OK, here are some of my favorite comments on that article:
1) Legal? It should be compulsory
2) I can't see the faces in the picture, but with legs like that, you can union me to those two chics any day!
3) This has been going on in utah for centuries.
4) Multiple women means multiple mother-in-laws. Good luck with that one, dude....
5) Every mans' dream? Nothing like an in=house cat fight for entertainment. Wait until the divorce(s) occur. Who pays? The poor guy will never again buy a ham sandwich.
6) what's the difference between that and letting 2 queers get married? If they legalize gay marriage I'm marrying my buddy so I can scam his benefits and take the federal tax break and we can both live in separate houses. screw the US government!
7) Not surprised at all...next it will be with animals (beastiality)...it is happening already...it is just a matter of time before this kind union will be legal...digusting...
8) Heck yes, this way 1 can always be in the kitchen making me a pie, while the other one is, well you know. And they can switch duties everyday, It's a win win.
9) It's in Brazil.
Hey, MSN, here's a story for you: Muslim men say it's perfectly acceptable to wed 10 year-old girls and to have multiple, multiple wives. Why not write an article questioning the legality - and most importantly, the morality - of that?
Oh wait... you shmucks don't have any balls. Never mind.
