• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Polygamy should be legal

Mach

Ahead of the pack.
Banned
I don't think the government should be all to involved with marriage. This should be an issue left for the church to deal with. But I do believe the covenant of marriage is between one man and one woman.
There will always be some government involvement in marriage due to taxation deductions for married individuals, the need to track the welfare of children produced by marriages, insurance benefits extended to married individuals, and judiciary oversight for divorce proceedings. Religious institutions either can not or will not handle all of that.
 

Kyr

Reeeeeee
Banned
I used to be full blown Mormon, asshole. I know what I'm talking about. Have YOU been a Mormon? If not then shut up.
Then show some respect for your family, they made you who you are.
Pardon me, I should have been more specific. I meant that can you not be against restricting the right of marrying multiple members of the opposite sex to men, but be amenable to allowing everyone to choose freely who they want to marry.
This may be strangely worded, but it comes across as contradictory. If you're for allowing everyone to choose freely who they want to marry then you'd be for multiple women wanting to marry the same man, yes?
 

Felix Bernard

Chemist, Conservative, Mark Levin fan
There will always be some government involvement in marriage due to taxation deductions for married individuals, the need to track the welfare of children produced by marriages, insurance benefits extended to married individuals, and judiciary oversight for divorce proceedings. Religious institutions either can not or will not handle all of that.
I say get rid of all marriage benefits and anything related to it and taxes. It is a personal thing between the couple, the church, and God. Healthcare should also be controlled by the private sector.
 

Kyr

Reeeeeee
Banned
I say get rid of all marriage benefits and anything related to it and taxes. It is a personal thing between the couple, the church, and God. Healthcare should also be controlled by the private sector.
For non religious people marriage is mostly a legal thing though.

I mean, you don't even need to love someone to be married to them.
 

Felix Bernard

Chemist, Conservative, Mark Levin fan
For non religious people marriage is mostly a legal thing though.

I mean, you don't even need to love someone to be married to them.
Shouldn’t be the case.
Marriage isn’t a legal issue. It never was supposed to be, and it never should be.
 

Mach

Ahead of the pack.
Banned
Then show some respect for your family, they made you who you are.

This may be strangely worded, but it comes across as contradictory. If you're for allowing everyone to choose freely who they want to marry then you'd be for multiple women wanting to marry the same man, yes?
They could if they so desired, but I was mainly focused on restrictions that would prevent them from, say, marrying multiple men.
I say get rid of all marriage benefits and anything related to it and taxes.
Have you paid for a wedding or raised a child, Felix Bernard? Married couples share a significant amount of the tax burden in this country. Those benefits ease that burden on those taxpayers. You also did not address the insurance benefits or how divorce proceedings would be handled.
Healthcare should also be controlled by the private sector.
It was and people with preexisting conditions were denied coverage while premiums rose regularly.
 

Felix Bernard

Chemist, Conservative, Mark Levin fan
They could if they so desired, but I was mainly focused on restrictions that would prevent them from, say, marrying multiple men.

Have you paid for a wedding or raised a child, Felix Bernard? Married couples share a significant amount of the tax burden in this country. Those benefits ease that burden on those taxpayers. You also did not address the insurance benefits or how divorce proceedings would be handled.

It was and people with preexisting conditions were denied coverage while premiums rose regularly.
Well that is why taxes should be reduced and reformed to a flat tax rate, where all pay the same low rates. Abolish federal institutions that require large amounts of spending (education, healthcare, social security) and leave it up for the private sector. The answer is to cut taxes and regulations, and allow the market to run its course. Healthcare isn’t a right, it’s a privilege, for those who can pay for it. Same with education. But all of this could be more adorable if left to the market. If people can’t afford marriage ceremonies or children, they ought not have them. And if they do, and fall into poverty, that is their fault, not society’s, and we should not be expected by government compulsion to be paying for their faults. Charity, though, is something I support with all my heart.
 

Felix Bernard

Chemist, Conservative, Mark Levin fan
The Church doesn't hold the monopoly on love, i'm afraid.
Much less does the government. Love is a private thing, not a federal thing, and should be given to private organizations, like churches and synagogues, or wherever people want to have them for a matter of fact.
 

Rochat

Stay pawsitive.
The gov't should not play a role in marriages. How many people I choose to participate in a long term relationship with should be none of the gov'ts business.
 

Kyr

Reeeeeee
Banned
They could if they so desired, but I was mainly focused on restrictions that would prevent them from, say, marrying multiple men.
I don't see why, women marrying multiple men is just as "bad" as men marrying multiple women. If you accept one form of it you have to accept them all.
Much less does the government. Love is a private thing, not a federal thing, and should be given to private organizations, like churches and synagogues, or wherever people want to have them for a matter of fact.
That it is, you don't need marriage for anything that matters.

