[TurboZamboni]

Holland Discusses ‘Group Marriage’ as Next Step

http://www.charismanews.com/world/38744-holland-discusses-group-marriage-as-next-step

[forgotten man]

Why can’t I marry my brother and/or sister, and not consumate the marriage” We could save money on taxes.

[MeganC]

Rush is precisely right. What’s truly being debated in the USSC today is not whether gay marriage is Constitutional but if the traditional defintion of marriage is Constitutional. That said, if gay marriage becomes legal then there is ZERO justification to prohibit consenting adults from marrying multiple spouses.

Also, the Unitarians are not the only poly-friendly denomination out there. The United Church of Christ is poly-tolerant and the United Methodist Church is also poly-tolerant but not nearly as much as the UCC is.

[MeganC]

*ping*

[Frapster]

And NAMBLA sits quietly, patiently, waiting... or not.

[2ndDivisionVet]

I think I’ll start a website “MySecondWife.com” or some such and get ahead of the curve on this.

[P.O.E.]

Marry a collie to help keep the kids corralled in the yard. It’s for their safety.

/s

[Standing Wolf]

I doubt this controversy has much to do with marriage, homosexuality, polygamy or polyandry, bestiality, or pedophilia at all. I think the crux of the matter is the imaginary authority of the feral government to define and decide all moral issues for the commoners.

I've never seen anything in the Constitution that authorizes the feral government to do any such thing.

[Mike Darancette]

A Bi-sexual marriage would at least require 3.

[Ransomed]

“How long will it be before churches lose their tax deductions if they don’t perform same-sex marriages? I’m not joking. People who engage in opposite-sex marriage, are they going to someday be bigots for not marrying somebody of the same sex? Which is the popular and hip thing to be doing.”

Nobody saw ‘gay marriage’ coming 30 years ago. I have to say that if the state can punish you for not buying into an impossibility like ‘gay marriage’, then it is also possible to punish you for buying into normal marriage. After all, to the state, normal marriage is just whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority think it is at any one time.

Freegards

[Jack Hydrazine]

One day all forms of ‘marriage’ will be allowed with the exception of a heterosexual one between one man and one woman.

[bigheadfred]

I married my wife. I married my job. The sold it all to the Company Store.

[Viennacon]

This is the best argument against homosexual marriage there is, but polygamy and human-animal marriage are often cast asside because liberals cite ‘exploitation’ and ‘the nature of consent’ to deny those relationships are equal.

You can corner them on homosexual incest however. No danger of deformed kids, so why can’t a man marry his brother, or his uncle, or his dad?

“Because... because... I can’t believe you’d compare those two things, you bigot!”

I just almost puked watching O’Reilly and Kelly plug homosexual marriage, and call the opposition arguments ‘weak’. O’Reilly wants every American to be happy. Well, here’s some news from you. Pedophiles aren’t happy unless they get to screw children, so you better stop pushing Jessica’s Law, you blowhard.

I am beyond sick of hearing about this. If Bush had appointed someone remotely competent, and Bork had been confirmed under Reagan, we could have got a ruling that stated unequivocally, “Homosexual marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment Clause. Government cannot redefine a religious ceremony. Prop 8 Stands. All states recognizing homosexual marriage are acting unconstitutionally”
Instead, we’ve ended up with 3 real justices. 4 activist liberals. 2 morons who don’t even know the obvious answer to this issue. That’s our judiciary.

[Mamzelle]

Polygamy is legal in Ontario, Canada. I don’t know if it is legal in Canada’s other provinces. It is also legal in India.

[GilesB]

Making the gay marriage the moral equivalent of inter-racial marriage is an easily defeated argument.

The inter-racial ban NEVER had anything to do with the definition of marriage. It was a ban on two people entering into a legally recognized relationship, because they were different races - this was clearly a denial of rights based on race.

Gays are not prohibited from marrying - they can, and have married for centuries. What they haven’t been able to do is call a homosexual relationship a marriage. This does not violate their rights.

I might want to adopt my horse, call her my daughter, put her on my health care, give her hospital visitation rights and claim her as a dependant...I’m not allowed to do it, but my rights aren’t violated.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“Well, they produce more income. They have more time to divide among their kids. If one parent needs to take the kids to school and the other one needs to go to work, they can do that, I mean they can divide the — it’s a more resource available situation.”

I caught this exchange today. Why on earth didn’t Rush reply “In that case, four parents would be twice as good.”

[Hildred Castaigne]

NOTE: The majority of these are Devil's Advocate arguments you will encounter if you try to legitimately debate this stuff with a liberal.

Why can’t I marry my brother and/or sister, and not consumate the marriage” We could save money on taxes.
--forgotten man, #003

That could probably be a legitimate thing to do, even if you consummated. After all, Rhode Island has no penalty for incest and in Ohio they only care if you are a parent to the other party. Wouldn't work for a parent/child in any situation, though, due to things I talk about below.

Why not a man and a boy?
Why not a man and a goat?
--IncPen, #004

Capacity to contract. A boy, being a minor, does not have the capacity to contract, which is required to have any marriage legally recognized. Same with the goat; they lack capacity to contract too.

Why can’t we have polygamy?
--williams, #005

I can see no legal reason to bar it. Especially as it has a Biblical basis. If it was good enough for Abraham and David, it's good enough for us.

If you don’t consummate, it’s not a marriage.
--DuncanWaring, #006

That's actually not true anymore. Requirement of consummation has generally been found to be legally unenforceable from about the middle of last century.

And on top of that, if some religion condones marriage between a 60 year old and a child ***Islam***, and it was accepted custom, then what could stop that?
--kgrif_Salinas, #013

See above; the child lacks capacity to contract. Therefore, it cannot be recognized as a legal marriage by law.

Of course, all of this, ALL OF THIS, requires recognizing that marriage is nothing more than a contract between two (or maybe more) people regarding things like inheritance, medical supervisory issues, taxes, etc, with no religious element whatsoever. And at this point, that may be true in most cases. Heck, the majority of people I know that are my age (under-40, living in the cities) didn't get married in a church, they just went down to the courthouse. And the majority of them did it solely for tax/legal reasons.

It's hard to argue against such people when the standard objects we put forth against gay marriage are met with "Yeah, that's a church thing and it's no business of mine. I don't do church."

[PapaBear3625]

RUSH: Why? If you love one, you can love two. What if all three people love each other and they want the benefits and all that, who among us should deny those three people their love?

CALLER: I think they can be loved, I just don't think you need to give it a legal status because --

Over 50 countries allow polygamous marriage

[beachn4fun]

Rush makes some very valid points. And I'm glad he put the caller on the spot by asking "when is enough, enough?"

IMO, it was the 60s that turned our world upside down and put us on the down hill slide that we are now on when it comes to "anything goes" mentality.

Next we'll be hearing from all those labeled pedophiles, saying that it should be legal for them to engage in sex with the ones they love and they just happen to be attracted to six year olds...(gag...sorry).

...would say opposite-sex couples are bigoted because they're not marrying people of the same sex?

Never going to happy, just like Blacks do not believe that Whites can ever be considered a minority.

Bottom line for me is I don't care how the government rules on it, they won't make me accept it as normal. And gay couples should never be allowed to adopt children. If their union is "normal" then they should be able to conceive naturally without the help of someone else's sperm or egg.