The case for polygamy

[BigMatt]

The only cure for all of that is to make gay marriage absolutely equal in every legal way to heterosexual marriage within the government with all agents thereof sworn to uphold that law, thus making such bureaucrats and functionaries wary, of substituting their own judgement for married gay peoples' rights, for fear of real legal ramifications.

I think if you did that and called it merridge, equal rights people would still have a problem with it.

I don't have a problem with it in any way, but I think in the eyes of the government, we should all have civil unions. If your church wants to marry you, they should be able to. If they don't want to, they don't have to.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I think if you did that and called it merridge, equal rights people would still have a problem with it.

I don't have a problem with it in any way, but I think in the eyes of the government, we should all have civil unions. If your church wants to marry you, they should be able to. If they don't want to, they don't have to.

Could not agree with this any more. If me and my brother wish to have a civil union to have the contractual rights as the marriage license we should be able to go downtown and fork over the $25 and be done with it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Could not agree with this any more. If me and my brother wish to have a civil union to have the contractual rights as the marriage license we should be able to go downtown and fork over the $25 and be done with it.

Being so close to Kentucky really is a bad influence, isn't it?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Being so close to Kentucky really is a bad influence, isn't it?

 

[Birds Away]

Well said.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't live that close to Bloomington...

 

[kludge]

My understanding is that it costs tens of thousands of dollars to file all of the paperwork with the government for a gay couple to even get near to all of the rights and privileges a hetero couple gets with a $25 marriage license. That right there is a huge kernel for an equal treatment under the law argument. Even when a gay couple does it all right, they still have bureaucrats and functionaries substituting their own judgement for that of the concrete facts the gay couple paid so much money for and refusing them services, like hospital visitation and inheritance rights.

The only cure for all of that is to make gay marriage absolutely equal in every legal way to heterosexual marriage within the government with all agents thereof sworn to uphold that law, thus making such bureaucrats and functionaries wary, of substituting their own judgement for married gay peoples' rights, for fear of real legal ramifications.

For me the answer is much more simple, the way to limit of governmental intrusion into inheritance rights is to pass a law that says... You write a will, get two uninterested parties to witness it, and you can give whatever you want to whomever you want tax free, ad infinitum, and the government can kiss off and stop taxing people on what has already been taxed. Wife(s), husband(s), significant other(s), lover(s), sibling(s), child(ren), the cat(s), who freaking cares.

For hospital visiting rights and for automatic inheritance rights, I'm with you, the same rights should be available to anyone who goes to the courthouse and pays $25. The person behind the desk can witness it, notorize it, make a couple copies, and file it.

Just don't make a law calling it marriage, 'cuz it's not.

To take someone off your list, or to dissolve the mutual legal agreement go to the courthouse, pay $25, file another paper.

If you want to argue about stuff you own in common or children you have in common before either of you die, that's what lawyers and courts are for.

Call them all "civil unions" (hetero marriages included) cuz that's what they are (a single legal entity), and let the churches or non-churches perform marriages of whomever or whatever they please, because that is freedom of religion/expression.

 

[funeralweb]

Much of our social issues can be traced back to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was a good and necessary idea for racial equality. The problem started when every subgroup, subculture, whatever it's called, started lining up for their own share of "equality" and we didn't have the sense to tell them "No."

 

[rambone]

The morality of our society will never be changed by legislation. Even the bible doesn't advocate this tactic. Legislating marriage has had zero effect on morality. Polygamy? Good grief, look around. People are doing this constantly, it just doesn't have a government piece of paper attached to it. There are baby daddies and baby mamas all over the place. Homosexuals? Again, already happening, just no piece of paper.

Government should be about practicality, not morality. What principles result in the least intrusive and most practically useful government? Personal liberty and personal responsibility. That is where the responsibility of the government should begin and end.

I am a firm believer in objective morality and I a firm believer in its source. I also see the folly in attempting to legislation to enforce it. Morality begins in the heart. The only way we change our society is to start there, as we have been instructed by the very source of that morality.

Quoted for truth. You can & should have your own morality, without superimposing it on everybody else.

