Thoughts on (expanding) Marriage
Gg78 said:
You can have all the sexual liberty you want as a single person , please tell me why anyone would want a ring on it for an all out orgy . It's demeaning, some become outcasted , many are forced into early marriage
It's not an all out orgy, a functional polygamous marriage is one with a declared number of spouses and all of the spouses must consent when one is added
You also refer to why I think it needs to be legalized. Early marriage is legally as well as morally wrong, women and men should be allowed to come into themselves in the fullness of time. This is why the age of consent has been raised. And LEGAL polygamy would not have violations of age of consent laws. Also, with the Fundamental LDS sect being able to hide behind "but officer, that's religious persecution" for marriage, a lot of the things they do slips through the cracks. Legalize Polygamy and their real crimes can be prosecuted.
then there is the inner city man with multiple women and children on welfare. But then again that kind, if he was one to marry, would only ever be a bigamist and probably never be honest enough to be a polygamist.
You can have all the sexual liberty you want as a single person , please tell me why anyone would want a ring on it for an all out orgy . It's demeaning, some become outcasted , many are forced into early marriage
It's not an all out orgy, a functional polygamous marriage is one with a declared number of spouses and all of the spouses must consent when one is added
You also refer to why I think it needs to be legalized. Early marriage is legally as well as morally wrong, women and men should be allowed to come into themselves in the fullness of time. This is why the age of consent has been raised. And LEGAL polygamy would not have violations of age of consent laws. Also, with the Fundamental LDS sect being able to hide behind "but officer, that's religious persecution" for marriage, a lot of the things they do slips through the cracks. Legalize Polygamy and their real crimes can be prosecuted.
then there is the inner city man with multiple women and children on welfare. But then again that kind, if he was one to marry, would only ever be a bigamist and probably never be honest enough to be a polygamist.
Anonymous
HHMCameron said:[quote-279994-Gg78]
You can have all the sexual liberty you want as a single person , please tell me why anyone would want a ring on it for an all out orgy . It's demeaning, some become outcasted , many are forced into early marriage
It's not an all out orgy, a functional polygamous marriage is one with a declared number of spouses and all of the spouses must consent when one is added
You also refer to why I think it needs to be legalized. Early marriage is legally as well as morally wrong, women and men should be allowed to come into themselves in the fullness of time. This is why the age of consent has been raised. And LEGAL polygamy would not have violations of age of consent laws. Also, with the Fundamental LDS sect being able to hide behind "but officer, that's religious persecution" for marriage, a lot of the things they do slips through the cracks. Legalize Polygamy and their real crimes can be prosecuted.
then there is the inner city man with multiple women and children on welfare. But then again that kind, if he was one to marry, would only ever be a bigamist and probably never be honest enough to be a polygamist.[/quote]
I have no idea about the laws of polygamy . It's not something I am interested in enough to go seek out information. I only know what I've heard , and how I view the disaster . That's what it is a disaster, and I'm all for to each his own. But to me it's just morally wrong! And anyone that consents to such a lifestyle is of a certain type of breed! Like I said the last time you can have all of that without the marriages. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
As far as the men with different children and the welfare thing. There is a difference. Most women or men did not consent to their spouse seeking out another. It was done behind their backs. Almost all. If not then they wouldn't be single on welfare. You're talking about a mutual understanding between all parties.
You can have all the sexual liberty you want as a single person , please tell me why anyone would want a ring on it for an all out orgy . It's demeaning, some become outcasted , many are forced into early marriage
It's not an all out orgy, a functional polygamous marriage is one with a declared number of spouses and all of the spouses must consent when one is added
You also refer to why I think it needs to be legalized. Early marriage is legally as well as morally wrong, women and men should be allowed to come into themselves in the fullness of time. This is why the age of consent has been raised. And LEGAL polygamy would not have violations of age of consent laws. Also, with the Fundamental LDS sect being able to hide behind "but officer, that's religious persecution" for marriage, a lot of the things they do slips through the cracks. Legalize Polygamy and their real crimes can be prosecuted.
then there is the inner city man with multiple women and children on welfare. But then again that kind, if he was one to marry, would only ever be a bigamist and probably never be honest enough to be a polygamist.[/quote]
I have no idea about the laws of polygamy . It's not something I am interested in enough to go seek out information. I only know what I've heard , and how I view the disaster . That's what it is a disaster, and I'm all for to each his own. But to me it's just morally wrong! And anyone that consents to such a lifestyle is of a certain type of breed! Like I said the last time you can have all of that without the marriages. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
As far as the men with different children and the welfare thing. There is a difference. Most women or men did not consent to their spouse seeking out another. It was done behind their backs. Almost all. If not then they wouldn't be single on welfare. You're talking about a mutual understanding between all parties.
