Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (8404)	5/15/2006 8:31:09 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

you just go out with the youngest one

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (8404)	5/16/2006 10:52:14 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 71588

I recognize that you put a <g> at the end of the question but I'll answer it anyway. Neither. However I do think those are the type of issues you have to deal with when you talk about prosecuting people for polygamy. In a sense these polygamous families are not practicing polygamy. There is only one marriage in the eyes of the law. Do you really support prosecuting people for living together, having sex, and having kids when they are not legally married? This issue also comes up with "gay marriage". If gay people want to live together and have sex than IMO its no business of the state to say they cannot. I also don't think they should be prosecuted for saying that they are married (unless it is somehow a form of fraud) or for having a marriage ceremony. OTOH I don't think there is any constitutional obligation for the state to recognize this relationship as a marriage. Gay marriage is illegal, but that doesn't mean that people are prosecuted for these relationships it means the state does not recognize the relationship as a marriage.