Page 36 of 55 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 548

Thread: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

  1. #351
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,683

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    An example of lack of restraint?
    So because polygamous couples are not LIKE YOU they lack "restraint"????

    Isn't "restraint" a subjective term?

    Is it your goal to subject others to live by terms YOU see fit for them to live.. when it has no bearing on YOUR rights?

  2. #352
    Randian PUA
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    58,623

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Only if it is not consented to by the wife who carried the first child.
    If the two families are going to live in separate households, and the man is the "breadwinner", then his resources will be split.

    You don't seem to understand that there are people out there who WANT to live this way. You seem to be stuck in the idea that its an institution of a man exerting his authority over helpless women.

    Yes, that has occurred, but because it has occurred in some cases, does not mean it occurs in all cases. This should not be the basis to deny this legal recognition to polygamous unions.
    What people want is of no import and it has nothing to do with any man's authority

    The govt discriminates against single people by providing benefits to married people. In order to be legally justified, such discrimination must be based on a societal benefit. The govt can't just decide that it likes married people more so it will give them benefits and priviliges.

    A two person marriage does provide a number of societal benefits. I am unconvinced that the same can be said of plural marriages. If it can be shown that the govt has a legitimate interest in encouraging plural marriages (by conferring benefits to them) them I'd be all for doing so. So far, I have yet to see it.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  3. #353
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,683

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    If the two families are going to live in separate households, and the man is the "breadwinner", then his resources will be split.
    And that already happens with men who have children outside of wedlock.... or have children in extramarital affairs.

    So, not a justification for denying equal legal recognition to polygamists.



    What people want is of no import and it has nothing to do with any man's authority

    The govt discriminates against single people by providing benefits to married people. In order to be legally justified, such discrimination must be based on a societal benefit. The govt can't just decide that it likes married people more so it will give them benefits and priviliges.

    A two person marriage does provide a number of societal benefits. I am unconvinced that the same can be said of plural marriages. If it can be shown that the govt has a legitimate interest in encouraging plural marriages (by conferring benefits to them) them I'd be all for doing so. So far, I have yet to see it.
    I see where you are going... and I believe you are going there out of an assumption that polygamists are just marrying for the sake of benefits and are not going to co-habitate. (I base this off of your alluding to the societal benefits of 2 person marriage and your previous post).

    Polygamists are co-habitating as I type this. Also, many people marry and then do not end up co-habitating, hell people in the military marry other people in the military at different bases just so they can both benefit from the.. well... BENEFITS, that being a married person in the military brings.

    And yet....

    This is not a reason to deny legal recognition to 2 person couples.... and it shouldn't be used to deny legal recognition to polygamy either.

  4. #354
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,268

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    So then, you are saying that the government has more of a right than the individual to discriminate against someone based upon "eww icky gheys!!"
    Sorry, I don't follow. I don't see how this relates to what I've said.

  5. #355
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,268

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    People have a right to be treated equally under the law. If a business chooses to be open to the public we have entered a legal discussion.
    This isn't relevant to the point that was being made. The constitution may protect a right to be treated equally under the law, it does not protect a right to be treated equally under the roof of a private business.

    It does, however, give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

  6. #356
    Randian PUA
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    58,623

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    And that already happens with men who have children outside of wedlock.... or have children in extramarital affairs.

    So, not a justification for denying equal legal recognition to polygamists.
    There is no need to justify denying polygamists equal legal recognition. Polygamists need a justification for providing them with the benefits legal recognition provides.





    I see where you are going... and I believe you are going there out of an assumption that polygamists are just marrying for the sake of benefits and are not going to co-habitate. (I base this off of your alluding to the societal benefits of 2 person marriage and your previous post).
    No, it has nothing to do with why polygamists are marrying (or want to marry). It has to do with the effects of allowing it. If doing so benefits society, I'm all for it. If not, then I'm not for it.

    Polygamists are co-habitating as I type this. Also, many people marry and then do not end up co-habitating, hell people in the military marry other people in the military at different bases just so they can both benefit from the.. well... BENEFITS, that being a married person in the military brings.

    And yet....

