Next frontier? Polygamists demand multi-sex marriage

[OzmO]

You brought it up.  Just clarifying that none of those polygamist relationships are legal. 

Yet they still exist.

[Dos Equis]

Yet they still exist.

Lots of illegal activities take place in the U.S. 

[24KT]

Lots of illegal activities take place in the U.S. 

Like the harassment of innocent private citizens practicing their professions and not breaking any laws.

[Dos Equis]

Like the harassment of innocent private citizens practicing their professions and not breaking any laws.

Whatever that means. 

[drkaje]

Why stop re-defining marriage at two people?

[MCWAY]

Why stop re-defining marriage at two people?

The Netherlands didn't.

[Deicide]

Why stop re-defining marriage at two people?

Why does anyone care?

[Deicide]

Yep.  Confusion is coming.  Next thing you know people will want to marry their pets.   

And if they did, what would be the problem?

[OzmO]

Lots of illegal activities take place in the U.S. 

And yet the law doesn't stop them from doing it, and we still waste money trying to stop them.

[OzmO]

And if they did, what would be the problem?

The pets might not be able to plead their case in divorce court.

[Dos Equis]

And yet the law doesn't stop them from doing it, and we still waste money trying to stop them.

The same way we waste money trying to stop stealing, lying, murder, rape, robbery, etc.?  Laws never completely prevent illegal activity.   

[OzmO]

The same way we waste money trying to stop stealing, lying, murder, rape, robbery, etc.?  Laws never completely prevent illegal activity.   

Not those "crimes".  Stupid laws like polygamy, pot, prostitution etc..

[Dos Equis]

Not those "crimes".  Stupid laws like polygamy, pot, prostitution etc..

I guess "stupid" is in the eye of the beholder.  But the fact remains that laws don't prevent illegal behavior.  Criminalizing conduct deters some, but largely provides a mechanism to punish people.  It also helps maintain order. 

I'm going to have trouble obeying the new cell phone law here.   

[OzmO]

I guess "stupid" is in the eye of the beholder.  But the fact remains that laws don't prevent illegal behavior.  Criminalizing conduct deters some, but largely provides a mechanism to punish people.  It also helps maintain order. 

I'm going to have trouble obeying the new cell phone law here.   

I already got nailed for that.....$150   

[Deicide]

The pets might not be able to plead their case in divorce court.

That is the first decent point I have heard in this thread.

[IFBBwannaB]

I'm just about the least religious man I know and I don't believe in the marriage concept.

But it's an old concept and the government have it's reasons to motivate people to stick to it, they're trying to encourage the formation of the family cell.

That's why marriage shouldn't be touched, the government want to support it as it is and not as some arbitrary notion that everyone changes every week.

Personally I wouldn't mind giving other types of couples similar benefits but I see no obligation from the government to give it to them, they might as well let people marry animals and have the people claim it's their right and so on.

I really don't understand why people think that someone owes them that right, there are thousends of government definitions to people and situations that many don't fall into them and don't get their benefits, yet on this subject people think they can change something whenever they like.

[Dos Equis]

I'm just about the least religious man I know and I don't believe in the marriage concept.

But it's an old concept and the government have it's reasons to motivate people to stick to it, they're trying to encourage the formation of the family cell.

That's why marriage shouldn't be touched, the government want to support it as it is and not as some arbitrary notion that everyone changes every week.

Personally I wouldn't mind giving other types of couples similar benefits but I see no obligation from the government to give it to them, they might as well let people marry animals and have the people claim it's their right and so on.

I really don't understand why people think that someone owes them that right, there are thousends of government definitions to people and situations that many don't fall into them and don't get their benefits, yet on this subject people think they can change something whenever they like.

Good post.  Nice analysis. 

[Dos Equis]

I already got nailed for that.....$150   

   I would have paid the fine in pennies. 

[IFBBwannaB]

Good post.  Nice analysis. 

Thanks, check the video I posted...it's amazing!

