Posted on 05/08/2009 10:13:24 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
With polyamory, you have the same option. The transaction costs are just higher with multiple marriage.
Not so long ago in this country, a man could be a husband many times over, as many wives died in childbirth.
Today's marriages endure around seven years—much longer than many frontier marriages.
(Sorry about the use of "endure", folks!)
==8-O
Interesting, but there is a tax and control issue also.
Government targeted women as a tax base and worked hard to get them out of the house.
European governments even set female employment level goals.
It is more tangled than just simple unions.
The goal of the entire sexual revolution.
Well said.
Look how stable the Bourbons were in Spain, and the fine intellectual and emotional stability in most Saudi royal houses!
IF a man and woman get divorced, are they still brother and sister?
Cheers!
Or are you just into polyarmory?
Cheers!
I wish to marry my widowed mother . . . to avoid this whole inheritance tax thingy. “Marriage” is just a bundle of goodies sanctioned by government.
It appears the homosexual chant of consenting adults can be used to defend many perversions.
When you can marry your dog or horse or both or any other sick combo you can think of.
Oh that slope is slippery.
What’s next?
I really love Fido. Fido is my best friend. He loves me, too. I should be able to marry my dog, my house, the girlfriend and the pickup truck — all the possessions in a country song.
Back on topic, I want to marry an AK 47; I like bad boys. Of course, in that relationship, I'm going to be the "male" partner. Seriously, my wife told me two weeks ago that she heard on the radio, either Michael Savage or Michael Medved, talking about a movement to allow marriage to inanimate objects. IF that's true, who is the Brady Center to criticize my love, or choose who I marry? Eff 'em.
Our country is rapidly circling the bowl.
Then traditional marriage has been destroyed for about 4000 years that we know of.
Care to restate?
Last month the company I work for sent me a 18 page questionnaire about my dependents eligibility. Since I have only my wife who has medical problems I figured they wanted to make sure she was really my wife. Mrs BeAllYouCanBe cannot work I filled out the document and had to send my tax return for 2008. Last year our medical expenses were over $25k.
Getting back to the questionnaire it listed categories and required proof of the relationship. What was mind blowing was the number of possibilities of ways an employee could claim someone as a dependent; Step children, cohabitation, domestic partnership, adopted children, etc..
My point is our society maybe too complicated to administer and if we open this can of worms more we may never get it back.
I am not sure that much of this kind of reporting is just made-up-stuff. So while the names of course have to be changed so is lots of other details in the article.
All of this of course is to get you to form the right opinion and come to the PC conclusion. "Remember we have always be at war with EastAsia." George Orwell 1984
LOL - good examples!
with sheep and goats and dogs will be next.
Social liberalism and economic liberalism fit together like hand and glove. Show me an area of the country that's socially liberal and it's guaranteed to also be socialist. What they're basically asking us to do is look for constituencies that can't possibly exist in any consequential numbers. Such as unwed mothers who are fiscal conservatives. Or drug users who are fiscal conservatives. Or militant homosexuals who are fiscal conservatives. Or secularists who don't turn to government as their god.
Sure, individual members of any of those groups could be a fiscal conservative. But as a group they never will be, and when their “values” become the zeitgeist of a society, you can kiss fiscal conservatism goodbye. So Olympia Snowe writes an op-ed in the New York Times telling us that the “far right” ran poor Arlen Specter out of the party, and that we didn't learn our lesson when Jim Jeffords jumped ship a few years ago. She then opines that we should focus on fiscal conservatism and leave that divisive social conservatism in the trash can. But neither she, Jeffords, or Specter has ever been a fiscal conservative. In fact, she justifies her vote for Porkulus Obaminationus on the grounds that her constituents, in a state that just legalized same-sex “marriage”, demanded it. That's a state where Obama won handily, by the way.
So much for her idiotic argument, though there are Freepers who make the same assertion. Just dump the social conservatives and we'll have a fiscal conservative utopia. Here's my recommendation for them. San Francisco is perhaps the most socially liberal, anti-Christian, homo & abortion friendly place in America. No politician runs for office there on a socially conservative platform. It would be pointless to even try. Therefore, let's see the GOP go in there and run some true fiscal conservatives for office. Run candidates who wants to slash taxes, cut spending dramatically, and privatize education and social security against Nancy Pelosi and Mr. Metrosexual Mayor. These candidates can be flamingly liberal on all the social issues, so they won't have any excuse for losing, right? That is, unless socially liberal San Francisco is also socialist, in which case they'll lose badly. And we all know they would lose badly, because any place as socially liberal as San Francisco, or for that matter New Jersey, is never going to elect a fiscal conservative no matter what his stance is on abortion and the homo agenda.
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.