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.
Now that we've determined that gender can no longer be used to define marriage, I think we need to throw numbers out. After all, who are we to determine what happens in someone's bedroom?
Now that we've determined that gender can no longer be used to define marriage, I think we need to throw numbers out. After all, who are we to determine what happens in someone's bedroom?
Legalizing same-sex marriage is no more likely to lead to polygamy than legalizing interracial marriage. Which, of course, did not lead to same-sex marriage.
So, how's that polygamy going in Massachusetts? Oh, wait... they've had same-sex marriage there for nine years now, and no sign whatsoever of polygamy in the Bay State.
On the plus side, it's encouraging to see that you still have just the same old nonsensical arguments which aren't working!
Now that we've determined that gender can no longer be used to define marriage, I think we need to throw numbers out. After all, who are we to determine what happens in someone's bedroom?
How are gender and number of wives related?
You're losing me; however, I consider this a good thing.
Splitting the rights marriage confers upon the spouse between more than two parties creates considerably more problems than both of those people being the same sex. There is also far less organized pressure to change the law for polygamists, so I doubt you'll see anyone moving on the issue. The reason people cared about gay marriage can be boiled down to two factors:
1. Legal discrimination against gays preventing them from the rights marriage provides (which does apply to polygamy)
2. An organized effort on the part of special interest groups, celebrities, and various powerful people to promote greater acceptance of homosexuality itself (polygamists don't have any of these types of groups/people)
Using this logic, didn't allowing men to marry women make it inevitable that men would eventually be allowed to marry men or women to marry women? Given your thinking, I think the only way to avoid all of this is to get rid of marriage entirely.
I thought the guy associated with the polygamists lost, hehehe.
Anyway, we talked about this once at work. An older lady in the office said she was OK with it because "the men are gonna cheat anyway. Might as well know who the heifer is."
I would want any other wives in my relationship to be the type that like to clean, because I don't.
As long as it's between consenting adults and doesn't hurt anyone else not involved in the agreement, what right does the state have to interfere in people's personal lives?
If one man and two women want to live together and call it "polygamy", "orgy" or whatever else they like to call it, as long as they are happy, why do I care?
The first thing we need to do is to STOP legislating morality. It doesn't work. If we weren't the kind of busybodies we are, trying to dictate how others should lead their lives, we would all be better off.
Nope no polygamy, Romney lost. You'll have to move to the third world like old Grandpa Romney
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.
