Posted on 03/31/2013 5:09:42 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
We don’t have to imagine it. The need for courts in the jurisdiction of marital domicile to divide property and impose child custody, visitation and support orders is going to be one of the major elements in forcing states to recognize as lawful in that state marriages which were lawfully contracted out of state.
‘If you think things are complicated now, imagine what would happen when those relationships go bad.’
I could not imagine having all four wives pissed at me at the same time. There would not be enough alcohol in the world to be able to endure such an onslaught.
Oh yeah besides sodomage, fecamage and femmage, we’d also need polymage, animage, necromage, pedomage, alienmage, etc.
I’ve got $5 that says that before 2016 there will be legal polygamy in at least one state, if not more.
I’ll take that bet. It’s not in the government’s best interest, it confuses situations the government likes straight forward.
Only if it results in procreation. If contraception is used, or sterilization (vasectomy etc) then the gene pool issue is moot. It is also moot when the incest is between people of the same sex.
But you have to assume marriage will result in procreation. Which is why incest marriage will remain illegal.
How can gay marriage result in procreation?
Curiously, when advocates of gay marriage are asked if their policy also would allow polygamy or polyandry, they recoil in horror and insist that it does not. However, logic demands that it does. I would ask how same-sex parents are going to react in the future when, for example, Utah public schools officials require that teachers instruct the children that LDS-related polygamy is just as “normal” as same-sex “marriage”. The fact that this will be an issue will show yet again that gay “marriage” is not about marriage at all it is about forcing the rest of us to approve of repugnant sexual immorality, something that LDS polygamists never demanded.
Reynolds v. US - “SCOTUS based its decision on historic American cultural values,...earliest times polygamy was considered an offense against society. Most civilized countries considered marriage a “sacred obligation,” and a civil contract usually regulated by law. Therefore, the Court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect polygamy.”
The problem with Reynolds is, it was decided as a 1st Amendment issue.
What is very troubling is, today's courts wont even take into consideration “offense(s) against society.” Plus gays could point to Reynold as in THEIR favor.
“I’ve had my eye on that cute collie down the street.”
“Hey not so fast I saw her first.”
Hey guys, leave MY collie alone! And just so you know, she loves chompin’ down wieners...
“I could not imagine having all four wives pissed at me at the same time. There would not be enough alcohol in the world to be able to endure such an onslaught.”
That’s why you have a revolver with one round in it...you get to play Russian Roulette til you feel the bang...
Unless you married sisters you would also have 4 mothers in law.
Freedumb2003 is right. Forget polygamy - let’s talk incest.
All of the same arguments for homosexuality can be made about incest:
History is full of incest! It must be right!
There’s incest in the animal kingdom - it’s NATURAL!
Love is LOVE!
Who are you to judge two consenting adults? What they do privately is THEIR business!
Etc.
Next thing you know, perverted fathers who have twisted the minds of their daughters will be lining up at the altar. Sounds like a great future we are heading into.
“Incest is bad on the gene pool so that one’s easy to keep banned.”
Weak argument. You are saying it is a public health issue. I can similarly say that homosexuality is a public health issue due to the higher rates of STDs, suicide, depression, substance abuse, etc. (And, apparently, according to a recent government-funded study, the obesity problem amongst lesbians.)
Bottom line: Royals and others used to practice incestuous relationships frequently. The human race survived. Who are you to dictate what they do with their bodies???
/sarcasm
Now - stick to the moral argument, because - honestly - that public health argument will be torn to pieces over time.
my girlfriend and i are very much in love. we look forward to the day when we can get married and have children. i may have a physical issue, but we can always go with artificial insemination.
she also has children by other fathers... but i will love them all as my own.
here is my lovely bride to be, Goldie:
and her darling deductions children:
Since when did something being bad stop perversion of the law?
Cordially,
Gotta wait for an opening.
Can't have one of our thin-skinned friends saying we've high-jacked another perfectly good thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.