It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


If homosexual marriage is a Right, why can't I have multiple wives? (Being Serious NO CAT TALK)

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 08:31 AM
reply to post by bbracken677

Is an animal a consenting adult to you?

I wonder if god was gentle when he raped Mary. Christianity has always been a fan of rape, slavery, and human sacrifice.

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 08:35 AM

Originally posted by bbracken677
reply to post by Swing80s

Personally...I think we should be allowed to marry sheep. If I am not allowed to marry sheep, then my civil rights are being violated.

Once I have married the sheep, both of us should be eligible for govt benefits.

So where are our checks?

I agree, all the sheep has to do is speak the vows and hey presto, you are married

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 08:52 AM

Originally posted by bbracken677
reply to post by Swing80s

Personally...I think we should be allowed to marry sheep. If I am not allowed to marry sheep, then my civil rights are being violated.

Once I have married the sheep, both of us should be eligible for govt benefits.

So where are our checks?

ha ha ha awesome!

at least now I know where "sheeple" come from.

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 09:03 AM
No objections here, if somebody really wants to collect mothers-in-law, they should be allowed to. The only issue I would have with it is that certain codes and tax structures would need to be changed (yes, I know, they already need to be changed) - but I mean to work with multiple wives. Dependent deductions should follow a law of diminishing returns (as they should alread for child dependents.)

The practice of polygamy is a gene-pool weakener, but many modern human practices are as well (fertility treatments for infertile couples, life-saving treatmments of genetic disorders which in the past would have resulted in death/debilitation before bearing children, etc.) those aren't "bad" things, just adding that it is a negative if we want to weigh the cost/value of polygamy.

On a silly note, sales of certain classes of prescription meds would likely skyrocket. If polygamy ever becomes legal - buy Pfizer!

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 09:17 AM
Two men getting's just wrong!

Flame me , I don't care!

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 09:18 AM
reply to post by Swing80s

My cat is so warm and furry.

I'd marry my cat if I could.

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 09:21 AM
I get what the OP is getting at. If someone or group can define marriage (or anything for that matter) the way that suits them, then why can't the OP? The "consenting adults" argument is used to justify whatever, but then again, who says that has to be any measure of "rightness"? In the case of marrying the sheep, maybe if one is human and the other not, then perhaps you need only one consent? I mean, seems right to him, so why not? Do we ask our pets if they want to be kept? Do we ask our hunting dogs or service dogs for the blid if they want to serve us? And if you disagree, then what's your moral compass that says he's wrong?

The deal is this: what is wrong? Is anything "wrong"? Is all we have to do is "decide" that it's right, by our own measure, then that makes it "right"?

Then there's the "if it doesn't hurt anyone else, then it's fine". In which case marrying the sheep is acceptable. doesn't hurt anyone. And the sheep gets well taken care of.

What's a moral compass? A compass always points north if you want it to or not. You can't take a compass and "decide" that east is now west because you think it suits your desires or goals. If you do decide that east is west and north is south, eventually you'll end up somewhere that you don't want to be. And it will have been your doing.

The real problem is that there is no longer a moral compass that people follow. They make their own compasses. "If it feels good, do it". 'Cause its your rights you know.

The gay community has decided that homosexuality is right. Communists have decided that tyranny is right. Nazis decided that gassing people was right. The list goes on.

“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”
Proverb 14:12

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:07 AM
First of all polygamy is ILLEGAL in Canada...And if u want to talk about the "original institution" of marriage, then u god fearing people should know that marriage, historically and originally had nothing to do with religion. It was the joining of two individuals people aren't fighting so that they can get married in a chapel or church, that decision will always rest with the priests across the country. They're fighting for civil unions of property and taxes just like all other American and in some cases non-American citizens(like immigrants who marry an American). Gay people are advocating for the union of TWO individuals, this BS argument that gay people will lead to a slippery slope argued by some in America of unions between two of the same gender will "eventually" lead to polygamy, unions with objects and bestiality is completely unfounded and one of the stupidest arguments ever. A romantic union between two people wasnt invented by America or God, seeing as marriage between two individuals predates 1776 and the bible. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, that's democracy, however that opinion shouldn't impede on the rights of others, that's oppression and tyranny. Open ur minds and let people find happiness, or continue to be a bigot that's ur business. But keep business to u and other like-minded folks.

My Voltaire quote below says: "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend ur right to say it till death"

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 12:19 PM
If you take out the self righteous who want to control others freedom of choice and look at this as simple Adults making contract then it should be allowed. Imagine if we had Corporatology and you could only have two people form a corporation, not officers or others. It's a sham, it's a control mechanism and it's sold by saying it helps build solid communities via man and woman heterosexual family. All the ills of society are blamed on the break down of the family and there is truth to it, but gays and polys are not why the family has broken down.

