Kablammo!

[Warwitch]

Polygamy is fail. 5 wives is not the same as 5 girlfriends. Unless you prefer 5 times the obligations, headaches, guilt, and long conversations about nothing while spooning.

The big plus? Well, Im guessing theres always something on the table for dinner.

[Ando]

Polygamy is fail. 5 wives is not the same as 5 girlfriends. Unless you prefer 5 times the obligations, headaches, guilt, and long conversations about nothing while spooning.

The big plus? Well, Im guessing theres always something on the table for dinner.

This gets a big.... A+ ...in my book!!!

[classicmagplayer]

plural marriages are illegal because of there abusive and sexist nature

how are they abusive and sexist? they are illegal because they majority of the population would rather not hear about them, so politicians appease the majority in order to stay in office.

How can a plural marriage be described as abusive and sexist while plural relationships are fine and dandy? The only difference between them is the legal and public recognition of the bond of marriage.

The only time plural marriages should be generally considered abusive and sexist is when someone tries to broadly define them... e.g. "a man can take as many wives as he pleases". If the people involved make the decisions and define the relationship, then I dont see how you can call it abusive and sexist.

[Frizzle Fry]

how are they abusive and sexist? they are illegal because they majority of the population would rather not hear about them, so politicians appease the majority in order to stay in office.

How can a plural marriage be described as abusive and sexist while plural relationships are fine and dandy? The only difference between them is the legal and public recognition of the bond of marriage.

The only time plural marriages should be generally considered abusive and sexist is when someone tries to broadly define them... e.g. "a man can take as many wives as he pleases". If the people involved make the decisions and define the relationship, then I dont see how you can call it abusive and sexist.

Thanks CMP.

Polygamy isn't my bag of chips (it's bad enough just dealing with one person you'll eventually grow to hate...) but that statement, like so many others fro... er... well it definitely needed to be corrected.

[cockerpunk]

how are they abusive and sexist? they are illegal because they majority of the population would rather not hear about them, so politicians appease the majority in order to stay in office.

How can a plural marriage be described as abusive and sexist while plural relationships are fine and dandy? The only difference between them is the legal and public recognition of the bond of marriage.

The only time plural marriages should be generally considered abusive and sexist is when someone tries to broadly define them... e.g. "a man can take as many wives as he pleases". If the people involved make the decisions and define the relationship, then I dont see how you can call it abusive and sexist.

the point i was making about plural relationships is that the government doesn't police relationships, they are not legal and no rights are granted for being in a relationship. IE, plural relationships are also sexist and abusive, however, relationships are not legally binding, therefore the government doesn't need to get involved. its just as abusive and just as sexist and insulting and disrespectful and everything else ... just there are no rights exchanged with the government, so the government doesn't need to get involved.

the ruling is in accordance with the Constitution, and i think its great. i also enjoy the hypocrisy on the right about things of this nature "government should be smaller and not tell people what to do" ... "but you gay people, yeah, we want the government to strip you of your rights"

[SCpoloRicker]

God is a just God, if He doesnt destroy this country for that perversion, He will be morally obligated to bring Sodom and Gomorrah back again and apologize to them for burning them up.

Why do you hate America? TM

[maxama10]

the point i was making about plural relationships is that the government doesn't police relationships, they are not legal and no rights are granted for being in a relationship. IE, plural relationships are also sexist and abusive, however, relationships are not legally binding, therefore the government doesn't need to get involved. its just as abusive and just as sexist and insulting and disrespectful and everything else ... just there are no rights exchanged with the government, so the government doesn't need to get involved.

the ruling is in accordance with the Constitution, and i think its great. i also enjoy the hypocrisy on the right about things of this nature "government should be smaller and not tell people what to do" ... "but you gay people, yeah, we want the government to strip you of your rights"

Yeah, hypocrisy!
Wait what?

[classicmagplayer]

the point i was making about plural relationships is that the government doesn't police relationships, they are not legal and no rights are granted for being in a relationship. IE, plural relationships are also sexist and abusive, however, relationships are not legally binding, therefore the government doesn't need to get involved. its just as abusive and just as sexist and insulting and disrespectful and everything else ... just there are no rights exchanged with the government, so the government doesn't need to get involved.

the ruling is in accordance with the Constitution, and i think its great. i also enjoy the hypocrisy on the right about things of this nature "government should be smaller and not tell people what to do" ... "but you gay people, yeah, we want the government to strip you of your rights"

Replace "plural" with "homosexual" and I think you will notice some hypocrisy in your own statements. Denying the ultimate sign of devotion in a relationship is policing relationships, albeit not directly. Telling multiple partners they cannot marry is no different than telling homosexuals they cannot marry, which is the same thing as telling interracial couples they cannot marry. No matter the situation, the government is telling consenting adults their relationship will not be legally recognized, even when the participants are willing to commit to a lifelong relationship(riiiiiight, whats the divorce rate at now?).

[teufelhunden]

who cares? you do what you want in your house, i'll do what i want in mine, and we leave each other alone.

fair?

[bornl33t]

Replace "plural" with "homosexual" and I think you will notice some hypocrisy in your own statements. Denying the ultimate sign of devotion in a relationship is policing relationships, albeit not directly. Telling multiple partners they cannot marry is no different than telling homosexuals they cannot marry, which is the same thing as telling interracial couples they cannot marry. No matter the situation, the government is telling consenting adults their relationship will not be legally recognized, even when the participants are willing to commit to a lifelong relationship(riiiiiight, whats the divorce rate at now?).

[Frizzle Fry]

"but you gay people, yeah, we want the government to strip you of your rights"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the voters did that.. Just playing devils advocate here, and pointing out your mistake.

[sjrtk]

From what i have been able to gather through all of the gay marriage debate is, it isn't so much of the rights involved, it seems to be about the word marriage. So we change things, marriage is no longer a legal term only a religious one. The Civil Union becomes the ONLY legal term. This solves the problem that it seems like (most of) the anti gay marriage people have. All people are in a civil union with no biased view on weather straight or gay. Just my .02.

[bornl33t]

From what i have been able to gather through all of the gay marriage debate is, it isn't so much of the rights involved, it seems to be about the word marriage. So we change things, marriage is no longer a legal term only a religious one. The Civil Union becomes the ONLY legal term. This solves the problem that it seems like (most of) the anti gay marriage people have. All people are in a civil union with no biased view on weather straight or gay. Just my .02.

As a straight person I want to be able to claim sexual harassment when I am propositioned AND if I kick him in the nuts I don't want it to be a hate crime either. IF they wanna be equal then be equal...but that's not what they want and they know it.

[Warwitch]

Yep. They wanna be special. Juuuuuuuust like everybody else. I tell ya', activists and special interest groups are destroying America.

The problem is people arent special. With almost 7 billion people how unique can we really be? Humanity has long been overdue for getting over itself IMO. Both on an individual and social level.

[ProblemKinder]

self regulating solution!

plural marriages are illegal because of there abusive and sexist nature, and an animal or object can't consent to marriage, so there is no slippery slope to worry about. what two consenting adults do and legally agree to should not the be governments concern.

fight for smaller government right?

anyone can have multiple girlfriends, the government doesn't currently restrict that. why would they? "girlfriend" isn't a legal title.

agreed. government should step away from marriage altogether.