The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 25    Average: 4.5/5]
48 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 12764
Rating: 4.5
Category: Funny
Date: 05/13/13 06:31 PM

48 Responses to Freedom Of Marriage [Pic]

  1. Profile photo of SweepOfDeath
    SweepOfDeath Male 18-29
    938 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 5:47 pm
    Link: Freedom Of Marriage - Different strokes for different folks.
  2. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36653 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 6:48 pm

    This woman has 5 husbands.
    You go girl! Get that direct deposit 5 times!
  3. Profile photo of dm2754
    dm2754 Male 40-49
    3336 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 6:49 pm
    once i wanted two wifes but
    then i got married
  4. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 7:42 pm
    I lived with 2 girls once. Just like `Three`s Company` you say? No. No it is not.
  5. Profile photo of Ani187
    Ani187 Female 30-39
    4448 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 7:55 pm
    You know, if you`re dumb enough to want more than one spouse, be my guest.
  6. Profile photo of SarahofBorg
    SarahofBorg Female 18-29
    3564 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 8:01 pm
    I don`t have a problem with most polygomy, but it always inevitably ends in a cult where one guy gets 200 women and all the men get kicked out.
  7. Profile photo of Freyr108
    Freyr108 Male 18-29
    203 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 8:11 pm
    "once i wanted two wifes but
    then i got married"

    Different in their culture, their wives are at their husbands beck and call, no talk back allowed, so... several wives wouldn`t be bad
  8. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14620 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 8:22 pm
    One wife is bad enough.
  9. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32785 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 8:23 pm
    So the Far-Left and the Orthodox-Muslims have something in common? NO surprise!

    Polygamy WILL follow "gay marriage". It`s just a matter of time. There is absolutely NO (moral) difference between the two.
  10. Profile photo of Kegomatix
    Kegomatix Male 18-29
    1341 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 8:45 pm
    I`m with everyone else. Why the hell would I want TWO wives?!
  11. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3908 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 8:55 pm
    "Polygamy WILL follow "gay marriage". It`s just a matter of time. There is absolutely NO (moral) difference between the two."

    Polygamy was legal up until 1862, I seriously doubt it will ever be coming back. Way too many problems there & like @SarahofBorg said, it`s usually associated with cult-like behavior. Warren Jeffs is the reason that sh*t won`t ever be coming back to the US any time soon.
  12. Profile photo of handimanner
    handimanner Male 60-69
    2095 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 9:16 pm
    What about a woman with two husbands or a two guys and a woman deal. (whew, I may need a shower now)
  13. Profile photo of MrOrange
    MrOrange Male 30-39
    2402 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 9:17 pm
    @5cats

    It`s time to close your mouth again. you`re sounding like a class a idiot again. you know. one that shoots of his mouth without saying anything usefull just useless opiniated dribble abouw what other people do wrong acording to you.
    Dude! you are an orthodox muslim!
  14. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 9:39 pm
    So the Far-Left and the Orthodox-Muslims have something in common? NO surprise!

    Polygamy WILL follow "gay marriage". It`s just a matter of time. There is absolutely NO (moral) difference between the two.
    Of course, 5Cats. And the inevitable next step is the legalised f*cking of goats and children. Right?
  15. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36653 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 9:49 pm

    hmmmm? my photo disappeared
  16. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6728 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 9:53 pm
    I have no problem with polygamy. You just gotta pick which spouse gets the tax break, power of attorney, medical decision making, etc. After that marry as many consenting adults as you wish. Who gives a f.uck about people and their private ceremonies?
  17. Profile photo of HOBYandy
    HOBYandy Male 18-29
    3060 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 10:03 pm
    davymid:
    I think what 5cats was pointing out was that both cases involve only consensual adults. Your two examples that try to blow off his comment do not.
  18. Profile photo of taylor_stone
    taylor_stone Male 30-39
    2688 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 10:32 pm
    one that shoots of his mouth without saying anything usefull just useless opiniated dribble abouw what other people do wrong acording to you.

    You mean like every other commenter does on IAB? That`s what the forum is all about... Free share of our opinions... You either agree or disagree. We each make the decision of what is right and wrong based upon our own personal beliefs. It doesnt make any one individual any more right or wrong than the other. This is what is most wrong with society... Not that we can`t agree on one solution, rather that we can`t understand why someone would have the opposing opinion. Do I AGREE with 5Cats` opinion? Maybe... Maybe not... But either way, I can understand his side of the argument and respect his right to his opinion without the need to attack his character.
  19. Profile photo of taylor_stone
    taylor_stone Male 30-39
    2688 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 10:38 pm
    One wife is bad enough.

