Well, marriage can be a completely non-religious event. That said, I don't agree with government involvement in marriage, but I don't think it will ever stop.

Anyway, I agree with what you've said here -- if everybody is a consenting adult, knock yourselves out and do what you gotta do. Leave the children and animals (who can't consent) alone, and have at it.

What business does the government have in how someone runs their company and creates financial statements?

What business does the government have in forcing someone to drink fluoride in their water or have their kids vaccinated?

What business does the government have charging someone for taxes to send someone else's kids to public schools when a person pays tuition to send their own kids to private schools?

And, again, what business does the government have in saying you can't have sex with your family members or an animal?

-Rudey
--We can't have it both ways

I actually agree with all of these things.

I think there should be a flat (low) purchasing tax, and that's it. No income tax.

Communities should be able to decide for themselves if they have flouride in the water - and actually, I think they can, because the Washington Post recently ran an article about kids in rural Maryland who're displaying tooth decay equivilent to abuse victims. Because there's no flouride in the water, because the community wants it that way, because they think it causes Alzheimer's.

Ditto the vaccines - you don't have to get your kids vaccinated. There's a movement against that... some moms feel the anecdotal evidence re: a link between autism/vaccinations is strong enough to warrant *not* vaccinating your kid.

etc., etc., etc.

Why do you keep challenging me with this? You know how I feel about these issues, it's silly to make me keep repeating my borderline libertarian stance on things. Nobody cares and it takes time away from my "Try to find out if Britney is pregnant" time.



Yes, but I would argue that's developed in the last few decades. I don't think there were a lot of colonists being like, "Oh, let's just trot down to the justice of the peace on our lunch break."

personally I don't care what you do in your bed room with a consenting adult. (Rudey animals can't consent, but if you find one that can then you can do what you want.) if you want to particpate in polygomy have a religious ceromony but not a legal document. From my point of view polygamy is like having a very open marriage with set additional partners.
We live in a welfare state. Taxes pay to support that state. We can get rid of all that but I doubt it would improve the state of things much.
Actually Marriage can be commpletely secular, depending on the individuals views.

You've found a couple cases here or there for vaccines and fluoride. In other places the government does have control.

The fact of the matter is that the government has a say in quite a few things and sex or marriage are no different. If someone thinks the government should allow gay sex, it's only fair for someone else to speak up and demand rights to marrying your sister.

But then again Libertarians are dreamers like Communists.

-Rudey
--pink is the new blog should be your best source for britney news.

Shut your piehole. And I still argue that it's none of the govt's business who I'm having sex with/marrying/etc.

-- I'm pretty sure she was caught drinkity-drinking, and therefore is not pregnant.

Marriage is not just about sex. If you love that dog, and don't have sex with it, then is it acceptable? And if the dog gets turned on by some dirty girl that treated him well and comes back for more, is he consenting? And does consent really matter when we've said we will beat you, torment you, eat you, and wear you because we dominate you as man?

And how about marrying your parents or siblings? Is that OK too?

-Rudey

I think somebody started shopping for dishware!

I don't know if Brit really cares so much about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. I don't think that's substantial proof.

[/off topic]

Rudey, You are still a sick Person!:cool:

Intersting questions though about Intermarriage tho!

Seem some of the Bib Overalls with one strap not dont and a glassy eye once in a while!

Ask them where Yall from, Penns!:D No, Chicago!;)

Bobby Loves Ya Man!!!!!!:)

Maybe not so much others on GC who I will not name!:D

Hell, I had enuff Probs with One Women! Why do dudes want more than One Female!:eek:

Marriage at city hall is not a religious event. As a matter of fact, it has absolutely no religious implications. I didn't get a tax break this year, and I just got married. In fact I think we paid more in taxes this year, even had we filed seperately just because we're both married now.
And as far as polygamy goes, you can't really get a non-moral perspective on it. I don't know many people who say "meh" to the topic of polygamy. If that's your schtick fine, but don't play devil's advocate just for the sake of argument.

And there are tax breaks for kids, so baptisms don't matter. Aside from the fact that you wouldn't be taxing people of certain religions that don't baptize.

