Why Can't 3 People Get Married?

[nota bene]

The Bible does not condemn polygamy.

Well, there you go. So it's okay. And the Bible doesn't condemn marriages between animals and humans. So there you ago again.

 

[melg89]

Well, there you go. So it's okay. And the Bible doesn't condemn marriages between animals and humans. So there you ago again.

I think its safe to safe that when talking about polygamy and bestiality, they are not comparable. Sorry.

 

[joko104]

We aren't talking about gay marriage, we are talking about polygamy. And I go back to bestiality because you say it's wrong for people to force their views upon others. We say it's wrong to have sex with animals. They may "consent" but who are we to say it's wrong? Why is it wrong? Why is it ok to say humans should not have sex with animals?

And yes, I am a Christian and I do believe that salvation is the choice of the individual. I wouldn't say others use their religion as an "excuse," they just adhere to their religious values and support what they believe to be right just like everyone else. If someone wants to have an open marriage that allows for a 3rd partner then that's their choice. However, the state does not have to allow a man or a woman to legally form a marriage contract with multiple people. No one is stopping them from having sex or saying that they are married or even having a ceremony, but the state and society are under no legal obligation to extend to them marriage rights and recognize polygamy as a valid institution for marriage.

The problem with that analysis is when taxes and other legal implications - rights and special treatment granted and denied - comes into play.

Except where necessary - which it is such as children, divorce, settling property and custody in breakups - the government should never have gotten into the marriage business. It has only been in the last couple of decades that "interracial marriages" were often refused by local officials as example. Gay marriage is coming to most states and most people recognize it.

The ideology of government staying out of polygamy is solid, but there are pragmatic and social issues problems that could well arise. The primary problem with polygamy is the reality that historically this comes down to wealth-buys wives and the notion of romantic love becomes even more distorted and distant. The wealthy men then have to defend their wives against unrest of those womanless men and there is still another huge economic and equality gap.

So it probably isn't quite as simple a question in real terms.

 

[digsbe]

LMAO. I was posting in a gay marriage thread as well and got mixed up. I apologize :lamo Let me clarify: I meant to say polygamy. People always bring it up when talking about gay marriage or polygamy. And ignore my bible question.

It's all good, I figured it was just an honest mistake.

 

[joko104]

Well, there you go. So it's okay. And the Bible doesn't condemn marriages between animals and humans. So there you ago again.

Actually the Bible does resoundingly condemn beastiality. Ironically, the OT condemns gay men, but not gay women, nor does it comdemn polygamy. The only point being that opposition to polygamy isn't Biblically founded, while being gay is (for men) - meaning Christianity is not a basis for opposition to polygamy. King David had gobs of wives without criticism and even Abraham had a mistress (that his wife gave to him, though his wife later came to really dislike her so he put her and his son by her out to die.)

Overall the OT of the Bible isn't a very good source of guidelines for love and marriage. If you need a wife just go kidnap one. Some of the NT language is disputed as to orgins and alterations.

 

[nota bene]

I think its safe to safe that when talking about polygamy and bestiality, they are not comparable. Sorry.

Why? Who are you to decide this? Are you trying to deny rights to animals? Or, okay, never mind the animals; they don't matter. But I do because I am a human being. Who are you to decide whether I can marry my beloved man-cat if I want to? Would you deny me my rights?

Can I marry a cow, please? | Metro.co.uk

 

[Sunbelt]

Where does it end? Where does this "anything goes" mentality reach its ceiling? Can anyone tell me this, or are you just along for the ride?

 

[Connery]

Where does it end? Where does this "anything goes" mentality reach its ceiling? Can anyone tell me this, or are you just along for the ride?

Hardly anything goes, but, who is to place restrictions upon people and by what authority?

 

[Removable Mind]

Where does it end? Where does this "anything goes" mentality reach its ceiling? Can anyone tell me this, or are you just along for the ride?

It ends when you and people like you stop trying to force your values, beliefs and traditions off on other people who in no way fringe on your personal rights. Who don't impose harm to you are your property.

