"Take that, logic." Please come CAPTION Head Wreck!!!
Last edited Wed Nov 27, 2019, 12:11 PM - Edit history (1)
Glenn ("If there was a pill for me it would be fecal blue" ) Beck is saying: "If the traditional definition of marriage is cast aside, you cannot logically tell me you can't change another variable: one man, three women. One woman, four men. Two men, three women, and a bakery shop. Two goats, one daffodil and two bad-mitten rackets. A ton of scrap iron, an open wound, three door-mice, and a vat of unprocessed cheese. . . . You get the picture. . . . Who is silly enough to make this stuff up!? . . . Geez."
= new reply since forum marked as read
...for violating protocol. Usually I simply don't qualify for "best caption".
...if they can work out the details. First off, all current members in a marriage must agree in writing to add another person. E.g., if Jim is married to Sally but also is in love with Brenda, then Sally would have to agree to marry Brenda as well. Brenda would be married to both Jim and Sally; Sally would be married to both Brenda and Jim, and Jim would be married to both Brenda and Sally.
If Sally falls in love with Derek, then Jim and Brenda would also have to agree to marry Derek. Each person in the marriage would be married to three other people.
This would give you have all the problems of inheritance, visitation, parental rights, child custody, etc. I bet the lawyers would like it, though. 
I think that, given the human condition on this issue, where it's hard enough to get 2-person marriages, only a very tiny percentage of 3+ marriages would even exist anyway. And I'll bet that those are by rich fucks trying to preserve their wealth somehow.
If we can't figure out how that could work, then we probably should not have 3+ marriages.
If I married a block of cheddar and then ate it, would it be homicide?
