I don't think so. If 10 women wish to live with one fellow as their husband and have children by him, that is actually their business, or their right. And if a church, or non-churches, wishes to recognize that as some sort of "marriage," that is their right. Polygamous Muslims, limited to 4 wives at a time Thank Allah, infest a town near you. Guaranteed.
In every city in this country this is occurring, with multiple women receiving lavish welfare benefits for themselves and numerous offspring resulting from liaisons and living arrangements of which you and I would not approve.
Sorry, but we don't live in a jungle "outback"...We live in a society that -- for both better (on the lookout for your neighbor) and worse (hyperbureacracy) -- prides itself in establishing governmental safety nets.
Therefore, when "family" configuration/experimentations fail, guess who foots the bill? That's right: Uncle Same...That's right, you & me the taxpayer.
Therefore, government HAS a say on which family configurations are to be sanctioned -- and which ones lead to greater negative fallout upon society.
All you have to do is review the vast welfare support rec'd by the fLDS members in the twin cities of Colorado City, AZ and Hildale, UT...too see what I mean.
This cult's polygamous arrangements has led to vast welfare support.
And if a church, or non-churches, wishes to recognize that as some sort of "marriage," that is their right.
You flunked history, right? The very territory of Utah was denied statehood over polygamy.
B.H. Roberts, a Mormon leader, was then elected to Congress as one of the first Utah congressmen in 1898. And guess what? Roberts was denied a seat in Congress because he took a third wife around 1893 and was practicing polygamy.
Hard to believe that our 1898 Congress was more upright about defending traditional marriage than you are!!!
And, btw, it wasn't like Congress didn't have grassroots support on blocking Roberts from taking office.
Grassroots America took up 28 banners and collected 7 million signatures...telling Congress NOT to seat Roberts. That 7 million signatures in pre-mass media America!
Those 7 million Americans -- unlike you -- represented the true original spirit of Republicanism. In 1856, the fledgling Republican party set their sights on two social issues' goals: To take on what they called "the twin relics of barbarism" (slavery & polygamy).
Polygamous Muslims, limited to 4 wives at a time Thank Allah, infest a town near you. Guaranteed.
Yes. And this is precisely the barbarism the GoP took on in 1856...yet we have the likes of you who call yourself a conservative?
In every city in this country this is occurring, with multiple women receiving lavish welfare benefits for themselves and numerous offspring resulting from liaisons and living arrangements of which you and I would not approve.
So what? Why should we continually cater to the lowest immoral common denominator?