 

[DiAnna]

Why? Who are you to decide this? Are you trying to deny rights to animals? Or, okay, never mind the animals; they don't matter. But I do because I am a human being. Who are you to decide whether I can marry my beloved man-cat if I want to? Would you deny me my rights?

Can I marry a cow, please? | Metro.co.uk

This is basically a dishonest argument. Animals cannot consent to marriage; they can't consent to a human sexual relationship. If you want to have sex with animals, just make certain that the one torn up during intercourse is you, not the animal... 'cause then you're going to have "animal abuse" charges added.

Pardon my candor, but this "beastiality" defense every time somebody's definition of "marriage" is questioned kinda grates on my last nerve.

 

[melg89]

This is basically a dishonest argument. Animals cannot consent to marriage; they can't consent to a human sexual relationship. If you want to have sex with animals, just make certain that the one torn up during intercourse is you, not the animal... 'cause then you're going to have "animal abuse" charges added.

Pardon my candor, but this "beastiality" defense every time somebody's definition of "marriage" is questioned kinda grates on my last nerve.

I don't even need to post because you just said it all. Exactly my friggin' point!

 

[hazlnut]

Well, if you want to get back to traditional marriage in a biblical sense, then a man should be allowed to have as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford. However, most intelligent people know we have come a long way since the days the scrolls that were assembled to make the bible were written, (not by GOD but by men) and we needed move backwards.

So, one thing at a time, we have to water down the homophobia and bigotry toward gays in our American gene pool, you know, teach real Christian values of love and tolerance, then we can look at Marriage a' Trois...

 

[nota bene]

This is basically a dishonest argument. Animals cannot consent to marriage; they can't consent to a human sexual relationship. If you want to have sex with animals, just make certain that the one torn up during intercourse is you, not the animal... 'cause then you're going to have "animal abuse" charges added.

Pardon my candor, but this "beastiality" defense every time somebody's definition of "marriage" is questioned kinda grates on my last nerve.

No, it's not basically dishonest. It's an extension of the argument whose begins is that "one man-one woman" is unfair, discriminatory, whatever. And I did post evidence that there are loony-tunes who want to marry cows and dogs.

My understanding may be incomplete, but "bestiality" means humans having sex with animals to me. I'm not talking about sex; I'm talking about marriage and what constitutes a legal union. If x, why not y?

Never mind the animals; it's not about them or about sex either. It's about what "marriage" means and how we can or should expand the definition that most of Western society has accepted as a given for centuries.

Who are any of us not to disallow anybody from marrying anybody or multiple anybodies? Why should "anybody" exclude those who wish to marry 30 people or to animals? If "one man/one woman" is "exclusionary," what else should be regarded as exclusionary?

Who are any of us to set limits on anybody who wants to do just about anything?

I do think that those who file petitions to marry their pets or their pet rocks are silly. But those lunatics are part of this larger discussion. They exist. Are they wrong? Crazy? Why? Because you or I say so? Maybe we're just unevolved, you know.

I mean, really--who are you or I to say that some fool can't marry a rock or shrub? The OP asks if a union of three is okay. Is it? If so, are four? Five? Twenty? Any number so long as it's only human beings?

Sure, this is a slipppery slope. Don't subscribe to Direct TV and you end up in a roadside ditch, LOL.

If you're excluding pets and pet rocks, why?

 

[AGENT J]

Animals can't consent. And just as a side note: why do people *always* go back to stuff like bestiality when talking about gay marriage?

My point is simple: if they are consenting adults, who cares. I really don't understand. If you don't mind me asking, are you Christian? Isn't salvation up to the individual? I know you already said that even though you think it's wrong, you still think it's ok for them to get married, but I don't understand others who use the whole religion excuse.

because they cant make other logical reality based arguments.

If we are going to treat blacks equal we might as well make horse equal too

If we are going to let women vote we might as well let my dog vote.

Comments like these are dishonest, irrational, illogical, non reality based and is simply rhetoric and hyperbole. it never gets taken serious by objective people on the subject at hand.

 

[Cephus]

I have no real problem with it, I just see some potential problems we need to work out before we legalize it. It's not the marriage that causes problems, but the divorces.

