yes ,because it is a matter of freedom and it must be legalized
it must be legalized for only men
it must be legalized for both men and women
no ,it is a kind of perversion and it has nothing to do with freedom
it is just a marginality which may harm society
it was a tradition in many ancient cultures and defending it doesnt seem so liberalal
being against it is a bigotry and l defend polygamy as an enlightened person
it is better than monogamy
l dont care
Oracle of Utah
Truth rings hollow in empty heads.
Of course he doesn't want a wife with a body the same age as his. It just seems that for some reason is heart falls in love with that young 17 yr old teen.
Unions should simply be a contract between two or more individuals regarding chiefly, but among other things, joint property ownership. All the government need do is enforce a contract agreed upon by mutually willing participants.
I see no reason why such a contract could not be created between individuals in a wide variety of circumstances; in fact, why does sexuality even need to enter into the equation? Why couldn't a non-sexual pairing, say like, two heterosexual folks of the same gender for example, just agree to the contract in question? They certainly wouldn't want to call it a marriage, they wouldn't wear rings, but they'd have joint property among other things. Granted, by cultural norms it would be an oddity, and people would assume certain (incorrect) things, but in terms of the government having an interest in preventing that contract from existing, or refusing to enforce it? That's preposterous to me.
The notion of government ALLOWING you to make this contract is what needs to end.
Last edited by JayDubya; 02-09-13 at 12:39 PM.