Thread: Polygamy, Too

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57
  1. #31  
    Senior Member Generation Why?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Thurston County, WA
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    So, you're okay with the state providing recognition of those marriages? Extending welfare payments? Allowing chain immigration to polygamous spouses? The implications go far beyond simply saying, "it's not my problem," because it becomes your problem when the state takes a role.
    I am okay with the state recognizing the 1 legally binding marriage. The other 2, 3, or however many can be recognized by the church or religious office all they want.
    A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others. Ayn Rand

    Power Point Ranger
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Senior Member Zeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tiny Redneck town in Texas
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Seth and Steve getting married has nothing to do with polygamy. Doesn't inspire it, doesn't open the door to it, none of your business actually.

    As for benefits- most welfare benefits are targeted at children, so the children of Seth and his now third wife aren't any different before the law than they are for Ody and his sequential third wife.

    Inheritance might need some work, but then it already needs some work. AS it is, if Ody dies without a will, his former wife and children by her are screwed as long as his now wife lives. Unless I am mistaken, his now wife gets his entire estate and survivor benefits. I hate to say this, but I think the Koran actually lays this one out pretty fairly.
    In most states if one dies Intestate and they were married and have children the wife would receive half and the remainder divided amongst any surviving children. That is if there is no lawsuit which is more likely than not in such situations, actually lawsuits are pretty common in estate distribution even when there is a will. Wills aren't worth the paper they are written on except to people of honor.
    The 21st century. The age of Smart phones and Stupid people.

    It is said that branches draw their life from the vine. Each is separate yet all are one as they share one life giving stem . The Bible tells us we are called to a similar union in life, our lives with the life of God. We are incorporated into him; made sharers in his life. Apart from this union we can do nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    11,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    I am okay with the state recognizing the 1 legally binding marriage. The other 2, 3, or however many can be recognized by the church or religious office all they want.

    I am okay with that, too, to a certain extent. I am concerned about the children of wife 2, 3 and so on. Are they considered legitimate? How does child support work? If the mothers receive support or all parties live in the same home, are the "sister wives" then eligible to apply for welfare?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Seth and Steve getting married has nothing to do with polygamy. Doesn't inspire it, doesn't open the door to it, none of your business actually.
    Oh, well, that settles that. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Aside from your assertions, do you have any arguments to support that position? No? Then try to address mine. The issue, as I keep trying to explain to you, is that when you bust the definition of marriage, you lose control over what is and isn't a marriage. For the last 5,000 years, marriage was the union of a man and a woman, at least in the west. In the east, it was the union of one man and at least one woman, but it didn't have to be. But it was never the union of two men, or two women. The redefinition of marriage doesn't legitimize gay marriages, it simply erodes the definition of marriage. The arguments used to erode it, the presumption of discrimination and the equal "right" to marry whoever or whatever you want to, are just as applicable to polygamy. You can deny it all you like, but as I said before, once you break the dam, you have no control over what comes in with the flood.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    As for benefits- most welfare benefits are targeted at children, so the children of Seth and his now third wife aren't any different before the law than they are for Ody and his sequential third wife.
    First off, I find it interesting that you continually assume that all marriages are dysfunctional, and that serial monogamy is not just the norm, but the equivalent of polygamy. Second, estate law is one of the most complex, convoluted areas of the law, precisely because of the kinds of disruptions that occur when families break. Complicating it further in order to benefit your particular desires doesn't do the rest of us any good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Inheritance might need some work, but then it already needs some work. AS it is, if Ody dies without a will, his former wife and children by her are screwed as long as his now wife lives. Unless I am mistaken, his now wife gets his entire estate and survivor benefits. I hate to say this, but I think the Koran actually lays this one out pretty fairly.
    The Qur'an specifies that a son receives a full share of the father's estate, while a daughter receives a half share. The wives receive nothing, but are cared for by the children. That's hardly fair, unless you consider a woman half as valuable as a man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    I am okay with the state recognizing the 1 legally binding marriage. The other 2, 3, or however many can be recognized by the church or religious office all they want.
    So, you're okay with a system that reduces women to chattel and maximizes poverty for children? Really?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    I'm probably the only one on this board that thinks the government just should get out of marriage completely. Which to be fair actually supports Ody's argument if anything. Because I only hold this opinion really, since it seems like the only "just" thing at this point, because otherwise you have the government picking and choosing who gets to get married and who doesn't. And it only seems unfair now because so many people who previous had no intention nor desire to get married are making the case for legal equality. I think the logic there is valid - it's unfair. But marriage isn't fair, and monogamous marriages came into the mainstream before we even had the concept of a government for The People that was supposed to be fair.

    I guess what I personally try to reconcile is that I completely see the logic for gay marriage, polygamous marriage etc... if I can suspend my knowledge of what marriage actually is for. That it has a higher purpose than a legally binding social contract. Because if it was just a legally binding social contract, ever since Loving v Virginia we've been going down the path to where we are today and it's all very logical and correct. I suppose it does make me a bit uncomfortable that the alternative is advocating federal government recognize an unfair, exclusionary, and religious institution which I can see in principle running afoul of constitutional separations between church and state.