 

[jasonxe]

i'll have my house wench and suga momma.

 

[Tucker Case]

It's an extension of the argument whose begins is that "one man-one woman" is unfair, discriminatory, whatever.

An extension of that argument wouldn't ignore it's primary premise of such marriages involving consenting adults.

Bestiality cannot be a marriage involving consenting adults because animals cannot legally provide consent.

It is dishonest to claim the argument is an extension of the gay marriage argument because of that.

 

[tessaesque]

No, it's not basically dishonest. It's an extension of the argument whose begins is that "one man-one woman" is unfair, discriminatory, whatever. And I did post evidence that there are loony-tunes who want to marry cows and dogs.

My understanding may be incomplete, but "bestiality" means humans having sex with animals to me. I'm not talking about sex; I'm talking about marriage and what constitutes a legal union. If x, why not y?

Never mind the animals; it's not about them or about sex either. It's about what "marriage" means and how we can or should expand the definition that most of Western society has accepted as a given for centuries.

Who are any of us not to disallow anybody from marrying anybody or multiple anybodies? Why should "anybody" exclude those who wish to marry 30 people or to animals? If "one man/one woman" is "exclusionary," what else should be regarded as exclusionary?

Who are any of us to set limits on anybody who wants to do just about anything?

I do think that those who file petitions to marry their pets or their pet rocks are silly. But those lunatics are part of this larger discussion. They exist. Are they wrong? Crazy? Why? Because you or I say so? Maybe we're just unevolved, you know.

I mean, really--who are you or I to say that some fool can't marry a rock or shrub? The OP asks if a union of three is okay. Is it? If so, are four? Five? Twenty? Any number so long as it's only human beings?

Sure, this is a slipppery slope. Don't subscribe to Direct TV and you end up in a roadside ditch, LOL.

If you're excluding pets and pet rocks, why?

Marriage is a legal contract. A cow cannot sign a legal contract

/stupid ass argument about the slippery slope of nonsense.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Personally I find one wife enough, more than enough at times.

 

[earthworm]

Bear in mind that the Netherlands (the Dutch people) have been around long before our nation was founded, or even "discovered".
Thus , it stands to reason that they would be far for advanced in social issues than we are..
We can , when we improve our attitude, learn much from them..
I believe that our governments(local, county, state, federal) should keep their nose out of the peoples private affairs....this , of course, includes marriages.

 

[roguenuke]

No, it's not basically dishonest. It's an extension of the argument whose begins is that "one man-one woman" is unfair, discriminatory, whatever. And I did post evidence that there are loony-tunes who want to marry cows and dogs.

My understanding may be incomplete, but "bestiality" means humans having sex with animals to me. I'm not talking about sex; I'm talking about marriage and what constitutes a legal union. If x, why not y?

Never mind the animals; it's not about them or about sex either. It's about what "marriage" means and how we can or should expand the definition that most of Western society has accepted as a given for centuries.

Who are any of us not to disallow anybody from marrying anybody or multiple anybodies? Why should "anybody" exclude those who wish to marry 30 people or to animals? If "one man/one woman" is "exclusionary," what else should be regarded as exclusionary?

Who are any of us to set limits on anybody who wants to do just about anything?

I do think that those who file petitions to marry their pets or their pet rocks are silly. But those lunatics are part of this larger discussion. They exist. Are they wrong? Crazy? Why? Because you or I say so? Maybe we're just unevolved, you know.

I mean, really--who are you or I to say that some fool can't marry a rock or shrub? The OP asks if a union of three is okay. Is it? If so, are four? Five? Twenty? Any number so long as it's only human beings?

Sure, this is a slipppery slope. Don't subscribe to Direct TV and you end up in a roadside ditch, LOL.

If you're excluding pets and pet rocks, why?

Because you are not looking at this from the view of legal marriage and its purpose in any way. You are simply trying to defend an irrational comparison of marrying an animal and marrying either a person of the same sex or multiple people.

