Multi-Marriage

[Hybrid-Of-Souls]

I've heard of people on the news who have more than one spouse. I know it's illegal, but why is that? I never really understood.

[altanese-mistress]

It's illegal? Well now; that all depends on where you are.

And its for the same reason people don't want homosexuals to marry, and why they used to didn't (and some still don't) want inter-racial marriage; its to protect the sanctity of marriage

[fahrenheit]

I believe its called polygamy, and yes its outlawed from marriage mainly for the same reason homosexuality its outlawed, its considered immoral.

[sdhonda]

It's illegal de jure. That is, you can only have one marriage license. But, it's not illegal to have tons of women living in your house that are your wives (except in the eyes of the government and church).

[ReiperX]

Technically you can have Polygommy in the US, just the government will not legally recognize it.

Many oppose it because it is concidered immoral. Oh well forcing my morals upon someone else is something that I don't really care for.

I still oppose it for legal reasons. Polygomy could create tax loop holes that would become very unfair to other people. Also when it comes to divorce, and a lot of other legal matters polygomy would be very unfair. If they could work out ways where it would be fair to all parties involved then I would have no issues with it.

[Ranger2]

i no theres a word for it, i forgot look in the first series of unfortunate events book.
it's called cheating. simple as that

[SirLebowski]

At 6/11/06 10:27 PM, Hybrid-Of-Souls wrote: I've heard of people on the news who have more than one spouse. I know it's illegal, but why is that? I never really understood.

No clue, but I would think the complexity of having more than one spouse would enough for the government to say FXXK it and make it illegal out of spite.

[altanese-mistress]

It is very much possible to be IN love with more than one person at once; why CAN'T hey all be married?

At 6/12/06 12:17 AM, Ranger2 wrote: i no theres a word for it, i forgot look in the first series of unfortunate events book.
it's called cheating. simple as that

Thats not really fair.

Is it cheating if all parties involved know? Is it cheating if they have all been married (even if it's not recognized by the government) ?

[Jayemare]

At 6/12/06 12:33 AM, altanese_mistress wrote: It is very much possible to be IN love with more than one person at once; why CAN'T hey all be married?

It's also possible to love someone with the same kind of gentials as you. Let's let them marry.
It's also possible to love animals alot. Let's let people marry their pets.
It's also possible to really love a bucket. Let's let people marry buckets.
It's also possible to love mulitple buckets, or a bucket, a filipino prostitute, and a warm apple pie. Let's let them get married.

[Altarus]

At 6/12/06 01:18 AM, Jayemare wrote: It's also possible to love animals alot. Let's let people marry their pets.

Not far-fetched at all. Hindus believe that animals are reincarnations of people. A woman in India married a cobra not long ago.

[The-Dran]

At 6/12/06 01:18 AM, Jayemare wrote:

At 6/12/06 12:33 AM, altanese_mistress wrote: It is very much possible to be IN love with more than one person at once; why CAN'T hey all be married?

It's also possible to love someone with the same kind of gentials as you. Let's let them marry.

Yeah... let's allow people that can actually stay in a marriage for more than twenty years actually do get married.

It's also possible to love animals alot. Let's let people marry their pets.

I've heard that the seed doesn't fall far from the tree. If that's true, then this explains it.

Dude you marrying into a homosexual life or a polygamic life isn't the same as marrying something that can't communicate for it's self.

I mean an animal can't say I do for starters. But two men can and certainly a man and two women can.

I see that there is much of a misunderstanding of what marriage is really about from you.

It's also possible to really love a bucket. Let's let people marry buckets.

But it's impossible to actually be in love with a bucket. One can say they are and be confused enough to be so fully devoted to such. But in reality, they are either on drugs, messed up too much in brain, or something equally influecing them to be in love with an inanimate object. Basically it comes from a misunderstanding of what an inanimate object is.

It's also possible to love mulitple buckets, or a bucket, a filipino prostitute, and a warm apple pie. Let's let them get married.

Sexist Racist Bastard! You compare a filipino woman to a inanimate object. You really have outdone yourself this time.

[bub-nydb]

At 6/12/06 01:18 AM, Jayemare wrote: a warm apple pie

Mmmmm. Pie. Can I skip marrying the pie and just eat it? If my wife helps me eat the pie, would that be a ménage a trois?

Oh, and I feel I should confess something. I am pie-ist. I prefer apple, cherry, pumpkin, and various berry pies. I discriminate against rhubarb and pecan pies. How shameful of me.

[The-Dran]

At 6/12/06 03:15 AM, bub_nydb wrote: Oh, and I feel I should confess something. I am pie-ist. I prefer apple, cherry, pumpkin, and various berry pies. I discriminate against rhubarb and pecan pies. How shameful of me.

It's people like him that gives true intellectuals a bad name.

[Lucifer-morningstar]

A year ago I had two girlfriends both knew aboth the other in fact we all lived together. I know first hand that it is possiable to love multiple people but I also understand the tax loopholes I think we should simplify status to married or single and have everyone file seperatly. I also believe that (I think england does this) all 'marriages' should be civil unions and seperate marriage and government. We could then allow any amount of consenting adults to gain the tax breaks without stepping on the toes of religion.

[ReiperX]

At 6/12/06 04:40 AM, Lucifer_morningstar wrote: A year ago I had two girlfriends both knew aboth the other in fact we all lived together. I know first hand that it is possiable to love multiple people but I also understand the tax loopholes I think we should simplify status to married or single and have everyone file seperatly. I also believe that (I think england does this) all 'marriages' should be civil unions and seperate marriage and government. We could then allow any amount of consenting adults to gain the tax breaks without stepping on the toes of religion.

