ot. marriage is totally gay.

[an]

BG, fyi, when you prevent a group of people from legally marrying each other, you’re essentially banning marriage for them.

Do you seriously think you know of every dead beat dads? Just because you don’t know of a dead beat dad with 20 kids from 20 different moms doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

There are plenty of dead beat dads who don’t pay into the system. There are plenty of poor people who take more from the system to pay for their kids than they pay into it. Do you suggest we should ban marriage for them too? Since they’re a burden to the system and have no chance in paying for their share? That’s exactly your argument as why we shouldn’t legalize marriage for polygamists? As the justices and president have stated, you’re essentially suggesting we should withheld a small group of people their constitutional right because they can’t pay their share in raising their children.

[scaredyclassic]

Polygamy doesn’t fit into the current modern romantic narrative …

[bearishgurl]

Again, I’m not against “marriage,” AN. I’m against ONE PERSON being able to LEGALLY marry MORE than one person at a time.

You’re twisting around what I’m saying here to suit yourself.

It has nothing to do with “poor people” or any bias thereof.

The polygamists I’m speaking of here are in this arrangement for one reason only … to perpetuate themselves … essentially … procreation. “Love,” “romance,” and “marriage” really have nothing to do with it. The “wives” are selected specifically for the purposes of procreation … the younger, the better because they will have more years to “procreate.”

Below is a very apt description of polygamy:

[quote=no_such_reality]Polygamy is like incorporation just without the limits to liability..[/quote]

These families get away with their lifestyles because they endeavor to be self-sufficient and not a burden on the state. In addition, if an elected official in their jurisdiction just so happens to need 600 feet of new fence or one painted (or both) around their homes, barn, etc, these families can instantly produce 4-6 strapping big strong boys, aged 14 – 22, to work on the fence until it’s done.

No money ever changes hands :=D

You need to get out on the road more, AN. You might learn something.

[NotCranky]

[quote=scaredyclassic]Polygamy doesn’t fit into the current modern romantic narrative …[/quote]
Doesn’t fit into current social engineering. Not coming back in vogue for quite some time probably. Being a player is legal, somewhat protected in this day , not too like to get you beat up or completely banished from the tribe, so that takes some pressure off.

Everything around this topic of pair and/or family formation is socially engineered to a large degree, maybe for ,more better than worse, maybe not , but still social engineering. .Legal Marriage has been a tool of social engineering goals and nothing more….nothing romantic.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]Again, I’m not against “marriage,” AN. I’m against ONE PERSON being able to LEGALLY marry MORE than one person at a time.[/quote]
LoL, nevermind.

[livinincali]

Funny thing about most state marriage laws is they were originally put in place to promote things like racism. Can’t let that black man marry a white women, we better setup a marriage license office so we can make sure that doesn’t happen.

I personally don’t care about gay marriage, I don’t care who you want screw or who you want to live with it’s none of my business. There’s much more important things to worry about, but emotional issues like this tend to rile up the masses in this country, so it plays well in politics.

Only thing I don’t really like about the ruling was bastardization of the 10th amendment. Are we really living in a federalism government where states actually have autonomy on most things, or is that just in name only.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=livinincali]
Only thing I don’t really like about the ruling was bastardization of the 10th amendment. Are we really living in a federalism government where states actually have autonomy on most things, or is that just in name only.[/quote]

States are like provinces in more central countries.

But in federations like Germany, Russia, etc… Do the states have that much independent power?

[scaredyclassic]

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. And conservatives say they take it literally, except when they dont, as in citizens united.

Intellectually honest people admit that you gotta interpret the old doc.

[spdrun]

Honestly, this is the court doing its job — “states: you can’t use your power to restrict people’s rights unnecessarily.”

As far as violations of states’ rights, there are much bigger fish to fry. You have laws that threaten to take away a percentage of a state’s Federal highway funding if they don’t toe DC’s line as far as things like drinking age or speed limits (before the 90s).

Never mind that a part of those funds were taken from the state’s residents by the Feds in the first place. This is legalized robbery, extortion, and a real perversion of the legislative process.

[livinincali]

[quote=spdrun]Honestly, this is the court doing its job — “states: you can’t use your power to restrict people’s rights unnecessarily.”
[/quote]

I don’t view marriage as some sort of god given right. The fact that states and the federal government have conveyed certain benefits and consequences associated to marriage is where the problem lies. It’s primarily the denial of certain popular benefits like family health care, survivor benefits, and stuff related to children that I can see where there was a problem. States and the federal government could have gotten out of the business of marriage completely and given it back to the church, or conveyed all those benefits to any couple, but they did neither.

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali]States and the federal government could have gotten out of the business of marriage completely and given it back to the church, or conveyed all those benefits to any couple, but they did neither.[/quote]

Neither the federal government nor any of the states ever took anything from the church, so there was nothing to be given back.

The court effectively ruled that states must convey all benefits to same sex couples as are available to opposite sex couples.

[Hobie]

[quote=]The court effectively ruled that states must convey all benefits to same sex couples as are available to opposite sex couples.[/quote]
Just like a civil union.

Don’t want to get into the definition of marriage nor the dilution of said union.

Gay folks are about 5% and who knows how many elect to now get married, mayby 2% of that. Now just how much money will we now have to be spend to write and amend laws and reprint forms to comply with this very small population.

From a strict econ perspective, ( even with the collection of ‘marriage’ tax) it just is too costly.

But, there I go again, I need to produce something in order to collect my pay. Different mindset.

Wish the focus was elsewhere.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]
Gay folks are about 5% and who knows how many elect to now get married, mayby 2% of that. Now just how much money will we now have to be spend to write and amend laws and reprint forms to comply with this very small population.

From a strict econ perspective, ( even with the collection of ‘marriage’ tax) it just is too costly.

[/quote]

Yeah, it’s a bitch. Kind of like when they had to take down all those signs that said “whites only”. Was that too costly?

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=Hobie]
Gay folks are about 5% and who knows how many elect to now get married, mayby 2% of that. Now just how much money will we now have to be spend to write and amend laws and reprint forms to comply with this very small population.

From a strict econ perspective, ( even with the collection of ‘marriage’ tax) it just is too costly.

[/quote]

Yeah, it’s a bitch. Kind of like when they had to take down all those signs that said “whites only”. Was that too costly?[/quote]

But didn’t it save money to not have a separate black and white toilet?

[FlyerInHi]

5%? Seems more to me.
Maybe because I like to hang out in the city.

They should make it a census question.

[Author]

Posts