I have no problem with either one of them in principle for some people. Those relationships work for some people... However, it has to be watched only because some people would abuse those relationships if legal for tax purposes, etc. On principle, if there was only one man left on earth, and 100 women, you would deny the women the right of feeling a wife relationship with the lone man?
How to have sex and whom to have sex with is a belief. It is a creed. As long as it is between consenting adults (this excludes animals, children, dead people, people in comas, etc.) people are just practicing their beliefs and creeds when it comes to sex. It isn't a big deal in my opinion, there are so many more important issues that we as a society need to address... Other cultures are other culture's problems, not ours. Call me an isolationist, but what other cultures do in other countries, what laws they pass, etc. is none of our business... Especially since we have so many unsolved problems here in America. Fix our own problems and focus in on America first. When we have taken care of all of our own problems as a country and society, then and then only can we look to the problems of other societies. To do less is to ignore our own problems. Every bit of energy and attention you divert to another country and their culture is energy and attention that should be focused on our own country. You are just a common moralist Bible humping regressive fundamentalist ignoramus...
If we can work out the legal issues of taxes, etc. and if we can ensure that the economics make sense, sure, why not? If some guy wants to pay for 3 wives, and if some woman wants to sleep with 3 guys, it really isn't any of my business as long as they are not doing so to circumvent some laws...
Polygamy destroys societal structure, some men end up with 10 wives and some with none. Western societies (and others) had the foresight to ban this nonsense.
That's your opinion. You have any fact in support of that opinion? Also, you make the typical flawed and unsupported assumption that a large percentage of people would actually practice polygamy if it were legal. If it was a choice, I suspect a smaller percentage would opt for polygamy over traditional marriage... If 10% of the country decided to have gay marriage and/or polygamy, that is not a large enough number to destroy the underlying majority. Fact is, less and less people are getting married in America, as they don't believe in marriage or don't need to get married.* So your comments are bunk... *October 16, 2006 Out Numbered Married couples, whose numbers have been declining for decades as a proportion of American households, have finally slipped into a minority, according to an analysis of new census figures by The New York Times. The American Community Survey, released this month by the Census Bureau, found that 49.7 percent, or 55.2 million, of the nationâs 111.1 million households in 2005 were made up of married couples â with and without children â just shy of a majority and down from more than 52 percent five years earlier. The numbers by no means suggests marriage is dead or necessarily that a tipping point has been reached. The total number of married couples is higher than ever, and most Americans eventually marry. But marriage has been facing more competition. A growing number of adults are spending more of their lives single or living unmarried with partners, and the potential social and economic implications are profound. http://11d.typepad.com/blog/2006/10/out_numbered.html
see the twisted mind of zzzz at work. change the definition of marriage. somehow confuse the definition of marriage with gay sex and scream discrimination. Then make gay sex a creed. Then make up lies about the person questioning your distortions.
It is a shame that I couldn't face you in a court of law as opposing counsel, I would there be able to make a fool of you as easily as I do here... My goodness, you must have graduated from the bottom of your class in law school and have had to take the bar multiple times... mar·riage Listen to the pronunciation of marriage Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry Date: 14th century 1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry â J. T. Shawcross> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
Marriage is a Civil Union. Not always a religious one. The State has no business imposing religious dogma onto a civil institution. Tax treatment of same-sex couples is the only legitimate consideration Government can weigh on the issue. So change tax law, to recognize the civil union. This is strictly a Libertarian issue. Two consenting adults can do whatever they like - so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. As soon as we start legislating religious dogma at the expense of Constitutional Rights and Limitations, the 1st Amendment is the first to go. The rest soon follow. The Government is the first to browbeat "reasonable limitations" on freedoms at the behest of any number of crisis they seem to perpetually hype. Time to tell them to fuck off. Live and let live.