    A-f***ing-men... Been there, done that, got the t-shirt... Never again...
  20. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32785 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 11:24 pm
    Well THANK YOU @HOBYandy! I`m glad someone out there is able to READ (and understand) a simple post!

    @Mr.Orange: Funny, I don`t recall praying to Allah 5X a day... and all my eating of bacon? What of THAT?!?!

    @davymid: Oh yes! Because HOMOSEXUALITY is 100% tied to GOATS! Children... oh, OK, you got a point there...
    Note: YOU said it, buddy, NOT me...

    Polygamy: MUTUAL agreement by consenting ADULTS.

    Please to explain yes how this is different from legalized "gayness"? Thx.

    @HolyGod: Agrees with the @5Cats. Duly noted.

    @taylor_stone: Thanks Bro! Your voice of common sense is kinda rare these days...

    Me? I married for LOVE! Yes I admit to being a fool... it was "love at first sight"! What could I do? 10 years later it was 100% unchanged!
  21. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14620 posts
    May 13, 2013 at 11:43 pm
    "Of course, 5Cats. And the inevitable next step is the legalised f*cking of goats and children. Right?"

    Actually, it`s all up for discussion.

    Washington state has only just passed a law *outlawing* bestiality after a man had his colon ripped out by a stallion.

    As for polygamy, there`s a valid point in law that to continue to disallow it represents religious discrimination and further denies the rights of women in unrecognised polygamous relationships.

    Doing kids will always be illegal. However, the definition of a `child` is a legal definition and is often up for discussion. Hewson says the minimum age should be reduced to 13. Whether it is right or wrong to do so is down to the courts and legislation.
  22. Profile photo of taylor_stone
    taylor_stone Male 30-39
    2688 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 1:32 am
    13 might be a bit of a stretch... I could see them moving it down to 16 on a universal level. Several states have lowered their age of consent to 16, so it may happen that the rest of the country follows suit...

    As for polygamy, since the institute of marriage is a legal contract between two individuals. Sorry to all the religious folks out there that insist on marriage being a spiritual union... It ISN`T... It`s a legal union of two individuals` financial and legal assets. Marriage may have STARTED as a spiritual ceremony between whomever wished to enter it, but the moment the government got involved it became a legally binding contract... As long as that remains true, polygamy will ALWAYS continue to be illegal. When two people enter a union, their assets are combined, creating a tax relief. More spouses means more combination of assets, meaning larger tax reliefs, which means LESS tax revenue going to the government...
  23. Profile photo of taylor_stone
    taylor_stone Male 30-39
    2688 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 1:39 am
    <cont> And if the government sees a threat to their own profits, they`re going to continue to fight to keep it from happening...
  24. Profile photo of Bahamian
    Bahamian Male 30-39
    16 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 4:58 am
    To Taylor Stone: If you really want to define marriage, it was a contract between a man and a woman, it has been changed now to be correct in our society. If it can be redefined once it could also be redefined to say its between multiple parties.
  25. Profile photo of taylor_stone
    taylor_stone Male 30-39
    2688 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 5:20 am
    If you want to follow RELIGIOUS doctrine (which I couldn`t give a s*** less about), yes.... It was between man and woman... But that`s not my point... Redefining it to allow for multiple spouses would actually hurt the government in the form of extended tax reliefs... Being that the US government (and others around the world) make their money from tax revenue, they`d want to put a halt on anything that might harm their ability to make a profit... The people the government gets the most from, statistically, are the young single childless waged employees... Married couples get tax breaks with or without children. More spouses means more people getting tax breaks. More tax breaks means less money the government can take from you... It`s not about redefining the word. It`s about who profits from it. Sadly, as much as we all would hate to admit it. THAT i what changes things... Money... Profit... Look at who is in control and ask yourself what benefits them the most...
  26. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6158 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 5:34 am
    taylor_stone-"If you want to follow RELIGIOUS doctrine (which I couldn`t give a s*** less about), yes.... It was between man and woman"

    No, the legal, government definition of marriage: `The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.`

    To allow gay marriage, you have to change the law`s definition of marriage.

    If it can be done for the LGBT community, it can also be done for the polygamy community.
  27. Profile photo of Wibble4321
    Wibble4321 Male 40-49
    414 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 6:09 am
    Polygamy would make sense if it were in demand the other way around. I don`t see huge queues of men signing up to marry one lady.