Austin_Rura said:[quote-280019-Gg78][quote-280014-Austin_Rura]Let the parents who are smart enough to be parents have the liberty and freedom to raise there own children and contribute to the collective human race, or let the proven science of natural selection root out the week. THIS is likely the reason for much overpopulation. Now psychos think genocide is the answer to overpopulation... well no all you were supposed to do was let people make up there mind how to live for themselves. by nature do you really think we'll all just turn into mindless mad max murderers without all the laws? the system works so fuck it now but we as humans really fucked ourselves way back when we built these walls around ourselves so long ago
Sure because all People can make up there mind without any guidance at all, that's why there is no such things as jails and mental wards. A world without rules is a world for a saint. That's why they made up heaven. So half the world can think they have a chance at a good life without any type of structure or balance. Hey run around free Neely and do you baby.. It's a free world lol [/quote]
Once again i didn't say no morals and I didn't mean no structure but don't you think it's a little stupid to put laws on things such as who you can marry; or how it was previously said that a world with no laws would result in drunken children? I guess that child's parents aren't the law to that child? Also everybody didn't come together and invent heaven or the church because they needed comfort, people in power did to scare evil people into being good so the good could give there money to the church. It's history. Look up what indulgence is. Middle school history. When it wasn't the church it was people like the Romans who made there people all be warriors to fight invading armies because that was there "good vs evil" before the church invented "heaven and hell" IMHO and what i was taught by teachers and textbooks.
btw boy did this thread turn ugly... fast.[/quote]
Everything is taught to you. If you don't know about it you need to learn about it correct . Correct so if someone tells you to hey let's play a game ( at age 5 let's say) the game is see if you can take an apple from the cart without anyone noticing, it's a game it's fun . Okay so you do it and get away with it . And then you do it again and get caught , now you're in trouble but you have no idea why because you where only playing the game. You had no idea you where actually stealing an apple. So my point is without a good sound hand to teach you . And mind you there are more bad parents then good out there. You will not know right from wrong . And that is a disaster in th making. There is no way to fix anything. None we aren't capable of taking anything into our own hands . Not enough strong minded people . (The bad out ways the good) government sucks. Just live in what you know and carry on
Sure because all People can make up there mind without any guidance at all, that's why there is no such things as jails and mental wards. A world without rules is a world for a saint. That's why they made up heaven. So half the world can think they have a chance at a good life without any type of structure or balance. Hey run around free Neely and do you baby.. It's a free world lol [/quote]
Once again i didn't say no morals and I didn't mean no structure but don't you think it's a little stupid to put laws on things such as who you can marry; or how it was previously said that a world with no laws would result in drunken children? I guess that child's parents aren't the law to that child? Also everybody didn't come together and invent heaven or the church because they needed comfort, people in power did to scare evil people into being good so the good could give there money to the church. It's history. Look up what indulgence is. Middle school history. When it wasn't the church it was people like the Romans who made there people all be warriors to fight invading armies because that was there "good vs evil" before the church invented "heaven and hell" IMHO and what i was taught by teachers and textbooks.
btw boy did this thread turn ugly... fast.[/quote]
Everything is taught to you. If you don't know about it you need to learn about it correct . Correct so if someone tells you to hey let's play a game ( at age 5 let's say) the game is see if you can take an apple from the cart without anyone noticing, it's a game it's fun . Okay so you do it and get away with it . And then you do it again and get caught , now you're in trouble but you have no idea why because you where only playing the game. You had no idea you where actually stealing an apple. So my point is without a good sound hand to teach you . And mind you there are more bad parents then good out there. You will not know right from wrong . And that is a disaster in th making. There is no way to fix anything. None we aren't capable of taking anything into our own hands . Not enough strong minded people . (The bad out ways the good) government sucks. Just live in what you know and carry on
mikimoondancer said:
it sounds to me like what you want is for religion to handle affairs such as marriage, but then for government to accept whatever that marriage entails, without question and take taxes, benefits, etc...into consideration fairly.
exact opposite, i want government to be the final arbiter of what marriages it will recognise
religion to be left alone with what ever weddings it deigns to perform...
mikimoondancer said:
I see nothing wrong with that, but
I think the flaw here is that you'd like to keep so much of the current system but apply changes that would make that system more user friendly in non traditional marriages.
