What's wrong with Polygamy?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:55 pm

The big social fight today is about gay marriage. I heard a guy on the radio say that if we were to allow for gay marriages we would open the flood gates to all sorts of abomination, such as polygamy!

So? What's wrong with polygamy? Why should it be illegal?

SweetDarlin · Post by **SweetDarlin** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:02 pm

So what you are saying is.. there's hope for us!?

:-4

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:17 pm

SweetDarlin wrote: So what you are saying is.. there's hope for us!?

:-4
:wah: Darlin! You can drop in on us anytime. :-4 I'll figure out something to say.

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:25 pm

Accountable wrote: :wah: Darlin! You can drop in on us anytime. :-4 I'll figure out something to say.

Is this where the "slumber party" is meeting tonight?:D

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:41 pm

Cute av. Does it speak?

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:43 pm

Accountable wrote: Cute av. Does it speak?

Do you wanna cracker?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:50 pm

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: Do you wanna cracker?

Honey, I'm from Louisiana. I am a cracker. :driving:

Saffron · Post by **Saffron** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:53 pm

Polygamy is for animals. If men need more than one woman, they should hire a housekeeper, a maid or an all around babysitter instead of marrying several women. Polygamy is an archaic practice that was created thousands of years ago in order to "spread Islam". And it is being practiced to this day in the Middle East. There is a reason that is is against the law, it's immoral.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:57 pm

How in Sam Hill is a woman supposed to get enough sex if she has to compete with a bunch of other wives??????

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:05 pm

Saffron wrote: Polygamy is for animals. If men need more than one woman, they should hire a housekeeper, a maid or an all around babysitter instead of marrying several women. Polygamy is an archaic practice that was created thousands of years ago in order to "spread Islam". And it is being practiced to this day in the Middle East. There is a reason that is is against the law, it's immoral.
Lots of immoral things are legal. Everybody talks about consenting adults being allowed to do what they want. How is this different?

Especially since all the adults consent.

Lil~Basco · Post by **Lil~Basco** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:09 pm

Accountable wrote: The big social fight today is about gay marriage. I heard a guy on the radio say that if we were to allow for gay marriages we would open the flood gates to all sorts of abomination, such as polygamy!

So? What's wrong with polygamy? Why should it be illegal?

How well would a polygamist handle multiple marraiges.....how much attention would each spouse receive and their children....would it be for each like a monogamous relationship in terms of quality time spent with each family? I doubt it. A polygamist would be selling himself short and the people involved with him. Could he afford to be in multiple relationships? I would really question anyone who would be willing to choose polygamy over monogamy.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:12 pm

Lil~Basco wrote: How well would a polygamist handle multiple marraiges.....how much attention would each spouse receive and their children....would it be for each like a monogamous relationship in terms of quality time spent with each family? I doubt it. A polygamist would be selling himself short and the people involved with him. Could he afford to be in multiple relationships? I would really question anyone who would be willing to choose polygamy over monogamy.
So would I. In answer to the other questions you ask, I answer Who cares?

They're consenting adults. Pairs get married without the ability to handle their relationships, but we don't make that illegal.

Lil~Basco · Post by **Lil~Basco** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:29 pm

Accountable wrote: So would I. In answer to the other questions you ask, I answer Who cares?

They're consenting adults. Pairs get married without the ability to handle their relationships, but we don't make that illegal.

Your answer is....who cares? Then why did you start this thread? :-3

People do get married without knowing the abilities of how to manage a functional relationship....but in time it is usually learned. I don't recall ever receiving a marraige manual when I said, I do.

Maybe the problem lays with the cost of a marraige license.....

perhaps to become married, the license fee should be compatible to what it costs to get a divorce. People would think twice before jumping into marraige too quickly.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:34 pm

Perhaps we do away with marriage licenses at all, since it's not really required (common-law marriage). Perhaps we allow heterosexual couples to marry however they will without gov't intervention. Perhaps the same with homosexual couples and groups of adults as well.

That's my recommendation.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:43 pm

My marriage license means alot to me-I would not have consider a common-law situation. It means my husband loved me enough to marry me, and give me protection under the law for certain things. Thank goodness we are married, or I could not have the ability to act as his guardian and take care of him. The state would have taken him away, and he would have probably died.

Lil~Basco · Post by **Lil~Basco** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:43 pm

Accountable wrote: Perhaps we do away with marriage licenses at all, since it's not really required (common-law marriage). Perhaps we allow heterosexual couples to marry however they will without gov't intervention. Perhaps the same with homosexual couples and groups of adults as well.