    I realise there are procreational issues at play, one man can impregnate multiple women, however in terms of social levels, it would seem a very one sided arrangement mostly only beneficial to the man.
  28. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 6:45 am
    Polygamy WILL follow "gay marriage". It`s just a matter of time. There is absolutely NO (moral) difference between the two.
    Slippery slope fallacies never get old. Nevermind that we`ve had same-sex marriage since 2005 and there has literally been no movement towards legalizing polygamy.

    But @5cats, if you`re worried about the "traditional marriage" espoused by the christian right, you should probably take a look at their book, because this is what`s "traditional" christian marriage:

  29. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6158 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 7:00 am
    wibble4321-"Polygamy would make sense if it were in demand the other way around."

    A situation making sense to you is not required.

    Gay marriage does not make sense to a lot of people, yet is being pushed.

    Some people do/will want polygamy relationships.

    According to those pushing gay marriage, just the fact that consenting adults want to is enough, so they can use the same arguments for all types of marriage, including polygamy.
  30. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 7:11 am
    If it can be done for the LGBT community, it can also be done for the polygamy community.
    You are correct in that it *can*, but firstly, there are far fewer people that would identify as polygamist than identify as gay. But more to the point, you cannot make or keep something illegal just because of what it *might* lead to. Alcohol leads to drunk driving, are you proposing we ban alcohol too?
  31. Profile photo of taylor_stone
    taylor_stone Male 30-39
    2688 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 7:36 am
    @MeGrendel

    While, yes, you caught me on the definition of marriage, you, like the commenter before you, are giving attention to the part of my statement that WASN;T my key point... I`ll admit my error, but the point still stands that the government would lose tax revenue in allowing multiple spouses, so it wouldn`t be in their best interest to allow polygamy.
  32. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6728 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 9:40 am
    Thus far I haven`t seen anyone on here they have a problem with polygamist marriage. Does anyone have a problem with it?

    If so I don`t get why.

    Again, the legal benefits like tax breaks and power of attorney can only extend to one of your spouses because otherwise it leaves way to much room for abuse, but past that why would anyone care how many people you bind yourself to?
  33. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6158 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 9:41 am
    taylor_stone-"it wouldn`t be in their best interest to allow polygamy."

    What people believe is their rightst, or how they live their lives, does not depend upon what is in the best interest of the government or it`s tax revenue.

    patchgrabber-"there are far fewer people that would identify as polygamist than identify as gay. "

    So, they`re minorities....and we can`t step on a minorities rights, now can we?

    patchgrabber-"you cannot make or keep something illegal just because of what it *might* lead to."

    I haven`t argued about its legality, one way or the other. Just that the same arguements used for gay marriage are applicable to polygamy, too. Once you`ve changed the definition once, it will be easier to do so in the future.

    One difference in the cartoon, though.
    On the upper-right panel, the woman is saying `Arrest this man.`.
    On the lower-right panel, the man would be saying `Behead these men.
  34. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32785 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 9:50 am
    @patchy: Read a (history) book! They DID ban alcohol! The Gov`t also made homosexuality illegal too, just like polygamy is.
    Again: flogging the Old Testament to ridicule Christians is "weaksauce".

    "No movement"? There`s several cases working through the courts in Canada right now! All it takes is ONE successful suit and !Presto! legalized polygamy!

    @taylor_stone: Well I don`t think the US or Canadian Government makes THAT much money off it! It`s really "small change" in the billions and trillions that get tossed around, eh?

    I guess they`ll have to legalize (tax) pot to pay for legalized polygamy! LMAO!

    @Draculya: That`s an EXCELLENT point: who gets to decide what age is "an adult" eh? In many places, the Age of Consent is 13... it was 14 for years here in Canada! 14!
  35. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36653 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 10:06 am

    taylor_stone-"it wouldn`t be in their best interest to allow polygamy."
    Group marriage might be the key to a successful future. Most agree times aren`t looking good for the next generation. 2 salaries might not be enough anymore. how about 3 people working and 1 stays home with the kiddies. Economically viable, good for the children to have a stay-at-home parent.

    But we`ll need new terms. Sister-Wife sounds like you married your sister. how about Husband-in-Law for your wives` other husbands. Co-Husband & Co-Wife ? hmmmm
  36. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6933 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 10:51 am
    As long as there is meaningful consent then it`s none of my business how people arrange their domestic lives. Polygamy? Polyandry? Fine as long as all parties are happy with the arrangement. There would need to be legal protections in place to ensure nobody was being coerced or exploited, but why not?

