I've exchanged messages and photos of an explicit nature with about six women over the last three years. For the most part these communications took place before my marriage though some have sadly took place after. To be clear I have never met any of these women or had physical relationships at any time.
If we change the definition of marriage to be more inclusive then it is logical to argue that we should broaden the definition so that won't exclude anyone.
I decided he'd changed so much that a whole new book was required and that book actually I can say so was the first to say that the marriage was in trouble and the Prince didn't like at all and my book was being serialized in the Sunday Times over five weeks.
If one is going to change the definition of marriage to be quote 'same sex ' then there is absolutely no valid argument constitutionally or rhetorically you can make against multiple people getting married. These are radical social changes.
It is a fact that all women contribute more to marriage than men for the most part they have to change their place of living their method of work a great many women today changing their occupation entirely on marriage and they must even change their name.
The priesthood is a marriage. People often start by falling in love and they go on for years without realizing that love must change into some other love which is so unlike it that it can hardly be recognized as love at all.
In 1989 when I switched from Democrat to Republican with God as my witness not one thing changed about what I believed about one man and one woman in a marriage or about diversity of color. That's a good thing.
Marriage changes everything.
Love is often nothing but a favorable exchange between two people who get the most of what they can expect considering their value on the personality market.
Love consists in giving without getting in return in giving what is not owed what is not due the other. That's why true love is never based as associations for utility or pleasure are on a fair exchange.