ot. marriage is totally gay.

[Hobie]

Now spending for a transgendered bathroom. Hmm. 🙂

Back on topic.

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

My statement said this is exactly what a civil union does. Followed by ‘strict’ econ perspective.

Emotion aside, just make two columns and compare costs. Just like Econ 200. That is as far as I wanted to discuss because as like the rest here, I don’t care what you do with whomever, wherever, or whatever.

So why haven’t the feminists weighed in the polygamist lifestyle?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]Now spending for a transgendered bathroom. Hmm. 🙂

Back on topic.

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

My statement said this is exactly what a civil union does. Followed by ‘strict’ econ perspective.

Emotion aside, just make two columns and compare costs. Just like Econ 200. That is as far as I wanted to discuss because as like the rest here, I don’t care what you do with whomever, wherever, or whatever.

So why haven’t the feminists weighed in the polygamist lifestyle?[/quote]

You might think that civil unions do the same thing. But there have never been any civil union laws, in any state, that actually do the same thing. (If you think there are, find one that grants SS benefits to surviving partners.) So those laws would have to be changed, resulting in identical costs. Beyond that, civil unions for same sex couples, as opposed to legally sanctioned marriage, have already been overturned as unconstitutional.

[Hobie]

Not sure what you are asking as Feds pay SS not States. However, they do look at state law:

This section describes the procedure for determining that a non-marital legal relationship (such as a civil union, domestic partnership, or reciprocal beneficiary relationship):

can be treated as a marital relationship for purposes of determining entitlement to benefits; and

meets the duration of marital relationship requirement.

The Social Security Act allows us to consider the claimant to be the number holder (NH)’s spouse for benefit purposes if the state of the NH’s domicile would allow the claimant to inherit a spouse’s share of the NH’s personal property if the NH died without leaving a will. Under these circumstances, we will treat the couple’s relationship as a marital relationship.

https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200210004

The point still is, and especially if civil unions are unconstitutional, any ‘union’ can get benefits.

Which brings the discussion back around to definition of marriage. I think we are done now. Good day.

[FlyerInHi]

No cost is too great in the defense and advancement of universal human rights.

[livinincali]

[quote=FlyerInHi]No cost is too great in the defense and advancement of universal human rights.[/quote]

How about the computer, phone or whatever device you just used to post this message and the slave labor in China that was used to produce it. If no cost is too great then you could chose to live without those products. I guess what you really mean is no cost is too great if you personally don’t have bear the brunt of it or be inconvenienced by it.

[FlyerInHi]

I think we have discretion on the issues we want to take up. It’s not all or nothing.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]
The point still is, and especially if civil unions are unconstitutional, any ‘union’ can get benefits.

[/quote]

No, not any union. Just marriage.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Hobie] . . . So why haven’t the feminists weighed in the polygamist lifestyle?[/quote]

This “feminist” has already “weighed in” here :=0

Polygamy is a blatant exploitation of women and minor girls. I realize it takes two to tango but the polygamist lifestyle ends up trapping women and girls for life before they have had a chance to grow up and decide what they actually want to do, IMO. Practically speaking, the only way females can “escape” from this lifestyle after bearing children is to leave them behind as their “patriarchs” are politically powerful in their region. The under-the-table “gifts” they bestow upon their elected officials at all levels sustains their lifestyle without governmental interference.

That is, if these patriarchs’ local city councilperson or county supervisor just happens to see a female “clan” member obviously in the third trimester of pregnancy and dressed in their “clan’s” typical dress exiting from their compound or doing errands in public and are not quite certain she is 18 years old (or was at the time of becoming pregnant), they will simply look the other way.

It’s been going on like this for decades.

[SK in CV]

BG, you are aware that there are a lot of poly families that aren’t religious at all, no? Those that I’ve known were all 1 man, two women. No exploitation. All by choice. I know at least 1 that has been going strong for at least 15 years. I’m sure that those that have problems with same sex marriage would have similar problems with any poly relationship. But it’s unclear to me why they shouldn’t be able to get married just like anyone else.

[scaredyclassic]

Won’t happen. Harm to kids. Not irrational to ban polygamous marriages. It us irrational to ban gays.

[NotCranky]

Poligamy is a natural as anything else concerning marriage. We are somewhat wired for that. We are somewhat wired for a lot of things, but our choices are always somewhat limited by perceived societal needs and cultural limitations of the day, as in what can a society seem to afford, or not. Culture is G_D . The supreme court ruling on Homosexual marriage is not much different than the one child law in China , or if the supreme court were to actually rule in favor of polygamy. Our collective cultural consciousness believes we can tolerate less controls on homosexual behavior(which we are all wired for) , probably because we have the most nukes and lots of immigrants and don’t need more replacement people anyway.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV]BG, you are aware that there are a lot of poly families that aren’t religious at all, no? Those that I’ve known were all 1 man, two women. No exploitation. All by choice. I know at least 1 that has been going strong for at least 15 years. I’m sure that those that have problems with same sex marriage would have similar problems with any poly relationship. But it’s unclear to me why they shouldn’t be able to get married just like anyone else.[/quote]

Yes, I am aware of that and I posted earlier here that if these “wives” who are participating in these “arrangements” are happy in their lives, then it is not mine (or anyone else’s) place to judge them. You are referring to one husband living with two adult “spouses,” perhaps one legal spouse and one whom he’s not legally married to, correct?

I have no problem with the recent Supreme Court ruling re: legalization of gay marriage. I believe the gay population in the US isn’t 5%, as previously posted, but actually between 7-15% and much, much higher in some cities. I’m not seeing the LGBT population out there overpopulating the planet with dozen(s) of children each and exploiting women and girls, as are the “ousted” polygamist sects who purport to adhere to the original LDS teachings. I personally don’t see what these “cults” practice (or even what “mainstream” LDS members practice) as a religion or a “church.”

That’s my own opinion based upon my lengthy personal experiences with LDS members, both in the workplace and with neighbors. No offense to any Piggs here.

[NotCranky]

If polygamy were not forced to be fringe. perhaps it would be healthier on average, including for children. Having homosexuality be acceptable ,and approved of to the point of allowing marriage, is supposed to have done that for declared homosexuals….and what about their children?

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl] You are referring to one husband living with two adult “spouses,” perhaps one legal spouse and one whom he’s not legally married to, correct?…

I personally don’t see what these “cults” practice (or even what “mainstream” LDS members practice) as a religion or a “church.”

[/quote]

Yes, kind of what I’m referring to. But I’m getting that you think I’m still talking about people that are somehow connected to a cult or a religion. I’m not. The one family I’ve known since the mid-90’s, are 3 atheists that live in Torrance and have been together since at least that time. Not a traditional home, but not any cult either.

[ltsddd]

Most people probably have the perception of polygamy being a one-to-many relationship. Would people feel differently about polygamy if it’s really a many-to-many relationship?

[Author]

Posts