That's my recommendation.
Acc....you have some good view points and I vote you run for office.

Common-law marriage is not recognized in my State.

If our Country abolished every law on the books, we'd be back living in the stone age. No...I disagree with you....marraige licenses stay put but fees increased to get them.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:18 pm

chonsigirl wrote: My marriage license means alot to me-I would not have consider a common-law situation. It means my husband loved me enough to marry me, and give me protection under the law for certain things. Thank goodness we are married, or I could not have the ability to act as his guardian and take care of him. The state would have taken him away, and he would have probably died.
Would you have the same powers withheld from others simply because they chose a different family makeup than male-female?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:20 pm

Lil~Basco wrote: Acc....you have some good view points and I vote you run for office.

Common-law marriage is not recognized in my State.

If our Country abolished every law on the books, we'd be back living in the stone age. No...I disagree with you....marraige licenses stay put but fees increased to get them.
First, why should they stay put?

Second, would you expand it to include polygamy or homosexual couples?

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:28 pm

Accountable wrote: Would you have the same powers withheld from others simply because they chose a different family makeup than male-female?
My personal view is that marriage is composed of a male and female. One of each only.

I think that homosexual or polygamous couples would probably have to gain custody of their SO to have similar legal rights to what I have, but they would not be equal since they are not a legal, recognized marriage.

The question of guardianship in a case like this varies immensely from state to state. For example, in Maryland, it is a difficult thing to do-I have power of attorney and the rights as the legal wife. I do not have guardianship, but would only seek that if the situation deterioarated or someone else contested my role in my husband's care. I was warned it was difficult to win, and the chances were the state would take over his care. I opted for what I have, I know my husband would die in a state institution-that would also have left us homeless, because the state would take my home here and my home in California also where my adult children live. My children and me would have to fend or ourselves, with probably 50% of more of my salary taken by the state to begin with.

Lil~Basco · Post by **Lil~Basco** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:31 pm

Accountable wrote: First, why should they stay put?

Second, would you expand it to include polygamy or homosexual couples?
Acc...you are married, right? Do you have a marraige license? Why did you choose license and not common law?

I like the rights instilled with a marraige license. Expand it to include the other groups...if the law said it would be so, I would have no problem with that. Live and let live.....life is choices. Laws are laws.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:36 pm

chonsigirl wrote: My personal view is that marriage is composed of a male and female. One of each only.

I think that homosexual or polygamous couples would probably have to gain custody of their SO to have similar legal rights to what I have, but they would not be equal since they are not a legal, recognized marriage.

The question of guardianship in a case like this varies immensely from state to state. For example, in Maryland, it is a difficult thing to do-I have power of attorney and the rights as the legal wife. I do not have guardianship, but would only seek that if the situation deterioarated or someone else contested my role in my husband's care. I was warned it was difficult to win, and the chances were the state would take over his care. I opted for what I have, I know my husband would die in a state institution-that would also have left us homeless, because the state would take my home here and my home in California also where my adult children live. My children and me would have to fend or ourselves, with probably 50% of more of my salary taken by the state to begin with.
And you're okay that others are forced to go through what you've avoided by being married? I know this is a tender subject, given the circumstances.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:43 pm

Lil~Basco wrote: Acc...you are married, right? Do you have a marraige license? Why did you choose license and not common law?

I like the rights instilled with a marraige license. Expand it to include the other groups...if the law said it would be so, I would have no problem with that. Live and let live.....life is choices. Laws are laws.
I was in the military at the time, stationed in Japan. I didn't have much choice in the matter. I likely wouldn't have gone through a licensing thing otherwise. Not from any conviction, just from laziness.

I can certainly see the usefulness of legal marriage such as that Chonsi is experiencing, but other things like tax breaks for kids are actuall harmful, if those who cry about overpopulation are to be believed, because they were originated to encourage large families. We're not farmers anymore.

Lil~Basco · Post by **Lil~Basco** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:57 pm

Accountable wrote: I was in the military at the time, stationed in Japan. I didn't have much choice in the matter. I likely wouldn't have gone through a licensing thing otherwise. Not from any conviction, just from laziness.

I can certainly see the usefulness of legal marriage such as that Chonsi is experiencing, but other things like tax breaks for kids are actuall harmful, if those who cry about overpopulation are to be believed, because they were originated to encourage large families. We're not farmers anymore.