The System works for most of us, the only thing that might need changing is aggregating income per individual or not aggregating it at all (each individual determining there tax liability on the income scale, then aggregating the individual tax liability and deductions per family)
vice the current scale where totaly family income progressive tax harms some dual income families
mikimoondancer said:
The only way to change that system is to use the system for changing the system, which won't easily work, because the very idiots that you see commenting on this thread are representative of the ones voting on your rights.
only one idiot so far and one questionable (hard to tell intelligence from a few words)
the rest have valid points or provide comic releif
mikimoondancer said:
when I worked on Gay rights, the reason for fighting for marriage equality was in far more than the two people wearing a ring that made their love and circumstance more public or accepted or real.
most definately the civil/social/medical aspects of marriage are what both sides are fighting about the religous conservatives are claiming religious grounds, but it must also be a fiscal element to their opposition
mikimoondancer said:
(even gays have their shallow idiots, not all want to marry for the right reasons regardless of sexual orientation)
all too true
mikimoondancer said:
There are children to consider in many cases and their custody if one parent dies has been a heartbreaking issue.
Acquiring loans for mortgages and businesses and being able to declare both incomes.
Health insurance with family coverage and health decision making rights are a topic of major concern.
Pension plans and inheritance rights too.
Taxes are different in a "household" versus a couple of "single" people buying or even renting a house together.
Most definatley, all of these considerations are things that the religious right thinks that marriages other-than-traditional-do-not deserve... or attempts to obfuscate by saying that marriage is solely religious with civil something being the bone thrown to every one else
mikimoondancer said:
In the case of Gay rights, the fight was never about religion in reality. It was and is used as an argument against it but their moral ideals have nothing to do with people wanting to be treated fairly by a government that they pay their share to or make choices about who has legal rights to their family and assets.
definately, and the Religious Right tried to be magnanamous and tell government we keep marriage, and you get civil partnerships, civil unions, civil this, civil that...
and the extremists have gone to the extreme of having marriages that do not involve the government in their marriage at all (while still trying to get all that they can of the benefits without having the government issue a marriage liscence or recognise it common law) <facepalm>
mikimoondancer said:
At the end of the day, people are all convinced their way is right and few people ever evolve enough mentally to think for themselves, so you need to do what is right for you in your life and make it one you can consider worthy.
legalizing poly will likely not benefit me, but it probably will benefit those that are in functioning relationships... including at least one Polyandrous triad in the same state that i have never met but spoke to on yahoo some time ago.
mikimoondancer said:
I've noticed your reasoning seems to be motivated more by insecurity, past hurts, and abandonment issues. This is only an observation, but my other advice to you would be to do a long journey to the depths of yourself and find what is really motivating such a struggle.
I've been poly by inclination since adolescence or sooner
had other factors not been involved, i would have probably been blissfully happy as a particular woman's second or third.
trying to be monogamous with anyone else was/is painful to all involved when i am brought to myself by herself as she blows through my life again by showing even passing interest
it sounds to me like what you want is for religion to handle affairs such as marriage, but then for government to accept whatever that marriage entails, without question and take taxes, benefits, etc...into consideration fairly.
exact opposite, i want government to be the final arbiter of what marriages it will recognise
religion to be left alone with what ever weddings it deigns to perform...
mikimoondancer said:
I see nothing wrong with that, but
I think the flaw here is that you'd like to keep so much of the current system but apply changes that would make that system more user friendly in non traditional marriages.
