This is the logical progression. If the sexes of the party doesn’t matter, why should the “twoness?”
The thing is, though, that as a practical matter most polygamous unions will feature one dominant male and several females. So that’s progress for you, setting the standard back thousands of years.
They've beaten you to it. Have you seen DIRECTV's "Hannah and her Horse" commercials?
I’m willing to bet the fudgebacks (aka, homosexuals) don’t really want polygamy for one simple reason:
It allows the straights to participate in their twisted world of rebelling against God’s wishes for marriage. They want all the perversion for themselves.
It’ll happen anyway.
Do it for the children! Polygamy is a more secure legal structure for children than the serial fornication we have now.
Imagine adding the possibility of an elderly grandparent “legally” marrying an adult child/grandchild so Social Security or pension benefits to a surviving spouse get passed on.
Beastiality, yep I entered the threat to mention that.
It’s a given isn’t it.
I’m also certain the age of consent is about to take a big hit.
Plenty of Muslim “refugees” that we import to the US already practice this. Wives #2 and #3 declare themselves ‘single mothers’ and Americans get to pick up the tab for their rent and free food.
Pretty cool, huh? What a country!
What about same gender threesomes? If polygamy gets a pass the perverts will want to one up them. Oh yes its coming— pandoras box is opened and the demons are let loose. Hold fast to the Lord and godly principles in this sea of cesspool culture.
Once the wedge is pounded into the log, each hit with the sledge drives it deeper and the log sides move further and further apart.
Interesting that the original Republican Party platform (1856) had just four points: 1) Opposition to slavery, 2) admission of Kansas as a state, 3) federal support for a transcontinental railroad, and 4), opposition to polygamy.
An animal as a dependent for tax purposes? That will be interesting.
I personally think incest will be next to be legalized. Any scientific/medical objections can be answered with contraceptives. Besides, there is no requirement for civil marriage that the couple be in love or fertile, etc. So, if a brother and sister wish to be married to have the same legal rights and benefits as any other two people (or if they simply are degenerate perverts), what justification is possibly left to stop them None.
Also, this new right to “dignity” is even more expansive, open-ended and subject abuse than the old so-called penumbra of rights. Think: the “right to die with dignity.”
Then let them sue and lets see the SCOTUS now say this is not allowed and yet their homosexuality sham of a marriage is.
what about dog lovers who want to marry their pet...........it will never stop!
Sure they do - in the same way Obama and Hillary "opposed" homosexual marriage.
Polygamy is far more plausible - it's historical, it's Biblical, and there are many present examples which appear stable.
And, since boys are not being raised to be husbands, and since most girls want one, polygamy is almost dictated by our present circumstances.
Now this is something our moderate muslims could support.
I'll just leave it that.
What did we tell you, esp you easilyl deceived Milennials.
Unfortunately, we all reap what you idiots sow.
Time to legalize prostitution and heroin use...who would dare set a boundary in these (anything goes) times?