    This is not a reason to deny legal recognition to 2 person couples.... and it shouldn't be used to deny legal recognition to polygamy either.
    Yes, people co-habitate without being married and people who are married don't always co-habitate. However, it's clear that marriage (of two people) has many societal benefits and co-habitation is just one of many. Even if they don't co-habitate, there are the benefits of stability and commitment for the children. Marriage also unites extended families which leads to greater social cohesion. So therefore, the govt has a legitimate interest in providing benefits to married couples

    The question is not "How can the govt deny legal recognition to plural marriages?" The question is "How can the govt justify providing benefits for plural marriages?" The only legitimate answer to that question is "because plural marriages create societal benefits". Until it is shown that plural marriages do benefit society (and there's a lot of anthropological research showing that it harms society) I can not support it.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  7. #357
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,268

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    And thankfully we have rule of law that protects our rights from the self righteous imposing their religious beliefs on the public at taxpayer expense.
    Including those of you that blindly worship antidiscrimination to such an extent that you would gladly trample any civil liberties that dare to defy that god.
    Last edited by Taylor; 07-02-15 at 09:09 PM.

  8. #358
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,682

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Texmex View Post
    I guess you are just desperate, or perhaps that is the best you can do!
    Not necessarily. There is no law that requires a marriage to be consummated. They could simply want the legal benefits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    You seem to be stuck in the idea that its an institution of a man exerting his authority over helpless women.
    Oh wait! that has occurred in Monogamous marriages as well.

    And no I am not saying that you, Caine, are making this argument. Yours was just the best post to show the lack of grounding for the argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    The modern concept of marriage is an equal partnership which is impossible in polygamy.
    Really? So then a business can have only two partners? or a conversation only two participants? No. The quality of something doesn't automatically diminish because there are more than two whatevers within it. This is not to say that every individual is capable of that equal partnership among all of the spouses, or that doing so isn't more work than a monogamous marriage. But there is nothing to indicate that polygamy automatically doesn't work, especially since it is already working for many and has worked in the past.

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    How can you have an equal partnership with polygamy? That is the crux of a modern marriage. Polygamy is going backwards.
    Because you are making a false assumption that "partnership" can only be two. Polygamy is neither going forward not backwards.

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    It is none the less true. Polygamy stems from a time when women were subjugated and treated as inferior. We have advanced from that primitive behavior and I see no reason to go back to it.
    Dude, Monogamous marriage stems from that same time and those same conditions. Non-argument.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  9. #359
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,683

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    There is no need to justify denying polygamists equal legal recognition. Polygamists need a justification for providing them with the benefits legal recognition provides.







    No, it has nothing to do with why polygamists are marrying (or want to marry). It has to do with the effects of allowing it. If doing so benefits society, I'm all for it. If not, then I'm not for it.



    Yes, people co-habitate without being married and people who are married don't always co-habitate. However, it's clear that marriage (of two people) has many societal benefits and co-habitation is just one of many. Even if they don't co-habitate, there are the benefits of stability and commitment for the children. Marriage also unites extended families which leads to greater social cohesion. So therefore, the govt has a legitimate interest in providing benefits to married couples

    The question is not "How can the govt deny legal recognition to plural marriages?" The question is "How can the govt justify providing benefits for plural marriages?" The only legitimate answer to that question is "because plural marriages create societal benefits". Until it is shown that plural marriages do benefit society (and there's a lot of anthropological research showing that it harms society) I can not support it.
    They provide all of the same benefits to society as monogamous heterosexual and homosexual marriages do........ so I am confused on how you can claim that it has to be shown.

    Tell you what, since I am apparently ignorant to this vast bit of knowledge that is obviously known to you regarding the benefits of monogamous homosexual and heterosexual relationships to society.... provide me a list of these benefits and we can see which of these same benefits apply to polygamous relationships as well.

    In light of the recent USSC decision, which didn't seem to focus very much on the BENEFITS of homosexual marriage as it seemed to focus on the equal protection of them, I am confused on how polygamy must somehow prove itself when homosexual marriage didn't.

  10. #360
    Global Moderator
    Old stary eyes
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-18-16 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    23,673

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    Nope. Bigots on the left will try to stop this from happening, but their bigotry will fail. When my sister and I show up looking for a marriage license is when their heads will explode.
    Hey, you spend the next 50 years campaigning for your right to have three wives, including your sister, and get the law changed, and change majority opinion, and get it ruled constitutional, and fight discrimination, go ahead. Knock yourself out, but don't try to hang onto the coat-tails of LGBT people's struggles, martyrdom and victories.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

Page 36 of 55 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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