The System works for most of us, the only thing that might need changing is aggregating income per individual or not aggregating it at all (each individual determining there tax liability on the income scale, then aggregating the individual tax liability and deductions per family)
vice the current scale where totaly family income progressive tax harms some dual income families
mikimoondancer said:
The only way to change that system is to use the system for changing the system, which won't easily work, because the very idiots that you see commenting on this thread are representative of the ones voting on your rights.
only one idiot so far and one questionable (hard to tell intelligence from a few words)
the rest have valid points or provide comic releif
mikimoondancer said:
when I worked on Gay rights, the reason for fighting for marriage equality was in far more than the two people wearing a ring that made their love and circumstance more public or accepted or real.
most definately the civil/social/medical aspects of marriage are what both sides are fighting about the religous conservatives are claiming religious grounds, but it must also be a fiscal element to their opposition
mikimoondancer said:
(even gays have their shallow idiots, not all want to marry for the right reasons regardless of sexual orientation)
all too true
mikimoondancer said:
There are children to consider in many cases and their custody if one parent dies has been a heartbreaking issue.
Acquiring loans for mortgages and businesses and being able to declare both incomes.
Health insurance with family coverage and health decision making rights are a topic of major concern.
Pension plans and inheritance rights too.
Taxes are different in a "household" versus a couple of "single" people buying or even renting a house together.
Most definatley, all of these considerations are things that the religious right thinks that marriages other-than-traditional-do-not deserve... or attempts to obfuscate by saying that marriage is solely religious with civil something being the bone thrown to every one else
mikimoondancer said:
In the case of Gay rights, the fight was never about religion in reality. It was and is used as an argument against it but their moral ideals have nothing to do with people wanting to be treated fairly by a government that they pay their share to or make choices about who has legal rights to their family and assets.
definately, and the Religious Right tried to be magnanamous and tell government we keep marriage, and you get civil partnerships, civil unions, civil this, civil that...
and the extremists have gone to the extreme of having marriages that do not involve the government in their marriage at all (while still trying to get all that they can of the benefits without having the government issue a marriage liscence or recognise it common law) <facepalm>
mikimoondancer said:
At the end of the day, people are all convinced their way is right and few people ever evolve enough mentally to think for themselves, so you need to do what is right for you in your life and make it one you can consider worthy.
legalizing poly will likely not benefit me, but it probably will benefit those that are in functioning relationships... including at least one Polyandrous triad in the same state that i have never met but spoke to on yahoo some time ago.
mikimoondancer said:
I've noticed your reasoning seems to be motivated more by insecurity, past hurts, and abandonment issues. This is only an observation, but my other advice to you would be to do a long journey to the depths of yourself and find what is really motivating such a struggle.
I've been poly by inclination since adolescence or sooner
had other factors not been involved, i would have probably been blissfully happy as a particular woman's second or third.
trying to be monogamous with anyone else was/is painful to all involved when i am brought to myself by herself as she blows through my life again by showing even passing interest
I read the whole thread and found it exhausting.
Other than that, I don't rate marriage and from experience would not recommend it to anyone... But, everyone should have their own life experiences to make their own decisions, and who is anyone to stop them when it is not hurting anyone else, when it is the choice of consenting adults.
My blood turns cold when I enter a Church, yet I got married in one and I hated everything about it. It was all about control not love and I found it outdated and eerie, rigid, formal. I lasted not even a year before that bastard lost me.
I'm no good for any kind of relationship advice, I don't really rate relationships either, still, I do not completely shut the door on them. but damn, how complicated this thread makes it all seem.
(runs for my sanity)
Other than that, I don't rate marriage and from experience would not recommend it to anyone... But, everyone should have their own life experiences to make their own decisions, and who is anyone to stop them when it is not hurting anyone else, when it is the choice of consenting adults.
My blood turns cold when I enter a Church, yet I got married in one and I hated everything about it. It was all about control not love and I found it outdated and eerie, rigid, formal. I lasted not even a year before that bastard lost me.
I'm no good for any kind of relationship advice, I don't really rate relationships either, still, I do not completely shut the door on them. but damn, how complicated this thread makes it all seem.
(runs for my sanity)
I'm still trying to work out whether the main thread for this topic is one of: mutiple realtionships, or religion, or tax, or government, of freedom of choice, or even a history lesson. It all seems jumbled up; and did not seem to start simple and expand.
