ot. marriage is totally gay.

[FlyerInHi]

AN, nothing is stopping legislators from passing laws to affirm the Supreme Court’s decision.

btw, in ok with polygamy. Maybe in 20 years polygamists will get their way.

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi]AN, nothing is stopping legislators from passing laws to affirm the Supreme Court’s decision.

btw, in ok with polygamy. Maybe in 20 years polygamists will get their way.[/quote]Do you mean disaffirm instead of affirm? I don’t know if legislators can just disaffirm SCOTUS’s decision. Is it that simple?

Why 20 years? Why not now? If it’s ok to make them wait 20 years, then why can’t gay marriage wait a few years till there’s enough support from the people to make it the law the right way?

[svelte]

[quote=AN][quote=FlyerInHi]AN, nothing is stopping legislators from passing laws to affirm the Supreme Court’s decision.

btw, in ok with polygamy. Maybe in 20 years polygamists will get their way.[/quote]Do you mean disaffirm instead of affirm? I don’t know if legislators can just disaffirm SCOTUS’s decision. Is it that simple?
[/quote]

I think it would take a constitutional amendment and that probably is not even possible at this point. As more and more old farts pass away, it becomes less likely every day.

Polygamy – I’ve never really understood the country’s aversion to that. Guess I wouldn’t oppose it, but would probably put some sort of limitation on drawing public assistance. Ain’t gonna happen anyway, so I don’t spend much time thinking about it.

I’ve known several ppl in 3some relationships. They never seem to be long-lasting, though I’m sure some have.

[svelte]

Congrats to my LGB friends by the way…I’m dancing on air today! 🙂

Very historic…

[FlyerInHi]

I mean Congress can pass bills to prevent the Supreme Court from overturning its own decisions. For example Roe v. Wade could be overturned. But Congress could do something about it.

That would obviate your argument about a more conservative court later going back on its decisions.

[an]

[quote=svelte]Polygamy – I’ve never really understood the country’s aversion to that. Guess I wouldn’t oppose it, but would probably put some sort of limitation on drawing public assistance. Ain’t gonna happen anyway, so I don’t spend much time thinking about it.

I’ve known several ppl in 3some relationships. They never seem to be long-lasting, though I’m sure some have.[/quote]
Would you put the same limitation on drawing public assistance for straight and gay couples?

Does it matter if their relationships last? Straight divorce rate is around 50%, it’ll be interesting to see what the divorce rate would be for gay couples.

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I mean Congress can pass bills to prevent the Supreme Court from overturning its own decisions. For example Roe v. Wade could be overturned. But Congress could do something about it.

That would obviate your argument about a more conservative court later going back on its decisions.[/quote]Then why didn’t the Democrat pass such bill to preserve Roe v. Wade when they have the majority? I could be wrong, but I don’t think it’s that easy.

[FlyerInHi]

Svelte, one of my dad’s friends had 4 wives. Technically 1 wife and 3 mistresses.
He owned his own engineering firm so he was on travel a lot.

It’s fine if you have money to keep several households. It’s also fine if you have a job where you’re expected to be on travel a lot so your spouses are used to your being away.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=AN]Then why didn’t the Democrat pass such bill to preserve Roe v. Wade when they have the majority? I could be wrong, but I don’t think it’s that easy.[/quote]

It’s not necessary until it happens. Political capital like financial capital is best invested for the highest ROI.

[svelte]

[quote=AN][quote=svelte]Polygamy – I’ve never really understood the country’s aversion to that. Guess I wouldn’t oppose it, but would probably put some sort of limitation on drawing public assistance. Ain’t gonna happen anyway, so I don’t spend much time thinking about it.

I’ve known several ppl in 3some relationships. They never seem to be long-lasting, though I’m sure some have.[/quote]
Would you put the same limitation on drawing public assistance for straight and gay couples?

Does it matter if their relationships last? Straight divorce rate is around 50%, it’ll be interesting to see what the divorce rate would be for gay couples.[/quote]

Question A: Would be fine by me. Could be something general such as if you’re on public assistance for more than 2 years and have more than 5 kids attached to the marriage network, all persons in the marriage network (even if just 2 ppl) are required to go through sterilization to continue benefits. Works for 2 person marriages and plural marriages.

Full disclosure – my family research the last few years has turned up quite a few polygamists in my tree. Yeah, a lot of my family is Mormon. It didn’t have any effect on my opinion, but was quite an interesting find.

Problem is: If Andy can have five wives, can his wife Mary have five husbands? And can one of Mary’s husbands, Paul, have eight other wives? The marriage network would get very confusing…probably not a good idea.