And i agree that churches, synagogues, or mosques would be beautiful buildings to hold weddings in. But they won't welcome everyone, will they.

However, legally a lot of things are tied to married couples nowadays. I don't know the ins and outs of it because frankly, it doesn't concern me, but i know that it carries a valuable legal position within modern societies. This is what the fight for equality is really about, affording gay, or...whatever, couples the privilege of marriage.
 

Mach

Ahead of the pack.
Banned
I do not want to derail this thread, especially since it is about the legalization of polyamorous marriages, but the issue of taxes and benefits to married individuals is somewhat relevant.
Well that is why taxes should be reduced and reformed to a flat tax rate, where all pay the same low rates.
A flat tax rate has been proven to mainly benefit those in higher tax brackets, since they only have to pay the low rate. That flat tax rate is a more cumbersome burden for those in lower tax brackets who see a higher percentage of their income being taxed relative to those in higher tax brackets. This raises obvious issues in fairness because the tax burden has been unfairly shifted toward the middle class and the poor, who are paying a higher percentage of their income due to the "low flat tax rate." Pragmatically, though it may be raised as a talking point, no Democrat or Republican who wants to see reelection will push for a flat tax rate on the federal level.
Abolish federal institutions that require large amounts of spending (education, healthcare, social security) and leave it up for the private sector.
The Department of Defense is the largest expenditure in terms of agencies in federal budget. No one is cutting that, obvious reasons.

As for the Department of Education, our public schools need federal standards and guidance to ensure that our students are competitive in the national and global marketplace. Furthermore, most children in this country attend public schools at free cost to their families and paid for with American dollars. All the private schools in this country can not meet that demand. There is also the matter of what happens to children whose families can not pay tuition as private schools. Should they been denied an education?

I would like to ask what you mean by healthcare, because there is no "Department of Healthcare." There is a Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the protection of American's health through essential agencies like the Centers for Disease Control, which prevents the spread of epidemics and pandemics (a task I do not see the private sector doing) and the Food and Drug Administration, which sets standards for and inspects the food and drugs you consume. It sets standards for our medical care nationwide. When it comes to keeping citizens, including you, healthy and safe, regulation helps.

As for Social Security, retirees pay into that system all of their lives, so they are entitled to the payments they collect after retirement. Abolishing that the Social Security Administration or even the Social Security system cheats them out of their hard-earned money as taxpayer. Surely you are against that.
If people can’t afford marriage ceremonies or children, they ought not have them. And if they do, and fall into poverty, that is their fault, not society’s, and we should not be expected by government compulsion to be paying for their faults.
Finally, married individuals pay most of the taxes in this country. Respectfully, to say if they "can’t afford marriage ceremonies or children, they ought not have them" as a presumably single person is extremely easy. They are paying their fair share of the tax burden, if not more so. It is not unreasonable to extend them tax deductions, especially since, from a fiscal standpoint, it allows them to pay taxes in the first place. We were talking about Mormons earlier in the thread, so I decided to use a Mormon newspaper as a source, though they cite Pew Research:

www.deseretnews.com: Why do married people pay most of the taxes in the U.S.?
 
Last edited:

Le Chat Nécro

most thugged-out dope hoe
However you're conflating polyamorous and polygamous. A polygamous marriage would involve as strong a taboo against cheating as a monogamous marriage most likely, so of course you'd know who your partners were. Why wouldn't you?
Please don't imply that marriage is the only thing keeping poly people from cheating. We care just as much about cheating as a monogamous person, the definitions are just different since there is room for multiple partners. And a married poly person could still have relationships outside the marriage if it was agreed upon by all parties.

I get jealous easily. I cannot deal with that personality type that exhibits risky behavior and needs multiple partners.

I can have friends and feel I don't need to fuck all of them. STDs are not Pokemon... You don't want to catch em' all!
And as a poly person who is only sexually active with one partner, I can say confidently that it is not about wanting to fuck all your friends. And it's only as risky as you make it.
If poly isn't for you, great. But don't be a judgmental dick towards those of us who are.


People, can we please get back to the legality of the issue rather than... whatever this is??
 
B

BahgDaddy

Guest
Please don't imply that marriage is the only thing keeping poly people from cheating. We care just as much about cheating as a monogamous person, the definitions are just different since there is room for multiple partners. And a married poly person could still have relationships outside the marriage if it was agreed upon by all parties.


