For all the ruckus about gay marriages, why isn't anyone crying in support of bigamy?

12/20/2005 12:54:43 PM

umm

12/20/2005 1:06:19 PM

i support bigamy, hell, marry whoever the hell you want. gay marriage is more important, however, because those people aren't allowed to even 1 person they love. we can move on to more than one later.

12/20/2005 1:06:45 PM

So if marrying is all about love, what's the problem with loving more than one person at a time?

12/20/2005 1:07:21 PM

hi esgargs

12/20/2005 1:13:24 PM

Who gives a fuck.

You can marry a carrot for all I care.

12/20/2005 1:15:31 PM

Because LDS renounced polygamy so Utah could become a state.

12/20/2005 1:18:03 PM

Quote :

"i support bigamy, hell, marry whoever the hell you want. gay marriage is more important, however, because those people aren't allowed to even 1 person they love. we can move on to more than one later."

Most people don't care so much about who you are with but what entitles you to the benefits. I'm a Christian and I have no problem with recognizing homosexual couples for legal needs (insurance, custody, etc). However, I don't think bigamy should be honored because it allows for aggregious abuse of these spousal "benefits." You do have to draw the line somewhere in terms of what you want to legally define as a household.

12/20/2005 1:44:20 PM

bigamy?

like big amy?

like THE BIG GIRL?

no one supports that.

12/20/2005 2:47:37 PM

Marriage isn't about love, from the state's perspective. The state has a vested interested in the joining of two persons... namely, to bring up the next generation of its citizens. The state has no interest in "love" whatsoever. That is meaningless to it. But the state does have an interest in procreation and the rising of the next generation. You can extrapolate this to homosexual marriage however you wish, but that's my take on it.

12/20/2005 3:17:54 PM

when the fuck has the state's interest in marriage been raising a second generation? so i guess if one partner cant have children they shouldnt be allowed to marry?

12/20/2005 4:35:52 PM

Not saying that. I'm saying that why would the state possibly be interested in endorsing love? There's no point to it. That should be left to churches or whatever else people choose. What is the state's interest in joining a couple?

12/20/2005 4:40:34 PM

its definately not so they can raise a second generation and its not endorsing love (although if you look at what the grounds are for divorce you might be able to argue it is)

12/20/2005 4:43:06 PM

incest bigamy with tenticals is the latest rage in japanese cartoons.

12/20/2005 5:29:39 PM

But I think the question that needs an answer is why the state wants to endorse a union.

I say it's not for love. The state has a vested interest in producing an able second generation. That's the only reason why I can think of that a state would even mess with that (besides want to regulate everything, as governments oft want to do).

12/20/2005 5:31:14 PM

so whats their interest in marriages with couples that can't or wont have children

12/20/2005 5:33:20 PM

^^Isn't it to promote stability?

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 5:36 PM. Reason : ]

12/20/2005 5:35:35 PM

its to regulate the legal agreement

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 5:37 PM. Reason : ps i bet youd get a kick out of Luke 20:35]

12/20/2005 5:37:03 PM

These are the points that should be discussed.

Stability, yes, but couldn't a country be stable with or without the state recognizing a union. Just because the state doesn't recognize it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

12/20/2005 5:37:45 PM

not really, marriage is a legal contract securing certain rights
that needs to be regulated

the covenant of marriage is not and does not need to bre regulated

12/20/2005 5:41:13 PM

Quote :

"But the state does have an interest in procreation and the rising of the next generation."

They don't need marriage for that.

12/20/2005 8:50:39 PM

they do need marriage for the second generation.

I don't care what psychologist you ask... a mother and a father is optimal for bringing up a child.

12/20/2005 9:22:18 PM

because without legal marriage families wouldn't exist?
do you think things through?

12/20/2005 9:26:50 PM

Quote :

"Im too busy with the War on Xmas"

12/20/2005 9:47:33 PM

Quote :

"I don't care what psychologist you ask... a mother and a father is optimal for bringing up a child."