True, but When Two Peeps say I do, it just screws up two Lives either way!:mad:

Rather negative view of marriage you have.

Swing and a miss!

You entirely missed my point. As in, my point was in Ohio and you were aiming at Japan.

Well then your point is about as convoluted as this argument, because I couldn't find it with a fine toothed comb and I've reread the thread a few times. Apparently I wasn't as clear as I could have been, but realistically who cares?

Quite honestly, I couldn't give a rats ass as to whom you are married to answer your original question. To use your own words here: Why do you keep challenging me with this? Everyone here is entitled to their own opinion, I wasn't saying yours was wrong, I just don't see the point in your argument back to me when you didn't even really address the actual topic at hand and got off on a tangent about bestiality, some girl at college you knew who apparently has a snout, and apparently that I am personally responsible for legislating your sex life.

If your question truly is why are we legislating sex lives then why not bring up the ridiculous amount of laws there are legislating sex/masturbation/sex toy sales in certain states, not by jumping in the wagon train for polygamy activism and the fact that the government isn't cool with polygamy as a way to legislate sex lives. Where does the government state you can't have sex with as many people as you want?

Polygamy and polyamory are two entirely different things. Polygamy = more than two spouses
polyamory= participation in simultaneous loving/sexual relationships.

Nowhere did I say that people shouldn't do what they want with respect to their sex lives as consenting adults. Heck, if polyamory is someone's thing, fine, I just said that "I" think that polygamy is wrong. <-- (My opinion...just in case it wasn't clear enough for you.)

What?

Did you read the thread?

No really.

Yes I did...did you? No really? When you can do something other than make comments that a six year old might make, it might actually be worth responding to at that point.

I wouldn't worry about it AOII_LB93, she has a hard time accepting other people's opinions. She's pretty good at the "my way or the highway" attitude.

Well, let's see.

You missed:

* the point of the thread
* understanding my posts
* understanding other people's posts
* appropriately attributing posts to the correct people

Then you:

* clarified points that didn't need clarifying
* offered your opinion on a political issue, without including any politics or logic
* neglected to contribute anything to the argument
* accused me of being the 6 year old.

I think this discussion is over your head.
-- Move along to D&R

Well, let's see.

You missed:

* the point of the thread - Not at all.
* understanding my posts - Easily done, you really aren't that deep.
* understanding other people's posts - Not so much.
* appropriately attributing posts to the correct people - Did not do that either.

Then you:

* clarified points that didn't need clarifying - SHOCK! Because you haven't done the same ever, have you?!?!?
* offered your opinion on a political issue, without including any politics or logic - Because no one, especially you, has ever done that before
* neglected to contribute anything to the argument - Which didn't have anything to do with the original post.
* accused me of being the 6 year old. - I never said you were six, tell me where I said that?
I think this discussion is over your head. - Wow, so when you don't agree with someone you send them to D&R...oh, wow, so you can insult them further there? Great idea! Why don't you stay over there since most of what you have been doing lately is getting on people for their opnions.
-- Move along to D&R - No thanks...don't need to.

:rolleyes: Thanks for possibly the rudest post about me ever. Oh I'm so hurt by some anonymous faceless person on the web! I appreciate it. Now why don't you run along to D&R so you can continue to complain about other people some more, because I'm not going to even bother with you anymore. Welcome to ignore!

ETA: On second though, I really don't appreciate your personal attacks or implying that I would say things of that nature at all on a public forum.

I'm gonna be honest. I have no idea what you're all fighting about. Stop being catty and love one another.

-Rudey

i have!!! it's not bad actually. the funniest part is when all the wives are jealous ... or desperate for a car.

There is an article about polyamory in the March issue of Eve (it's a British magazine). Reese Witherspoon is on the cover and she looks really cute.

-33
--No Rudith, I don't want to make out with her

Reese always looks really cute.

She is very attractive, but in profile, it appears you could serve soup out of her face.

What is polyamory? I think I can figure it out based on the word parts, but I couldn't find it in the dictionary to see how close I was. Having mulitple partners but not marrying them maybe? Being "in love" but more than a couple??

