CDZ Marriage is for all mature willing companions

[320 Years of History]

If all my children are "mature" they are no longer dependents now are they?

That would depend on whether they are your dependents or not.

 

[GaryDog]

If all my children are "mature" they are no longer dependents now are they?

That would depend on whether they are your dependents or not.

Yeah, not sure he knows what "dependent" means.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

If all my children are "mature" they are no longer dependents now are they?

That would depend on whether they are your dependents or not.

If you're insinuating that I hold guardianship over any of them in some form or way I don't.

They are all capable and functioning adults able to make their own decisions in life's grand scheme.

*****SMILE*****

 

[320 Years of History]

If all my children are "mature" they are no longer dependents now are they?

That would depend on whether they are your dependents or not.

View attachment 73915

If you're insinuating that I hold guardianship over any of them in some form or way I don't.

They are all capable and functioning adults able to make their own decisions in life's grand scheme.

*****SMILE*****

I'm not. GaryDog's post (below) said all that need be said.

Yeah, not sure he knows what "dependent" means.

 

[sakinago]

So my children, the males and the females, are all over 21 and after my talks with them they've agreed that they'll marry me under platonic conditions because of the benefits it confers to them.

It shouldn't matter nor should it be any of the governments business how people form their marriage groups, much less who's having sex with who, so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

It's time for the government to get out of my families business because we're all mature willing companions and want to form a marriage grouping of our choosing.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Absolutely 100% correct. Now if I have a friend who wants to have a polygamous married relationship, I will try to convince them not to bc I don't think that it's best for them...but that is their choice to make, and no right of the governments to interject in that.

Those who were the #lovewins people. Do you not see a problem in a Supreme Court that ruled against their previous ruling just two years before. They went from saying its a states right issue, to states have no say in the matter?!? In reality #governmentswins-vs-individualliberty

 

[GaryDog]

So my children, the males and the females, are all over 21 and after my talks with them they've agreed that they'll marry me under platonic conditions because of the benefits it confers to them.

It shouldn't matter nor should it be any of the governments business how people form their marriage groups, much less who's having sex with who, so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

It's time for the government to get out of my families business because we're all mature willing companions and want to form a marriage grouping of our choosing.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Absolutely 100% correct. Now if I have a friend who wants to have a polygamous married relationship, I will try to convince them not to bc I don't think that it's best for them...but that is their choice to make, and no right of the governments to interject in that.

Those who were the #lovewins people. Do you not see a problem in a Supreme Court that ruled against their previous ruling just two years before. They went from saying its a states right issue, to states have no say in the matter?!? In reality #governmentswins-vs-individualliberty

I'm not even sure YOU know what the hell you're talking about at this point.

 

[320 Years of History]

So my children, the males and the females, are all over 21 and after my talks with them they've agreed that they'll marry me under platonic conditions because of the benefits it confers to them.

It shouldn't matter nor should it be any of the governments business how people form their marriage groups, much less who's having sex with who, so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

It's time for the government to get out of my families business because we're all mature willing companions and want to form a marriage grouping of our choosing.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Absolutely 100% correct. Now if I have a friend who wants to have a polygamous married relationship, I will try to convince them not to bc I don't think that it's best for them...but that is their choice to make, and no right of the governments to interject in that.

Those who were the #lovewins people. Do you not see a problem in a Supreme Court that ruled against their previous ruling just two years before. They went from saying its a states right issue, to states have no say in the matter?!? In reality #governmentswins-vs-individualliberty

Red:
If someone states to me they want to be polygamous, I'll just say, "Okay," because they are free to want that, regardless of whether I think they should or should not, regardless of whether I think it a good thing or not. If they are going to assert that the benefits of polygamy, specifically with their children (platonically or not), outweigh the downsides, well, that's something that their merely thinking so is insufficient to show the merit of their claim to that effect. There are a host of areas they'd need to dialectically address -- social, psychological, legal, political, and economic -- and show that the pros across all those areas dwarf the cons. I have seen no such case presented here or elsewhere.

 

[sakinago]

So my children, the males and the females, are all over 21 and after my talks with them they've agreed that they'll marry me under platonic conditions because of the benefits it confers to them.

It shouldn't matter nor should it be any of the governments business how people form their marriage groups, much less who's having sex with who, so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

It's time for the government to get out of my families business because we're all mature willing companions and want to form a marriage grouping of our choosing.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Absolutely 100% correct. Now if I have a friend who wants to have a polygamous married relationship, I will try to convince them not to bc I don't think that it's best for them...but that is their choice to make, and no right of the governments to interject in that.