Still divorce would be a major issues. The split of property and such. Who gets what in a divorce between 2 men and 5 women?

[The-Dran]

That's agreeable.

Perhaps we should just make the term, "marriage" be of religious sense, sort of like a funeral or any other religious ceremony. But all the benefits to such are aclaimed in a civil union which you can only get in a court room.

Which would therefore further the seperation between state and religion. And therefore enable tax benefits only granted to those with civil unions and that marriage is solely just a religious ceremony with nothing significantly valuable outside of religous terms.

[Lucifer-morningstar]

At 6/12/06 04:45 AM, ReiperX wrote:

At 6/12/06 04:40 AM, Lucifer_morningstar wrote:

Still divorce would be a major issues. The split of property and such. Who gets what in a divorce between 2 men and 5 women?

I figure and even split if one person decides to leave the house should be audited and the leaaving party should be given an equal share (in this case 1/6th of the total value). I also see this as a way to enchourage more pre-nups which is a good idea no matter how un-romantic.

[Demosthenez]

Why would anyone ever want to get married? Cause, lets face it. The idea of marriage has changed radically in the past century. 100 years ago, it was for familial and political alliances. 50 years ago, it was for love but families slugged out terrible marriages even though there was no love or even happiness in the union. Now, marriage is COMPLETLY for love (in the West that is) and they often dont last.

Why would someone want to sign over half their assets to someone else? Why? Why is money involved with what is supposed to be "love?" Because we have perverted marriage, despite what the political hacks say.

Marriage is supposed to be a lasting financial union. Now they dont last. Dont be a fool and sign over your assets. Dont get married. Stay in love, but dont get married.

[Guitarmy]

I cain't handle one bitch, what's I 'sposed ta do wit 2 bitches ?

[Lucifer-morningstar]

At 6/12/06 05:19 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: Why would anyone ever want to get married? Cause, lets face it. The idea of marriage has changed radically in the past century. 100 years ago, it was for familial and political alliances. 50 years ago, it was for love but families slugged out terrible marriages even though there was no love or even happiness in the union. Now, marriage is COMPLETLY for love (in the West that is) and they often dont last.

Why would someone want to sign over half their assets to someone else? Why? Why is money involved with what is supposed to be "love?" Because we have perverted marriage, despite what the political hacks say.

Marriage is supposed to be a lasting financial union. Now they dont last. Dont be a fool and sign over your assets. Dont get married. Stay in love, but dont get married.

THere is a chance that the marriage will last and if not you have to think of the tax breaks even if you lose half your things in a marriage if you can balance it out with the amount you have saved on taxes within the years you were married your in good.

[Ranger2]

I got it!
The word for someone with more than one spouse is called a...

POLYGAMIST

[altanese-mistress]

At 6/12/06 01:18 AM, Jayemare wrote: It's also possible to love someone with the same kind of gentials as you. Let's let them marry.

Exactly

It's also possible to love animals alot. Let's let people marry their pets.
It's also possible to really love a bucket. Let's let people marry buckets.
It's also possible to love mulitple buckets, or a bucket, a filipino prostitute, and a warm apple pie. Let's let them get married.

If the animal and all those inanimate objects can give their consent, then sure. But thats the thing; only human beings can consent. And THAT is where we draw the line.

I think you're confusing 'love' and 'sex'

[MortifiedPenguins]

Basically, in the laws of the government, polagamous marraige would make a bitch out of tax laws, wills and things like that.

[arz756]

At 6/12/06 12:53 PM, altanese_mistress wrote: But thats the thing; only human beings can consent. And THAT is where we draw the line.

What about those gorillas that learned sign language. They can say yes and no.

[altanese-mistress]

At 6/12/06 12:58 PM, arz756 wrote: What about those gorillas that learned sign language. They can say yes and no.

But you can teach a gorillia that "I want to marry you" means "I'm hungry" and not feed it for a day or so.

Unless it is on the same thinking level as humans or above, no.

[arz756]

At 6/12/06 01:04 PM, altanese_mistress wrote:

At 6/12/06 12:58 PM, arz756 wrote: What about those gorillas that learned sign language. They can say yes and no.

But you can teach a gorillia that "I want to marry you" means "I'm hungry" and not feed it for a day or so.

Unless it is on the same thinking level as humans or above, no.

If I taught a child that I want to marry you means I'm hungry he would run around saying I want to marry you.
And just because this conversation is ridiculous from the standpoint that im making.

http://www.theage.co..1/1136050339590.html

http://news.bbc.co.u..uth_asia/3004930.stm

http://news.yahoo.co..offbeat_060602114353

http://news.bbc.co.u..d/africa/4748292.stm

[Draconias]

At 6/12/06 12:53 PM, altanese_mistress wrote: If the animal and all those inanimate objects can give their consent, then sure. But thats the thing; only human beings can consent. And THAT is where we draw the line.

So, even if a Parrot were to tell a person, "I love you. I want you to marry me," then that wouldn't count as consent? The Parrot would be stating it very plainly in language that no person could misunderstand. It's communicating directly, and there is no evidence in the claim that the Parrot is mentally incompetent because it is obviously capable of clear speech.

Why is a line drawn there when you refuse to draw the same line for persons with the same mental capacity and probably weaker linguistic skills? If it is about consent, there is no proof that animals are incapable of giving consent, only the human belief that all animals are stupid and inferior (i.e. non-sentient).

[The-Dran]

Parrots don't understand what they are saying. So they could say anything at all in just an attempt of gaining food.

Therefore parrots don't defend your aguement against gay marriage or polygamy.

[MeSmashie]

It is illegal because society has deemed it to be harmful to the individuals and to society as a whole.

[elkrobber]

Provided all parties consent, I've no problem with it.