One subject leads to another, doesn't it.

Overpopulation...tax breaks....how about the number of people enrolled on welfare too and yet still add to the population at taxpayers expense. Welfare even buys vehicles for these people as long as they make an effort to look for employment. Heck they even pay for servicing and repairing said vehicle and these people still don't land a job. So, what do you think the cure is?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:04 pm

Lil~Basco wrote: One subject leads to another, doesn't it.

Overpopulation...tax breaks....how about the number of people enrolled on welfare too and yet still add to the population at taxpayers expense. Welfare even buys vehicles for these people as long as they make an effort to look for employment. Heck they even pay for servicing and repairing said vehicle and these people still don't land a job. So, what do you think the cure is?
Self-accountability.

Celebrating people's every accomplishment and not destroying hope by telling them they can't succeed, so they may as well take the check.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:20 pm

Accountable wrote: And you're okay that others are forced to go through what you've avoided by being married? I know this is a tender subject, given the circumstances.

Well, I do not believe in homosexual or polygamous marriages.

I think something must be done to change some state laws, but I do not approve of homosexual or polygamous marriages. If we are talking about guardianship issues, then that is another matter. Consideration should be given to them. If they love them and want to take care of them, they shold have access to what is needed.

*said in love*

AC, what would your wife say about common-law vs official marriage? Is it an important point to her, or-I would guess-you are such a dependable man, she would never doubt for a minute you would take care of her either way?

For me, it was an important point to be married, and we waited several years for that lucky day. I still consider it one of the best days of my life, and do not regret it.

I look forward to reading your reply in the morning.:-4

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:50 pm

chonsigirl wrote: Well, I do not believe in homosexual or polygamous marriages.

I think something must be done to change some state laws, but I do not approve of homosexual or polygamous marriages. If we are talking about guardianship issues, then that is another matter. Consideration should be given to them. If they love them and want to take care of them, they shold have access to what is needed.

*said in love*

AC, what would your wife say about common-law vs official marriage? Is it an important point to her, or-I would guess-you are such a dependable man, she would never doubt for a minute you would take care of her either way?

For me, it was an important point to be married, and we waited several years for that lucky day. I still consider it one of the best days of my life, and do not regret it.

I look forward to reading your reply in the morning.:-4
My beloved is from a different culture, one in which the government keeps close tabs on every aspect of its citizens lives, and everyone conforms. Even the rebels rebel in lockstep with their fellow rebels.

My view on marriage is that it is a holy union. Governments hold no authority in holy matters. Having a blessed ceremony with a clergy officiating is no less special than a licensed civil ceremony with a disinterested judge or a quickie at a Las Vegas drive-thru with a rubber-stamped document.

~~~~~~~~~

I would think it a simple thing to establish or alter the rules of claiming one's on next-of-kin, .

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 9:31 pm

Saffron wrote: Polygamy is for animals. If men need more than one woman, they should hire a housekeeper, a maid or an all around babysitter instead of marrying several women. Polygamy is an archaic practice that was created thousands of years ago in order to "spread Islam". And it is being practiced to this day in the Middle East. There is a reason that is is against the law, it's immoral.

ya see...there is something about hate that makes me cringe. What is the purpose of this false statement? If it wasn't hate motivated then it must be ignorance. Here are some facts.

First of all, we are all animals not just Muslim people. Yes, you. You are an animal, like it or not. Second...

Polygamy was an accepted practice among early Hebrews, including several revered biblical figures such as Abraham, David and Solomon (who was the most married, with 700 wives and 300 concubines).

Finally, in the 10th century, a rabbi named Gershom outlawed polygamy for 1,000 years

Gershom was speaking only to Eastern European Jews (Ashkanazi). The Meditteranean (Sephardic) Jews continued to practice polygamy.

A maximum of four wives is allowed by the Koran, the sacred writing of Islam's prophet Mohammed, under strict conditions.

Mohammed had 10 wives and two concubines, according to Cyril Glasse in the Encyclopedia of Islam. He was married monogamously to his first wife, Khadijah, for 20 years, and she was the only one to bear him children. But after her death, he wed several widows and other women for the purpose of creating

political alliances.

The Catholic Church frowned on the practice, but occasionally sanctioned second marriages of political leaders

In the 1500s, Martin Luther tolerated polygamy in certain instances as a political necessity to ``ensure the success of the Reformation,''

it goes on. source

We shouldn't assume it would be only men running out for more wives, last I heard they were awfully expensive. I've known a few women who married for money a number of times and might not have bothered getting divorced if they hadn't had to.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:36 am

Accountable wrote: My beloved is from a different culture, one in which the government keeps close tabs on every aspect of its citizens lives, and everyone conforms. Even the rebels rebel in lockstep with their fellow rebels.

My view on marriage is that it is a holy union. Governments hold no authority in holy matters. Having a blessed ceremony with a clergy officiating is no less special than a licensed civil ceremony with a disinterested judge or a quickie at a Las Vegas drive-thru with a rubber-stamped document.