And this knowledge is based on...?

12/20/2005 9:50:00 PM

it doesnt really matter if thats true or false

12/20/2005 9:59:40 PM

A mother and father don't have to be married.

12/20/2005 10:00:10 PM

Calvin: Do you have any kids?
Uncle Max: No, I'm not even married.
Calvin: Why does that matter?
Uncle Max: I see the kid watches a lot of TV.

12/20/2005 10:16:30 PM

as long as we're just throwing out anecdotal evidence...

you sure see more broken homes occuring among heterosexual marriages.

fuck, dont any of you stereotype and think gay guys are all queens anyway? the kid would be showed with affection if thats so.

then again, if youre using that stereotype, you probably also believe that theyll sodomize the boy too.

12/21/2005 3:05:39 AM

Quote :

"not really, marriage is a legal contract securing certain rights that needs to be regulated the covenant of marriage is not and does not need to bre regulated"

THis is a point that I think too few understand. Honestly, I think its why so many support a gay marriage ban... they fear that the allowance of gay marriage is about affecting the covenant of marriage in the religious sense but people are only after the equal protection/representation in regards to rights already mentioned. This is why I have no problem with civil unions... in fact I wish the government treated all marriages as civil unions. I could care less about the wedding certificate I get from the courthouse because for my fiancee and I its the religious aspect that we only care about (though I don't see us forfeiting any of the granted rights ).

12/21/2005 3:27:42 AM

^Agreed. Marriage is already two separate things: a covenant in the eyes of God/religious community/friends and family, and a contract in the eyes of the State (and many private sector entities). This simply isn't as obvious in America, where clergy can perform both with one ceremony. In many countries the religious ceremony (usually at a church) and the civil union (usually at a courthouse) are two separate events.

12/21/2005 10:04:52 AM

Quote :

"This simply isn't as obvious in America, where clergy can perform both with one ceremony."

what clergy can do that?

12/21/2005 10:16:47 AM

Any ordained/licensed clergyman can perform a wedding, as well as a magistrate. You don't have to go before the magistrate to make it "official".

12/21/2005 10:32:25 AM

pinkandblack are you being serious?

12/21/2005 11:04:15 PM

ill make it simple, penis to male butthole is gross, but only to most of us. if you have a lot of wives, theres a bigger chance of one of them being or becomming fat. sex with fat people is also gross. there are however, more gay men than chubby chasers, thus the lack of an support movement.

[Edited on December 21, 2005 at 11:29 PM. Reason : added to avoid anal sex arguments to my sound proof]

12/21/2005 11:29:22 PM

when did we figure out that thebiggirl's name was amy?

12/21/2005 11:50:48 PM

Quote :

"bigamy? like big amy? like THE BIG GIRL? no one supports that."

12/22/2005 12:28:51 AM

sorry. i didn't read the thread before posting that

12/22/2005 5:57:17 PM

bigamy should remain illegal. the amount of physical, mental, and sexual abuse amongst plural marriages is staggering. In fact, I would like to see the law go after bigamy more often than it does.

12/22/2005 6:01:19 PM

Quote :

"You don't have to go before the magistrate to make it "official"."

you gotta get the license from the clerk of court for the clergy to sign and then you take it back
pretty sure thats the process

12/22/2005 6:08:54 PM

^^ to be fair though, smackr, what "civilized" nations currently allow bigamy from which we can compare rates of domestic violence? I'm being serious too, cause I really don't know any. If our only case for current comparison is some place like Saudi Arabia or India or Kenya (just throwing out countries here), then its hard to really say if the bigamy itself is what is causing the domestic violence or if it just a lack of respect for the basic rights of women.

Quote :

"The state has a vested interested in the joining of two persons... namely, to bring up the next generation of its citizens."

the state may actually have an interest in that, but it sure as fuck does a shitty job of actually looking after that interest...

12/22/2005 6:19:57 PM