Freedom Of Marriage [Pic]

Submitted by: SweepOfDeath 4 years ago in Funny

Different strokes for different folks.
There are 48 comments:
Male 40,295
"Five Way Street?"
Six? Seven? I`ve lost count of exactly how many genders there are recently...
0
Reply
Male 8,422
Wendypants-"It should be a `two way street` so to speak."

Wouldn`t that be a `three way street`?
0
Reply
Female 2,415
@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.
0
Reply
Male 15,182
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.
0
Reply
Male 40,295
[quote]Slippery slope arguments are stupid and illogical[/quote]
@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...
0
Reply
Male 8,422
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.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
`Strange, many arguments against same-sex marriage was the harm to minors.`

Would you care to expand on that?
0
Reply
Male 8,422
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.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Freedom Of Religion > Draconian Laws[/quote]
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.
0
Reply
Male 40,295
@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.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]"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![/quote]
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.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]@patchy: Read a (history) book! They DID ban alcohol![/quote]
And how did that work out for them again? You`re not making a good case here.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
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.
0
Reply
Male 39,544

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
0
Reply
Male 40,295
@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!
0
Reply
Male 8,422
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.
0
Reply
Male 9,499
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?
0
Reply
Male 2,688
@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.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]If it can be done for the LGBT community, it can also be done for the polygamy community.[/quote]
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?
0
Reply
Male 8,422
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.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Polygamy WILL follow "gay marriage". It`s just a matter of time. There is absolutely NO (moral) difference between the two.[/quote]
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:

0
Reply
Male 454
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.
0
Reply
Male 8,422
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.
0
Reply
Male 2,688
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...
0
Reply
Male 16
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.
0
Reply
Male 2,688
<cont> And if the government sees a threat to their own profits, they`re going to continue to fight to keep it from happening...
0
Reply
Male 2,688
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...
0
Reply
Male 15,182
"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.
0
Reply
Male 40,295
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!
0
Reply
Male 2,688
[quote]One wife is bad enough.[/quote]

A-f***ing-men... Been there, done that, got the t-shirt... Never again...
0
Reply
Male 2,688
[quote]one that shoots of his mouth without saying anything usefull just useless opiniated dribble abouw what other people do wrong acording to you. [/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 3,060
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.
0
Reply
Male 9,499
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?
0
Reply
Male 39,544

hmmmm? my photo disappeared
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]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.[/quote]
Of course, 5Cats. And the inevitable next step is the legalised f*cking of goats and children. Right?
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@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!
0
Reply
Male 2,138
What about a woman with two husbands or a two guys and a woman deal. (whew, I may need a shower now)
0
Reply
Male 3,908
"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.
0
Reply
Male 1,341
I`m with everyone else. Why the hell would I want TWO wives?!
0
Reply
Male 40,295
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.
0
Reply
Male 15,182
One wife is bad enough.
0
Reply
Male 203
"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
0
Reply
Female 3,562
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.
0
Reply
Female 4,447
You know, if you`re dumb enough to want more than one spouse, be my guest.
0
Reply
Male 2,436
I lived with 2 girls once. Just like `Three`s Company` you say? No. No it is not.
0
Reply
Male 4,144
once i wanted two wifes but
then i got married
0
Reply
Male 39,544

This woman has 5 husbands.
You go girl! Get that direct deposit 5 times!
0
Reply
Male 938
Link: Freedom Of Marriage [Pic] [Rate Link] - Different strokes for different folks.
0
Reply