The case for polygamy

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Wow, the thought of having more than one disappointed woman in an evening.............

Yeah but if you spread that disappointment among more women, then each woman wouldn't be as disappointed as the one would have been...

 

[mk2ja]

Yeah but if you spread that disappointment among more women, then each woman wouldn't be as disappointed as the one would have been...

So you see, it is only the woman-haters, who don't want women to be happy, that would oppose this commonsense reform which allows for wives to be less disappointed.

 

[spec4]

Do we then get our taxes raised to support those who can't support their families?

 

[KLB]

Do we then get our taxes raised to support those who can't support their families?

We already do

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Do we then get our taxes raised to support those who can't support their families?

You're new here aren't you? It's your patriotic duty

 

[Denny347]

The only good part of gay marriage is population control. Of course a rise in HIV cases may be on the horizon.

So you LIKE homosexuals dying from AIDS? You see it as a "good" thing? Wow.

 

[kludge]

I couldn't remember when the laws against it began, or the reasons for the law.

Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[public servant]

The only good part of gay marriage is population control. Of course a rise in HIV cases may be on the horizon.

Homophobia strikes again.

 

[Denny347]

Homophobia strikes again.

He is not afraid of homosexuals, he just enjoys the fact they are dying off.

 

[Bunnykid68]

So you LIKE homosexuals dying from AIDS? You see it as a "good" thing? Wow.

I think he was saying that homosexuals do not reproduce, the aids part was separate

 

[public servant]

I think he was saying that homosexuals do not reproduce, the aids part was separate

Like an extra added bonus?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Like an extra added bonus?

maybe. i dunno.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I have a question about polygamy in modern America. Say you have husband A and husband B. A has many wives, including wife C. If everybody can marry as many spouses as they want, including wives having multiple husbands ("Paint Your Wagon", anybody?), what happens if husband B also marries wife C, in addition to all of his other wives. Do A and B become "married by proxy" in a pseudo-gay-marriage kind of way? Does A also become husband to all of B's wives, and vice versa?

In a nation with both gay marriage and plural marriage, what would be the legal roadblock to a massive plural gay marriage? What if a bunch of guys wanted to all be married each to all the others? Or a bunch of gals, for that matter? Would each one need to be officially married to each of their spouses, or could there be other marriage topologies? Maybe one person marries each of their same-sex partners and then all of them are considered married to each other by proxy, a star topology. Maybe each person just marries exactly two other members of the marriage group so that they form a ring topology.

Enquiring mathematical minds want to know.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I have a question about polygamy in modern America. Say you have husband A and husband B. A has many wives, including wife C. If everybody can marry as many spouses as they want, including wives having multiple husbands ("Paint Your Wagon", anybody?), what happens if husband B also marries wife C, in addition to all of his other wives. Do A and B become "married by proxy" in a pseudo-gay-marriage kind of way? Does A also become husband to all of B's wives, and vice versa?

In a nation with both gay marriage and plural marriage, what would be the legal roadblock to a massive plural gay marriage? What if a bunch of guys wanted to all be married each to all the others? Or a bunch of gals, for that matter? Would each one need to be officially married to each of their spouses, or could there be other marriage topologies? Maybe one person marries each of their same-sex partners and then all of them are considered married to each other by proxy, a star topology. Maybe each person just marries exactly two other members of the marriage group so that they form a ring topology.

Enquiring mathematical minds want to know.

This could be a boon to the accountant and law professions. Imagine the complexities of dividing estates when one of the hive wants to buzz off to another nest or one of them dies. The combinations and permutations are staggering.

ETA: I forgot the "marriage" counselors and psychologists---there's bound to be way more emotional and mental issues, some of which will be new "diseases" that we've never evern thought of, arise from the new paradigm.

 

[Trigger Time]

Any man who can handle more than 1 wife and mother in law can have it!!!! That lifestyle takes a speYcial person!

I don't see how it's legal for the govt to ban a religiously protected freedom anyways.

 

[lucky4034]

Simple answer... get the government out of it completely. If someone wants to label themselves married... then go for it. If you want to marry a toaster... so be it.

Upon death, wills take care of assets... Medical insurances make their own policies... The government doesn't have an NECESSARY reason to be in marriage at all. They shouldn't define it, they shouldn't recognize it and damn sure shouldn't regulate it.

THERE IS NO SLIPPERY SLOPE

 

[lucky4034]

Enquiring mathematical minds want to know.

Its simple... take out the = sign because its insignificant.

A + B / C * X.... doesn't matter. "Married" is a label no different than "Gay" or "Republican" or "Angry", "Scared", "Funny".... It should be treated as an adjective by the government rather than a noun and should be protected by the 1st Amendment under free speech.

 

[Expat]

The left has won the battle. It is time we all accept it and move on. Morality is passé.

 

[lucky4034]

The left has won the battle. It is time we all accept it and move on. Morality is passé.

One man's morality is another mans tyranny... Morality is evolving as it should.

 

[mrjarrell]

Let a better man than most here speak to it.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”


― Thomas Jefferson