Second question: personally I’ve pushed getting rid of marriage altogether for over a decade now. People should be together because they want to be, not because they are legally bound. Just my opinion. I’m not with my wife today because I signed a paper, I can tell you that.

[NotCranky]

I think there are some polygamists in the unitarian group, maybe sort of fringe even there. Not completely accepted.

One thing I am pretty sure of is that what ever the law says about gays , cultural upheaval over it might wax and wane but it will always be there swinging on a pendulum. It’s in our human DNA to struggle with the situation. Power/ security issues of all kinds , individual and group tensions , are genetically attached for all parties involved. Mother nature doesn’t have it all worked out and it is impossible that we will ever.

In 100 years the Democrats will probably be pushing homosexuality down.

[FlyerInHi]

Marriage is for estate planning, not love.

Look at the history of marriage. It was an upper class phenomenon, and still is.

Children in marriages prosper because of stability and financial wealth. It’s not to say that the same cannot be achieved without marriage. But that would take more thought and dedication.

Marriage is just a contract that keeps people in relationships.

The evidence so far is that children of gay couples do very well academically and otherwise because the children are really wanted.

As to the gay divorce rate in the future, It will be lower than 50% because, I guess, gays would try out cohabitation longer before entering into marriage.

I know a gay couple who adopted 2 daughters. Kids grew up in west Hollywood (surely not Carmel valley like school district). Straight A students headed to the top universities. Want to become radiologists. The family is not rich (old bungalow house and old cars). They have lots of friends and a good support network.

The dads have been together close to 30 years. They have had extra marital sex, but they have stayed together.

[ocrenter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Marriage is for estate planning, not love.

Look at the history of marriage. It was an upper class phenomenon, and still is.

Children in marriages prosper because of stability and financial wealth. It’s not to say that the same cannot be achieved without marriage. But that would take more thought and dedication.

Marriage is just a contract that keeps people in relationships.

The evidence so far is that children of gay couples do very well academically and otherwise because the children are really wanted.

As to the gay divorce rate in the future, It will be lower than 50% because, I guess, gays would try out cohabitation longer before entering into marriage.

I know a gay couple who adopted 2 daughters. Kids grew up in west Hollywood (surely not Carmel valley like school district). Straight A students headed to the top universities. Want to become radiologists. The family is not rich (old bungalow house and old cars). They have lots of friends and a good support network.

The dads have been together close to 30 years. They have had extra marital sex, but they have stayed together.[/quote]

I have also seen gay divorces too. Same bitterness and bickering and dragged out mess.

We are all equal, no one is better or worse.

[FlyerInHi]

People who really think hard before getting married probably have more stable, longer lasting relationships.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=jeff303]Why, indeed? You’re probably right about the level of support. As far as I’m concerned though, if the logistics could be worked out, I’d be all for it.[/quote]What logistic? I personally think polygamy should be legal as well, along w/ gay marriage. If this decision is about restoring people’s right, then why are we not applying it for an even smaller minority w/in our population? I bet if you poll all the supporter of gay marriage, my bet is most would say no to polygamy. Which annoys me, because that show their hypocrisy.[/quote]

Polygamy is one thing in the desert of Southern Utah, where the “wives” are each given a role and the roles differ slightly year to year. A good example is older “wives” working at truck stops and mini-marts on the highways all bringing home money to a family of often 30+ members and younger “wives” (pregnant or possibly nursing) staying back at the family compound to take care of everyone’s minor children. Those “compounds” are largely self-sufficient. The “patriarch” usually owns the land outright (inherited or purchased) and owes little property taxes (if any) because he often leases some of it back to the state. He and the teen/adult members build and maintain all of their residential and barn buildings on that land and bring in their own utilities/septic.

For the most part, polygamist communities in UT are NOT on public aid (except for Medicaid for some members and the occasional temporary WIC recipient).

Legalized polygamy in a much more expensive CA coastal county would end up being an unmitigated disaster for local and state goverments because EVERY CHILD would likely qualify for TANF and Medi-Cal and EVERY MOM would likely apply for it (as well as Section 8, etc) purely out of necessity.

Imagine the State Dept of Child Support Services trying to collect aid payments from ONE PAYOR to reimburse themselves for aid to 23 children (with 5 different moms).

You can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip.

So, my opinion is that polygamy is fine when practiced in the middle of nowhere where this population has the land and numbers to be largely self sufficient and the population is sparse so it doesn’t matter if they overpopulate themselves. But I don’t want to see women traipsing through the streets of SD with a baby strapped to their chest and 3-4 more young children in tow and the bottom third of their long skirt filthy from sleeping under bridges or in Balboa Park because they’ve just been evicted from their house/apt …. again.

[Author]

Posts