~~~~~~~~~

I would think it a simple thing to establish or alter the rules of claiming one's on next-of-kin, .

I agree it doesn't matter if marriage is a civil ceremony or in a church. My husband and I were married at the State Chapel by the official State Clerk or whatever the position is, it was a civil ceremony. But you always see the state clerks name on all kinds of papers that show up, driver license applications, mortgages, etc. and we always laughed and smiled, because he married us.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:43 am

its sexist, men get lots of wives, why can women have lots of husbands

make it fair at least :rolleyes:

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:47 am

Oh, they are cases were polygamy worked the other way, like among Hawaiin royalty. Sounds more fair to me too!:wah:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:51 am

buttercup wrote: its sexist, men get lots of wives, why can women have lots of husbands

make it fair at least :rolleyes:
Polygamy's not limited to 1 man-many women. knock yourself out!

Make sure one of them is like Felix Unger, though.

golem · Post by **golem** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:20 am

Multiple wives equates to multiple mother-in-laws.

There can be no better justification for the banning of polygamy than that.

But that aside, marriage is past its sell by date, especially here in the UK and much of Europe. Far more younger people simply live together than marry and we are all the better for it.

You want to cohabit with two or more women in a sexual relationship? So what? If you can afford it and theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re willing, go for it. Same with women. If they can set up a relationship with more than one man and the men are OK with it Ã¢â‚¬â€œ again, go for it.

But marriage?

It should be banned and replaced with a contract dealing with property ownership and how costs and responsibility of child rearing and custody are to be split and NOTHING MORE.

What a couple do has nothing to do with the state and as regards the church - it should be left to wither on the vine. Marriage should be let to go the way of the Dodo.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:23 am

golem wrote: [...]

But marriage?

It should be banned and replaced with a contract dealing with property ownership and how costs and responsibility of child rearing and custody are to be split and NOTHING MORE.

[...]
How is that different from marriage currently?

golem · Post by **golem** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:20 am

Accountable wrote: How is that different from marriage currently?

The present situation is a lifelong contract whereby two people share a unique relationship. If not lifelong, at least until divorce anyway.

So much better to simply agree on property ownership and responsibilities for bringing up the kids and leave it at that.

In that way either party could walk whenever they wanted with no hindrance as is much closer to the situation here today though the matter of property is often left in limbo and the cost of the kids upbringing often comes down to the Child Protection Agency (or rather, should, hollow laugh) or to a civil court decision when usually the mother has had to sue for maintenance from the father of the child.

Marriage is outmoded , it serves no useful purpose, and should be replaced ASAP.

Me? I've been married to my wife for well over 30 years but we both agree that if we were starting out again today we would not get wed, though we would in all prbability stick together as we have done.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:40 am

So, when we ban marriage, as you recommend, what punishment should the criminals serve?

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:58 am

Polygamy relates to marriage. Marriage is a legal contract which changes the obligations between the people involved and society. Marriage as a religious binding doesn't map exactly onto that legal status. In the UK, for example, it can be hard for a divorcee to gain religious recognition of a marriage from the Church of England while the previous partner remains alive, in that the Church of England refuses to recognise civil divorce (as opposed to annulment). Some countries allow a polygamous marriage to be contracted, some won't but will recognise the legality of a polygamous contract if it's been established legally elsewhere.

Saffron's 'archaic practice that was created thousands of years ago in order to "spread Islam"' isn't totally accurate. The Qur'an includes a religious permission with conditions attached, which guides the legal framework in some countries (like Saudi Arabia). In some other countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations polygamy is illegal, as in Turkey and Tunisia.

International commitments demand equality regarding marriage (as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Where UK law recognises polygamy, it does so both for polyandrous marriages (one wife and more than one husband)and for polygynous marriages (one husband and more than one wife) - this happens, for example, in permitting child entry to the UK to live with a surviving parent where a polygamous spouse has died abroad.

