Skip to comments.The Upcoming Polygamy Debate-Brace Yourselves
Posted on 11/22/2010 8:22:41 PM PST by SeanG200
In Reynolds v. United States (1878) the Court rejected the Mormons free exercise argument on the grounds that even though Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion,
[it] was left free to reach actions [such as polygamy] which were in violation of social duties or subversive to the public good. What the Court meant by this is that certain institutions and ways of life, such as marriage and the family, are essential to the preservation of civil society. The government may craft its laws in such a way that certain practices receive a privileged position in our social fabric, and actions contrary to them should be prohibited or at least discouraged, even if they have religious sanction. Such practices as polygamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, and child sacrifice, therefore, may be forbidden even if they arise from a religious understanding of the world; for they are actions that are deleterious to the public good.
(Excerpt) Read more at religiopoliticaltalk.com ...
Yep. Gay marriage blows open the door for polygamy and damned near any other relationship that two or more human beings want to call a marriage.
-—Such practices..., may be forbidden...; for they are actions that are deleterious to the public good.-—
In a previous America, Reynolds vs United States would have stopped the gay agenda in its tracks no problem.
What about humans marrying chimps? What about people who want to legally marry in animate objects?
What if I wanna marry the universe itself?
It gets to the road of ridiculousness.
I always though that for say a group of “four people gettin’ hitched together” that there should be separate marriages..
So instead of this:
Wife #1, Sister Wife #2,Sister Wife #3
You would have to do this:
That way they have to have six marriages, so when one of them decides to get a dee-vourace, the remaining dumb idiots that decided to get married as a group in the first place would have to go through a separate divorcee and each party would end up losing 1/2 their stuff. That would learn them and be a “be careful what dumb wish you wish for.” moment.
Yeah, but which way makes ‘em hotter?
Wait... I see.
The first way only requires a 2 bathroom house.
The second method requires a 4 bathroom house.
We have polygamy in Maine amongst our Somali population. As a practical matter it means that each wife and her brood get a section 8 apartment.
Any laws against polygamy are now not enforced, if indeed they are still on the books.
Yeah but the mortal punishment for polygamy is two mothers in law!
[ Yeah but the mortal punishment for polygamy is two mothers in law!
Nah it should be an increasing Magnitude of mothers in law.
1 Wife 1 MIL
2 Wives 4 MIL
3 Wives 27MIL
4 Wives 256 MIL
Basically When X = Number of Wives
MIL = X^X
Of course it’s going to come up! Once you allow homosexual ‘marriage’, how can you argue against ANY other type of ‘marriage’?
Like the old Beach Boys song says...Two Girls For Every Boy.
And two mothers-in-law and two fathers-in-law. Twice the headaches! LOL!
And you think it will be confined to just the human species? ... Oh the hugh manatee for dogs and ponies and horses and goats and ... only limits of the sick human mind can limit the dreams of depraved degenerates.
These jokers might to be careful of what they are asking for!
Yeah, just what I need - THREE women screaming in my ear that it’s ‘enough football already’ and when am I gonna fix the bathroom faucet and wash the car?
“We have polygamy in Maine amongst our Somali population. As a practical matter it means that each wife and her brood get a section 8 apartment.”
We have West africans in NYC that do the same, with the same benefits; the childless young American taxpayers are subsidizing the Islamification of their country. To be fair to the Muslims, we’ve had much of our urban underclass living in similar arrangements for decades, as well as Mormons...
Cross species marriage has already happened.
Consider Mary Matlin and James Carville.