Those who were the #lovewins people. Do you not see a problem in a Supreme Court that ruled against their previous ruling just two years before. They went from saying its a states right issue, to states have no say in the matter?!? In reality #governmentswins-vs-individualliberty

Red:
If someone states to me they want to be polygamous, I'll just say, "Okay," because they are free to want that, regardless of whether I think they should or should not, regardless of whether I think it a good thing or not. If they are going to assert that the benefits of polygamy, specifically with their children (platonically or not), outweigh the downsides, well, that's something that their merely thinking so is insufficient to show the merit of their claim to that effect. There are a host of areas they'd need to dialectically address -- social, psychological, legal, political, and economic -- and show that the pros across all those areas dwarf the cons. I have seen no such case presented here or elsewhere.

It is their choice but there is nothing wrong with me giving advice to a friend. The advice would go something like how can this person be fully devoted to you and another person at the same time. I wouldn't recommend polygamy to anyone, just like I wouldn't recommend heroin to anyone. It doesn't mean I take their choice away from them

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So my children, the males and the females, are all over 21 and after my talks with them they've agreed that they'll marry me under platonic conditions because of the benefits it confers to them.

It shouldn't matter nor should it be any of the governments business how people form their marriage groups, much less who's having sex with who, so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

It's time for the government to get out of my families business because we're all mature willing companions and want to form a marriage grouping of our choosing.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Absolutely 100% correct. Now if I have a friend who wants to have a polygamous married relationship, I will try to convince them not to bc I don't think that it's best for them...but that is their choice to make, and no right of the governments to interject in that.

Those who were the #lovewins people. Do you not see a problem in a Supreme Court that ruled against their previous ruling just two years before. They went from saying its a states right issue, to states have no say in the matter?!? In reality #governmentswins-vs-individualliberty

Red:
If someone states to me they want to be polygamous, I'll just say, "Okay," because they are free to want that, regardless of whether I think they should or should not, regardless of whether I think it a good thing or not. If they are going to assert that the benefits of polygamy, specifically with their children (platonically or not), outweigh the downsides, well, that's something that their merely thinking so is insufficient to show the merit of their claim to that effect. There are a host of areas they'd need to dialectically address -- social, psychological, legal, political, and economic -- and show that the pros across all those areas dwarf the cons. I have seen no such case presented here or elsewhere.

I see... So now you are stating that it is the governments business to deny mature willing companions the right to form marriages as they choose.

It that because you have some definitive evidence to prove that the government should be involved and discriminating against mature willing companions who only wish to live their lives as they choose or is this some sort of latent closet religious belief that you hold dear?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

It is their choice but there is nothing wrong with me giving advice to a friend. The advice would go something like how can this person be fully devoted to you and another person at the same time. I wouldn't recommend polygamy to anyone, just like I wouldn't recommend heroin to anyone. It doesn't mean I take their choice away from them

How can a parent be devoted to any more than one child at a time?

******SMILE*****

 

[sakinago]

It is their choice but there is nothing wrong with me giving advice to a friend. The advice would go something like how can this person be fully devoted to you and another person at the same time. I wouldn't recommend polygamy to anyone, just like I wouldn't recommend heroin to anyone. It doesn't mean I take their choice away from them

View attachment 74015

How can a parent be devoted to any more than one child at a time?

******SMILE*****

The parent-child relationship is far different to a lover-lover relationship. Jealousy with our lovers is a powerful primal emotion. If consenting people think they can get over that, and when a rift comes about in the relationship and that jealousy won't come out, then be my guest. But if there is that jealousy, and they're pushing it down and not communicating it for the sake of the relationship, then that is not healthy either. People should have the freedom to make that choice, just like I have the freedom to not agree with it as the healthiest choice for one of my friends. That doesn't mean I can stop them either, and who knows, I could be proven wrong about it. The power to make our own decisions comes with facing the consequences of those decisions, and I just see it as a situation that will probably end up quite messy. I could definitly see people doing it for financial reason, but I think a large majority of people will experience problems doing it out of love

 

[320 Years of History]

So now you are stating that it is the governments business to deny mature willing companions the right to form marriages as they choose.

No. I'm stating exactly what I wrote. Do not put words in my mouth; I am more than capable of communicating what I mean, and what I mean has more nuance than the oversimplification to which you've presented. Thank you very much.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

It sounds like you're attempting to say that. Implying there are "nuances" indicates to me that some sort of discrimination is being enacted by the parties opposing any mature willing companion desires to be part of a marriage group. Whether the choice is good or bad that is not for you or the government to make for them as a mature adult without violating their right to freely choose how they wish to live their lives.

If everyone involved is a mature companion and willing to form a marriage bond/group what business is it of yours or the government if they choose do so?

*****CHUCKLE*****