Search a little higher in the thread, someone defined it exactly...but yeah, sorta what you said.

Why worry about having more than one? Had enough trouble with just the one!!!!!:rolleyes:

Bringing this thread back in light of the renewed debate over polygamy in the news.

In light of the compound that was discovered (I know there's a thread on that already), Larry King Live did a show on polygamy this evening.

This 38 year old woman who is a polygamist says she was raised in a polygamy environment. She is not a member of the LDS church but considers herself a Mormon and therefore practices traditional polygamy in that sense.

She says it is her right as a 38 year old woman to live her life as she chooses. She also says that she and her family are happy but even if they weren't, it's still their right.

She has 8 kids and her husband has like 4 other wives with kids. She says that the other women are her best friends and she's also thrilled to have babysitters if she needs them.

In response, another guest said "I wouldn't want my bestfriends to be sleeping with my husband. If you want a babysitter, hire one."

There are a lot of defense leagues stepping up to defend polygamy.

Do you all have a differing opinion of polygamy when it involves consenting adults and NOT girls who are married off when they hit puberty? Do consenting adults have the right whereas, of course, it is illegal for various reasons for children to be married off? Or should it be deemed illegal and immoral regardless?

I'm of a "live and let live" type of mentality for the most part, if it's not harming children or anybody else. To that end, I don't care if homosexuals marry or if someone has multiple spouses. It's not for me, but I could see both financial and practical advantages to it for some people. There could be some difficult issues, like a man who wants to include 3 wives and 18 kids on his health insurance through his employer, but that could be solved by putting limits on how many extra dependents you can cover without paying the full price. At one time, extended families lived together or in very close proximity and helped each other a lot more. These days, we're more spread out. This could be a way of creating an extended family. I don't think I would be interested in that lifestyle. However, you wouldn't feel guilty about saying "Not tonight honey, I have a headache"...

Well, here's one reason why it can't be just "live and let live." There will be a need for laws to address such concerns. And of course many of our laws began as a legislation of morality so there's also that issue.

It was reported that members of that leader's compound were living in poverty. Huge families packed in trailers. Women being malnourished because they were giving their children their last.

It was also reported that the men were forced to work in construction companies owned by members. If they received paychecks, almost all of the paychecks went to the church. This resulted in like 24 million dollars a year--cash that was carried over state lines to be distributed across the members.

Meanwhile, the compound members are taking up tax payers' dollars because they are getting social welfare. Only one of the marriages is recognized legally so the other wives apply for social welfare as single mothers. Welfare expenditures going to support polygamy. Food stamps and the resulting food being distributed among members. Flooding the system and taking tax payer money.

Plus, it's the same kind of "why do you do this if you can't afford this" that a lot of people tell social welfare recipients who they deem shouldn't be eligible for benefits (although the average welfare recipient isn't intentionally frauding the system or having babies like they grow on a trees just to collect a check).

Even if the consenting adults want this, the children didn't ask for it and are in jeopardy.

LOL.

You would, though. The wives get a designated night and nothing better interfere. You'd be going against your faith and your assigned master of your domain (your husband). :eek:

Well, you posed a general polygamy question, not a "freaky cult like male dominant compound" question. I'm totally against the type of situation they had there because I'm not convinced that those folks aren't brain washed! I could see it being more like the large extended families who all live together and everybody contributes. Multiple husbands could have multiple wives all together so there would be more incomes, not less. Those are the types of advantages that I was thinking of. The situation in the news truly does sound more like a cult than anything else. I had read one article where they said the head of this sect was teaching that he was a prophet. Not so different than David Koresh...

Oh yeah. I apologize. I forget there's a difference. In my mind, and many people's minds, I guess there never will really be. :o

Everytime I see polygamy discussed, it is always under the guise of these sects. I saw Big Love once and have seen accounts of one family where they weren't part of a sect. They seemed happy and that they had certain advantages. I don't know enough about it to fully know the potential pros and cons. I understand what you mean about advantages, though.

As you said, not my cup of tea but I can't wrap my mind around it actually becoming widely accepted and legal.

haters