There’s no putting this cat back in the bag.
We’re going to need a societal reboot.
Where does it stop?
Full-speed ahead. I also believe that cousins should be allowed to marry...and people should have the right to marry animals. We might as well make this as stupid as possible...until someone starts to grasp the whole game being played out.
Before the mid-1800s, states didn’t control marriage or require licenses. If you wanted a marriage, you went to a minister....got noted in a Bible....and walked out a couple. This entire game of state-recognized marriage started up because of issues of joint-property and the guys who were marrying in one town...leaving suddenly...and popping up 40 miles away married to another woman.
To point this out...we’ve had “union” problems for decades. I can remember in my hometown...there were two sisters and one brother who decided to stay at home....and never left. One became a school teacher...one a gardener...and the brother was a local roofer. When I left in 1977...they were all three in their 60’s and still in the family house. There are all kinds of issues here...where the three probably should have had some kind of “union” status and able to own joint-property between them. I see the same issue with two guys who are best friends and own a restaurant for three decades...they ought to have some kind of union status.
We need to stand back and review this whole game. The gays have turn marriage into a joke. We might as well return the concept of marriage in 1780...let it be a non-state matter and just marry in a church. If you want a union of any type....even if its five guys who want the union...go for it and be state-recognized.
Can I marry my guns?
I will marry my kids to avoid having the looters party levying any taxes upon my death.
Now, now, you know the culture doesn’t matter. All that matters is cutting taxes and reducing spending, as Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe said. Of course, they said this right after voting for the Obama Porkulus bill, so never mind.
Now I don’t have to feel guilty about marrying the Swedish Bikini Team next week.
I am so looking forward to it.
No, it's not even about sex, it's about benefits. It's a great deal: find one person with government benefits, and have 3 or 4 "marry" him or her - then you can have several adults enjoying one person's benefit package. And what's to stop them?
Divorce lawyers are rubbing their hands and cackling like Dr Evil on crack.
That triad thing really worked out for you, ma'am didn't it?
Left unsaid in the article (and in nearly all discussions of “polyamory”) is that the people who will most eagerly embrace this particular change in the marriage laws are the Muslims.
In the cold, hard world of reality, plural marriage will mean, almost exclusively, Islamic harems. Christian and nonreligious girls from the lower economic classes will be “offered” the “opportunity” to join marriages with wealthy Muslims.
Aside from the demographic implications, plural marriage will mean, ironically, the end of women’s rights.
The moslems will be ala over this.
This is not the slippery slope your looking for, move along............
Cheer up everybody, for the worst is yet to come!!
>>>these unions are not about sex with multiple outside partners. Nor are they relationships where one person is involved with two others<<<
Why not? Once you make the argument that any relationship between consenting adults that they call marriage is, indeed, a marriage, what’s to stop it? Why not a brother and a sister, or a mother and a son, or a father and a granddaughter? Why not a hive? It works for the mole rats. Why not a lease - you can marry me for a certain period of time, then bring it back to the showroom and trade it in for a newer model. How about marriage for a night - get the benefits now, then forego the benefits at the end of the contractural period.
And I haven’t even gotten into the science-fiction scenarios - how about a woman and her dead husband’s collection of frozen sperm? They can still make a family together - and maybe his will indicates that as long as his sperm is viable, so is the marriage. How about a man and his Japanese newscaster robot? Are you married if you agree to donate sperm for conception of a child but agree not to be involved in the raising of the child? Whose decision will be paramount in the custody case - the court or the people involved?
In any case, a society that allows gay marriage has no choice but accept shari’a law and allow an Islamic man his multiple wives.
To put in the delicate words of Bender: “Yep, we’re boned.”
I guess to be really outre these days, you'd have to secretly marry your own grandmother.
Them democRATS think of everything, don’t they.
Eliminate all marriage benefits. Institute the Fair Tax and there wouldn’t be any deductions for marriage anyway. No government subsidies or entitlements based on marriage. Also eliminate all inheritance taxes whether willed to a family member or not. It’s immoral anyway.
Consider:
Traditional marriage, is based on the union of dissimilar units, namely, gender. That is the qualitative property of marriage, and since there are only two genders, male and female, then the qualitative infers the quantitative, which in this case is two.
Homosexual marriage is not based on dissimilarity, but rather, similarity, therefore the qualitative property of this type of marriage necessarily infers a variable quantity.
You can't alter the qualitative property of marriage without also altering the quantitative.