Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No, Polygamy Isn’t the Next Gay Marriage: Group marriage is the past—not the future—of matrimony.
Politico ^ | 06/30/2015 | By JONATHAN RAUCH

Posted on 07/01/2015 7:24:07 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last
To: ClearCase_guy

Yup!

Except that darned Cat on YouTube ...gets it right every time! Maybe we could Nominate that Cat for SCOTUS ~


41 posted on 07/01/2015 8:00:53 PM PDT by IwaCornDogs ("There Will Be Bamboozeling" ~ Nobama 08')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Multiple marriage involving members of the same sex is also a possibility. how could the courts deny this?


42 posted on 07/01/2015 8:01:07 PM PDT by Captain Compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“By allowing high-status men to hoard wives...”

Why think that men will be able to hoard wives? If a man can have more than one wife, a woman can have more than one husband. If a man has two wives, each of the wives can have at least one other husband.

I wonder what the husbands would be to each other. Husbands-in-Law by virtue of having the same wife? “Brother Husbands” reflecting the term “Sister Wives” I’ve heard used in regard to the multiple wives of one husband?

If the first man in the chain has two wives, and each of the wives has another husband, and each of those husbands has another wife, is the first man in the chain related to those last wives by marriage?

My head hurts, not to mention my heart.


43 posted on 07/01/2015 8:01:30 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the and breadth of "ignorance. individual be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yogafist

RE: I don’t think I ever met a homosexual that didn’t have the exact same right to marriage I have.

It isn’t the right to marry, it’s the right to marry the GENDER of their choice.


44 posted on 07/01/2015 8:01:40 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sin makes people stupid.


45 posted on 07/01/2015 8:03:05 PM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Compassion
RE: Multiple marriage involving members of the same sex is also a possibility. how could the courts deny this?

MEET THE MASSACHUSETTS THROUPLE....




One of them is now pregnant....


46 posted on 07/01/2015 8:05:00 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Of course it isn’t. Pederasty is the next gay marriage.


47 posted on 07/01/2015 8:05:26 PM PDT by matthew fuller (Malcom X is Obama's baby daddy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kaehurowing
The first polygamy challenge is starting in Montana right now.

They've been waiting for the homos to open the door. Heck, they were probably half of the people at the homo protests - not because they care about the homos - but because the homos are doing all the work and the polygamists can just demand their rights for free.
Actually, the polygamists were pretty smart to keep quiet and wait it out. Now all they have to do is call for THEIR equal right to marry who ever they "love". Who can argue against them now?

48 posted on 07/01/2015 8:06:03 PM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

I always thought that a woman with two or more husbands would be in a great position. Income from all the husbands, home raising the children and smiling. The guys having a happy wife, lots of children and building financial security.

I understand that this situation is somewhat common in some parts of China where women are rare and instead of valuing the wife, she is essentially a sex slave.


49 posted on 07/01/2015 8:08:12 PM PDT by Chickensoup (Leftist totalitarian fascism is on the move.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I do not recall the court decision being based on the pragmatic advantages of monogamy.


50 posted on 07/01/2015 8:09:27 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Homosexual men have always had the same right to marry that heterosexual men have had.Marriage is for the orderly replacement of the race in such a way as to raise the new generations in the best conditions. That is all, even biblically, if you think about it.


51 posted on 07/01/2015 8:25:01 PM PDT by arthurus (It's true!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“By allowing high-status men to hoard wives at the expense of lower-status men”

False premise. It’s not the 7th century anymore (outside of Afghanistan and a few other places). The weirdos wanting polygamy today aren’t doing it because the think wives are a measure of wealth or status. Nor is it necessarily going to be multiple wives. Who is to say that we won’t see three gay guys, or a woman and two guys, and so on?

This fool’s flailings are nothing more than an attempt to blunt the reality of how big a legal door SCOTUS’ ruling has likely opened.


52 posted on 07/01/2015 8:30:09 PM PDT by DemforBush (Ex-Democrat, and NotforJeb. Just so we're clear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Gay marriage has been around for about a week. Polygamy (lets be conservative here) is about six thousand years old. Yeah, one of these things is not like the other.
53 posted on 07/01/2015 8:34:58 PM PDT by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Funny how the left are such hypocrites on this marriage thing


54 posted on 07/01/2015 8:35:50 PM PDT by tophat9000 (SCOTUS=Newspeak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Just one question for John-boy: if polygamy and other deviations from traditional marriage is so outlandish, why are you bothering with writing this article; why waste your time?

We know the answer.


55 posted on 07/01/2015 8:37:03 PM PDT by Paulie (America without Christianity is like a Chemistry book without the periodic table.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Yep...all I hear is SHUT UP I DONT WANT TO DEBATE!!!!

THERE IS NO ARGUMENT. You need an ethics system to argue the philosophical reasons why it’s different... which they don’t have! Other cultures allow it right now...so explain to me why it’s wrong and not allowed by law?? It’s just the new normal! You’re a bigot to not allow people from having a multiple partner marriage!!!! Equality!!


56 posted on 07/01/2015 8:39:15 PM PDT by fuzzylogic (welfare state = sharing consequences of poor moral choices among everybody)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
A number of years ago I read about two elderly, never married farmers who in an effort to avoid inheritance tax and save the family farm tried to get married to each other. Well, in these days of anything goes, why not? The state has the power to issue civil marriage licenses of many variations including same sex, group, a cowboy and his horse and elderly brothers. But there is another kind of union, holy matrimony, that remains within the bounds of Biblical tradition.

A civil marriage comes with a limited warranty to stay together "as long as we both shall love". Holy Matrimony is a covenant made before God to remain faithful "until death do us part".

57 posted on 07/01/2015 8:39:46 PM PDT by Irish Queen ("Don't fence me in")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Gibberish....


58 posted on 07/01/2015 8:41:47 PM PDT by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

There are no square circles. Marriage is male and female. One each.


59 posted on 07/01/2015 8:42:40 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Justice Ahole Kennedy did not write about a limiting principle. He wrote about feelings. There is no limiting principle. The ahole has opened Pandora’s box and anything goes. It’s all right there in the 14th Amendment.


60 posted on 07/01/2015 8:45:41 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson