I completely agree that all marriages, between two women, two men or a woman and a man, should be civil unions. If you want your union recognized by a religious affiliation, then that ceremony should take place after the civil union.
i think this whole paligamy thing seems complex but yes i do not believe in marraige i believe in civil unions and i think they should be taken out in uncomplex circumstances marraige sucks for the point that if we change it all then we dont have to have any weddings which lets face it are just a big fat anoying waste off money in which ur freinds and family eat your food
Those crazy Islamists got "Mut’ah marriage ... a man marries a woman – either Muslim or from the people of the Book – and specifies how long the marriage will last, for example five days, or two months, or half a year, or many years.
The beginning and end of the marriage are specified, and he pays her a small mahr (dowry), and after the specified time is over, the woman exits the marriage. "
All we need is (Tolerance) The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
and just like certain drugs like maryjane, aka marijuana, imho, it should be given a legal status to protect it and regulate it, because imho if you don;t, you risk overpopulation and other adverse factors.
FINALLY, after 2 to 3 years of trying, one of my comments finally makes it on TYT, TYT NOW FTW!!! a few things I'd like to address though, 1. would I do secular polygamy, maybe although that would be expensive, but should people have the right to, OF COURSE!!! fact is whether or no I, tina, tim, or anyone would do it is one thing, but we should have the right to do it. power of authority is tricky but workable, should have thought of that before, my bad.
@KangaKucha 4 people was a rough estimation, I got it from Iranian law in which a man can have 4 wives max, which if you put the evil Iran has done and continues to do aside, isn't a bad bench mark, but can be higher or lower like 3. Immigration, again something I didn't factor in, I don't see the need to change the law for that, but is debatable. Personally I;m general for immigration being one myself, so I be more incilened for more than less.
@Fry1989HD Your missing the point. Marraige wouldnt be recognised under the state for anybody.
Not homosexuals or heterosexuals.
So you would have equality.
The constitution doesnt protect issues of private contract.
Marraige would only be recognised by the church and as long as the state isnt involved in funding marraiges or promoting them, what the church does isnt covered under the constitution.
@waltermh111 I know te point exactly, and I disagree, allowing the church to keep the word to themselves allows them to claim that marriage is still a union between a man and a woman, and that is "separate but equal". Im fromCanada, we have both gay marriage @ respect religious freedom. How? Because while the Government MUST recognize marriage between two persons, regardless of their genders, churches are allowed to make their own decision, some in Canada do recognize gay marriage & some don't.
@Fry1989HD Your still missing the point, but since your from canada, your forgiven.
This is about american law, not canadian law, and here the constitutional rights of free speech and eaquality only apply to how the government treats you unless specific laws are written to affect private business.
Marraige is a religious and financial contract. Its religious as recognised by the church and financial as reocognised by the state.
Marraige was originally religious, we should let them have it back
@waltermh111 For the record though, I have dual-citizenship, I'm both a Canadian and an American. I was born in the US, and have every right to talk about issues that affect me as a citizen of both my homelands. I love my countries, even where they are different. But I cannot allow my rights to be trampled on in the name of religious freedom, when there IS a solution where both sides can have what they want.
@waltermh111 It's their choice, we don't force them. So we have both: Equality for all under the law, AND respect for the religions that don't want anything to do with gay marriage. YOU CAN HAVE BOTH WAYS! YOU CAN HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO!!!!
@Fry1989HD Yelling at the end isnt helpful and its not true anyway.
Its up to each church to recognise you religiously if you want to be a christian couple.
But the state shouldnt even share the word with a religious group. Marraige is within religion, a private institution, and civil union is within the eyes of the state, a financial issue.
True separation of church and state would mean the state abandoning its recognition of a religious contract.
@waltermh111 The Church has no right to stop me from having a legally-recognized-by-the-government MARRIAGE, the same way I don't have the right to force the Church to accept or preform that marriage. Calling it a civil union is a politically correct comprimise to appease the Church, allowing them to keep a word to themselves. IT IS separate but equal, because Gays will still be limited to a civil union, while straights can have that or a "marriage". There's no reason we can't have it both ways
@waltermh111 I'm not asking my BF to civil union me, or let the Church dictate what term I can or can not use. It's religious appeasement, and child molesters doesn't deserve appeasement just because they're upset about a word.
