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

Originally posted by MaMaa
So long as it is between consenting adults and not some religious nonsense that has been drilled into little girls heads that that is how they are supposed to do things then great, do whatcha want! Or if someone wants to have multiple husbands, although I can't imagine such a thing! LMAO

I'll take 3 additional husbands:

1 to mow the yard
1 to take out trash
1 to fix the plumbing

Well, maybe another to re-paint the house. When they aren't doing their chores they can do my nails and feed me grapes!

Originally posted by Swing80s
You wanted me to be serious, now I'm being serious since my OP got moved to the trash. 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? Why would I, or Mormons, or whoever, be they individuals, a religion, or a community have to move to Mexico or Canada to practicae polygamy? If we are going to break down the original institution of marriage then why can't I have sister wives in all seriousness? If I can care and provide for them, then why should it be illegal because my same rights are being violated as the rights of homosexuals that want to get married.

Looks like you're going to have to lobby, protest, and stand up for your right to have multiple wives. Get going, already!

reply to post by Swing80s


I thought marriage was between TWO PEOPLE, not three, four, or five. Not two dogs or cats either. People!

It's no my business.

It's not your business.

It's not the governments business.

It's the business of the people who are going to get involved into said relationship. As long as they are consenting adults, then we have NO business telling them they can't enter into a legal contract which provides benefits from the state.

It's nonsense.

~Tenth

Originally posted by littled16
I'll take 3 additional husbands:

1 to mow the yard
1 to take out trash
1 to fix the plumbing

Well, maybe another to re-paint the house. When they aren't doing their chores they can do my nails and feed me grapes!

I was thinking about that the other day.

Let's say I have four husbands. That's lots of paychecks for me to spend! And lots of 'Honey Do's' for them to do.

Then my mind turned into a scary thought: Having to clean up after all them, do tons of man laundry, and spend my days yelling at them to put the toilet seats down.

No thanks! I'll stick with just one. They're easier to train when it's just one at a time.

Originally posted by Swing80s
You wanted me to be serious, now I'm being serious since my OP got moved to the trash. 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? Why would I, or Mormons, or whoever, be they individuals, a religion, or a community have to move to Mexico or Canada to practicae polygamy? If we are going to break down the original institution of marriage then why can't I have sister wives in all seriousness? If I can care and provide for them, then why should it be illegal because my same rights are being violated as the rights of homosexuals that want to get married.

Actually dude there is nobody stopping you, and considering that a year ago I used to see a bunch of mormon ads on the internet, and even on the highways a few times I think. So to tell the truth never knew that it was illegal in the first place, and I think there are more then a few people out there who have that lifestyle from all walks of life I think there are a bunch of senators or people in power who prescribe to that lifestyle, though they all call it by different names, it is the same thing, and ultimately its about what you can afford. But as I see your a bit slow and confused, the whole marriage contract thing is more a contract with outside parties such as governments or other constructs just as much as it is with however your going to marry. In all the whole thing is more a religious thing even though it was not so thousands of years ago, basically its all just a label. You could call a bunch of people living together and having sex and whatnot a mormon, or a group marriage, but you can also call them swingers or any number of other names, and what you call them is basically what there inclinations lean toward. So ya all that you want, does exist, and has existed for a long long time, in this country and others, your just confused about labels.

So Mr Swing80s, if you wanted a bunch of wife's and wanted to get into some sort of contract deal with them and call it a marriage be it under whatever label or law or whatever fancy takes you. Go ahead bro, in fact I do not think you would have that hard of a time in finding like people. And really the same can be said for vice versa also, if a female wanted a bunch of husbands, its not an improbable statistic that she could not find it. The rest like I said is labels and inclinations...Basically whatever floats peoples boats.

reply to post by Swing80s


..Or brother husbands for that matter. Personally, I wouldn't care if it were legal. Are you saying you think gays and lesbians would try to block such legislation? Cause I doubt they would. The same people who oppose same-sex marriage would oppose it.

How is same-sex marriage the same as polygamy? Same sex-marriage = 2 peopel in a commited relationship. It's only an opinion, but if 2 people want to get married, what the hell do I care? Their actions do not influence me. And, personally, I believe in freedom for all. If others are not hurting me, live and let live.

You do realize of course that since women have equal rights, if polygamy were legal it would work both ways... Would you be willing to share your home with a 'brother' husband or several for that matter? If it were legal for a man to have multiple wives then a woman could have multiple husbands in today's society. That's how equal rights work!

Originally posted by littled16

Originally posted by MaMaa
So long as it is between consenting adults and not some religious nonsense that has been drilled into little girls heads that that is how they are supposed to do things then great, do whatcha want! Or if someone wants to have multiple husbands, although I can't imagine such a thing! LMAO

I'll take 3 additional husbands:

1 to mow the yard
1 to take out trash
1 to fix the plumbing

Well, maybe another to re-paint the house. When they aren't doing their chores they can do my nails and feed me grapes!

And if they are happy with that it will be a normal relationship. Homosexuality is not a normal evolutionary natural thing. nature itself dictates that.

Bigamy? Nothing unnatural there at all if everyone agrees and loves each other. After all, nature dictates a bigamist relationship can produce children within the relationship which is natures purpose.

Originally posted by TownCryer
How is same-sex marriage the same as polygamy? Same sex-marriage = 2 peopel in a commited relationship. It's only an opinion, but if 2 people want to get married, what the hell do I care? Their actions do not influence me. And, personally, I believe in freedom for all. If others are not hurting me, live and let live.

What a weird attitude. So the corporate due ripping off his investors for millions does not affect you at all. So who cares right? Live t and let live. yet you'd be angry with that person. Why? It doesn't affect you?

