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

reply to post by Swing80s


only slightly fingers in cheek . . .

BECAUSE . . . any man expecting to have 2 or women peaceably share the same kitchen is certifiably insane.

At least he needs a full battery of tests and some good long observation to see if he has any mental faculties left at all sufficient to be a functioning part of any kind of marriage.

/s

reply to post by Swing80s


only slightly fingers in cheek . . .

BECAUSE . . . any man expecting to have 2 or women peaceably share the same kitchen is certifiably insane.

At least he needs a full battery of tests and some good long observation to see if he has any mental faculties left at all sufficient to be a functioning part of any kind of marriage.

/s

I say go for it, but I can see it causing some legal problems, especially if there's no limit on the amount of people you can legally marry.

reply to post by Swing80s


I'm sorry, I seem to be stuck on your attempt at logic and reason.
What I'm unclear on is how gay marriage relates to polygamy or polyandry. As far as I know, the current legislation of marriage being defined as "between one man and one woman" defines the genders of the couple. And since I have yet to hear of significant numbers of people--gay or straight--asking for the legal right to marry more than one partner, I am asking you to clarify how you relate the two separate issues of gay marriage and multiple wives/husbands.
Or are you just drawing conclusions from false equivalency?

reply to post by Jodash


You clearly missed the ruling in Utah where the federal judge made polygamy legal and cited gay marriage rulings specifically as his rational.

reply to post by ketsuko


Ok. I am telling you from Vedic culture.

Polygamy in Aryas was a fact of life.

Polygamy in Aryas followed the logic of preserving and propagating the best genes. So the Brahmin (teachers) and Kshatriya (warriors) and even rich merchants often married more than once. The purpose of marriage in Vedic culture is continuation of family line ("Vansh Vridhi").

Now the uneducated and uncultured have the most children. How can this be good for society is something to ponder.

However sex for pleasure is degenerate in Arya culture. So sex was an insignificant part in human relationships. The main purpose of marriage for the girl is to get protection and companionship, while for boy is to get children and companionship.

Why the hell would any man want more then one wife?

reply to post by Swing80s


I’ll answer your question.

Everything really is not based on rights as the American people think.

It is based on what the general society has evolved to believe is a right, within the context of common sense.

So they are claiming that this society has evolved to allow Gay marriage by the thinking of enough of the people in the society that it then should be allowed based on that common understanding

They are using the constitution for a smoke screen; it has nothing to do with the right, in reality.

reply to post by Willtell


Gay marriage is a retrograde step.

Many people engage in experimentation in young age, but then get wiser and settle down in a normal heterosexual relationship.

Allowing gay marriage is to encourage unnatural behavior.

There is adjustment in a marriage of man and woman, as there are natural differences in man and woman. However this relationship is emotionally and physically fulfilling, and such marriage is healthy for both male and female children.

reply to post by GargIndia


There is nothing Unnatural about same sex marriages, it's natural because it is how we are born. Same sex marriages is promoting the fact that "Love is Love" if it takes you multiple wife's/husbands fine

reply to post by Swing80s

The op has asked the question that if same sex marriage is a right in the US, then why can’t a person have multiple wives. There is a legitimate and legal answer to this question and it is 2 fold.

The first part and answer to this question is that the concept of Same Sex marriage has never been discussed or even thought about in a legal sense until recently. In fact up until the 1960’s, those who were or considered homosexual in nature, were considered having a psychiatric disorder. It was not until the Kinsey study that such was determined to be a natural part of human sexuality, that there was a large percentage of the population had either experienced or even thoughts that were along the lines of bisexual in nature.

The second answer is that the concept and question of having multiple wives has already been discussed, talked about and went through the courts. In the 1800’s there was a court case that went up to the Supreme Court of the USA, and it was determined at that time frame that such was not legal or within the prevue of the Constitution of the USA. If you look at the criminal laws that are in all states, there are actual legal statues that forbid such, where a person could go to jail for engaging in such.

The road to get plural marriage legal is going to be a lot harder to achieve, as it would require the removal of some of the criminal statues, and then at the same time figure out the statues that would allow for equality under the eyes of the law. Consider this, when it is a question of being able to legally marry multiple wives, it is very rarely discussed or talked about a woman taking multiple husbands. How would such a law allow for such? After all if one denies such to a woman, it would not pass the Courts which would demand that such be equal under the eyes of the law.

