Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No one is owed anything less which is what is happening. Everyone is affected by everything no matter how small the ripple is. Calm down and view things in a wider context. Not like a frog at the bottom of the well.
Sweetie, I'm very calm. I just don't like ignorant people who post to other people to "calm down" when they don't agree or understand the words I type. I have no reason to view things in a wider context. I don't care about you or yours. I care about me and mine. It is indeed all about us. That includes not paying for non and under contributors. It's not my responsibility to ensure that others get a break on paying for their bonus wives or kids. I work my ass off to make sure that we live well above average. Just because I do so doesn't mean that someone else is entitled to the same thing.
I don't think the state or federal government should be able to prevent poly cohabitation. That shouldn't be any of their business, as long as no one is being neglected or abused.
Marriage, though...I think poly marriage would be extremely complicated. For example, one man might be married to five women, but would those women be married to each other? Maybe not in some relationships, but in some other relationships, all of the partners would want to be considered married to each other.
I think of marriage as a legal contract between two individuals. I don't see how that could be expanded to include more people without massive legal changes that might do away with any advantages that people gain by being married.
I have no problem with this. If the state has no right to dictate the genders of people entering a marriage contract it should also not get to dictate how many people are involved in a marriage contract. Frankly I'd rather see the state getting out of the marriage business altogether, but so long as it remains involved it has no business using its power to force particular family arrangements.
"From the rejection of morality legislation in Lawrence to the expansion of the protections of liberty interests in Obergefell, it is clear that states can no longer use criminal codes to coerce or punish those who choose to live in consensual but unpopular unions," Turley wrote in his answer to Utah's appeal.
If a person is Jewish or from another religion that endorses Polygamy why can't they get married , they are not under the teaching of Christianity , and the GOD of Christianity allows for Free Choice In Those who are not Christians.....
Last edited by Howest2008; 08-28-2015 at 05:04 PM..
If the polygamists believed it was just as valid for a woman to have many husbands as it is for a man to have multiple wives, I might see that they have a case in comparing their situation to the Supreme Court's Obergefell ruling.
But that doesn't seem to be the case. These fundamentalist Mormon sects oppress women, denying them equal rights and in some cases even free will. Women and children are basically treated as property. Note that healthy male teens are often driven out of these communities by the older men who want young wives and see the teens as unwanted competition. I see polygamist relationships as more akin to man marrying an animal than two human adults, who happen to be homosexual, entering into marriage.
I'd say the ultra-conservatists better be careful what they wish for before their favorite straw-man argument comes back to bite them.
It's my right and we are very happy.And it's none of your damn business.
I am reminded yet again of a moronic coworker who once informed me that same-sex marriage was going to lead to dog marriage. When I pointed out that asserting that expanding the right of persons to marry was no more going to lead to non-persons marrying than allowing women to vote way back in 1920 was ever going to dogs voting.
His response?
"Oh, sure... that hasn't happened... yet!"
You really can't argue with people who make such astonishingly idiotic arguments as that. Because it takes a special kind of stupid not to comprehend that neither dogs nor goats can enter into contracts or give consent. My brain-dead coworker actually told me that dogs could use their paws to indicate their consent. I wonder if he posts here? He and his idiocy would certainly be right at home.
It's my right and we are very happy.And it's none of your damn business.
Animals are not Human Beings and can not Legally Marry Human Beings , that Ban will Stand , and the Ban against Adults Marrying Children will also stand....
How on earth would expecting people to take care of themselves be extortion?
Let's go back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sspistol
The easiest way to figure out who really wants something badly is to charge them for it not give it to them for free. If they can't pay for it then they haven't earned it and do not deserve it.
Why are you charging somebody for something here? What are you really talking about?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
