Posted on 02/19/2017 8:00:40 AM PST by C19fan
Offers a legal and historical context for reforming family law and legalizing plural marriage
Polygamous marriages are currently recognized in nearly fifty countries worldwide. Although polygamy is technically illegal in the United States, it is practiced by members of some religious communities and a growing number of other “poly” groups. In the radically changing and increasingly multicultural world in which we live, the time has come to define polygamous marriage and address its legal feasibilities.
(Excerpt) Read more at upne.com ...
I'm surprised Democrats didn't choose 'people who have sex with horses' first... That those folks are suffering from discrimination - and we must FIGHT FOR THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS.
Maybe the 'horse thing' with the 'human rights' thing was too funny - and they've decided to go with 'one woman and five hundred guys' marriage.
It's a twofer for democrats - if the border is secured women willing to 'marry' 500 Mexican men will bring in more democrat voters...
I said, and posted here, at the time that if there is nothing special about marriage being between one man and one woman, what is so special about the number 2. The “gay marriage” acceptance just opened the flood gates for any kind of combination of people, and I could see animals, being said to have a “marriage”.
You can marrying your first cousin and incest .
[Sharia law is next]
This is precisely why its being considered.
I will never bake the cake.
You left out inanimate objects, robots and plants.
Never mind the restraining orders!
Polygamy is a facet of barbarism best left in the Third World.
But polygamy can be pushed, based on the idea that “consenting adults” want to live their lives that way.
I wonder what the end game will be, and if I will live long enough to see it.
Now that we have normalized homosexual marriage, the next steps would seem to be some form of plural marriage.
I’ve heard that some LGBT types want to eventually see groups marriage, with any number of partners, any sex of the participating partners.
It might be beneficial if eventually the governmental entities, whether state government or federal government, simply get out of defining marriage, or providing any legal status to marriage at all. If the liberal judges are eventually going to force us all to recognize bizarre marriage and family structures, all in the name of “equality” and “fairness” and all that, we might just want to vote “no” and say there will no longer be marital status defined by government at all.
I had someone request of me (as a writer) on a freelancing site a propaganda piece on how legalizing polygamy would solve the single mother crisis.
The irony of multi-culturalism is that liberals would permit it for Muslims but likely still reject it for Christians.
The polygamy and homosexuality movements are not mutually exclusive.
There have already been several “throples”, a homosexual threesome of grooms in Asian and lesbian triple pair in the UK.
I’ve also read about the polygamy argument of letting two homosexual men pair off with two lesbians to retain some parental rights when they have children.
Polygamy now is similar to marijuana in that it is so accepted by society that it may as well be legal. Making it officially legal is now just a formality.
Polygamy (which I strongly oppose) is far more morally legitimate than a legal coupling predicated on sodomy. Polygamy is still the joining of man and woman/women, retaining a procreative sexuality.
Procreative significance, is of the essence of sex.
That statement, obvious and self evident for all people since the dawn of the human race, is now considered controversial even here at Free Republic.
We’re all sexual revolutionaries now, I take it.
Marriage as an institution in the USA died after the acceptance of easy divorce and contraception.
We sawed two legs off of a four-legged chair—— free, faithful, fertile and for life —— and feign surprise that the chair collapsed.
Oh indeed
It would be best if marriage were defined as one man, one woman, and that marriage was a social contract that could not be broken easily, and no other alternatives had any sanction.
I’m not a fan of gay marriage or plural marriages for that matter, but plural marriages, to me at least, make more sense.
4 or 5 wives means more welfare income just like in the UK.
“Polygamy is a facet of barbarism best left in the Third World.”
Yet our society has no problem rationalizing serial polygamy where a man or woman can have multiple spouses with whom they’ve had children. No one cares if a man has eight wives they only care if he has eight wives at one time.
Pardon me, but what’s really the difference here?
An outstanding post. Well said!!!
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.