I would rather see the sun super nova than Sharia here thank you very much, its misogyny and violates everything an normal healthy woman raised in a non abusive non theocracy family would ever want. Women want true love, and family and the white ticket fence and happy kids and grandchildren, or a creative rewarding career if they're not into children. But true love nontheless.

Anything else means they were abused massively.

And we're not doing the manly saturn wardrum thing any more boys. PERIOD. Sharia group are going to be upgraded kicking and screaming if necessary.

You get one wife at a time.

And since when did the polygamy laws tumble?

Because that group would also be on the list for the arrest teams.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Very good post. You raise very relevant issues.

In polygamy or polyandry, (many-to-one), the "many" part can never have equal status to "one" part.

However mixing heterogeneous traditional marriage with gay marriage is a mistake.

It is OK to enforce one-to-one marriage but between opposite sexes only.

The marriage of same sex is unnatural and unwarranted.

reply to post by Unity_99


The laws have changed over time.

Polygamy was widely accepted till only two centuries ago.

I guess it is due to "socialist" trend as some people having multiple wives obviously deprives the poor an opportunity to marry.

reply to post by GargIndia


Yes because men abused women and smashed them into pieces and those times will never see the light of day again as we are going forward.. And women will not allow it, we are 52% majority by age 20. PERIOD. Men are now growing up to be hero's not ZERO's. Or that is goal.

The annanuki came and toppled the Equality, and beat the crap out of Sophia, the tree of life. They forced submission and put veils on women, and beat the hellzone war drums to halt progression of souls.

That has been their trip and they don't like women, for that is equality, compassion, peace not wars, and looking after all the children well. The progression.

reply to post by Unity_99


That's what I don't get, evil always seem powerful. Negative influences were allowed to have power over equality and The Golden Rule. Even most people who call themselves Christian don't defend The Golden Rule anymore (Compassion - treating others as you'd like to be treated). If someone doesn't agree with their way, or are different they are seen as "inferior", "less than human" instead of sticking to The Golden Rule.

I pray that people's heart will open with Compassion and nothing this tragic like human history ever happens to any other being ever.

As long as it doesnt adversly affect anyone, I dont see the problem. Here are my issues with the whole marriage controversy:

1) Im gay, I only have been truly in love once so far in my life, and the last thing I thought about was marriage. All I wanted was to share my time with him. I didnt need a piece of paper or a ceremony to prove my love or put on a big spectacle. Whether youre gay, straight, bisexual, a polygamist or whatever you need to ask yourself: Do you love (truly love) the individual/individuals? If so, and marriage is important to you then you should be allowed to do what you want. If you only want to marry someone or multiple people for status/sex/servitude/etc, then perhaps the individual needs to question his own motives.

2) I hate that the whole gay marriage issue is still in the news. Look at the world today, theres so much thats broken, so much real evil that needs addressing. After we humans can repair our society, then its ok to start talking about the small issues such as a document recognizing partnership. Again, if you love someone, who cares if "society" knows and recognizes it or not. Especially our current society...

ketsuko
reply to post by Jodash

 

You clearly missed the ruling in Utah where the federal judge made polygamy legal and cited gay marriage rulings specifically as his rational.

It still doesn't make any sense to equate number of partners with gender pairings. I can't possibly be the only person to see this. These are two completely separate concepts, no matter what some bonehead judge says or does in an effort to set precedents.
And for the record:
In my opinion, legalize marriage between consenting adults, whatever the gender "identity." Spiritual marriage should be the domain of churches/religions. And I really don't see the purpose of being married to more than one person at a time. I believe that if you don't feel the need to commit to one partner, you don't need to be married (No one has ever promised any of us that we can have everything we want).

reply to post by Jodash


Why do you want "marriage" at all. Why dont you simply abolish marriage.

What exactly is meant by "marriage" in your society. Can you tell me precisely.

GargIndia
reply to post by Jodash

 

Why do you want "marriage" at all. Why dont you simply abolish marriage.

What exactly is meant by "marriage" in your society. Can you tell me precisely.

Sadly, for most people in this society, marriage is nothing more than validation of their great "love" for someone else. It's more of a personal thing than anything else.

For me and others who take the more traditional and religious view, marriage is a long-term partnership you embark on with another person for the purpose of creating a stable relationship and environment for the begetting and rearing of your eventual children who are going to be dependent on you for that stability for a good many years. You certainly hope that relationship is a loving one because love helps with compatibility, but it isn't the only or the even the most important thing when you're talking about a lifetime. Compatibility is the key. What most people think of these days as love fades out over time into something different, deeper if you're compatible with your mate, but it isn't that first flash of passion.