As we have seen from China's One-Child Policy, putting limits on the number of kids one can have is a bad idea. Interfamily marriages should be outlawed because it increases the chances of children acquiring genetic diseases. It also increases the concentration of those recessive alleles in a specific gene pool. Not good for society.
@fiercedragoon1982 not just China, many countries have this or are debating it, and I put that in there because IMHO, the biggest downside to polygamy is having several kids, and I can see the overpopulation coming into play as an issue, so that's why that's in there. Again, it's all debatable.
I think the case can be made that humans are meant to be monogamous (or I guess "small-number-gamous") because humans are a k-selected species. Having a smaller family unit size allows parents to invest more energy and time in raising their children.
I think the biggest problem with polygamy and having thousands of kids is the ability of the family to support all of those kids. Remember Octomom? That is a perfect example of some of the negatives of trying to raise a family without any sound financial footing. How would you handle child support? How much is the father expected to pay? The taxpayers in the area were stuck footing Octomom's medical bills and paying for her family because of her stupid decision!
I think one woman married to many men would create many more problems than it is worth as Tina pointed out. So what's going to happen when those men get jealous of each other, like they do almost everytime another guy looks at his girl funny? Don't you watch MTV?
Its 1 man 4 wives. As muslims already allow. Orgies are nice in porn but its not permissible and believe it or not most women arent lesbians and are disgusted by the idea having sex with another woman around.
The purpose of unity companionship and ultimately reproduction which has kept us going for thousands of years like every other animal.
If a man wants more kids he has the option to marry more , there is no logic to a woman marrying more than 1 man. Vaginas have a life span after all.
Anyhow my post was in support of polygamy , since its allowed in my religion and i only threw a few ideas of the top of my head which support the reasoning behind its purpose and role.
Practicality yes , love sometimes and sex is an undeniable factor in any type of marriage.
About the last par*
Say you marry 1 , and she cant give birth , polygamy saves her a divorce by allowing the man to marry again. Doesnt mean he doesnt love her , its just that having a son is most mens wish.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. --Yeah, civil unions should replace marriage,...EXCEPT if they ever did--which they won't--when anti-gay bigots yell that gays have destroyed marriage, in that instance, they would be right. :-/ That seems a crying shame, since it's only been straights' fault that marriage has declined so dramatically over the years. --A much easier solution is stop treating gays as second class citizens, and offering them second class marriages called civil unions.
I don't care whether you call it marriage, civil union, or a god damn cheese sandwich. . . As long as it's equal for ALL people that is all that matters.
@J3KYLL My gaydar went off too, but he says no (in another episode). Regardless, he also says that his younger brother is gay, so he's very sympathetic to gay issues.
Civil union between two people and lesser unions for other husbands and wives.
Maybe an asymmetrical system. If a wife has multiple husbands, she can pull the plug on them but only one of them can pull the plug on her. Or a hierarchy, if #1 is incapable of making decision #2. But at some point a line should be drawn so we don't all get a union to each other to avoid taxes or something. If you do not live together regularly then are you really together?
Agree about civil unions, though have mixed feelings about polygamy and marriage between blood relatives.
Also I think society should re-evaluate what benefits marriage receives. I mean the argument once upon a time was that it was to encourage people to have "legitimate" children. These days we don't really need population growth as much and children born out of wedlock isn't such a big deal.
I think all things like "power of attorny" should be decided by the couple, not legally standardised.
Also it would be 20, as you would have 4, with each of them having 4 partners, that'd would be 4 * 5 = 20.
I'm not sure I would say I WANT to have multiple wives, but I can't really see any valid argument for it to be illegal, especially as in Australia, if you're born overseas, have multiple wives and then come here your multiple wives are recognised, but if you're born here, move overseas and have multiple wives, only one is recognised... THAT MAKES NO SENSE.
At the end of the day I guess it depends what we as a society believe the purpose of marriage/civil unions are. My attitude is they should be more or less a legal blank slate, with the two couples making their own legal agreement which the state signs off on, rather than marriage being a "one size fits all" legal contract.
With this in mind, someone can choose how hard a marriage contract is to break, rules regarding infidelity, whether polygamy is permitted etc.
