You are wrong on so many levels here it is rather funny.
1 st) Sexist much? I mean the entire thrust of your stance is that women need a man to provide for her.
2 nd) How is gay marriage any less of a fundamental inequality than plural marriage?
3 rd) Perhaps you should go read the article again, they are not suing for legal poly marriage, they are suing to have their living situation decriminalized.
4 th) So it is only legal for a man to have 2 wives if he can support them and all the children, however a monogamous couple can have 18 kids and be on welfare as a result without anyone saying anything?
5 th) So allowing a woman to marry the man of her choice is violating her civil rights? But denying her that right is protecting them? You have a very screwed up view of civil rights.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/11 21:26 (UTC)1 st) Sexist much? I mean the entire thrust of your stance is that women need a man to provide for her.
2 nd) How is gay marriage any less of a fundamental inequality than plural marriage?
3 rd) Perhaps you should go read the article again, they are not suing for legal poly marriage, they are suing to have their living situation decriminalized.
4 th) So it is only legal for a man to have 2 wives if he can support them and all the children, however a monogamous couple can have 18 kids and be on welfare as a result without anyone saying anything?
5 th) So allowing a woman to marry the man of her choice is violating her civil rights? But denying her that right is protecting them? You have a very screwed up view of civil rights.