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.
A back country man in Montana has one legal wife and another woman living with him (not for religious reasons). He just applied for a marriage license to marry the second woman. It was taken to the state attorney, and it was rejected.
This is now going into the courts going to the supreme court eventually.
Remember that Justice John Roberts said when they made same sex legal, that if they have to accept the fact that same sex couples have the right to marry, then he does not see how they can say no to multiple marriage. This is what the man in the above example told the licensing authority in Montana.
Yes, he said that. It was just sour grapes because his side lost.
It's rather enjoyable to read how the pro-gay marriage crowd can't defend the number of 2 in a marriage with any substantial argument. Even words like 'wrong' and 'idiocy' creep into their language.
What's next, arguing traditional gay marriage btw two adults should get church protection?
No, it's a silly debate. And you are just trolling and baiting. Gays only wanted what others have. To argue that their rights somehow open the door to silly and weird combinations is a hollow argument. In Massachusetts, gays have been marrying for 10 or so years, and I have not heard of any silly situations that you mentioned.
This country is based on monogamy, and if the Muslims want to follow their Sharia laws and keep multiple wives, then they can move to a Muslim country that allows lt. We have a two spouse system, for both gay and straight people. That's it.
Silly and weird from whose perspective, exactly ?
The majority ? The Christians ? People who try to find moral differences where none exist ?
A lot of people still see men marrying men as more than little silly and weird. Clearly they don't get to chose the laws.
Heck, there's still plenty of people that don't believe in divorce. For them a divorced person re-marrying is definitely silly and weird (and many other things).
It was kind of obvious from the start, with gay marriage made legal, the only thing still off the table is a kind of marriage that is infringing on one of the parties' rights (e.g. underage marriage). Otherwise, there's really no legal standing to not allow them. So any combination of willing adult partners, in principle, is not any different than a gay marriage. It's only the matter of time.
And "this country is based on monogamy" is cut in what stone ? The same one that said that men can only marry women ?
This artificial separation of gay marriage and polygamy into "good" and "bad" marriage is weird and silly and highly arbitrary.
Either marriage is between one man and one woman, or it's any combination whatsoever as long as the parties are adult and consenting.
Last edited by Ummagumma; 07-30-2015 at 05:28 PM..
You proved most of my point with this ""The Congress shall have power to enforce". Congress, not the entirety of government.
You evidently haven't digested the 10th amendment. The last 5 words, "or left to the people", should be quite clear government wasn't to intrude into the lives of people. I have never disputed that, I in direct opposition to government intrusion into people lives, Their beliefs and business concerns.
The 4th amendment is being trampled yet we never hear of SCOTUS ruling on those facts. TMZ concerns such as same sex marriage are apparently more pressing than illegal search and murder.
This is how progressive operate. They soothe the immediate raw nerve to placate the masses, while ignoring real matters.
Yay, same sex marriage, now we can go on with our lives as everyone is happy.
Nope, some want gun control and it's a TMZ concern as well. Time to get the guns.
It goes on and on.
Meanwhile...BENGHAZI. Vote that sow into office and libs can squeal in delight until they realize what they wrought.
Why not? It's a contract right? Only 2 can sign the contract at this time and that can be messy to unravel. Imagine a divorce of 3.
Actually, that's not correct. People/couples make contracts with corporations all the time (see credit card contracts, Prime memberships with Amazon, etc.) And polygamy occurs in other countries, just not in the US.
Actually, that's not correct. People/couples make contracts with corporations all the time (see credit card contracts, Prime memberships with Amazon, etc.) And polygamy occurs in other countries, just not in the US.
And not for much longer. There's really no compelling legal reason why two men can legally form a family unit but two women and a man can't. Especially since this is legal and accepted in many Muslim countries, so it's not like it's some unknown concept that no culture embraces.
And not for much longer. There's really no compelling legal reason why two men can legally form a family unit but two women and a man can't. Especially since this is legal and accepted in many Muslim countries, so it's not like it's some unknown concept that no culture embraces.
They loosened the lid, it's about to fall.
Any number of consenting human beings have the right to enter into any non-coerced contract they see fit. This is true by virtue of their humanity. You, likewise, as a human, have the right to disapprove of, rail against, and denounce their moral choices. You do not, however, have the right to force them into conformity with your own moral standards through force (i.e. government). You may hate their decisions with every fiber of your being, but that does not give you the right to stop them.
And I suspect the man was right. The problems will come about as we deal with some of the entrenched aspects of it-for example social security for spouses.
On the other hand I expect they will be uncommon.
Giving the number of Muslims in this country who already practice polygamy (not officially, but this is a worst kept secret in Dearborn or Hamtramck MI) and given that Mormon church split over this about 100 years ago and some splinter sects never accepted monogamy, I don't think it would be that uncommon.
PS being old fashioned, I do not think the government should be involved in defining what's "marriage" at all. I also think there are some caveats to be worked out when they do allow polygamy (e.g. how fair is it for someone to have 4 wives and 20 kids on welfare ?) But I just don't see this progressing any other way. Most likely, the institution of marriage will just die out and the majority will live in unions of various degrees of permanence, governed by some set of property / custodial laws. Can't say this version of the future is something I like, but it is what it is.
Or the two issues have nothing to do with each other, which is a simpler explanation, but will not allow you to express outrage about a hypocrisy which doesn't exist in order to further demonize those horrid gay marriage activists.
Talk about the fallacy of circular thinking, lol. You said exactly nothing in your post.
It's rather enjoyable to read how the pro-gay marriage crowd can't defend the number of 2 in a marriage with any substantial argument. Even words like 'wrong' and 'idiocy' creep into their language.
Well, yes. This is how adults work. Someone posits an idea, the adult listens, tries out arguments against it, realises they don't work and changes their opinion. Not that hard.
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.