Dude was done as soon as he said "limit to kids to prevent over population." That would be great in an ideal society but......read Shadow Children. End of discussion.
I just wonder :what would happen when inside a marriage one of the participants wants to expand that union (add someone else to the marriage) and the other partner is opposed to it (for X or Y reason)? I don't think that can be imposed upon a person, so I'm just wondering...
@LourdesAlexandria Well in a marriage between two people, the two people need consent, so in a marriage between N people N people should consent, i.e. unanimity is needed.
Civil unions are the ONLY fair way to go about granting people the legal rights that now a days come with marriage. If people hve a religion, they should be allowed to be married in their church (or whatever), to show that community they're together, but the legal rights should come from a civil union.
Thinking of how much trouble one woman can cause, i'd never go for several. Imagine the headache man.. But yeah.. If that's what grown ups chose, they should have a right to live like that.
I am fine with this idea, however I think when the letter said "More then 4" I think he was talking three wives for a man, and no more then 4 total. I am fine with any number of spouses, I would only have one. But, that is me. Removing the religious tones to the government is always a good thing as far as I can see. So I'm all for this proposal.
w-w-w-wait a minute. this guy has a girlfriend? is he bi? cause he sets off my gaydar like a pyro sets off bombs
megeles 7 months ago
I completely agree that all marriages, between two women, two men or a woman and a man, should be civil unions. If you want your union recognized by a religious affiliation, then that ceremony should take place after the civil union.
catquack 8 months ago
I am totally against marriage, it's a business arrangement now! People get married for money not love anymore!
nismo025 8 months ago
I am an Atheist and I support polygamy. I don't think I'd ever have the time though...
blkswimmer 8 months ago
i think this whole paligamy thing seems complex but yes i do not believe in marraige i believe in civil unions and i think they should be taken out in uncomplex circumstances marraige sucks for the point that if we change it all then we dont have to have any weddings which lets face it are just a big fat anoying waste off money in which ur freinds and family eat your food
killallsuvivors 8 months ago
I"m sorry but if you watch reality shows like Sister Wives you aren't a man.
34601k 8 months ago
@34601k haha it's the craziest show to watch.
-Tim
TheBlockWithTim 8 months ago
"I'm married, I know better." Heh, Tina's funny.
Those crazy Islamists got "Mut’ah marriage ... a man marries a woman – either Muslim or from the people of the Book – and specifies how long the marriage will last, for example five days, or two months, or half a year, or many years.
The beginning and end of the marriage are specified, and he pays her a small mahr (dowry), and after the specified time is over, the woman exits the marriage. "
audadvnc 8 months ago
arguing about semantics is stupid.
ooMONKEYoo 8 months ago
All we need is (Tolerance) The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
ROBISDISTURBED 8 months ago
and just like certain drugs like maryjane, aka marijuana, imho, it should be given a legal status to protect it and regulate it, because imho if you don;t, you risk overpopulation and other adverse factors.
KangaKucha 8 months ago
FINALLY, after 2 to 3 years of trying, one of my comments finally makes it on TYT, TYT NOW FTW!!! a few things I'd like to address though, 1. would I do secular polygamy, maybe although that would be expensive, but should people have the right to, OF COURSE!!! fact is whether or no I, tina, tim, or anyone would do it is one thing, but we should have the right to do it. power of authority is tricky but workable, should have thought of that before, my bad.
KangaKucha 8 months ago
@KangaKucha 4 people was a rough estimation, I got it from Iranian law in which a man can have 4 wives max, which if you put the evil Iran has done and continues to do aside, isn't a bad bench mark, but can be higher or lower like 3. Immigration, again something I didn't factor in, I don't see the need to change the law for that, but is debatable. Personally I;m general for immigration being one myself, so I be more incilened for more than less.
KangaKucha 8 months ago
Separate but equal is against the United States Constitution. So no, Civil Unions is NOT acceptable. Full Marriage equality is the answer.
Fry1989HD 8 months ago
@Fry1989HD Your missing the point. Marraige wouldnt be recognised under the state for anybody.
Not homosexuals or heterosexuals.
So you would have equality.
The constitution doesnt protect issues of private contract.
