| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism |
| 2015-06-29 |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #26 Marriage is not necessary. Young men in the ghettos have had children via multiple women for ages with benefits. |
| Posted by: Ebbomosh Hupemp2664 2015-06-29 23:03 |
| #25 How would polygamy affect joint tax returns? Three (or more) exemptions? And I have cats - why can't I marry them and claim multiple spousal exemptions? |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2015-06-29 22:34 |
| #24 It should be noted that although polygamy was tolerated in the early history of the Mormon Church the practice has been officially banned by the Mormon Church since 1889. Although polygamy was banned in 1889 it still persisted among some church members for about 15 years. In 1904 any church member found to be engaging in polygamy were excommunicated from the church and banned from entering church property. I am not a member of the Mormon Church. But I am aware that many members of the Mormon Church do consider any suggestion that they do or would consider engaging in polygamy to be offensive and repugnant. Just because some members of other religions owned slaves more than a hundred years ago does that mean members of those same religions should be accused of believing in slavery today ? Just something I feel people should be aware of. |
| Posted by: junkiron 2015-06-29 21:28 |
| #23 #21, limits but does not dissolve. Otherwise, think of the 'efficiency' of doing away with 50 redundant bureaucracies that merely exist to carry out the whim of those who sit for life. |
| Posted by: Procopuis2k 2015-06-29 21:10 |
| #22 AH, the Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) advocate lobby would push 'Votes for All of Us' if given the chance. Knowing a few of these folks, and the people who seek funding for them, I could see that happening. |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2015-06-29 20:49 |
| #21 If the 21nd amendment limits the 18th amendment, then the 14th amendment limits the 10th. |
| Posted by: rammer 2015-06-29 20:17 |
| #20 In a different direction, suppose we had recognition of mutual responsibility/joint ownership in an extended family, as with brothers and sisters sharing a house and income. The state would get less tax, so it won't happen spontaneously, but it would be very useful for several families I know. |
| Posted by: James 2015-06-29 18:13 |
| #19 Per SCOTUS today, what Constitution? The 10th Amendment covered that question, but SCOTUS has ignored that addition for many decades now. That leaves the feds to pick up the job. see - Obamacare state exchanges. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2015-06-29 17:21 |
| #18 Constitutional question: Can the State (or one state of the U.S.) actually be forced to marry people at all? |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2015-06-29 17:13 |
| #17 If the State can't make decisions about who gets to marry, then get the state out of the marriage business altogether. It really takes the wind out of the gay lobby's sails. Now if they'd start cutting the "subsidies" part of it, it'd really be effective. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2015-06-29 16:04 |
| #16 Then there is the unconstitutional limit on one identity per person. I want ten votes. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2015-06-29 15:45 |
| #15 No Skidmark, Rambler is really getting into this polygamy business, so much so that he has become a polyscribe. |
| Posted by: Bubba Ebbineting1929 2015-06-29 15:40 |
| #14 Duplicity Rambler? |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2015-06-29 15:25 |
| #13 So if I marry my dog, can I file as married, head of household. No, that would be your dog... |
| Posted by: Steve White 2015-06-29 15:15 |
| #12 So if I marry my dog, can I file as married, head of household. |
| Posted by: dlr 2015-06-29 14:55 |
| #11 then get the state out of the marriage business altogether That may be the best idea at the state level. I am sure SCOTUS can torture reasoning into forcing all the states to continue to force marriage on their helpless citizens, per the gay lobby. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2015-06-29 14:11 |
| #10 Because polygamy works so well in the |
| Posted by: JHH 2015-06-29 14:08 |
| #9 I think Alabama had the best response. If the State can't make decisions about who gets to marry, then get the state out of the marriage business altogether. It really takes the wind out of the gay lobby's sails. |
| Posted by: Menhadden Spawn of the Antelope2599 2015-06-29 11:59 |
| #8 I want to marry my Windows 7 operating system. I want to buy it life insurance. Every time it dies, I want to collect that life insurance. |
| Posted by: gorb 2015-06-29 10:43 |
| #7 Well, actually, I was thinking of bakers. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2015-06-29 10:20 |
| #6 ...I believe the Asians have finally got around to asking that now. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2015-06-29 09:39 |
| #5 Get out of the subsidies business and it'll all sort out. What about "anti-discrimination" business, P2K? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2015-06-29 09:13 |
| #4 Its a contract between individuals. The state's interest in such a contract is that any dissolution of it is done as a disinterested third party favoring neither side. That the contract does not bind anyone one else but the parties involved to obligations or entitlements. That the state protect the interests of those physically, mentally, or chronologically unable to do so for themselves. Get out of the subsidies business and it'll all sort out. Originally it was all about inheritance and property and 'legitimacy', who legally owns what. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2015-06-29 08:53 |
| #3 You will now see something that has been simmering for a few years be brought to light for all, yet another collusion between the left and Islam exposed for all to see. How, exactly? The academic, NPR-listening pseudointellectual crowd has for quite some time now bought into the idea that when Mormons practice polygamy, it is an example of a white male plot to monopolize women as a resource, but when Muslims practice polygamy, it is a beautiful expression of diversity. If polygamy is allowed, it will only be allowed for Muslims, not for Mormons. Remember where you heard it first. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2015-06-29 08:09 |
| #2 This makes sense,if I can marry another guy, why should I be forbidden to marry a woman I love just because I am already married to someone else? |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2015-06-29 06:52 |
| #1 This makes sense,if I can marry another guy, why should I be forbidden to marry a woman I love just because I am already married to someone else? |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2015-06-29 06:52 |