Hmm, tax codes would only be the beginning, there would also be insurance concerns, estate planning concerns, spousal benefits concerns, social stigma for kids of such unions from having "multiple" parents, divorce laws could become even more of a tangled mess than they already are. Long story short, legal multiple spouses would have far reaching economic, social, and legal consequences.
My only thing with polygamist marriages is I think it should be necessary for all married parties to agree. I think it would be pretty messed up for a man/woman who didn't want to be apart of of that kind of marriage find out their spouse has married another woman/man.
You being a factual person is merely an "opinion" formed by yourself. And how you got me being "hateful" out of the fact that I don't agree with something is also you opinion.
Oh, I'm fully aware of those concerns. Believe me, they could cause some problems if they are not handled properly. But that's all about revising or doing some algorithmic changes in the tax codes for those specific reasons. Either that, or let not government of any level recognize any form of union, marriage or partnership and let it simply be decided by the individuals. That would maintain consistency and save a lot of money. Sister Wives, that TV show about a polygamous family in Utah, has a guy married to three or four different women. And they were interviewed by news outlets and they seemingly love the lifestyle and each other. Hence why I stated that as long as its consensual, then so be it.
You stated that it's immoral, contrary to factual understanding that homosexuality occurs in nature. That's strike one. Strike two is when you've made some horrible stereotypes of bad statements about having children. Very narrow worldview on your part. Again, I presented statements that's more scientifically supported, rather than feelings. Can you prove to me that: 1. Sex between same-sex individuals are immoral? 2. It's damaging to the idea of family? You really can't.
Yeah I use to watch that show. I was just stating that b/c I know in countries where it is legal that consensual between all parties isn't necessary like for example have you read Obama's "Dreams from my father".
Young brother,,, I scratched the wordl immoral for a reason. Being,, you and I differ in our beliefs in GOD, and I respect that. Why bring the word up again. I don't discuss religion.
Personal preferrence is rooted in selfishness... I'll remember that the next time I choose chocolate over vanilla.
exactly. our opinions and point of view are what makes us unique. what a boring world it would be if we all agreed all of the time
The proof for me is GOD Almighty. You, having a different belief, will never understand. Like I said, I respect your choice and others as well.
Yes it does. In the book though he talks about Sr. parents and their cultural norms that have to do with polygamy.
I just need to say this....Why is it that when we start talking marriage equality, those who are anti-gay always talk about things like bloodlines ending? Allowing gay people to marry doesn't mean you're increasing the population of gay people in the world. They're just making their relationship legal, nothing more, nothing less. There will be the same number of gay people in the world whether you make their marriage legal or not. It changes nothing except allows them to have the same legal rights that hetro couples have.
I thought civil unions made it legal. Truthfully none of this shit matters. In a hundred years we'll all be dust so lets find other things to occupy our time. Restricting people who care about each other from marrying seems like a poor choice.