Marraige would only be recognised by the church and as long as the state isnt involved in funding marraiges or promoting them, what the church does isnt covered under the constitution.
waltermh111 8 months ago
@waltermh111 I know te point exactly, and I disagree, allowing the church to keep the word to themselves allows them to claim that marriage is still a union between a man and a woman, and that is "separate but equal". Im fromCanada, we have both gay marriage @ respect religious freedom. How? Because while the Government MUST recognize marriage between two persons, regardless of their genders, churches are allowed to make their own decision, some in Canada do recognize gay marriage & some don't.
Fry1989HD 8 months ago
@Fry1989HD Your still missing the point, but since your from canada, your forgiven.
This is about american law, not canadian law, and here the constitutional rights of free speech and eaquality only apply to how the government treats you unless specific laws are written to affect private business.
Marraige is a religious and financial contract. Its religious as recognised by the church and financial as reocognised by the state.
Marraige was originally religious, we should let them have it back
waltermh111 8 months ago
@waltermh111 For the record though, I have dual-citizenship, I'm both a Canadian and an American. I was born in the US, and have every right to talk about issues that affect me as a citizen of both my homelands. I love my countries, even where they are different. But I cannot allow my rights to be trampled on in the name of religious freedom, when there IS a solution where both sides can have what they want.
Fry1989HD 8 months ago
@Fry1989HD You're North American :P You can talk about issues in both countries.
34601k 8 months ago
@waltermh111 It's their choice, we don't force them. So we have both: Equality for all under the law, AND respect for the religions that don't want anything to do with gay marriage. YOU CAN HAVE BOTH WAYS! YOU CAN HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO!!!!
Fry1989HD 8 months ago
@Fry1989HD Yelling at the end isnt helpful and its not true anyway.
Its up to each church to recognise you religiously if you want to be a christian couple.
But the state shouldnt even share the word with a religious group. Marraige is within religion, a private institution, and civil union is within the eyes of the state, a financial issue.
True separation of church and state would mean the state abandoning its recognition of a religious contract.
waltermh111 8 months ago
@waltermh111 The Church has no right to stop me from having a legally-recognized-by-the-government MARRIAGE, the same way I don't have the right to force the Church to accept or preform that marriage. Calling it a civil union is a politically correct comprimise to appease the Church, allowing them to keep a word to themselves. IT IS separate but equal, because Gays will still be limited to a civil union, while straights can have that or a "marriage". There's no reason we can't have it both ways
Fry1989HD 8 months ago
@waltermh111 I'm not asking my BF to civil union me, or let the Church dictate what term I can or can not use. It's religious appeasement, and child molesters doesn't deserve appeasement just because they're upset about a word.
Fry1989HD 8 months ago
As we have seen from China's One-Child Policy, putting limits on the number of kids one can have is a bad idea. Interfamily marriages should be outlawed because it increases the chances of children acquiring genetic diseases. It also increases the concentration of those recessive alleles in a specific gene pool. Not good for society.
fiercedragoon1982 8 months ago
@fiercedragoon1982 not just China, many countries have this or are debating it, and I put that in there because IMHO, the biggest downside to polygamy is having several kids, and I can see the overpopulation coming into play as an issue, so that's why that's in there. Again, it's all debatable.
KangaKucha 8 months ago
I think the case can be made that humans are meant to be monogamous (or I guess "small-number-gamous") because humans are a k-selected species. Having a smaller family unit size allows parents to invest more energy and time in raising their children.
fiercedragoon1982 8 months ago
@fiercedragoon1982 The case actually cant be made that humans are meant to be monogamous.
But I dont know what you mean by your looser term.
Starting with your logic, a larger group actually has more time and energy to invest in raising a child.
You have 1 man who provides but the home work is split up amongst multiple women
Visa versa, multiple breadwinners, man or woman, but also more people to split up the work
Still, thesymbiont.blogspot . com/2010/05/are-humans-evolved-for-polygamy-or.html
waltermh111 8 months ago
@fiercedragoon1982 Heres another
lifeslittlemysteries . com/are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous-0297/
Theres some historical evidence of humans promiscuity and polygamy from ages ago, but I think you should know about all of that.
Those who could afford it usually has a mistress, concubine, etc...
