If you can love te same sex, would it be impossible to love more than one spouse/partner?

It all depends on how the word marriage is defined. Kinda like when Clinton said something like, it depends on what is, is.

I keep seeing this trotted out as an argument against same-sex marriage - "next thing you know we'll be marrying multiple people, or our goats and our microwaves."

 

Here's an interesting little debate on the subject:

 

Would Gay Marriage Lead To Legal Polygamy? : NPR

If a man is dumb enough to have more than one legal wife, he calls down his own sentence. Have at it!

Edited March 28, 201313 yr by spindoc

If a man is dumb enough to have more than one legal wife' date=' his calls down his own sentence. Have at it![/quote']

 

I would like this a thousand times if I could. I'm all for same sex marriages let them in on the pain and suffering marriage causes. I'm glad my wife doesn't know bgp exists.

As long as all adults involved are consenting and there is no one being coerced or underage, I fail to see the issue with polygamy.

Might as well make incest legal too, along with beastiality. I mean a sin is a sin, if they legalize one sin, might as well open up the gates of hades and make America the new Sodom and Gomorrah.

Might as well make incest legal too, along with beastiality. I mean a sin is a sin, if they legalize one sin, might as well open up the gates of hades and make America the new Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

Sins have been legal in the United States since before it was called the United States.

Might as well make incest legal too, along with beastiality. I mean a sin is a sin, if they legalize one sin, might as well open up the gates of hades and make America the new Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

Don't forget rape and murder.

Might as well make incest legal too, along with beastiality. I mean a sin is a sin, if they legalize one sin, might as well open up the gates of hades and make America the new Sodom and Gomorrah.

cant argue with anything you said.

Might as well make incest legal too, along with beastiality. I mean a sin is a sin, if they legalize one sin, might as well open up the gates of hades and make America the new Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

And we all know what happened to those cities in the Bible!

Here is my thought on this subject. Get the government out of the marriage business all together. Completely. We are all individuals and just like it should not matter in the eyes of the law if we white-American or black-American it should not matter if we hetro married-American, homo married-American, single-American, polygamist-American.

 

One of the reasons it was argued to keep the DOM act was that there are hundreds of Federal laws that call-out implications of being married. I am sure the vast majority of these are tax laws. Many of us are familiar with the 'marriage penalty'. Also inheritance tax laws are specific to your married status, etc. Some of these treat married couples more favorabley (such as inheritance ) and some less (like the income tax laws).

 

To defeat this argument I would like to see SCOTUS come out and say - "your right the Federal government currently has to define marriage since it has so many laws that rely on that status, so lets fix that issue - The federal government can not make laws that rely on the 'married' status of individuals." Thus, all laws must be 'marriage-status' neutral, just as they are race, creed, etc neutral. Personally I want no special favors being 'married' but I also do not want special penalties.

 

This would provide freedom for a lot of people and get the government out of the 'marriage game'.

Might as well make incest legal too, along with beastiality. I mean a sin is a sin, if they legalize one sin, might as well open up the gates of hades and make America the new Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

Random thoughts on this post which I consider silly but:

 

1) Is incest a sin? If so, all those early folks in the bible obviously practiced it, correct?

 

2) There are real biological problems that can be directly traced to inbreeding that are not associated with same sex or plural relationships so I can see a difference there why it can not be made legal.

 

3) In beastiality there obviously can be no consent from one of the parties so I also see a difference there where it can never be made legal.

Random thoughts on this post which I consider silly but:

 

1) Is incest a sin? If so, all those early folks in the bible obviously practiced it, correct?

 

2) There are real biological problems that can be directly traced to inbreeding that are not associated with same sex or plural relationships so I can see a difference there why it can not be made legal.

 

3) In beastiality there obviously can be no consent from one of the parties so I also see a difference there where it can never be made legal.

 

Will the post still be considered silly when a lawmaker proposes that cousins to whatever degree removed are ok? Then, 1/2 siblings? Do you not agree that the slope continues to get steeper and more slippery?

 

I tend to lean towards BGC's way of thinking with regard to marriage.

^ It is legal for first cousins to marry in almost as many states as not.