Page 45 of 55 FirstFirst ... 354344454647 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 450 of 548

Thread: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

  1. #441
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,435

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by PerfectStorm View Post
    Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license

    Can't see how this can be stopped.
    Of course it can be stopped, and it should be. As far all who think the state has no business in the marriage business, what a silly incomplete impractical notion. The state has a role in the marriage business because many marriages fail and each spouse has legal responsibilities to the other party (possibly) and definitely to any children. Since in these cases, given the anger involved in splitting up, or just the moral weakness of people, without laws that spell out in detail what responsibilities each spouse must fulfill, the responsibilities would not be fulfilled. Experience has shown that the state MUST be involved in dissolving marriages, so the state can and should define how they get set up so they can reasonably be dissolved.

    Suppose a man married 10 wives, has kids with each, then decides to divorce all 10 and start over. The 10 wives no longer want to live together, they each want their own place. Can the man afford the alimony to support 10 households, plus his own new one? What is the law here?

    Suppose a man has 10 wives, he's in his 50's and he dies unexpectedly. Can all 10 wives collect Social Security, although only the one man paid in? Would the man have to pay a much higher social security tax during the years of his employment to cover that possibility. Or would we all have to pay higher social security premiums to cover payments to all the surviving polygamist wives out there?

    Of course we are already paying for the polygamist households through welfare:
    You may or may not agree with polygamist Warren Jeffs' lifestyle, and you may or may not think he is indeed the dangerous criminal the FBI says he is, but would you believe Jeffs and his followers are costing you money?

    "Their religious belief is that they'll bleed the beast, meaning the government," said Mark Shurtleff, Utah's attorney general. "They hate the government, so they'll bleed it for everything they can through welfare, tax evasion and fraud."

    It makes some sense. Polygamists have multiple wives and dozens of children, but the state only recognizes one marriage. That leaves the rest of the wives to claim themselves as single moms with armies of children to support. Doing that means they can apply for welfare, which they do. And it's all legal.

    "More than 65 percent of the people are on welfare ... compared with 6 percent of the people of the general population," Shurtleff said.
    CNN.com - Anderson Cooper 360 Blog

    Regarding incest and possible marriage within the family, there are legitimate health concerns.
    https://eccentricscientist.wordpress...y-your-sister/

    The state may not need to be involved in setting marriages up, if we also don't expect it to be involved in the end of marriage. However, all marriages end, either from divorce or death. Nobody is going to vote that they don't want the state involved in ending marriage, therefore the state gets a say in how marriages begin.

  2. #442
    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 Deuce View Post
    Really? Spending a trillion dollars on a fighter plane that barely works and we don't need, and you're worried that the .01% of the population that might choose to be polygamous will break the bank? Laughable.
    That's a trillion dollars over 50 years.
    How many hundreds of trillions will we spend in that amount of time on entitlements? What's the cost in fighter planes fir a very small uptick?

    If it were legalized, there would be much more than .01% of the population taking part.

  3. #443
    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 maquiscat View Post
    That's 11 states whose incest laws cover non blood non linear relationships. I do find it interesting to note that some states only have incest laws against sex but not marriage, meaning that should they wish to push the issue a sibling pair could get a legal marriage in some states and never consummate it and it would not be illegal. Other states apply the incest law only to marriage and thus do not forbid the sexual relationship. I also have a feeling that many of these laws will have to change to accommodate same sex relations, either in marriage or sex as per the state, as they are not actually covered by law.
    You've highlighted brother and sister, but that wouldn't refer to stepbrother/stepsister, so the only non blood relationships I see have to do with adoptees. I don't know that it makes sense to highlight "nonlinear relationships" as if there is less of a relationship there than with a linear relation. Genetically speaking, the amount of DNA you share with a half-sibling, grandparent, grandchild, aunt/uncle or niece/nephew are all equivalent.

    But yes, overall there are definitely some oddities!

  4. #444
    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 finebead View Post
    Of course it can be stopped, and it should be. As far all who think the state has no business in the marriage business, what a silly incomplete impractical notion. The state has a role in the marriage business because many marriages fail and each spouse has legal responsibilities to the other party (possibly) and definitely to any children. Since in these cases, given the anger involved in splitting up, or just the moral weakness of people, without laws that spell out in detail what responsibilities each spouse must fulfill, the responsibilities would not be fulfilled. Experience has shown that the state MUST be involved in dissolving marriages, so the state can and should define how they get set up so they can reasonably be dissolved.

    Suppose a man married 10 wives, has kids with each, then decides to divorce all 10 and start over. The 10 wives no longer want to live together, they each want their own place. Can the man afford the alimony to support 10 households, plus his own new one? What is the law here?

    Suppose a man has 10 wives, he's in his 50's and he dies unexpectedly. Can all 10 wives collect Social Security, although only the one man paid in? Would the man have to pay a much higher social security tax during the years of his employment to cover that possibility. Or would we all have to pay higher social security premiums to cover payments to all the surviving polygamist wives out there?