Even those who couldnt were simply infeditous.
Or in asian cultures it was simply accepted that men would cheat
Sure, we are socially monogamous, but far from evolutionarily monogamous.
waltermh111 8 months ago
I think the biggest problem with polygamy and having thousands of kids is the ability of the family to support all of those kids. Remember Octomom? That is a perfect example of some of the negatives of trying to raise a family without any sound financial footing. How would you handle child support? How much is the father expected to pay? The taxpayers in the area were stuck footing Octomom's medical bills and paying for her family because of her stupid decision!
fiercedragoon1982 8 months ago
@fiercedragoon1982 so if she married a man or women, or muti men and women, would it then be ok?
KangaKucha 8 months ago
I think one woman married to many men would create many more problems than it is worth as Tina pointed out. So what's going to happen when those men get jealous of each other, like they do almost everytime another guy looks at his girl funny? Don't you watch MTV?
fiercedragoon1982 8 months ago
Its 1 man 4 wives. As muslims already allow. Orgies are nice in porn but its not permissible and believe it or not most women arent lesbians and are disgusted by the idea having sex with another woman around.
The purpose of unity companionship and ultimately reproduction which has kept us going for thousands of years like every other animal.
If a man wants more kids he has the option to marry more , there is no logic to a woman marrying more than 1 man. Vaginas have a life span after all.
selfsenter 8 months ago
@selfsenter 5% of species are truly monogamous.
And its actually been our promiscuity that has kept humans going for so long, lol, not monogamy.
I corrected somebody above who thought we aere evolutionarily monogamous if your interested.
As for orgies. The many stories I hear are that polygamous marraiges do not tend to have orgies. Thats not what its about.
They are often a marraige of practicality or love, not sex.
Though with the last paragraphi, did you just go on a tangent?
waltermh111 8 months ago
@waltermh111
Anyhow my post was in support of polygamy , since its allowed in my religion and i only threw a few ideas of the top of my head which support the reasoning behind its purpose and role.
Practicality yes , love sometimes and sex is an undeniable factor in any type of marriage.
About the last par*
Say you marry 1 , and she cant give birth , polygamy saves her a divorce by allowing the man to marry again. Doesnt mean he doesnt love her , its just that having a son is most mens wish.
selfsenter 8 months ago
@waltermh111
I cant elaborate on my comment in the short space utube allows but w/e its youtube..comments dont hold any weight anyways
selfsenter 8 months ago
Good to see Tim more relaxed :)
CptFucof 8 months ago
Woah, Tim has a girlfriend? I was convinced he was homosexual... well, huh.
GigaBoost 8 months ago 2
Yes!
GigaBoost 8 months ago
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. --Yeah, civil unions should replace marriage,...EXCEPT if they ever did--which they won't--when anti-gay bigots yell that gays have destroyed marriage, in that instance, they would be right. :-/ That seems a crying shame, since it's only been straights' fault that marriage has declined so dramatically over the years. --A much easier solution is stop treating gays as second class citizens, and offering them second class marriages called civil unions.
dafttool 8 months ago 5
It's crazy, for no reason AT ALL I was thinking about this exact topic this morning, very very strange.
CelphProclaimed 8 months ago
Very relaxed attitude, Tim. Keep it up!
DeLilleD 8 months ago
Dudes don't want multiple wives or multiple girlfriends. They want multiple fuck buddies.
dizzymasekela 8 months ago 5
tyt now is now my favorite show in the tyt network, just above wmb
masterkayaki 8 months ago
The title is kind of misleading. This turned out to be a lot about polygamy. Still interesting though and I completely agree with them.
ABevs1 8 months ago
04:00 lol... You did not know that there are people that want multiple wives outside of mormons? And you follow politics?
I guess John Edwards, Arnold Swarzneggar, Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, etc. didn't give you a clue....;-)
oolong2 8 months ago
I don't care whether you call it marriage, civil union, or a god damn cheese sandwich. . . As long as it's equal for ALL people that is all that matters.
manhunt48 8 months ago
Wait, Tim has a girlfriend? I always thought he was probably gay.
