MEET THE MASSACHUSETTS THROUPLE....
One of them is now pregnant....
Posted on 07/01/2015 7:24:07 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
am a gay marriage advocate. So why do I spend so much of my time arguing about polygamy? Opposing the legalization of plural marriage should not be my burden, because gay marriage and polygamy are opposites, not equivalents.
By allowing high-status men to hoard wives at the expense of lower-status men, polygamy withdraws the opportunity to marry from people who now have it; same-sex marriage, by contrast, extends the opportunity to marry to people who now lack it. One of these things, as they say on Sesame Street, is not like the other.
Yet this non sequitur just won't go away: "Once we stop limiting marriage to male-plus-female, we'll have to stop limiting it at all! Why only two? Why not three or four? Why not marriage to your brother? Or your dog? Or a toaster?" If there's a bloody shirt to wave in the gay-marriage debate, this is it.
The shortest answer is in some ways the best: Please stop changing the subject! When you straights give yourselves the right to marry two people or your brother or your dog or a toaster, we gay people should get that right, too. Until then, kindly be serious.
If I sound exasperated, it's because the polygamy argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. That doesn't stop it from popping up everywhere. A good example of the species can be found in this publication, where Fredrik deBoer welcomed Politico Magazine's readers "to the exciting new world of the slippery slope."
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Yup!
Except that darned Cat on YouTube ...gets it right every time! Maybe we could Nominate that Cat for SCOTUS ~
Multiple marriage involving members of the same sex is also a possibility. how could the courts deny this?
“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.
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.
Sin makes people stupid.
Of course it isn’t. Pederasty is the next gay marriage.
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?
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.
I do not recall the court decision being based on the pragmatic advantages of monogamy.
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.
“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.
Funny how the left are such hypocrites on this marriage thing
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.
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!!
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".
Gibberish....
There are no square circles. Marriage is male and female. One each.
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.
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.