Not sure why some people think 'the definition of marriage will change' is a convincing argument against opening it up to same-sex couples.
-
Show this thread
-
That's an observation, not an argument. Once, 'voter' referred to property-owning men. Now it refers to all adults. Observation.
2 replies 2 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @HPluckrose
The observation is coupled with slippery-slope arg. i.e. if we expand marriage to include SSM, what prevents it from including polygamy?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LKeturakis @HPluckrose
Butting in here Polygamy means some wives are on welfare for a time. Islam is demanding it in Europe for 4 wives and x children
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @LKeturakis
You mean marriage include every variety?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pepperpotmary @LKeturakis
No, I mean polygamy works both ways. Islam authorises polygyny
7 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
If the concern about polymarriage is cost of spousal benefits, halve them for two spouses, split three ways for three spouses, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Maxtropolitan @HPluckrose and
Guess what: because every adult gets benefits, it would even out.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If everyone was honest Otherwise they can easily scam the benefits system
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
That's always the case tho. The dishonesty is the problem rather than the marriage.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.