J3KYLL 8 months ago 4
@J3KYLL My gaydar went off too, but he says no (in another episode). Regardless, he also says that his younger brother is gay, so he's very sympathetic to gay issues.
dafttool 8 months ago
@J3KYLL ME TOO!!! seriously gotta be at least bi
as2711 7 months ago
Maybe having a lesser marriage type thing.
Civil union between two people and lesser unions for other husbands and wives.
Maybe an asymmetrical system. If a wife has multiple husbands, she can pull the plug on them but only one of them can pull the plug on her. Or a hierarchy, if #1 is incapable of making decision #2. But at some point a line should be drawn so we don't all get a union to each other to avoid taxes or something. If you do not live together regularly then are you really together?
rarrmonkey 8 months ago
Tim has gotten a lot better at presenting, Tina and him are a great team.
flake452 8 months ago
Agree about civil unions, though have mixed feelings about polygamy and marriage between blood relatives.
Also I think society should re-evaluate what benefits marriage receives. I mean the argument once upon a time was that it was to encourage people to have "legitimate" children. These days we don't really need population growth as much and children born out of wedlock isn't such a big deal.
I think all things like "power of attorny" should be decided by the couple, not legally standardised.
Wolfau5 8 months ago
Also it would be 20, as you would have 4, with each of them having 4 partners, that'd would be 4 * 5 = 20.
I'm not sure I would say I WANT to have multiple wives, but I can't really see any valid argument for it to be illegal, especially as in Australia, if you're born overseas, have multiple wives and then come here your multiple wives are recognised, but if you're born here, move overseas and have multiple wives, only one is recognised... THAT MAKES NO SENSE.
Wolfau5 8 months ago
At the end of the day I guess it depends what we as a society believe the purpose of marriage/civil unions are. My attitude is they should be more or less a legal blank slate, with the two couples making their own legal agreement which the state signs off on, rather than marriage being a "one size fits all" legal contract.
With this in mind, someone can choose how hard a marriage contract is to break, rules regarding infidelity, whether polygamy is permitted etc.
Wolfau5 8 months ago
Dude was done as soon as he said "limit to kids to prevent over population." That would be great in an ideal society but......read Shadow Children. End of discussion.
dyly18 8 months ago
If gay people want to get married and be miserable like the rest, I say let them.
RomeoCo 8 months ago 2
i wonder how tinas husband feels about being under that bus
TheCrimsonLion 8 months ago
@TheCrimsonLion lmao no doubt. she threw him under twice in one video
Neeks4215 8 months ago
Divorce is really complicated now. Imagine how much harder it would be to settle shit if we had multiple spouses.
Mutex50 8 months ago
wow i wonder how it would be to have to husbands LOL
watchulla 8 months ago
Tina is married? :D
Tripp393 8 months ago
I just wonder :what would happen when inside a marriage one of the participants wants to expand that union (add someone else to the marriage) and the other partner is opposed to it (for X or Y reason)? I don't think that can be imposed upon a person, so I'm just wondering...
LourdesAlexandria 8 months ago
@LourdesAlexandria Well in a marriage between two people, the two people need consent, so in a marriage between N people N people should consent, i.e. unanimity is needed.
595o 8 months ago
Civil unions are the ONLY fair way to go about granting people the legal rights that now a days come with marriage. If people hve a religion, they should be allowed to be married in their church (or whatever), to show that community they're together, but the legal rights should come from a civil union.
Thinking of how much trouble one woman can cause, i'd never go for several. Imagine the headache man.. But yeah.. If that's what grown ups chose, they should have a right to live like that.
jo05dk 8 months ago
civil unions for state recognition, marriage for ceremonial titles.
That is all.
I like the term "unionized"... just because the way it sounds xD
kmelfina 8 months ago 4
I've been making this argument for YEARS, THANK YOU
2edsajdmsa 8 months ago 36
I am fine with this idea, however I think when the letter said "More then 4" I think he was talking three wives for a man, and no more then 4 total. I am fine with any number of spouses, I would only have one. But, that is me. Removing the religious tones to the government is always a good thing as far as I can see. So I'm all for this proposal.
Tialait 8 months ago 2
yes they should.. fuck marriage, it's for idiots who nothing about relationships.
LeviCoultify 8 months ago 38
@LeviCoultify marriage is a religious ceremony
jaba987 8 months ago