And as a poly person who is only sexually active with one partner, I can say confidently that it is not about wanting to fuck all your friends. And it's only as risky as you make it.
If poly isn't for you, great. But don't be a judgmental dick towards those of us who are.


People, can we please get back to the legality of the issue rather than... whatever this is??

I never intended to imply that was the only think keeping poly people from cheating, nor that they were prone to it - quite the opposite in fact.

Hope that clears things up. :)
 

Le Chat Nécro

most thugged-out dope hoe
I never intended to imply that was the only think keeping poly people from cheating, nor that they were prone to it - quite the opposite in fact.

Hope that clears things up. :)
Sorry, you just kind of set it up as a dichotomy (polyamory vs polygamy) when the topic was cheating. So it read as "no, you're thinking of polyamorists. They're the cheaters. Polygamists are married and therefor wouldn't."
 

2oodles

New Member
But don't be a judgmental dick towards those of us who are.


People, can we please get back to the legality of the issue rather than... whatever this is??

The legality will never pass because in America a marriage is between two people.

A farmer can perform intercourse on his horse but that doesn't make it acceptable in everyone else's eyes. But you might say he isn't doing anything wrong. He isn't hurting anyone. No matter how you frame it the farmer is still interloping with a horse.

If you have a problem with how things work in America, nobody is forcing you to stay here. But this isn't how it was done in my country ... can we change the rules here??? BOO HOO WAHHHH CRY BABY CRY.

I am proud of my flag and to call America my country. And if America isn't your country I have no sympathy for you wanting to change our laws. EAGLE SCREECH!!!
 

Le Chat Nécro

most thugged-out dope hoe
The legality will never pass because in America a marriage is between two people.

A farmer can perform intercourse on his horse but that doesn't make it acceptable in everyone else's eyes. But you might say he isn't doing anything wrong. He isn't hurting anyone. No matter how you frame it the farmer is still interloping with a horse.

If you have a problem with how things work in America, nobody is forcing you to stay here. But this isn't how it was done in my country ... can we change the rules here??? BOO HOO WAHHHH CRY BABY CRY.

I am proud of my flag and to call America my country. And if America isn't your country I have no sympathy for you wanting to change our laws. EAGLE SCREECH!!!
I'm American. If you want to judge non-Americans talking about American policy, there are tons of other people on this forum to pick on.

And if you read literally any of my posts on this thread, you would know that I'm not looking for this to get legalized. It's too complicated for it to be viable. And I'm okay with that. I'm not crying or whining over the fact. It's just...a fact.

And last I checked, America was a representational democracy, so it is literally my right to voice problems I have with how things are run. In this case, I'm fine with the status-quo, but if I did have an issue, it'd be the American thing to do to voice them and vote and make myself heard.

And it's real cute that you're trying to compare polyamory- a consensual relationship between multiple adults- to horse fucking. Yeah, some people might not like poly and some may even hate it. But it is no where near the same as bestiality.



God the shitposting quality on this site is just... shit. Get better material, people.
 
I

Infrarednexus

Guest
The legality will never pass because in America a marriage is between two people.

A farmer can perform intercourse on his horse but that doesn't make it acceptable in everyone else's eyes. But you might say he isn't doing anything wrong. He isn't hurting anyone. No matter how you frame it the farmer is still interloping with a horse.

If you have a problem with how things work in America, nobody is forcing you to stay here. But this isn't how it was done in my country ... can we change the rules here??? BOO HOO WAHHHH CRY BABY CRY.

I am proud of my flag and to call America my country. And if America isn't your country I have no sympathy for you wanting to change our laws. EAGLE SCREECH!!!
I love my country and I'm proud to be an American too, but I still think you should be more open minded to alternative relationships.
 
G

Ginza

Guest
The legality will never pass because in America a marriage is between two people.

A farmer can perform intercourse on his horse but that doesn't make it acceptable in everyone else's eyes. But you might say he isn't doing anything wrong. He isn't hurting anyone. No matter how you frame it the farmer is still interloping with a horse.

If you have a problem with how things work in America, nobody is forcing you to stay here. But this isn't how it was done in my country ... can we change the rules here??? BOO HOO WAHHHH CRY BABY CRY.

I am proud of my flag and to call America my country. And if America isn't your country I have no sympathy for you wanting to change our laws. EAGLE SCREECH!!!

It’s actually pretty disgusting that you’re comparing beastiality to a consensual relationship between adult humans. Also, it could absolutely pass. Flashback 20+ years and marriage was between a man and a woman. Now it’s between two adults. Why not between more than two? Who cares? It’s not their life.

