I mean, that guy is a scumbag and will probably get caught and have to face some significant divorce charges.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you in one vein. I think saying who can and cannot marry is a silly endeavor. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world that runs that way at the moment. I have an issue when the state says you CAN'T marry the person you love vis a vie laws that define marriage between a man and a woman.
It is simply my take that any consenting adults should be able to "marry" any other consenting adults they wish. I don't care to limit it in quantity or gender. It's not your pro-gay marriage stance that I take issue with, it's your anti-polygamy. I find it incredibly hypocritical, as evidenced by each and every word you add on to this subject.
Correct, Biology is only one way, and adoption is absolutely and under-promoted ideal that can help poor souls out of bad situations, and perhaps even live, when otherwise they would be killed before their first breath. But you insinuated that a gay couple is more prepared to form a family then a plural marriage would be which I find hysterical.
The denial of plural marriage stigmatizes plural marriage families as inferior, that's why it's important to me. I have known people who are proponents of plural marriage, all of whom deserve the same rights we enjoy.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you in one vein. I think saying who can and cannot marry is a silly endeavor. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world that runs that way at the moment. I have an issue when the state says you CAN'T marry the person you love vis a vie laws that define marriage between one man and one woman.
Honestly, I've never met true polygamists, but like a joke, it works best from the first person. I watched Big Love faithfully, and am playing the Devil's advocate here. I do however see absolutely no reason to separate the two issues. If we are to change the marriage laws and remove all the antiquated provisions, we might as well do it all at once. Children, Animals and toasters all deserve the protection the law provides, but consenting adults deserve the freedom to choose to marry whomever they love.
I still think it is a states issue, and I also still think it is NOT an issue worth winning even a single vote over. I can understand that certain people feel it is, but those who feel that way deserve the failing economic policy we are getting by focusing on such issues.
Maybe it would be better if the state got out of the business of recognizing marriages period. Marriages are essentially a religious institution which could easily be replaced by legal contracts for those who would marry anything capable of legal consent. The fact that the state recognizes it as a legal entity with significant implications other than contractual is pretty much the state's usurpation of a religious institution. Tax status, medical insurance, etc etc are all things that the state has embedded into the status of married which is why gay people want to take advantage of it. When the state confers benefits to one class of people the pressure is on for them to expand the class that benefits. If you don't like gay marriage, remove it from the state's purview by removing all state sponsored benefits from it. Incidentally, I haven't heard any gay couples ( especially the male ones) complain that their family coverage under Obamacare has to include pregnancy and birth control. Not quite sure how much extra this costs but ....
If you turn your statement around what you are in effect saying is that Gay people want to use the state to coerce everyone else to accept their definition of marriage. It is not about equality under the law but about using the law as a means to force people to think and act a certain way. The fact that the state can use its power to force people to accept something that many of them consider to be morally wrong at the behest of a relatively small but vocal minority is kind of scary.