Ben Carson says Gay Marriage will lead to polygamy

Oh, I forgot , you don't know what that little squiggly thing is at the end of a sentence........it's called a question mark and denotes that the preceding sentence was a question....

 

No, children aren't always involved in marriage - polygamous or not. It is true that children don't have to consent to their parents getting married or remarried either, so I suppose not all parties you would consider "involved" consent to traditional or serial marriage even now. But I meant the people involved in the marriage contract, i.e. the multiple people getting married to each other.

No. Sex offenders who have lost custody of their children can still get married to one another. Being able to be married is only a function of being an adult who can sign contracts. Being allowed to take care of children requires that there is isn't sufficient reason to believe you cannot be trusted to look out for their welfare.

I'm not sure how you can draw that conclusion. There's nothing more or less moral about "traditional marriage" than a polygamous arrangement. The morality of a partner arrangement has to do with honesty and respect moreso than whether it's a dyad or triad.

 

Gross, but I don't see a reason not to tolerate it. No worse than people marrying for money. You imply you have an issue with it. Whether they have the right to reproduce, well that's for another thread.

 

The point of marriage is reproduction/sexual/. My point is that with perversion marriages we are just legalizing unintended government benefits. If we do not allow brothers and sisters to pass SS benefits, why would we allow a contract that would. Same for homosexuality. Neither should be given legal status.

 

This is the saddest copout, especially since your last sentence didnt have a question mark.

You directly said and then continued to attack, Ben Carson because you think he said Gays are polygamists.

 

Actually, only one aspect of marriage is reproduction. The overall point of marriage is having a lifelong companion and helpmate. That is why marriage is supposed to last 'until death do us part,' many long years after people are in their reproductive years. Also, many couples cannot reproduce and many choose not to: they still get married or stay married. And, in case you haven't noticed, lots and lots of couples get married later in life, in their 50s, 60s, and beyond. Obviously they have no intention of reproducing. The idea that the sole or even main purpose of marriage is reproduction is very archaic.

 

Marriage is almost always sexual, I suppose (I mean, I can imagine asexual people getting married, and some of the old married couples who don't have sex anymore, but that's more the exception) but I wouldn't say the same for reproduction. Infertile people can certainly marry and even in terms of social norms people don't say, "She has her tubes tied and/or is postmenopausal why would she remarry?" Marriage is more often a matter of companionship than reproduction, though most often both. If there's a problem with the benefit structure, that can be addressed without restricting marriage.

 

Yes, you can, by limiting it to consenting adults.

 

Polygamy, Incest...oh boy here we come. Welcome to the new age of excellency. Maybe Time Magazines next person of the year can be "the Deviant"

As to consenting adults, what do you tell a 5 year old boy that tells you he's a girl? You tell him he's a boy, or do you fall in line and let him wear a skirt. Your answer here relates to Marriage as well on the grounds of mental capacity.

 

That is a position that makes an increasing amount of sense. I also see that "Gentle" Ben is leading Old White Rich Hillary by 4 in Pennsylvania.

http://t.co/r9r0yNN2TW

 

That is interesting to know. Pennsylvania is considered a Democratic trustworthy state. It has gone for the Democratic nominee 6 elections in a row. The last time Pennsylvania went Republican was 1988. I do not think most Democrats realize how much the independent or swing voters dislike Hillary. Heck in a poll a couple of months ago 54% of all Americans wanted the Democrats to nominate someone else other than Hillary.

 

What about 3 HOT wives?

 

To be sure, there are no children involved in childless marriages, which of course society has precious little reason to give a damn about one way or the other. Dunno where we'd be without searing intellects like yours to pick up on these essential nuances.

Of course you did, because you don't give a damn about the innocent victims of the licentiousness you advocate.

Yes.

If the offense is serious enough that they pose a danger to children they shouldn't even be on the street, so this is a red herring.

Which is assumed to be the case when a non-consanguineous man/woman couple applies for a marriage license - not because the state doesn't care about the children, but because laws against child abuse shouldn't be enforced through prior restraint.

Of course there is, because there is no greater motivation for such arrangements than the satisfaction of the selfish desires of the participants.

Please, you have no idea.

 

You have a better shot at happiness with 3 ugly ones. Haven't you heard that song? If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life, you better make an ugly woman your wife.

 

Yeah I know.....*sigh*....I was trying to be funny but eh....yep youre right.

 

Hillary is 'old' but Sanders isn't? He's a lot older than she is! So much bias against her for qualities the other candidates have too. Such comments display a clear bias and prejudice having nothing to do with her ability to run this country, and, in fact, seem to have a lot more with her being and 'old woman' than anything else.

 

54% of ALL AMERICANS, not all Democrats. She will be the nominee and she will win: she will win the women's vote, the minority vote, and the democratic vote. It will be a landslide. The GOP has no one anywhere near able to beat her.

 

I've known some pretty educated people who don't have a lick of common sense. I think Ben Carson does have gifted hands, but his mouth....not so much.

 

He's saying what's in his mind; that's the really disturbing part if we are considering him to be the next US president.

 

I have no idea of what you're talking about.

 

I guess there are still those who think a woman's purpose in life is to be a broodmare.

 

Dont be so sure about that.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/women-dont-hillary-poll

Raw Data
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-poll-august-26-30-2015/1811/


Things arent as rosy as you'd like to think, and gender is only going to go so far.




That 54% of all Americans looks the same even when broken down into Women and Young voters. You might be falling into the same "Landslide" mentality we saw a few years ago with Mitt.

Hillary has too much baggage.

 

LOL I don' think the poster has a clue either. Making it up as he goes along; hysterical ramblings based on a false belief that pedophilia and homosexuality are linked. They are not. All educated, thinking people know that.

 

He doesn't believe in evolution. I wonder if he believes in gravity?

 

He doesn't believe in evolution? Where does the GOP get these people?