Simple answer is if you can afford multiple wives then great, but a lot of what I have seen is a man playing cock of the walk who isn't working and has wives working and footing all the bills, bearing the children, rearing the children and collecting government benefits. He is involved in some religious "cult" and the wives are some subservient group to obey them no matter what. He often also takes very young wives who are too stupid to think for themselves or know what they want. That all being said, if they are happy fine, but stop leeching off the tax payers.

Here are the benefits of multiple spouses as I have seen them, and yes I have lived in the Middle East and known happy polyamorous families. Women tend to do well in groups where they genuinely like one another. The Middle Eastern method if properly done seems to work very well with the number 1 wife always being in control and approving of future partners. I recall one of the ways the men were kept in check was that once a year, in Jeddah Saudi Arabia anyways, was the wives could go out and spend on themselves and their family, and if he was being a jerk they might spend a lot. LOL Men tend to be more sexual and having multiple partners makes them happy. large families tend to be very close, and the women share the chores. If there are not petty jealousy issues then it works. The downside for women is if the man starts paying inordinate attention to one or certain children and ignoring the others. But that is for them to work out.

I am for freedom of choice as God certainly gives us the right to make our own choices. I have a big problem with selective discrimination. It's not just simple marriage laws and hospital decisions, but the government allowing special benefits to hetero married people that equally commited gay couples do not get. For instance, try falling in love with a foreigner when gay. You go through hell to be together that heteros do not deal with. They can literally meet in some hot vacation and if he or she is an American they can marry and bring their spouse home. Granted they have to prove it is legitimate, but they can do it. Gays cannot do it. They have to find a way to qualify for an H1b1 visa and hope to eventually get a green card. Each application can be approved from 6 months to 3 years and it can cost easily $10,000.00 dollars per application if you go through an immigration attorney. Now how is that fair for a tax paying American citizen who happens to be gay?

How about on auto loans or any loans. If you are married they put the one with the better credit in the number 1 position, and the other in the number 2 position thereby when approved they get a better interest rate. While if you are gay, they put the one with the worst credit in number 1 and the better in number 2 which if approved gets a higher interest rate. Then there are pension benefits that married people get if their partner dies and though you could have lived with and loved your partner for 40 years, raised a beautiful family, contributed to your community if they die their pension is gone. Let alone if they don't have a will their family gets their property and chooses if you get anything. Obviously I am passionate about this problem, and you will never heal a nation when you treat anyone like a second class citizen. Gays and polys are not destroying marriage / families, jackasses who can't get along, cheat, abuse, and selfishly pursue their own interests destroy their own family. Stop blaming gays, cause I doubt any of you who do don't have a single gay family as friends.
edit on 29-3-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 12:46 PM
I just don't know what the difference is between homos and pedos... they are both mental sexual disorders but one is accepted over the other why is that?? Didn't greek society accept both??

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 12:50 PM
reply to post by votan

You don't see the difference between consenting adults and the vulnerability of a child? Ooooookaaay.

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 01:33 PM
you can have many wives, you just have to do it one at a time.

gingrich has 3 wives.

larry king had 7.

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 02:02 PM

Originally posted by votan
I just don't know what the difference is between homos and pedos... they are both mental sexual disorders but one is accepted over the other why is that?? Didn't greek society accept both??

The essential difference is that homosexuality is (usually) a matter between consenting adults, whereas the object of the paedophile's affections is always a child (consenting or otherwise).

One also has to take into account the sheer number of people afflicted by homosexuality; roughly 5 to 10 % of any given population - a relatively massive chunk of the populace (compare that to 1% for schizophrenia).

So, it's not difficult to see why society condemns the one condition and champions the other.

But yes, you're right in that they are both sexual disorders.

But society, for the present, has to play the game of pretending that one of them isn't.

I expect that scientists will discover a cure for both disorders in the not too distant future.

Then this current political issue will become a brief footnote in 21st century history.

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 02:09 PM
have as many wives as u want?

i don't know you.

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 02:11 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 03:07 PM
Quite frankly, you SHOULD be able to. Consenting adults is sufficient. The State should have NO interest in this.

Next question.

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 03:15 PM
reply to post by votan

A homosexual is a person with a sexual or romantic attraction to the same sex.
Whether that attraction is acted upon or not, it is known to the homosexual.
Homosexuality hasn't been considered a pathology in itself by Psychiatric Associations since the 1970s.

Pedophilia is the attraction of a person 16 or older to children 11 years or younger (and even here there are subsets of age, too sickening to describe).