    Meaningful consent cannot be given by minors, animals or inanimate objects. The `slippery slope` fallacy is just that.
  37. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 12:59 pm
    @patchy: Read a (history) book! They DID ban alcohol!
    And how did that work out for them again? You`re not making a good case here.
  38. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 1:03 pm
    "No movement"? There`s several cases working through the courts in Canada right now! All it takes is ONE successful suit and !Presto! legalized polygamy!
    Now who needs to do some reading? We have this thing in Canada called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Polygamy has consistently been found to violate it. It`s like saying "All it takes is for one case where a judge allows the ten commandments to be posted in school and PRESTO!"
    It just won`t happen, their Bill of Rights stops that, and our Charter stops this. The precedents have already been set, no polygamy case will win a Charter challenge.
  39. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32785 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 1:22 pm
    @patchy: I`m saying that the Government can do some IDIOTIC things, eh? Like ban alcohol "for our own good" or make anal sex illegal...

    Just because ONE Court decided polygamy was a violation, doesn`t mean a different Court won`t toss that decision out. If the Supreme Court says polygamy is a legal right? That over-rides the Charter. Why? Because the CSC will use a different part of the Charter to justify it`s ruling.

    Freedom Of Religion > Draconian Laws

    Ask any Muslim, they`re 100% for it! They`re also doing it anyways, just not "legally" eh?

    @Gerry1: `Co-Spouses` works for me.
  40. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 1:41 pm
    Freedom Of Religion > Draconian Laws
    The Charter isn`t Draconian. Decisions up to this point have focused on the coercion and harm to minors done with polygamy, and that trumps religious freedom, as has been shown by court cases.

    But I still fail to see how a gay marriage ruling will endorse polygamy, they are two different things with very different consequences and outcomes. Slippery slope arguments are stupid and illogical; they don`t hold up. My stance is that if all adults are consenting, then it`s their own business as it does not affect my life in the slightest.
  41. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6158 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 2:49 pm
    patchgrabber-"Decisions up to this point have focused on the coercion and harm to minors done with polygamy"

    Strange, many arguments against same-sex marriage was the harm to minors.

    patchgrabber-"But I still fail to see how a gay marriage ruling will endorse polygamy"

    No one`s said it will endorse it, just make it easier to come about. Once a rock has been broken, it`s easier to move.
  42. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6933 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 3:29 pm
    `Strange, many arguments against same-sex marriage was the harm to minors.`

    Would you care to expand on that?
  43. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6158 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 4:05 pm
    LordJim-"Would you care to expand on that?"

    I stated only that that argument had been used in the same-sex marriage argument. Not that it was a valid argument.

    It is one of many arguments that was used.

    My point is the `arguments` patch is bringing up against polygamy were also used in the same-sex marriage arena by people who were against it.
  44. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32785 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 8:43 pm
    Slippery slope arguments are stupid and illogical
    @patchy: Riiiight. Just like Canada`s abortion laws didn`t fall off the slippery slope, eh?

    Hint: We went from abortion is totally illegal to NO LAW AT ALL! One slippery slope at a time...

    Anyhow, IDK why anyone would be pro- gay marriage but anti- polygamy. It makes no sense to me...
    ... it`s almost as if other people have different opinions!
    NAW! Can`t be that...
  45. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14620 posts
    May 14, 2013 at 9:19 pm
    What have you bigots got against polygamy and concubines anyway? Live and let live. If the women can tolerate having to take turns to berate their husbands, why not?

    Likewise bestiality: If it can be shown that the wee beastie`s into humans, then they`re probably happier than most human + human couples.
  46. Profile photo of Wendypants
    Wendypants Female 30-39
    2420 posts
    May 15, 2013 at 5:30 am
    @handimanner, that`s what I always thought: if people want to make polygamy legal then it should be okay for a man to have wiveS AND for a woman to have husbandS (as long as all people included are of age and consenting!!!). It should be a `two way street` so to speak.
  47. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6158 posts
    May 15, 2013 at 6:15 am
    Wendypants-"It should be a `two way street` so to speak."

    Wouldn`t that be a `three way street`?
  48. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32785 posts
    May 15, 2013 at 7:52 am
    "Five Way Street?"
    Six? Seven? I`ve lost count of exactly how many genders there are recently...

Leave a Reply