name in the top right corner of the site.Add or replace the cover photo on your profile. They're now Facebook-like dimensions. Change your avatar if it looks distorted, too.
Couple thoughts: 1. Believe each of the US partnerships are 1st time they've teamed up. Would rather have seen Phil with Rickie and Spieth with Reid but no real complaints until I see them play, a few just seem a little awkward. 2. Surprised Bae sitting given that he's won on that course twice, I figured he'd get 5 matches there.
This thread is about polygamy.. And I am discussing it from a law perspective. You are talking about polyandry and something called group marriage. From a personal religious perspective I don't accept the other forms you mentioned, but that is a personal choice and has nothing to do with the law of the US. Now, from a law perspective tell me what's wrong with all the other forms of marriage as well? The Supreme Court just passed a law marrying the same sex, why are there still laws against polygymy, polyandry and group marriage?
Do you believe it should work both ways? I ask because I only see you give the example of having multiple wives. But should a woman also be allowed to have multiple husbands? And if you have 4 wives, should those wives be allowed to each have three other husbands beside you? (and those husbands can have multiple wives then also, etc. etc.) You see where I'm going with this?
I have never been able to understand why there are laws criminalizing polygamy. It just makes no sense to me what so ever. Now, maybe it make sense to others and I would love to hear the arguments against why grown adults are not only not allowed under law to marry multiple partners, but are also treated as criminals for doing so? Because of my own religious restrictions I would only be able to marry 4 wives simultaneously and there are very strict rules to do so. The main one is a man must be able to provide for all of his wives and treat them justly. So, for example if he bought a gift for one of the wives then he must buy a gift for all. He must be able to provide each with their own accommodations if they so wish, and must be fair in distributing his time equally. I really can't come up with a good reason to prevent men from taking multiple wives.. Above, I gave my own justification of why I should be allowed to marry more than one women (not that I would because my wife would kill me, but that isn't the point), and this thread is not to discuss the religious merits of being able to take multiple wives, but rather the justification the law has to limit a man in the number of wives he is allowed to take (religious or otherwise). Obviously with the recent supreme court decision on gay marriage the government will start having a very hard time defending its position. Once they stopped looking at the marriage definition as 1 man married to 1 woman it will be very hard for them to sit on top of that house of cards. I have other things to say, but want to see what other things are out there.
And, FWI, the only western country in the world with the death penalty. For me it keeps being mind blowing that people actually believe that a waepons run is the answer to a saver society. Another school shooting and I hear 'yea, let's give teachers guns. Or if some students had them maybe less people were killed'. I can not begin to explain how silly that sounds for us Europeans. I don't mean that disrespectful, but I really don't understand that kind of reasoning at all. Not even a little bit. 'pff yes, we have like a million school shootings while other western countries pretty much don't have them at all. What is the difference, what is the solution. More guns!' It's just mind blowing for me. Also I read a lot about the need (right) to protect yourself. Looking at it from the victim's point of view. But you can also look at it from the criminal's point of view. If I am a criminal, and I know there's a big chance my potential victim has a gun, I would make sure I bring a gun to the party. In my opinion with more guns in society, the chances of escalation increase big time. Fact is that the murder rate by guns in USA are enormously big and not even close compared to EU. I hear the problem is economical, but in EU there's poverty also. I hear a lot of the deaths are gang related (and therefor don't count?), but here we have criminals shooting each other also making a big percentage of the gun deaths. We are not that different. Yet gun laws are, school shootings pretty much don't happen here, stats death by guns are not even close.... but it's not a gun problem? Maybe not completely, I guess it's also about mentality.