And yes actually, fucking your horse can hurt them. Doing so presents a lot of potential health and physical issues to the horse. Aside from that, it’s immoral. Animals cannot consent. Oh, and FYI, fucking animals is illegal everywhere in the US. The least you’ll get off with is a misdemeanor. So again, your argument falls apart mate.

America is a democratic republic, the entire fucking point is that we CAN change unjust laws. Idk what backwards ass place you’re from, but that’s one of the reasons I love my country. The power is in the people.

I’m a proud American, my family has served for years. We earned the right to have a say in our country’s laws. I can’t tell if you’re a total moron, or just trolling.
 

Mach

Ahead of the pack.
Banned
The legality will never pass because in America a marriage is between two people.
Perhaps this may be the case now, but fifty years ago gay marriage was unthinkable. Look at where we are now, at the end of Pride Month, which is a thing now. Progress happens.

However, it is a legitimate opinion, though one I and others disagree with.
A farmer can perform intercourse on his horse but that doesn't make it acceptable in everyone else's eyes. But you might say he isn't doing anything wrong. He isn't hurting anyone. No matter how you frame it the farmer is still interloping with a horse.
This is utterly unnecessary and is a thoroughly inadequate and incendiary comparison. Polyamorous relationships are clearly nowhere near being comparable to bestiality. Do you feel poor comparisons are advancing your argument?
If you have a problem with how things work in America, nobody is forcing you to stay here.
So citizens with contrary opinions should leave America? Is that not rather un-American?
But this isn't how it was done in my country ... can we change the rules here???
This literally why we have Constitutional amendment and a legislative process.
BOO HOO WAHHHH CRY BABY CRY.
And because poorly structured arguments do not go so far, you resort to insipid insults against who never provoked you.
I am proud of my flag and to call America my country. And if America isn't your country I have no sympathy for you wanting to change our laws. EAGLE SCREECH!!!
You say this to an American, with a clear misunderstanding how our legislative process and amendments, particularly the first amendment, works.

I think you have much to consider. Your time would better spent reading our Constitution rather attacking an upstanding user many respect, which is than can be said for you.
 

Felix Bernard

Chemist, Conservative, Mark Levin fan
I’ll ignore all those economic and political questions I was asked, and the statements given that I disagree with. Because all that is off topic. However, I still stand by my original statements.
Morally speaking, I say marriage is to be between a man and a woman only.
However, the government should have no business in the matters of marriage. It should be up to the church and the private organizations which do them (which, I hope, will uphold 1 man and 1 woman marriage). I cannot stop a private organization if they wish to do a same sex or polygamous marriage, but I would personally not believe that is a legitimate marriage.
But all that said and done. There shouldn’t be marriage benefits, and the government should get their head out of this matter entirely.
 

Felix Bernard

Chemist, Conservative, Mark Levin fan
That it is, you don't need marriage for anything that matters.

And i agree that churches, synagogues, or mosques would be beautiful buildings to hold weddings in. But they won't welcome everyone, will they.

However, legally a lot of things are tied to married couples nowadays. I don't know the ins and outs of it because frankly, it doesn't concern me, but i know that it carries a valuable legal position within modern societies. This is what the fight for equality is really about, affording gay, or...whatever, couples the privilege of marriage.

Marriage is not a thing to get monetary benefits from, that is not it’s purpose. Marriage is an institution ordained by God to be between a man and a woman. The two become one flesh, after the order of the binary creation of mankind. I do not considered same sex or polygamous “marriages” to be marriage at all, it is a profaning of marriage. But if someone wants to call it marriage, that’s their choice. That is not the government’s job. Legal benefits have no place in what God has ordained in marriage. Christ is the head of the man and the wife, not the state. And that is why the state needs to cut back on marriage benefits until it is entirely gone, and until it is purely a privatized thing to be held between the two, and God.
 

Mikazuki Marazhu

I hate you all
I believe my would-be-husbands deserves all my love and attention but not have enough emotional energy or time to invest on multiple husbands (I'm gay)
 
B

BahgDaddy

Guest
Marriage is not a thing to get monetary benefits from, that is not it’s purpose. Marriage is an institution ordained by God to be between a man and a woman. The two become one flesh, after the order of the binary creation of mankind. I do not considered same sex or polygamous “marriages” to be marriage at all, it is a profaning of marriage. But if someone wants to call it marriage, that’s their choice. That is not the government’s job. Legal benefits have no place in what God has ordained in marriage. Christ is the head of the man and the wife, not the state. And that is why the state needs to cut back on marriage benefits until it is entirely gone, and until it is purely a privatized thing to be held between the two, and God.

Why is God a bigot?
 
Top