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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 08:58 PM

Originally posted by HauntWok

Actually the problem would still exist, and GLBT people would have no option in the matter. Most churches wouldn't preform same sex marriages. and two people who love each other would be denied the legal contract they desire because the clergy would deny them.

The easiest way to put it is, "If you are against gay marriage, don't marry someone who is the same gender as you." It really is quite simple.

I don't care what adult you choose to marry. Just as I don't care what adult another adult of the same gender chooses to marry. It does not negatively affect my life in the slightest .

I could be mistaken but I believe you missed the point that poster was making. Two people who love each other would not be denied the legal contract they desire because there would no longer be a legal contract. Marriage would be reduced to nothing more than a religious ceremony and would carry with it no benefits provided by Government.

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:02 PM
Reply to post by seabhac-rua

So now you're arguing scale. Ho-hum.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:11 PM
i'll never forget what my dad told me : "don't bother getting married son, just find someone you hate and buy them a house"

seriously though, atheists, satanists, politicians and lawyers can get married, aren't they a bigger threat? i think it's discriminatory to not allow same sex marriage.. priests don't have to perform them if it contradicts their beliefs, but i know plenty will.

as far as i'm concerned, the church should only have authority over their flock, not a whole country's population.

same goes for multiple wives, although i've never really understood that particular sexual orientation...
edit on 27-3-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:16 PM
damn double post
edit on 27-3-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 11:10 PM
reply to post by Swing80s

I agree with your point, but when and where is the line drawn?

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 12:25 AM
What happened the separation of church and state?
I realize that marriage has become a legal binding institution.
Justice of the peace or a minister of a church.
Where is the separation in that?

Not long ago there was the question about whites and non-whites marrying.

The lines of government and the will of the people, religious freedoms,the choice to decide how to live one's life have been blurred.

Let each and everyone do as they decide .Marry as many women,or men as you want.
I can barely handle one wife,but if you can handle more,more power to you.
And more taxes the guberment can collect.
or can they if you have more deductions?

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 12:39 AM
I dont believe ANY kind of marriage should be legal.
Its an institution created to own woman. and the modern day belief really adds nothing useful.

if any 2-10 people are in love and want to live and support each other in this world that is already possible.
needing paperwork and legal backing for it all is just a rediculous.

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 12:48 AM
Actually,it's based on letting go of long taught thinking of reproducing.
Religion is trying to control politics,which it has always done,but that control is slowly slipping away.

Think about it.
What are the major players in politics.

Marriage and abortions.
Who is pro-choice,who is pro-life.
Who is pro-gay marriage,who is not.
I love Thomas Jefferson.......some quotes of his...

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.

How can you say that Catholicism or any other religion has been honest to it's people.

The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

The reach of the government has grown to far.It is time to stop this tyranny of the people.
edit on 28-3-2013 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 01:47 AM
You are all lucky that I'm not in charge. There would be no marriage. All children would be raised in crèches. Other than that, there would be a strict hierarchy of labor pools and scheduled breeding times.

And I would make you all build pyramids.
edit on 28-3-2013 by Bybyots because:

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 02:28 AM
reply to post by Swing80s

The sliding scale argument is the weakest, That's ethics 101.
In polygamy, they're procreating right? Isn't this this what the entire argument against gay marriage has any rationality against? (not in my opinion) I'm surprised you aren't all for polygamy !!

Listen to it yourself . The ONLY argument against gay marriage is based on procreation and raising kids. Supreme Court

edit on 28-3-2013 by paleorchid13 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 03:23 AM
You could have them so long as it was consensual, that is the
only thing id care about at all, each of you should have equal
rights to start/end a relationship and so long as you all wished
to be a part of it there is no moral dilemma there at all.

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 03:38 AM
reply to post by Swing80s

If you want multiple wives why don't you start an organisation and fight for the right to have them, thats what the gays have been doing, it's not being handed to them on a platter! You want it, fight for it!

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 03:41 AM
reply to post by Kokatsi

That must mean he had one porcupine for each one of his concubines! What the hell were they doing with all those porcupines?

Porcupine Pie?
edit on 28/3/13 by wiser3 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 04:38 AM
I don't see the connection between two people getting married regardless of their sex and getting married to multiple people.

I don't really see why there should be a legal issue with getting married to multiple people though, it does make marriage quite meaningless and greatly devalues the relationship you have with your partner/s though.

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 04:46 AM

Originally posted by Swing80s
If homosexual marriage is a US right, or SHOULD be a US right according to some. Why can't marriage between multiple consenting adults be legal?

Because lawmakers are typically short-sighted, crowd-pleasing hypocrites who don't know what they're doing.

That's why.

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 04:47 AM
what if they have to decide on a life threatening surgery for you and don't agree?

but the answer is pretty obvious, isn't it? maybe it's just not that you want more than one wife. maybe it's that it's pretty obvious that you would have to brainwash them in most cases to get them to go for it... therefore you are kind of suspect of being... well... a crappy person, lol.

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 05:07 AM
reply to post by Swing80s

I actually thought about this. I came to the same conclusion. I dont see the right to marry the same sex as offensive or wrong. Following the same logic, multiple partners would not be wrong. Why not?

The argument against same sex marriages is a "moral" one according to certain guide lines established by the Judeo-Christian system. So, if that is no longer our anchor stone in regards to social practices, then multiple partners would not be out of the question.

The only issue I have is with the federal government deciding over each state. IMO it is not mentioned in the constitution, so it then falls on the individual states to decide.

I am more concerned with state rights to decide on the matter over the fact that same sex marriage may or may not be morally "right".

edit on 28-3-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 05:15 AM
I agree with you. If it's about 'love' and 'rights' bigamy should be a natural law change looooong before sticking your willy up an anus is accepted as normal.

Bigamy, although unusual in modern times is a consensual relationship that is actually biologically, genetically, evolutionary and naturally logical.

Homosexuality is none of those things.

The only reason homosexuality gains a foothold is they infiltrate every area where influence is needed. If paedophiles infiltrated those same areas, petitioned the government, held marches and accused people of intolerance and bigotry (although it seems unlikely) believe it or not, eventually people will accept it.

Nazi Germany propaganda was no different. Not in relation to homosexuals being like Nazi's, but how effective propaganda is if it's drilled hard and continuously (excuse the homosexual pun)

edit on 28-3-2013 by pacifier2012 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2013 by pacifier2012 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 05:39 AM
reply to post by pacifier2012

Oh yes that's right straight men never indulge in anal sex with their girlfriends, wives or prostitutes!

Feeble apology for a very feeble pun!

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 06:01 AM
I see no problem with multiple wives or with a wife having multiple husbands, equally I see no reason why people can't form relationship collectives with any mix of male or female. I'm sure it could all be done with some sort of partnership agreement but it wouldn't be marriage in the commonly understood meaning of the term.

Society needs to decide what it wants and it's a secular argument, religions decide their own rules and that is fine. What Governments would have to do is remove barriers and make allowances for tax and inheritance purposes and courts would need to have some guidelines for when things get messy.

Apart from sorting out the law and the State approach it seems simple enough and I don't believe it should be called marriage, simply because that has come to mean a couple rather than a crowd of people.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in