The US, interestingly, has a legal concept of "good moral character". A person lacks this if he or she "has practiced or is practicing polygamy". Some States have also criminalized social as well as legal polygamy as a way of contending with obsolete Mormon practices.

So, that's what's wrong with polygamy. If you ask what's wrong with a guy shacking up with several women, or a woman shacking up with several men, either short-term or for life, that's a different question. I'd have no problem with either.

golem · Post by **golem** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:58 am

Accountable wrote: So, when we ban marriage, as you recommend, what punishment should the criminals serve?

ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s silly! Banning marriage would simply remove an existing punishment for many people!

Furthermore as being banned it would have no longer have any standing in law if a couple were daft enough to go through with it then it would have no meaning!

What WOULD be needed would be a default contract for any couple who have a child or where one of the pair Ã¢â‚¬â€œ or the multiple partnership (why not?) could show that an established relationship existed Ã¢â‚¬â€œ that would set out the distribution of property and responsibility if the partnership fell apart and no other formal arrangement had been decided upon.

I would have thought the abolition of the permanent binding relationship of marriage would have been especially attractive in the US as my experience of American women leaves me with the same sentiment as eating Strawberry Ice Cream.

OK of you just want a bit of something pleasant on a hot afternoon, but have it for more than a short while and the faux taste that comes close to the real thing but somehow falls short, not to mention the oh so artificial sweeteners, create a bitter taste that youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re soon glad to be shut of.

And of course nothing like the REAL thing! :wah:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:24 am

To ban is to declare something illegal.

Unless I'm mistaken, we agree that the gov't shouldn't be involved in social partnerships.

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:29 am

Accountable wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, we agree that the gov't shouldn't be involved in social partnerships.Why? Government has a duty to implement:

Article 16(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides that men and women are entitled to equal rights as to marriage

Article 16(1)(b) of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which guarantees the right to freely choose a spouse and enter into a marriage with free and full consent

Article 23(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which requires state parties to take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:36 am

Okay, so we disagree.

golem · Post by **golem** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:38 am

Accountable wrote: To ban is to declare something illegal.

Unless I'm mistaken, we agree that the gov't shouldn't be involved in social partnerships.

An illegal act is simply that. Something that has no legality.

Saffron · Post by **Saffron** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:36 am

There is nothing okay about Polygamy anywhere. It insults the humans on this earth. And the fact this it is still being practiced, is a sign that humans have a long way to go. I don't agree with Polygyny either.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:46 am

Saffron wrote: There is nothing okay about Polygamy anywhere. It insults the humans on this earth. And the fact this it is still being practiced, is a sign that humans have a long way to go. I don't agree with Polygyny either.Why?

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:05 am

Accountable wrote: Okay, so we disagree.As often happens, we don't. I haven't expressed myself very clearly, obviously. I tried to point out that we've been discussing a civil legal contract called marriage. Where government steps in and regulates that contract restrictively, it's under international obligation to apply the principles of equality to those restrictions, as I noted. I see no reason why government should have any hand in regulating marriage at all, the interference is intrusive and unnecessary.

If government restriction on the marital contract stayed out of the picture, contract law is already gender-neutral and enforces all of the sex discrimination aspects that the international commitments demand. I see no reason why government should provide either positive incentives or negative penalties for such contracts. If people want to bind themselves legally, that's their business. If those contracts are polygamous, fine, that's their business too.

Enforcing moral codes on people who don't subscribe to them is unwarrantable. The social contract between the government and the governed should relate to the prevention of harm, not the enforcement of an arbitrary ethical system.

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:10 am

Saffron wrote: There is nothing okay about Polygamy anywhere. It insults the humans on this earth. And the fact this it is still being practiced, is a sign that humans have a long way to go. I don't agree with Polygyny either.That's a perfect expression of your ethical view, Saffron. Why do you think polygamy should be criminalized? Why should your ethical belief send people to jail when they obviously don't share it? What, other than your sense of outrage, is being hurt by their behaviour?

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:15 pm

Multiple husbands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Girls, GIRLS - what are you thinking of!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????????????????? Just imagine the extra work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:17 pm

:wah: How many TV's going with sports on it?

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:22 pm

I like sports

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 1:50 am

well that about wraps it up then

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:33 am

I just heard someone on the radio commenting about a group of 12 women & 12 men all wanting marrital status with each other. :wah: I'll try to find a news story on it.