(Roam through the pages and you'll find some Romans hiding there, even a Spartan without furnishings of a paragraph!)
One reason that polygamous marriages are not as desirable as monogomous marriages is that if a marriage is roughly in order to lead to children, a monogomous marriage has an upper hand in simplicity. There it is literally X and Y, mother and father and child. (Though for homosexual marriages it is not specifically X and Y as in male and female, but can still conform to the idea of X and notX plus child, allowing for surrogate donors for the baby developing process.) It is a lot simpler to understand a marriage that has X and notX than one which has X, notX notX(2) notX(3). In other words although it may allow the child to be exposed to a more varied cut of humanity, on the other hand there may be a lack of a specific father/mother figure and of a sense of family. To then rebel against and develop.
- anyway that was just some formulas to purge that from my system.
Personally I think that a polygamous marriage relies on charisma much more than any other type: a charismatic person who pulls people in and keeps their attention seems to be suited for a polygamous marriage. A humdrum nothing special joe bloggs does not seem to fit it.
It also seems to work backwards when concerned with sexual equality: in either case of male or female as minority it paints the other as conceivably cattle and as conceivably worth less overall. There needs to be 5 women to please/be eual to 1 man. Altogether a bit backward, almost freedom for freedoms sake...
(Roam through the pages and you'll find some Romans hiding there, even a Spartan without furnishings of a paragraph!)
One reason that polygamous marriages are not as desirable as monogomous marriages is that if a marriage is roughly in order to lead to children, a monogomous marriage has an upper hand in simplicity. There it is literally X and Y, mother and father and child. (Though for homosexual marriages it is not specifically X and Y as in male and female, but can still conform to the idea of X and notX plus child, allowing for surrogate donors for the baby developing process.) It is a lot simpler to understand a marriage that has X and notX than one which has X, notX notX(2) notX(3). In other words although it may allow the child to be exposed to a more varied cut of humanity, on the other hand there may be a lack of a specific father/mother figure and of a sense of family. To then rebel against and develop.
- anyway that was just some formulas to purge that from my system.
Personally I think that a polygamous marriage relies on charisma much more than any other type: a charismatic person who pulls people in and keeps their attention seems to be suited for a polygamous marriage. A humdrum nothing special joe bloggs does not seem to fit it.
It also seems to work backwards when concerned with sexual equality: in either case of male or female as minority it paints the other as conceivably cattle and as conceivably worth less overall. There needs to be 5 women to please/be eual to 1 man. Altogether a bit backward, almost freedom for freedoms sake...
what I got from the few paragraphs of the novel that I read was that the deciding factor is a woman, a particular woman with whom the guy would not mind sharing her with another man. (preferably another man)
I think that's the crux of it. I've known of women to buy into the whole sharing thing once the financial criteria was met ie a comfortable life for the woman and her offspring.
communes ..well you're getting a bit Charles Manson there, good fellow.
I think that's the crux of it. I've known of women to buy into the whole sharing thing once the financial criteria was met ie a comfortable life for the woman and her offspring.
communes ..well you're getting a bit Charles Manson there, good fellow.
Gg78 said:
I have no idea about the laws of polygamy . It's not something I am interested in enough to go seek out information.
I wasn't aware that PolyGamy, PolyGyny, PolyAndry, or PolyFidelity were legal in any jurisdiction in the United States of America...
Other Countries. yes even some european ones
Gg78 said:
I only know what I've heard , and how I view the disaster . That's what it is a disaster, and I'm all for to each his own. But to me it's just morally wrong!
The Disaster of which you speak, of which Oprah Spoke, of which many people speak, is a Religious group by the name of Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-Day_Saints
this is precisely the group that i was referring to when i was saying that Legalizing Polygamy would end some bad shit
Gg78 said:
And anyone that consents to such a lifestyle is of a certain type of breed! Like I said the last time you can have all of that without the marriages. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
Marriage is about Taxes, Property, Next of Kin, medical plans, why is responsible for the children after a parent dies, etc
so NO you CANNOT have the rest of it without marriage
the following links are all about Religious Objection to Marriage License
http://ncrenegade.com/education/how-do-i-get-married-without-a-license/
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201103/201103_130_Rel_marr.cfm
http://www.boundaries-for-effective-ministry.org/marriage-without-license.html
the relationships part of it either exists or not without all the rest of it, but the part that religions are fighting against is the name of the part that the government controls (religion can come up with its own name
Gg78 said:
As far as the men with different children and the welfare thing. There is a difference. Most women or men did not consent to their spouse seeking out another. It was done behind their backs. Almost all. If not then they wouldn't be single on welfare. You're talking about a mutual understanding between all parties.
