I think it (marriage) has become another level of commitment - a legally-binding contract with hassles and expenses involved in its termination. Since unmarried people have children today without a lot of social stigma, methinks the idea of marriage as "love binding" has supplanted the earlier child-related focus.
In this context, same-sex makes sense - but polygamy still doesn't...
Just my .02
-Ben
>But aren't the mormons allowed more than one wife?
>What about the harems? Or is that sraying off topic ...
>
>It's not uncommon ...
><shrugs>
>To each their own in the end, doesn't really affect me. I've always
>taken care of myself and I've yet to take advantage of any marital tax
>breaks or advantages or anything of the sort since I still pretty much
>keep everything under my maiden name.
>
>Let there be chaos!
>
>Sorry it's ruined your day day Matt. Have a plate of muffins ...
>
>Cheers,
>Erika
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 2:03 PM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: Re: CNN Breaking News
>
>
>On this point, if two people want to have a committed, loving
>relationship, why can't three? Why not ten? Where does the number two
>come from? Tradition? Society? You're insinuating that polygamy is
>wrong.
>
>It sounds like now we're pushing past your comfortable area. I happen
>to think marriage is between a man and a woman. You (I'm inferring from
>the message) think it's between any two people. Somebody else might
>recognize it between six people. Where does it end?
>
>- Matt Small
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