A gray area seems to exist for some around puberty.
Pederasty is the love of pubescent males aged 12-17.
This was the form common in the ancient Greek states, although it was not necessarily sexual (it could be "Platonic") and was also seen as a teaching relationship facilitating manners, poetics, relations with women and warrior skills.
These relationships usually ended in some Greek city states when men left the warrior class to marry (aged 30).
Life-long egalitarian homosexuality did apparently exist, and was not illegal, although the partners might have been mocked, since they were lowering themselves to the position of wives, boys or slaves.

However, it should be remembered that life-spans were probably shorter in general, and that girls were considered eligible for marriage by heterosexual men at 12 (according to canon law since the 12th century, although consent could be recognized as young as 7).

This continued in Britain and the US until the late 1880s.
The movement to raise the age of female consent from 12 to 16, and then 18 was probably one of the first "feminist" projects.

Although most states did up the female age of consent to 16 in the 20th century, there were several loopholes in some states, such as Romeo and Juliet laws (tolerance for the male to sleep with or marry a girl within a four year age difference) and various parental and state laws that still allowed "child-brides" into the 1970s.
Jerry Lee Lewis, for example, married his cousin of 13 in 1958 (which didn't raise many eyebrows in the US, but it caused a scandal in the UK).

The early gay movement saw this as hypocrisy, when the gay age of consent was often 21.
Same in SA until 1994: you could be conscripted and die for country at 17, but you couldn't have a boyfriend!

This inequality allowed pederast organizations like Nambla to attach itself to the gay movement in the 1970s.
However, as states increasingly closed such loopholes for heterosexuals and equalized ages of consent, the gay and lesbian movements began to distance themselves from Nambla.
Since 1979 they were increasingly kicked out of gay parades.

The age of consent debate will still rage across cultures for decades to come.
Some see the Western ages of consent as an imposition on their customs.
In the reality TV program The American Gypsies, for example, some openly admit that both male and female partners may marry well below the legal age of consent, and such laws don't apply in traditional Roma culture.
In rural SA a custom called the "ukutwala" allows a much older man to pay a bride price and then to simply kidnap a girl as young as 12.
Shockingly to gender activists, the parents and sometimes the local police and ministers are in agreement with the custom.

The abuse of children and young people is a social evil that shouldn't be tolerated in gay or straight society.
These impositions in a young person's development and education could destroy their potential forever.

Unfortunately, one only needs to look at sites like the Cult News Network daily to see that religious groups across the spectrum still have unacceptable levels of sexual child abuse.
Many cults seem to exist simply to groom girls for older men, and some even claim to find Old Testament validation for such practices.
Neither are they limited to one religion, and child-brides have also been issues in ISKCON or Islamic groups.

Luckily my attraction is to men my own age, or even older.
I cannot say how pederasts and pedophiles feel.
If it was legal I'd hang pedophiles high.
At least for pedophiles there is often a lower IQ and other mental conditions.

It's true to say that homosexuality often took its cue from heterosexuality in such customs.
I'd hate to see "ancient Greece" brought back in such matters, because their patriarchal citizens could abuse their power over slaves, women and younger men, and this is what the egalitarian gender movement wants to prevent.

As for polygamous marriage - it is legal in South Africa under the customary marriages act.
In fact, our Zulu President, Jacob Zuma, has married 6 times and has 4 current wives.

We've had gay marriage since 2006, and all the conditions of the previous marriage act apply: there can be only two currently unmarried partners who must be 18 or older, they may not be directly related or related to the previous spouse.

Polygamy - although debatably waning - is one point where heterosexual African culture would never compromise with imposed standards.

edit on 29-3-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 06:09 PM
reply to post by Swing80s

I see no problem with polygamous marriages so long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.

I think marriage is an antiquated institution in today's world, but would not stop anyone from attaining a marriage license if they wanted it.

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 06:45 PM
as long as all concerned are CONSENTING ADULTS, i am not going to tell what another can or can not in their personal lives.

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 06:53 PM
This will likely illicit a hate filled response but I will say it anyway. The biggest lie of all is the idea that homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle. It is not. Pages like this attempt to covey a false perception of acceptance that is not supported in statistical evidence.

The majority of America do not accept homosexuality as an accepted lifestyle. Most continue to see it as an abomination of nature and a mental illness. The fight is just no longer worth it for most Americans. You have won a war or attrition not of conversion. In reality yours is still a way of life scoffed at and pitted by most heterosexual men and women. It is unfortunate that the gay agenda has progressed as it has. Had it not there may have been hope for treatment. Terms such as homophobic are crutches and are a veiled attempt to rationalize a sad reality.

Your perception of victory is more a statement about the weakness of a once great society than it is of the strength of your cause. Your lifestyle is not and will never be accepted. It is your life so of course do as you wish but please stop living the fantasy that the majority of us support your view. We do not, we pretend.

By all means have a parade.

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in