Anonymous wrote:I think that the polyarmoury polygamy thing will be a complete failure to most families who have no experience with it.
I have read countless books about polygamy in the FLDS communities and there seem to be some rules that the families have to live by for it to work.
Seems like the men have to have some self control and be very very careful about what they say to their wives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Committed triads (or throuples) and other arrangements between consenting adults are private matters in which the government has no business.

Whoa. Is this a thing now? What's next? This country is going down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to say, if you want the government out of marriage, the government should get out of marriage. Huge problems though when it comes to workplace benefits

It's actually quite simple -- no workplace benefits for any spouses! The idea that a spouse should get benefits even though he or she doesn't work there, is a relic of the 1950's era when the man worked and the woman stayed home. Today the spouse almost certainly has his or her own job, and spousal benefits are a relic of history

There is no way to outlaw a private company from offering benefits.

Of course there is. Wage and price controls were put into effect during the second world war. Companies started offering health insurance as a way of getting around wage controls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to say, if you want the government out of marriage, the government should get out of marriage. Huge problems though when it comes to workplace benefits

It's actually quite simple -- no workplace benefits for any spouses! The idea that a spouse should get benefits even though he or she doesn't work there, is a relic of the 1950's era when the man worked and the woman stayed home. Today the spouse almost certainly has his or her own job, and spousal benefits are a relic of history

There is no way to outlaw a private company from offering benefits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a tiresome comment. You do know, OP, that polygamy is against the law for all persons including gay persons, right? So where is the inequity? Where is the correlating issue?

Same with marrying your pet or marrying your son and any of the other ridiculous comparisons made to marriage equality.

You do know that up until recently marrying someone of the same sex was against the law in every society throughout the world, right? You honestly don't see the correlating issue??

No I don't and neither does anyone with a triple digit IQ. Marriage is a legal contract that makes "kin" out of two unrelated adults. The fact that same gendered persons demanded to enter into this established contract has no bearing on the cost of apples any more than it has bearing on polygamy or marrying your pet or car. The right to marry and claim legal benefits provided by our government was denied to ONE group of persons and now that has been righted.

Yes, and once marriage was a legal contract that made "kin" out of two unrelated opposite sex adults. That was changed. So why can't marriage change once again to a contract that makes " kin" out of more than two unrelated adults?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My dream has always been to have 3 husbands and a wife. I'd love that to happen. Maybe it will.

You can always start by cohabitation, then show the world how virtuous your arrangement is. Then after a few generations of people like you, maybe you will persuade the public.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Committed triads (or throuples) and other arrangements between consenting adults are private matters in which the government has no business.

You could say the same about gay marriage.

Exactly. Which is exactly why gay marriage is now legally recognized. When the government decided to recognize (grant specific legal status and benefits to) one type of committed relationship between consenting adults (heterosexual marriage) that then obligated it to grant the same status to any consenting adult arrangement, in my opinion, because it is not the government's business and thus the government should not be favoring one loving relationship over another.

Really, so for the thousands of years that governments throughout the world have recognized marriage between men and women, they should have also been recognizing it between men+men and women's+women?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:according to an op-ed in Politico.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html?ml=po#.VY33M43bLIU

That didn't take long, did it?

I said over 5 years ago that when you change the definition of marriage you will open the door to polygamy. How can the SCOTUS grant the right to marry to one group then deny the rights of those who want plural marriage?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I view this “polygamy” concept as yet another way to marginalize the traditional family - one father and one mother to raise a family.
I see it as dangerous and not beneficial to anyone.
Call me old fashioned. I believe that children do best in a loving home with a father and a mother.
The efforts to undermine this model and to promote non-traditional families will do nothing but create more societal problems.

You're old fashioned. And way way way out of touch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I view this “polygamy” concept as yet another way to marginalize the traditional family - one father and one mother to raise a family.
I see it as dangerous and not beneficial to anyone.
Call me old fashioned. I believe that children do best in a loving home with a father and a mother.
The efforts to undermine this model and to promote non-traditional families will do nothing but create more societal problems.

You are actually ignorant rather than old fashioned. It has been proven time and time again that there is no difference to the child's well-being and future success whether we was raised by two mothers, two fathers or a father and a mother. (Actually, children of gay parents are out-scoring those of straight parents in all academics).


I personally will be in favor of polygamy when I see one wife who has three or four husbands.

That's largely because children of gay parents were most likely conceived of donors who are generally screened for health, psychological soundness, and iq. You're not really comparing apples to apples here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I personally will be in favor of polygamy when I see one wife who has three or four husbands.

Anonymous wrote:Committed triads (or throuples) and other arrangements between consenting adults are private matters in which the government has no business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I view this “polygamy” concept as yet another way to marginalize the traditional family - one father and one mother to raise a family.
I see it as dangerous and not beneficial to anyone.
Call me old fashioned. I believe that children do best in a loving home with a father and a mother.
The efforts to undermine this model and to promote non-traditional families will do nothing but create more societal problems.

You are actually ignorant rather than old fashioned. It has been proven time and time again that there is no difference to the child's well-being and future success whether we was raised by two mothers, two fathers or a father and a mother. (Actually, children of gay parents are out-scoring those of straight parents in all academics).


I personally will be in favor of polygamy when I see one wife who has three or four husbands.

Or that their aren't as many unplanned/ambivalent pregnancies.
That's largely because children of gay parents were most likely conceived of donors who are generally screened for health, psychological soundness, and iq. You're not really comparing apples to apples here.