wrong, i am talking about "men" who flit from bed to bed with various unwed mothers who their communities let them get away with it.
the women should band together and hold these men accountable.
these unwed mothers are not in the best situations... i personally know of one man that has three or more children with two women that only really helped the mother of one while the mother of two needed her sisters assistance
I have no idea about the laws of polygamy . It's not something I am interested in enough to go seek out information.
I wasn't aware that PolyGamy, PolyGyny, PolyAndry, or PolyFidelity were legal in any jurisdiction in the United States of America...
Other Countries. yes even some european ones
Gg78 said:
I only know what I've heard , and how I view the disaster . That's what it is a disaster, and I'm all for to each his own. But to me it's just morally wrong!
The Disaster of which you speak, of which Oprah Spoke, of which many people speak, is a Religious group by the name of Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-Day_Saints
this is precisely the group that i was referring to when i was saying that Legalizing Polygamy would end some bad shit
Gg78 said:
And anyone that consents to such a lifestyle is of a certain type of breed! Like I said the last time you can have all of that without the marriages. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
Marriage is about Taxes, Property, Next of Kin, medical plans, why is responsible for the children after a parent dies, etc
so NO you CANNOT have the rest of it without marriage
the following links are all about Religious Objection to Marriage License
http://ncrenegade.com/education/how-do-i-get-married-without-a-license/
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201103/201103_130_Rel_marr.cfm
http://www.boundaries-for-effective-ministry.org/marriage-without-license.html
the relationships part of it either exists or not without all the rest of it, but the part that religions are fighting against is the name of the part that the government controls (religion can come up with its own name
Gg78 said:
As far as the men with different children and the welfare thing. There is a difference. Most women or men did not consent to their spouse seeking out another. It was done behind their backs. Almost all. If not then they wouldn't be single on welfare. You're talking about a mutual understanding between all parties.
wrong, i am talking about "men" who flit from bed to bed with various unwed mothers who their communities let them get away with it.
the women should band together and hold these men accountable.
these unwed mothers are not in the best situations... i personally know of one man that has three or more children with two women that only really helped the mother of one while the mother of two needed her sisters assistance
Listen I'm sorry I ever wrote anything on this thread. I see your views . But I like mine better lol. Go marry your cousin or your neighbor or all at the same time. I do not care. Do I think it's right no ,not one bit but I'm one fish in a great big sea..
And btw you can present to me all the statistics you'd like and it will not change my beliefs. I'm stuck in my way.
And I am all for same sex marriage btw
And btw you can present to me all the statistics you'd like and it will not change my beliefs. I'm stuck in my way.
And I am all for same sex marriage btw
HHMCameron said:
the aspect that i keep being drawn towards is PolyAndry (1f 2m+)... but that is because of one particular woman that i knew i would always have to share...
This is going to hurt a little, but polyandry is a nice way to say that you're a cuckold. Whatever strokes your boat man.
If Confucius was a chick she would have said... "If I am walking with two other men, each of them will serve me with double happiness."
the aspect that i keep being drawn towards is PolyAndry (1f 2m+)... but that is because of one particular woman that i knew i would always have to share...
This is going to hurt a little, but polyandry is a nice way to say that you're a cuckold. Whatever strokes your boat man.
If Confucius was a chick she would have said... "If I am walking with two other men, each of them will serve me with double happiness."
Isn't divorce complicated enough already?
this brings some perspective to the people getting butt-hurt about case's competition I guess.
Btw Cameron, Muslims are allowed to have four wives, why don't just become a feminist Muslim who's wife has four husbands?
this brings some perspective to the people getting butt-hurt about case's competition I guess.
Btw Cameron, Muslims are allowed to have four wives, why don't just become a feminist Muslim who's wife has four husbands?
