Legalized polygamy next ....

E

EmptyTimCup

Guest
:snacks:

it was only a matter of time ....
Gay 'Marriage' is ok now .....
next multiple partners in a "marriage"


TLC'S Lobbying Show


Culture

"Some 'reality shows' are designed to advertise wanton misbehavior and stupidity for its own sake. There's no 'life lesson,' just an exercise in how you can grade your own moral worth on a 'Jersey Shore' curve. That is not the case with TLC's 'Sister Wives.' For TLC ... it was the usual slam-dunk oddball premise: Won't people be curious to see how four wives -- married to the same man -- get along in the same house? The show's stars, Kody Brown and his wives, want much more than fame and fortune. They want to make polygamy respectable, even legalized. The show was a surprise hit for TLC, drawing an average of 2.2 million viewers over Season 1 last fall. The polygamists have recognized the power of pop culture -- particularly television -- and are pouncing to normalize this abhorrent behavior. ... What's sad about this whole exercise is that media chroniclers of the Browns, from network TV to Oprah to blogs and wire services, routinely treat them as sympathetic figures. Every exotic alternative lifestyle is assumed to be progressive and therefore admirable and is not only to be tolerated, but welcomed." --columnist L. Brent Bozell
 

UNA

New Member
Wirelessly posted

itsrequired said:
What are the arguments against consenting adults marrying more than one spouse?

It's all about morality. Same as the argument about same sex marriages. There's really no argument except a moral argument.

So then the question becomes whether it's right for any govt (local or federal) to tell us what's moral...
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
What are the arguments against consenting adults marrying more than one spouse?

Given the history of the US and its traditional role of marriage, what would the argument be for providing legal recognition of that type of union?

Laws should only be changed if there is something wrong with them. What is wrong with what exists?
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
What are the arguments against consenting adults marrying more than one spouse?

Yeah - its hard enough to get one wife to do the laundry, cook dinner, and clean everything. Now, when she says, "You could do it"; I can say, "You're right. You shouldn't have to do that. Wife two can do it." :yay:
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
If a guy marries two or more gals, that leaves some guys with no gals to marry. Hmmm, maybe that's not so bad after all.

Who says the equation will work that way? Maybe we will have additional problems with single older female depression/suicide. If the guy can have as many as he wants, and you are still not married - there must be something really wrong with you. :evil:
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Given the history of the US and its traditional role of marriage, what would the argument be for providing legal recognition of that type of union?

Laws should only be changed if there is something wrong with them. What is wrong with what exists?

Laws should only be written to accomplish a societal purpose, not just to pander to one voter base.
 

UNA

New Member
Wirelessly posted

This_person said:
What are the arguments against consenting adults marrying more than one spouse?

Given the history of the US and its traditional role of marriage, what would the argument be for providing legal recognition of that type of union?

Laws should only be changed if there is something wrong with them. What is wrong with what exists?

So what's the argument against allowing consenting adults to marry whomever and how ever many consenting they want? You can't answer a question with another question...
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Laws should only be written to accomplish a societal purpose, not just to pander to one voter base.

Agreed. So, what is the societal purpose of changing the marriage laws (certainly you're not suggesting marriage laws written in the 1700's were to pander to a voter base)?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Wirelessly posted



So what's the argument against allowing consenting adults to marry whomever and how ever many consenting they want? You can't answer a question with another question...

I will try again.

Laws should not be changed unless there is a reason to change them. Make the case to change.
 

Toxick

Splat
Any wretched fool who wants to marry a bunch of women (or men) deserves to toil in the misery he's desperately begging for. :buddies:

You can pretty much bet that it would be a rare thing to meet someone with 3 or more spouses - except for dumbasses who can't learn a lesson.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I would submit a law should not exist unless there's a good reason to have it in the first place.

I think the societal benefit of the stability that marriages fosters is a good reason to have it, but marriage laws have been pretty much unchanged in flavor since the dawn of country - two willing people of age who are not too closely related already, not already in another marriage, and of opposite sex. Variations of what "of age" is (slightly), and how close too close is for related have occurred, but that's the "broad outline" of what marriage has been defined as, legally, for the duration of our nation.
 

UNA

New Member
Wirelessly posted

This_person said:
Wirelessly posted



So what's the argument against allowing consenting adults to marry whomever and how ever many consenting they want? You can't answer a question with another question...

I will try again.

Laws should not be changed unless there is a reason to change them. Make the case to change.

Laws shouldn't be written if there's no reason; like outlawing polygamy. Since there no good reason to outlaw it; it should be repealed.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Wirelessly posted



Laws shouldn't be written if there's no reason; like outlawing polygamy. Since there no good reason to outlaw it; it should be repealed.

Nothing outlaws polygamy by people. Only thing outlawed is legal recognition of it.

Where's the justification to recognize it legally and thus encourage it, like is done with traditional marriage?
 

UNA

New Member
Wirelessly posted

This_person said:
I would submit a law should not exist unless there's a good reason to have it in the first place.

I think the societal benefit of the stability that marriages fosters is a good reason to have it, but marriage laws have been pretty much unchanged in flavor since the dawn of country - two willing people of age who are not too closely related already, not already in another marriage, and of opposite sex. Variations of what "of age" is (slightly), and how close too close is for related have occurred, but that's the "broad outline" of what marriage has been defined as, legally, for the duration of our nation.

(since I said pretty much the same thing Toxick said; I'll save you from repeating yourself :lol:)

Polygamy doesn't degrade this mythical 'stability of marriage'. How does what one person does change what you do?
 

UNA

New Member
Wirelessly posted

This_person said:
Wirelessly posted



Laws shouldn't be written if there's no reason; like outlawing polygamy. Since there no good reason to outlaw it; it should be repealed.

Nothing outlaws polygamy by people. Only thing outlawed is legal recognition of it.

Where's the justification to recognize it legally and thus encourage it, like is done with traditional marriage?

You beat me! :killingme

It should be legally recognized because...again...there's absolutely no reason not to. Not reglcognizing it is denying one's right to - in part - the pursuit of happiness. Since polygamy doesn't infringe on my (or anyone else's) pursuit of happiness it should be legal.
 
Top