To reiterate the point: Few things are as recognizable to so many as the 10 Commandments. Everybody with a Judeo-Christian background should agree that these 10 things are classified as immoral. Why not enforce the 10 Commandments using government force?

If immorality is the standard for making laws, then government should prohibit cursing, prohibit disrespect to parents, prohibit lying, prohibit envy, prohibit work on a particular day of the week, and so on. Is that the kind of government any of you want to see?

Let morality be a personal matter; something to be encouraged, but not enforced.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

i dont care about either gay marriage or polygamy....mary whoever you want and how much you want......ive thought about why gay men cant just write up a contract between eachother, get it notarized and have it essentially be a marriage contract....hell they can even call it "merrage" if they want...doesnt the govt help uphold contract between consenting adults???

5th amendment protections can't be gained via contract, but you can't be compelled to testify against your spouse.

Immigration status can't be gained via contract, but you can file for a visa for your spouse.

I'm sure there's other examples, but those two just popped to mind quickly.

 

[TEK]

5th amendment protections can't be gained via contract, but you can't be compelled to testify against your spouse....Immigration status can't be gained via contract, but you can file for a visa for your spouse....I'm sure there's other examples, but those two just popped to mind quickly.

INHERITANCE RIGHTS IS THE BIGGIE
PENSION PLANS, RETIREMENT PLANS, INSURANCE
INCOME TAX JOINT FILING MARRIED DISCOUNTS
TENANCY BY THE ENTIRITIES ASSET PROTECTION OF MARITAL HOME

I think those 4 are the big money items behind this trend, not sure if the rest counts for a hill of beans or not.

these are definite opportunities for fraud on the public, not that the mass media has ever bothered to explain or dare suggest the gay lobby has these major financial benefits in mind for their followers

 

[Hookeye]

Having a spouse/SO is like shooting yourself in the foot.

Anything additional is like shooting yourself in the other foot.

 

[John Titor]

There is nothing in the Bible that prohibits plural marriage .

 

[steveh_131]

There is nothing in the Bible that prohibits plural marriage .

You need to do a bit more studying.

 

[Hawkeye]

You need to do a bit more studying.

Care to share?

I know most Christian religions have adopted monogomy as the "standard", but serial monogomy, mistresses, "courtesans", prostitution, etc. have all seemed at one time or another to be culturally and even religously acceptable.

Where, in the Bible, does it state that "marriage = 1 man + 1 woman"? I'm not saying that it doesn't but if you can point me to a Book, Chapter and Verse, I'd be happy to follow up.

 

[sassy lassy]

If I could be married to two men right now, I would be. I love two men. I have for years.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm no Bible expert, but wasn't Solomon supposed to be the wisest man of his time? Didn't he have something like 700 wives plus assorted concubines?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm no Bible expert, but wasn't Solomon supposed to be the wisest man of his time? Didn't he have something like 700 wives plus assorted concubines?

Yes, but violation of the admonition not to multiply to himself horses and women is generally understood as the principle element underlying the weakening of the kingdom for assorted reasons attached to his polyamorous ways.

I would also add that wisdom is a relative thing. While Solomon generally was wise (and was commended for asking for wisdom) he was not perfect. You could think of it in the same way as that someone has the distinction of being the toughest roughneck in the kindergarten class.

 

[Jerchap2]

Nine people in black robes - human, fallible men/women -- deciding morality, decency and the law for over 300 million people -- a travesty that the founders and framers, wise men all, would solidly REJECT. They cannot substitute for God's law.

 

[steveh_131]

Care to share?

I know most Christian religions have adopted monogomy as the "standard", but serial monogomy, mistresses, "courtesans", prostitution, etc. have all seemed at one time or another to be culturally and even religously acceptable.

Where, in the Bible, does it state that "marriage = 1 man + 1 woman"? I'm not saying that it doesn't but if you can point me to a Book, Chapter and Verse, I'd be happy to follow up.

Matthew 19:4-6.

The historical portrayal of events as they happened is not equivalent to condoning or advocating them.