[Straw Man]

I'm just about the least religious man I know and I don't believe in the marriage concept.

But it's an old concept and the government have it's reasons to motivate people to stick to it, they're trying to encourage the formation of the family cell.

That's why marriage shouldn't be touched, the government want to support it as it is and not as some arbitrary notion that everyone changes every week.

Personally I wouldn't mind giving other types of couples similar benefits but I see no obligation from the government to give it to them, they might as well let people marry animals and have the people claim it's their right and so on.

I really don't understand why people think that someone owes them that right, there are thousends of government definitions to people and situations that many don't fall into them and don't get their benefits, yet on this subject people think they can change something whenever they like.

Wasn't the original "concept" of marriage more a legal agreement and an aquisition of property (the woman)

Why would the government care if a "family cell" is man/woman, two women, two men etc..

On what legal grounds should two adults be restricted on exercising a right that is available to other adults?  

[IFBBwannaB]

Wasn't the original "concept" of marriage more a legal agreement and an aquisition of property (the woman)

Why would the government care if a "family cell" is man/woman, two women, two men etc..

On what legal grounds should two adults be restricted on exercising a right that is available to other adults?  

Are you really that slow?

The government care because it's an ancient proved formula, not to mention that governments can support whatever they like, live wherever the laws are suitable to your living style.

And they have the legal right to do it just like they have the legal right to stop you from marrying a little girl or do millions of other actions.

You might as well ask why you can't get a tax refund for a tip you gave a stripper on the basis that it's a form of an expense 

[Straw Man]

Are you really that slow?

The government care because it's an ancient proved formula, not to mention that governments can support whatever they like, live wherever the laws are suitable to your living style.

And they have the legal right to do it just like they have the legal right to stop you from marrying a little girl or do millions of other actions.

You might as well ask why you can't get a tax refund for a tip you gave a stripper on the basis that it's a form of an expense 

dude - have I started out by insulting you?

I asked you simple questions

ancient proved formula?

didn't I clarify "adult"?

why should two consenting adults be restricted access to something that is available to other adults?

[IFBBwannaB]

dude - have I started out by insulting you?

I asked you simple questions

ancient proved formula?

didn't I clarify "adult"?

why should two consenting adults be restricted access to something that is available to other adults?

What is so hard to understand? You can't do/get whatever you like, certain laws apply to certain people/situations/etc , marriage just got into the spotlight but it's no different than saying that you deserve a disability check because you don't like working and it's some form of handicap 

BTW I solved the gay marriage problem, we'll have a new thing called Gayrige,anyone who will gayrige will promise to have worse sex life with his partner, feel suffocated and adopt a child 

[Straw Man]

What is so hard to understand? You can't do/get whatever you like, certain laws apply to certain people/situations/etc , marriage just got into the spotlight but it's no different than saying that you deserve a disability check because you don't like working and it's some form of handicap 

BTW I solved the gay marriage problem, we'll have a new thing called Gayrige,anyone who will gayrige will promise to have worse sex life with his partner, feel suffocated and adopt a child 

no offense but your comparisons make no sense.  how is not wanting to work yet wanting a disability check in any way comparable to wanting to marry someone you love?  I'm not following your logic.

I don't understand anything you've written in your last sentence

[IFBBwannaB]

no offense but your comparisons make no sense.  how is not wanting to work yet wanting a disability check in any way comparable to wanting to marry someone you love?  I'm not following your logic.

I don't understand anything you've written in your last sentence

It's very simple, there are definitions that were made by the government, if you don't fall into them than you can't do/get/etc  what that definition stores, marriage and love sounds really romantic and noble but it's BS, it's just another government definition , one amongst millions.

There is no law that prevent you from being with someone, but marriage is something that is defined by law and if you don't follow the law than you can't be married.No one is preventing you with being with someone you love, than you would be right but since marriage is only a theoretical concept than the government have the right not to allow it to everyone.

Now watch the Penn and Teller video