The reason it can't be done is because animals do not legally have the same rights as humans to begin with. Minors have more rights than animals do, and we limit them in when they can enter into legal contracts such as marriage because it has been recognized that such relationships are not what is being promoted when the government endorses marriage. Stable legal relationships offer incentives to the community and society, along with the people involved in those relationships. People who choose to make another adult responsible for them (something a legal marriage does) most likely will take some of that responsibility off of society. After all, a legal marriage says that you are at least partially responsible for things such as joint credit agreements and burial costs and financial responsibility for that person, before society picks up those costs. This is why welfare agencies have to take into account the finances of both spouses when they determine if a person is eligible to receive benefits.

These are responsibilities that an animal and a minor cannot legally take on for another person because they cannot legally take on those responsibilities for themselves. A minor must be emancipated legally in some way to even begin taking some of these responsibilities for themselves.

 

[DiAnna]

No, it's not basically dishonest. It's an extension of the argument whose begins is that "one man-one woman" is unfair, discriminatory, whatever. And I did post evidence that there are loony-tunes who want to marry cows and dogs.

My understanding may be incomplete, but "bestiality" means humans having sex with animals to me. I'm not talking about sex; I'm talking about marriage and what constitutes a legal union. If x, why not y?

Never mind the animals; it's not about them or about sex either. It's about what "marriage" means and how we can or should expand the definition that most of Western society has accepted as a given for centuries.

Who are any of us not to disallow anybody from marrying anybody or multiple anybodies? Why should "anybody" exclude those who wish to marry 30 people or to animals? If "one man/one woman" is "exclusionary," what else should be regarded as exclusionary?

Who are any of us to set limits on anybody who wants to do just about anything?

I do think that those who file petitions to marry their pets or their pet rocks are silly. But those lunatics are part of this larger discussion. They exist. Are they wrong? Crazy? Why? Because you or I say so? Maybe we're just unevolved, you know.

I mean, really--who are you or I to say that some fool can't marry a rock or shrub? The OP asks if a union of three is okay. Is it? If so, are four? Five? Twenty? Any number so long as it's only human beings?

Sure, this is a slipppery slope. Don't subscribe to Direct TV and you end up in a roadside ditch, LOL.

If you're excluding pets and pet rocks, why?

*sigh*

Exactly which part of "between consenting adults" do you not understand? Because if you actually understood that concept, then you wouldn't have posted all the irrelevant nonsense above.

If consenting adults want to be part of a bigamist, polygamous marriage, then it's not the government's business to interfere, so long as only one spousal tax deduction is allowed.

All this hysteria is really about is same-sex marriage, and those who believe that constitutional equality does not apply to homosexuals. Fortunately, most federal courts disagree. Since homosexuals are the last demographic who are legally subjected to discrimination, eventually SCOTUS will have to either rule that prohibiting homosexuals from marrying is unconstitutional, or issue an edict that the constitution simply does not apply to gay people. It's as simple as that.

No slipperly slopes, pet rocks, or animals involved.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

If consenting adults want to be part of a bigamist, polygamous marriage, then it's not the government's business to interfere, so long as only one spousal tax deduction is allowed.

What spousal deduction are you talking about? Because aside from the higher tax brackets for married couples, there isn't any special deduction for spouses that I am aware of-- if a man has more than one dependent spouse, he should be allowed to claim more than one dependent spouse on his taxes.

 

[Omgitsme]

Im ok with polygamy. Not something I would like to partake in but who cares if others do.

 

[DiAnna]

What spousal deduction are you talking about? Because aside from the higher tax brackets for married couples, there isn't any special deduction for spouses that I am aware of-- if a man has more than one dependent spouse, he should be allowed to claim more than one dependent spouse on his taxes.

There is a spousal deduction calculated into the marriage tax bracket (which is actually lower than if the same two people file individual returns). One of the arguments against allowing plural marriages is that it could basically be used to negate any income tax responsibility by individually deducting each dependent spouse until the government actually gives tax money back that was never paid... similar to a "legal" welfare fraud. If the marriage deduction remained in place, with a single spousal deduction no matter how many spouses one had, that would resolve that bit of tax-tomfoolery, and take away one of the obvious arguments against plural marriage.