    On the other hand, I think maybe the founders were a bit naive not realizing how drastically things would change in 200+ years. Maybe they would say "wait, wait... I take it back... if gays are asking for marriage then by all means take a few layers of brick off that wall of separation." It was probably completely outside their imagination.

    To Nova: I guess what I don't understand is how you can see the case for gay marriage but NOT see the case for polygamous marriages. Isn't that exactly the same situation that the gay community experienced... when blacks could see the case for interracial marriage but NOT see the case for gay marriage?
    Last edited by m00; 04-21-2012 at 01:26 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,089
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    I'm probably the only one on this board that thinks the government just should get out of marriage completely. Which to be fair actually supports Ody's argument if anything. Because I only hold this opinion really, since it seems like the only "just" thing at this point, because otherwise you have the government picking and choosing who gets to get married and who doesn't. And it only seems unfair now because so many people who previous had no intention nor desire to get married are making the case for legal equality. I think the logic there is valid - it's unfair. But marriage isn't fair, and monogamous marriages came into the mainstream before we even had the concept of a government for The People that was supposed to be fair.

    I guess what I personally try to reconcile is that I completely see the logic for gay marriage, polygamous marriage etc... if I can suspend my knowledge of what marriage actually is for. That it has a higher purpose than a legally binding social contract. Because if it was just a legally binding social contract, ever since Loving v Virginia we've been going down the path to where we are today and it's all very logical and correct. I suppose it does make me a bit uncomfortable that the alternative is advocating federal government recognize an unfair, exclusionary, and religious institution which I can see in principle running afoul of constitutional separations between church and state.

    On the other hand, I think maybe the founders were a bit naive not realizing how drastically things would change in 200+ years. Maybe they would say "wait, wait... I take it back... if gays are asking for marriage then by all means take a few layers of brick off that wall of separation." It was probably completely outside their imagination.

    To Nova: I guess what I don't understand is how you can see the case for gay marriage but NOT see the case for polygamous marriages. Isn't that exactly the same situation that the gay community experienced... when blacks could see the case for interracial marriage but NOT see the case for gay marriage?
    I see it more from a dollars and cents point of view, I think the desire for gay marriage comes from a want for benefits from the government and employer.
    I don't think more benefits should be given to someone because of their marital status whatever it is, your benefits and pay should be based on your ability and value as an employee and as far as government goes every adult should pay the same percentage in taxes based on income not based on marital status, class, or anything else.
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    I'm probably the only one on this board that thinks the government just should get out of marriage completely. Which to be fair actually supports Ody's argument if anything. Because I only hold this opinion really, since it seems like the only "just" thing at this point, because otherwise you have the government picking and choosing who gets to get married and who doesn't. And it only seems unfair now because so many people who previous had no intention nor desire to get married are making the case for legal equality. I think the logic there is valid - it's unfair. But marriage isn't fair, and monogamous marriages came into the mainstream before we even had the concept of a government for The People that was supposed to be fair.

    I guess what I personally try to reconcile is that I completely see the logic for gay marriage, polygamous marriage etc... if I can suspend my knowledge of what marriage actually is for. That it has a higher purpose than a legally binding social contract. Because if it was just a legally binding social contract, ever since Loving v Virginia we've been going down the path to where we are today and it's all very logical and correct. I suppose it does make me a bit uncomfortable that the alternative is advocating federal government recognize an unfair, exclusionary, and religious institution which I can see in principle running afoul of constitutional separations between church and state.

    On the other hand, I think maybe the founders were a bit naive not realizing how drastically things would change in 200+ years. Maybe they would say "wait, wait... I take it back... if gays are asking for marriage then by all means take a few layers of brick off that wall of separation." It was probably completely outside their imagination.

    To Nova: I guess what I don't understand is how you can see the case for gay marriage but NOT see the case for polygamous marriages. Isn't that exactly the same situation that the gay community experienced... when blacks could see the case for interracial marriage but NOT see the case for gay marriage?
    I pretty much agree with all of this. I support almost anything that gives the individual more control over their lives and the government less. Hence, I support gay marriage, polygamous marriage, etc(freedom to choose who we marry). True, there are alot of logistics to hammer out with polygamy, but I support the concept. It isn't hurting me if Abdullah wants to have 2, 3, 4 wives, whatever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    Senior Ape Articulate_Ape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NJ, Exit Only
    Posts
    7,948
    Let's face it, polygamy is just a really bad idea. I mean how many times a day is a guy expected to have to say, "shut your pie hole"?
    "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #39  
    Senior Member JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Articulate_Ape View Post
    I mean how many times a day is a guy expected to have to say, "shut your pie hole"?
    Plus the health issues.

    Five wives bringing you five sammiches and five beers five times a day? You're going to be five hundred pounds in about three weeks.
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #40  
    Senior Ape Articulate_Ape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NJ, Exit Only
    Posts
    7,948
    Quote Originally Posted by JB View Post
    Plus the health issues.

    Five wives bringing you five sammiches and five beers five times a day? You're going to be five hundred pounds in about three weeks.
    Excellent point.
    "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •