Just a little sumpin’ to throw into the gay marriage discussion. If gay marriage should by legal why not polygamy and polyandry? Since we are redefining marriage shouldn’t we then allow husbands to have multiple wives or allow wives to have multiple husbands? Why not? Makes about as much sense as two men marrying or two women marrying. Just askin’. I’m waiting to see how long it’s gonna take for a Mormon to bring up polygamy. If being against gays marrying makes one a bigot, doesn’t the same apply to opposing polygamy and polyandry?
I wouldn’t concern myself so much about the Progressive Romney, Reid, and Huntsman, Magic Underpants cult out in Utah, as much as I would about the moonslime cult, which .FEDGOV is pumping into America at an astounding rate: http://conservativetribune.com/muslims-busted-massive-fraud/
Notice the lbeegeefaggots never go fuck with pIsslam? Ya, me too.
Absolutely. I’m waiting for the day when polygamy is permitted and endorsed.
Not necessarily for me, though.
And then incest to follow in three . . . two . . .
Let’s not forget about bestiality, BTW.
I’ve often wondered where this might lead. Suppose that Debbie Dyke and Lezzie Liz get married. After a few years, Debbie dies. Liz is devastated and never re-marries, instead buys a Doberman. Would the courts now have to allow her to finally marry the dog? If she passes, will the dog qualify for SocSec spousal survivor benefits?
Before you tell me I’m crazy, what would you’ve called me fifty years ago if I’d told you that society would turn into what it has at this point?
Not just Mormons lining up for polygamy rights. Muslims are probably beating the drums already!
Actually, as part of the evolution of marriage, the other current terminology would require updating as well.
Bigamy would be changed to refer to a marriage between only two people (the current law). Bigamy’s current definition of a person who marries while already married to another person would then correctly and legally be referred to as polygamy or group marriage.
Monogamy could then be used to define the next logical evolutionary step: marriage to one’s self. It’s a simple argument; if I love myself, why can’t I, alone, be married. Otherwise, I would be denied equal opportunity under law by being deprived of Government benefits, most notably the married Federal tax rates.
It’s the Government’s job to create stupid laws and unnecessarily obstruct our freedoms. It’s the Citizen’s job to make them regret those actions. Embrace the horror.
Howdy Mike ….
So if a confirmed masterbater chooses to marry his right hand & later divorces it….
1.Is that right hand eligible for half of his Social Security benefits?
2. It he stays married , is it bigamy if he begins to masterbate with his left hand?
3. If he uses both hands, is that a threesome?
Oh well , so much for speculation …back to work!
I see absolutely no reason to bar anything if two gay folks can be “married” (what’s the difference between one deviant behavior and another). And the funny thing is the gay crowd starts getting pissy when you suggest if they can get married anyone should be entitled to their own interpretations of marriage.
You might as well involve necrophiliacs…why should they be discriminated against? Dead people should have rights too, and be allowed to marry live people! or vice cersa. Maybe I will dig up Aunt Irene….