Posted on 03/04/2014 4:15:25 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
***comment removed by moderator***
My guess is that the libertarians will be less aggressive in pushing for polygamy than they are on homosexual issues, but only because polygamy doesn’t interest them as much as the gay agenda and drugs, or abortion.
They’ll support it of course, but they just won’t be as obsessed with it.
This is “more normal” than gay marriage is. If gay marriage is okay than anything goes.
Here it comes!
I have my doubts that it’s about sex. I’ve never seen any of these “wives” that I’d consider pretty. And to me, if she’s ugly, there is no sex.
Somebody is having sex. There are 24 kids.
If they are paying themselves for their 24 children and take no welfare, the gubmint should butt out. If they are moochers then they obviously cannot properly take care of their own, so put the kids up for adoption.
Uhh, yes you are!
“But if love and mutual consent become the definition of what the boundaries of marriage are, can we as a society any longer even define marriage coherently?”
Precisely. That is the end game. “Gay” marriage destroys the definition of marriage. It becomes a meaningless term, simply a way for people to step through bureaucratic hoops to get certain privileges from the state, having nothing to do with the structure or stability of society.
What a bunch of freaks.
But you want that same thing for all the other “moochers” who aren’t in a polygamous relationship, too, right? Or are you aiming to single them out? Because there are tens and tens of millions of people who fit your definition who couldn’t spell “polygamy” with a gun to their head, much less tell you what it means.
“If they are paying themselves for their 24 children and take no welfare, the gubmint should butt out.”
Can that go for two guys or women that are “married” with some kids?
Help with the math here...
If a man and a woman are made one flesh that’s 1+1=1.
He’s Jehovah, I’m not going to correct his math homework.
Now, take that 1 and add 1 more to their “one flesh”... Should still be 1.
If the guy can afford to feed five wives and 26 children without my help via welfare...
Better that than some baby Daddy with 20+ kids, no responsibility for those kids, and a massive drain on the social services I personally feel we shouldn’t have in the first place...
Comments?
*******************************************************************
My only comment would be that I don’t have a problem with it if that’s what they want to do—AS LONG AS THEY DON’T ASK THE TAXPAYERS TO SUPPORT THEIR CHILDREN WITH WELFARE PAYMENTS and the Dad (along the respective Mothers) FULLY supports the children.
You’ve never made love to a woman who isn’t classically pretty? Wow! We sure haven’t lived identical lives. LOL
See my #12.
..and the big, fat check from TLC didn't have anything to do with their decision.
See my #12.
****************************************
Well, I don’t think that anyone, in ANY “marital” situation, should have a child they can’t take care of financially and emotionally. It’s a plus if they can raise the child to be god fearing.
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.