Same-sex marriage is, for all intents and purposes, legal in 30 states. In the next 10 years, it is likely to be legalized across the US. Most of the challenges to it have been shot down. E.g.: Stating "marriage is traditionally between one man and one woman" doesn't have a lot of persuasive power. Claiming "marriage is traditionally between one man and one woman" is also historically inaccurate. In fact, it has been utilized and accepted in many societies. If you're going to claim that someone is harmed by allowing polygamy, you'll have to prove it. There is no indication of a "slippery slope." Other outlawed practices, such as incest and bestiality and pedophilia, do cause harm and thus can be easily outlawed on that basis alone. So aside from our current disapproval for the practice: why should polygamy be outlawed?
I had to check the law in Britain and strictly speaking Polygamy is allowed in the UK but polygamous marriages are not. Polygamous marriages may not be performed in the United Kingdom, and if a polygamous marriage is performed, the already-married person may be guilty of the crime of bigamy. Polygamous marriages legally performed in another country where the law allows it are not recognized for pension, immigration or citizenship purposes.[1] However, they may be recognized for the purposes of welfare benefits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_the_United_Kingdom Personally I think that polygamy should be allowed, but the GF has suggested a penalty for me personally which is not only illegal but would make consummating the marriage impossible!
It should be outlawed because time and time again polygamous sects have proven their reliance on the government to support their families. If you wanna bone a bunch of women and pro create then fine, but I'm not gonna give you the satisfaction of calling your relationship a "marriage" or legitimizing it. Polygamy should NOT however lead to jail time. Also, comparing homosexual marriage to polygamist marriages is in my opinion comparing apples to horses. My reasons for opposing dead beats raising multitudes of children with the help of the federal government are economical.
Yes, but the same arguements people would hypothethically use to justify human animal marriages are also used to justify gay marriage. "theyre not harming anybody, so whats the big deal"?, etc.
and you forget the very thing I just mentioned .. consent, two men can consent to be involved in a same sex relationship, two women can as well .. a goat cannot consent. End of the Story.
I personally have no philosophical objection to polyandry being legalized. (Strict polygamy, which is one man and two or more wives ONLY would fail on equal protection grounds.) That said, there are enormous logistical hurdles to overcome (tax rates, power of attorney, divorce of just one of the group, child custody, support, alimony, and probably two or three dozen others). In addition, they don't have the equal protection argument that same sex couples do because NOBODY is presently allowed plural marriage. So while I personally have nothing against it, wouldn't object to it being legal, and in all probability wouldn't take advantage of it (though that's not completely impossible), it has nothing to do with the current legal situation regarding SSM, and would almost certainly require legislative approval, unless there's a Constitutional issue I'm simply not seeing.
What is the difference between a polygamist marriage and a man going out and getting a bunch of women pregnant? Answer: A husband in a polygamist marriage is more likely to take responsibly for his offspring. While an man that has a lot of children with different women usually will work to avoid responsibility. Yet, we outlaw polygamist marriages, but not fathering kids out of wedlock.
Being a capitalist, I don't think there should be any limitations placed on the number of broads a man can accumulate. At the end of the day, the man with the most broads wins.
This gay man is now envisioning his polygamous marriage to 4 young buff studs. [video=youtube_share;6jYsyD3Hiw4]http://youtu.be/6jYsyD3Hiw4?t=27s[/video]
It is apples and oranges but now....that same gender couples can marry. That means I want to marry Steve, and Rocky and Johnny. We promise not have you raising any multitudes of children, and you know I will be as good as my word on that! my polygamous marriage offers no such risk so I should be the poster boy for multi-party marriage contracts. The sweet irony. The very argument that suggests to some that I am less qualified for one spouse, makes me more qualified than straights in your eyes for several!
Most advocates of same sex marriage have not given much thought to polygamy and do not take a stand on it one way or the other. It's a separate issue. If there is a viable polygamy moment let them pursue it legally like gays are.
Why not marry your sister, dog or children? Maybe you want all the benefits of passing your estate to your children tax free, so I guess you should be permitted by law to marry them all. No?
What I posted is pretty ridiculous isn't it? Well that is how the majority of Americans view so-called gay marriage.
Seriously ? You believe that most people are against gay marriage? Maybe you should poll the under 50 population and include the whole country, not just the Bible Belt.
I don't take the polls I just know what I read about the results and what the votes are in the states than put that on the ballot. The activist judges are overturning the will of the voters. I stand by my point, it's absurd.
Actually, a goat can with hold consent by saying naaaaaay. So, if a does not say naaaaaay, consent can be assumed. Unless it's a mute goat.
You might want to check that dates of the last ballot initiatives that successfully band gay marriage, and what the polls said at that time as compared to now. You might also want to read the constitution. The activists judges are enforcing the constitution. We are a Federal Republic and a Constitutional Democracy. If you don't know what all of that means, look it up. The people do not get to decide the rights of other under the constitution
What kind of Republic? Did you write Federal? Are the states "federal"? Actually as recently as a year, maybe two back, crazy California voted overwhelmingly for traditional marriage. It the activist judges reversing the will of the STATE voters.
The United States are a federation of nation/states which when admitted into the union ratified in their state legislatures agreeing to guarantee their state would remain a republican form of government. We are not a democratic form of government. A democracy is one rung on the ladder above socialism.
A federation of nation states? Seriously? That was before the Articles of Confederation was superseded by the constitution. The fact that the south lost the civil war and the passage of the 14th amendment solidified that. A republican form of government means that we are not a monarchy or ruled by a dynasty and we are indeed a democracy, although not a direct democracy where the people get to decide every issue. Rather it is the rule of law that is supreme as is the federal government. Democracy is a form of government. Socialism is an economic system so that part makes even less sense than the rest of your post.