Man, I cannot fathom the mind of some who border on mindless jerks like TownCryer here. Sorry dude, but that example is the perfect fit.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Homosexuality is not a normal evolutionary natural thing. nature itself dictates that.

Sure it is. By not breeding, additional resources are freed up for the rest of the breeding population. It doesn't take much, because nature generally runs on a pretty narrow margin. But in the end, it's still significant.

My view seems to follow the general feeling I'm reading here. I could care less who marries who. Just don't take money from me to deal with any financial problems it might cause and make sure the children are cared for properly. Don't ask for special treatment or financial considerations from the taxpayers.

This does reinforce the argument about where exactly does this stop?

I am a little concerned for the children from out of the mainstream relationships and what they will endure. The children should be the real issue. Perhaps the only issue. It would be hell for a child from a family of polygamists. They would be bullied, teased and outcasts in public schools.

What happens when a polygamist family with lots of children breaks apart? It's bound to happen.

Worry about the children first.

reply to post by Blaine91555

I am a little concerned for the children from out of the mainstream relationships and what they will endure. The children should be the real issue. Perhaps the only issue. It would be hell for a child from a family of polygamists

No more so than a child adopted or through other means being forced to grow up in a household with "two mommies/daddies"
There is always an issue about what about the children, unless it involves a political/social agenda.

maybe im being insensitive but i really feel like its way bigger issues than gay marriage we need to be dealing with whats the big deal about marriage anyway? im not for or against it i really just wish it would get resolved so we can move on

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by schuyler

 

IMO the government should not be involved in marriage at all. I should not have to buy a "marriage license" from the government in order to be legally married.

The problem is, that the big three organized religions view homosexual marriage and homosexuality itself as an abomination. Therefore, LGBT people cannot get married in a church, and must find an alternative.

The state has always recognized marriage for obvious reasons. (inheritance for one) the state being involved in marriage goes back thousands of years to before the Roman Empire.

It's a far cry from the state "recognizing" marriage and the state requiring a marriage license to get married. I'm saying the state should be out (completely out) of the marriage business. The government should not "define what marriage is." If you are married, you have a contract that is just as valid with or without the state sanctioning it. I don't see that the "big three" religions have ANYTHING to do with this at all. If they won't perform a marriage, well, then, you're not married "in the eyes of the Lord" according to them. That's between the churches and their constituents. It's a religious issue. So go to Las Vegas. Besides, there are PLENTY of churches that marry gays.

Reason.com has a really good article addressing the subject. The main reason they raise is that there are only so many women out there, and when single men marry multiple women (which is how it has worked 99% of the time throughout history) that means less women to marry men. That may seem far fetched but if it became widespread that would be a real problem. And there are numerous societal ills that come with hordes of men who can't find wives (and are invariably at the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder).

From the article:

Two political scientists, Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. den Boer, ponder those consequences in their 2004 book Bare Branches: Security Implications of Asia's Surplus Male Population. Summarizing their findings in a Washington Post article, they write: "Scarcity of women leads to a situation in which men with advantages — money, skills, education — will marry, but men without such advantages — poor, unskilled, illiterate — will not. A permanent subclass of bare branches [unmarriageable men] from the lowest socioeconomic classes is created. In China and India, for example, by the year 2020 bare branches will make up 12 to 15 percent of the young adult male population."

"bare branches are more likely than other males to turn to vice and violence." To get ahead, they "may turn to appropriation of resources, using force if necessary." Such men are ripe for recruitment by gangs, and in groups they "exhibit even more exaggerated risky and violent behavior." The result is "a significant increase in societal, and possibly intersocietal, violence."

So imagine America, with an already unmanagable underclass prone to violence and crime, and then make it harder for all those men to get laid. Rape alone would likely go through the roof, along with all other crimes in general.

So that is probably the biggest reason why you cannot have multiple wives. Until women start being 75% of the population instead of 50%.

If you look at a number of African regions that practice polygamy, what ends up happening is the women share responsibility for the kids and other household chores, which in turn drastically reduces their work load. This allows them to pursue economic activities that give them more independence from their husband than in 'normal' marriages.
I think the entire "oh noes, oppressing the womenz" mentality when thinking about polygamy we have is a little misguided. Maybe this is because we see it as sexual exploitation, or even a little 'cult-ish.' The way I see it, the more women in the house, the less power the man has.

reply to post by Swing80s

If I am rich enough to support my sister wives, then why can't they split all my money 3 ways when they get sick and divorce me? Or why can't all three of them make a decision to pull the plug on me when I'm in the hospital or visit me when I'm dying or be the beneficiaries on my life insurance plan etc...? Why can't we have triads etc with the same benefits that homosexuals get to enjoy?

What I see here is mostly a practical problem and not a moral problem. When only two people are involved with these decision about things like power of attorney and life insurance are more cut and dry. If you go into a coma which of your three wives makes the decisions? Does the first wife get to make the calls? Do they vote? What if you have an even number of wives? If you divorce one wife, does she get 1/2 of the money, or 1/3, or some other portion? Who can sue for visitation rights if you have children? Just you, or all of her sister wives?

These are complicated questions without obvious answers, and I think most people (especially politicians) would rather not touch them.

reply to post by schuyler


That would be just fine, except that the government gives benefits to married couples. So being married in the eyes of the government is more important than in the eyes of the Lord to many people. If you want to be able to pass on inheritance, get tax breaks, military benefits of spouses, entitlement benefits of spouses, insurance, housing, adoption and many other things that legally married couples are entitled to.

That's why government must be in the marriage business, whether you like them or not.