It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

From gay marriage to polygamy?

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Doom and Gloom

I'm pretty sure that animal loving violates some sort of consent law since the animal can't technically consent to it...


That's my response every time someone thinks that bringing up a slippery slope of marrying an animal as if it's an intelligent argument--it just makes them feel stupid when I do, because it's like a bombshell is dropped that they never considered that marriage needs signatures from two people.




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Keep trying to expand personal freedoms like this and soon enough american christians will be throwing people off buildings.

I agree though, it should be legalized. Personal freedom should be absolute as long as it doesn't harm anyone.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Who decided marriage is between "One Woman & One Man" in the first place?


Religion, in some cases.

The whole intolerance argument and population tends to be of those same religious individuals that claim marriage started with their religion and is thus a tradition of their religion alone, therefore cannot be altered to any degree.

It's quite disturbing to witness the same people who claim their religious ideals preach about "loving thy neighbor" and so forth, yet also putting their foot down and saying that their views are all that is righteous and good, therefore everyone who is different is viewed as a sort of sub-human race that shouldn't receive rights



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yeah, some slippery slopes are hard to define objectively as to where the cut off point is and everyone can agree "no more". This issue ISN'T one of those cases. There are very clear, logical, and GOOD reasons not to legalize incestuous marriages (children have birth defects), animal marriage (animal can't consent), or child marriages (child can't legally consent).



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And Women should have the right to have multiple spouses also



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Doom and Gloom

I'm pretty sure that animal loving violates some sort of consent law since the animal can't technically consent to it...


That's my response every time someone thinks that bringing up a slippery slope of marrying an animal as if it's an intelligent argument--it just makes them feel stupid when I do, because it's like a bombshell is dropped that they never considered that marriage needs signatures from two people.


[/sarcasm]Of course they haven't considered that. Marriage is a sacred vow for a woman to legally be the property of a man, why would she ever need to sign for that?!??! she has no rights. [/sarcasm]



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Darth_Prime

Hey I couldn't care less if it was a marriage of 8 women, 1 woman and 3 men, 2 women and 2 men, or even the traditional 1 man and a ton of women. It's all the same to me.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And Women should have the right to have multiple spouses also


Yep.... the only downside to this is having 2 mothers in law!!



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And Women should have the right to have multiple spouses also

Legalizing it would provide for that equally. Unlike religion that only made it legal for men.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And Women should have the right to have multiple spouses also


Yep.... the only downside to this is having 2 mothers in law!!


The very thought of it sends chills down my spine. One is already too much to handle



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I absolutely agree.
If people want to marry someone they should be permitted to, the number of partners is irrelevant to me.
Welcome to the true notion of freedom and liberty, a society where one person does not get to dictate to the next just because they think something is "icky".

If someone doesn't like gay marriage, don't get gay married.
If someone doesn't like polygamy, don't marry more than one person.

The fact that others might want to do either has absolutely no impact on my life, or the lives of those who want to dictate how others should live their lives.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


There are very clear, logical, and GOOD reasons not to legalize incestuous marriages (children have birth defects)

Even though I have no problem with incest between consenting adults. I have to agree with you on this one. And for more reasons than birth defects. I don't however think incest should be illegal between consenting adults.

Back on topic, though...



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I honestly think this kind of cheapens what was just accomplished.

But, this is just the beginning.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere
I honestly think this kind of cheapens what was just accomplished.


I don't see how giving more people more freedom cheapens anything.

It's not like marriage, in and of itself, is some shining beacon on the hill, whose value dissipates a little every time more people take part in it. Marriage is NOTHING but a word, without the character of the people who use it and their commitment to learn and grow with another person (or people).

The PEOPLE make the marriage. Marriage is just a word. Only when people like me participate in it and do the HARD WORK it takes to make it an equal and fulfilling partnership that lasts a lifetime, does "marriage" become something of value.

Some PEOPLE cheapen marriage, but that has happened since it was first imagined.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Doom and Gloom

I'm pretty sure that animal loving violates some sort of consent law since the animal can't technically consent to it...


Succinct rebuttal. I love how people use this form of falling dominoes thinking for just about all forms of allowing more freedoms. If we wanted we could extrapolate from gay love to multiple love to animal love to incest love to machine love to knothole love and on and on, though I really don't know how much further one could carry it than knothole love. I want to marry my knothole because it makes me feel so goooood. I am using this extreme extension of the dominoes argument because to take it that far is as ridiculous as carrying it out to animal marriage.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere

Cheapens? How? Are polygamists not entitled to be happy either? Why are more freedoms a bad thing?
edit on 2-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Why are you against animal love? You are not being considerate of their feelings and how that group of people have been suppressed by society. Equality for all, no exceptions period.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Polygamy.

It will make big government even bigger and more bloated than ever !!

Go For It.




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Hell Yes!! I need a Harem and if the government don't like it? i'll Sue the Crap out of them and they'll afford me my Harem..



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
i'll go out on a limb here and predict the effect will be higher percentage of intentionally "single" people not married people




new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join