    Of course we are already paying for the polygamist households through welfare:

    CNN.com - Anderson Cooper 360 Blog

    Regarding incest and possible marriage within the family, there are legitimate health concerns.
    https://eccentricscientist.wordpress...y-your-sister/

    The state may not need to be involved in setting marriages up, if we also don't expect it to be involved in the end of marriage. However, all marriages end, either from divorce or death. Nobody is going to vote that they don't want the state involved in ending marriage, therefore the state gets a say in how marriages begin.
    You have great argument on whether and what benefits are given within a marriage, but not necessarily against polygamy. Your argument presupposes these benefits are carved in stone. Neither condition of the argument is. We can say there really shouldn't be all these benefits are not needed so we can have polygamy or we can't have polygamy so we can have all these .

    As for your health link, this does not address why we should not allow same sex incest pairs or couples where one or both are sterile. I have no problem saying that any risk of birth defects over X% needs to be banned but it needs to apply across the board not just to consanguineous couples. After all the law must apply equally. To target only consanguineous couple with a birth defect limitation is discrimination based upon a factor they cannot control, much like skin color and orientation.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  5. #445
    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 Taylor View Post
    You've highlighted brother and sister, but that wouldn't refer to stepbrother/stepsister, so the only non blood relationships I see have to do with adoptees. I don't know that it makes sense to highlight "nonlinear relationships" as if there is less of a relationship there than with a linear relation. Genetically speaking, the amount of DNA you share with a half-sibling, grandparent, grandchild, aunt/uncle or niece/nephew are all equivalent.

    But yes, overall there are definitely some oddities!
    The point was that there are states that indeed ban non blood no linear relationships, however pointless it may be.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  6. #446
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,435

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    You have great argument on whether and what benefits are given within a marriage, but not necessarily against polygamy. Your argument presupposes these benefits are carved in stone. Neither condition of the argument is. We can say there really shouldn't be all these benefits are not needed so we can have polygamy or we can't have polygamy so we can have all these .
    We have had the discussion over what benefits should be provided, and we decided long ago we would have social security and welfare. The funding for this has always been based on a married couple (2). The laws have always been figured on 2 people, inheritance law, divorce law, family law (child custody). So, we shouldn't have polygamy. You are welcome to live with as many women as you can convince to move in with you, but they are not all entitled to benefits that I fund through the govt. If you want to marry them all, then you should pay higher social security taxes if you expect them to all get equal benefits. You would have to pay higher "family coverage" health insurance at work, since you would have a bigger family. A whole lot would have to change in many social and legal systems, and then a man could not usually afford to have 10 wives.

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat
    As for your health link, this does not address why we should not allow same sex incest pairs or couples where one or both are sterile. I have no problem saying that any risk of birth defects over X% needs to be banned but it needs to apply across the board not just to consanguineous couples. After all the law must apply equally. To target only consanguineous couple with a birth defect limitation is discrimination based upon a factor they cannot control, much like skin color and orientation.
    To determine this for non-consanguineous couples would require testing, which is expensive and unnecessary in most cases, and is an invasion of privacy. In the case of consanguineous couples, based on the relationship, it is a mathematical formula, based on genetic science; no testing or invasion of privacy is necessary.

    I could see some relaxation of existing law when the known risk is much smaller, however it appears that some marriage relationships should remain illegal.

  7. #447
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    45,924

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    That's a trillion dollars over 50 years.
    How many hundreds of trillions will we spend in that amount of time on entitlements? What's the cost in fighter planes fir a very small uptick?

    If it were legalized, there would be much more than .01% of the population taking part.
    Would you marry more than one person? How many of your friends would? How many of your family members?

  8. #448
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    16,305

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    With the way things are going, I think there will be plenty of wealthy women happy to snatch up the cuter ones. Just look at who's graduating college and getting advanced degrees these days, and who in the younger generation is having a harder time finding a job.
    Unsupported counter. Look at the number of billionaires and millionaires who are men compared to women.

  9. #449
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    16,305

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    And wealthier women could likewise horde men. And that is a lot more likely to happen in this day and age.
    Please provide evidence to support this notion. Any evidence.

  10. #450
    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 finebead View Post
    We have had the discussion over what benefits should be provided, and we decided long ago we would have social security and welfare. The funding for this has always been based on a married couple (2). The laws have always been figured on 2 people, inheritance law, divorce law, family law (child custody).
    We had the discussion on slavery before and decided to allow it. Then we had a discussion and decided to abolish it. You can apply that argument to any number of things that have changed in the US over it's life span. What always has been is not necessarily what will be. History has proven this.

    You are welcome to live with as many women as you can convince to move in with you, but they are not all entitled to benefits that I fund through the govt. If you want to marry them all, then you should pay higher social security taxes if you expect them to all get equal benefits.
    Yes they should all be covered, but the question then is should we still be providing all these benefits that are currently. Those are two separate debates, although starting the poly debate could well be the impetus for starting the debate on benefits

    You would have to pay higher "family coverage" health insurance at work, since you would have a bigger family. A whole lot would have to change in many social and legal systems, and then a man could not usually afford to have 10 wives.
    So why should I have to pay one cost for a spouse and 9 kids and a different one for 9 spouses?
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

Page 45 of 55 FirstFirst ... 354344454647 ... 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
  •