Page 47 of 55 FirstFirst ... 374546474849 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 548

Thread: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

  1. #461
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    16,299

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Why would it not? There are so many more independently wealthy women in the world today. Society is no longer treating woman as property as we used to, at least as a whole. Additionally, we already have polyandry families out there not to mention polygamy marriages with mixed genders (more than one of each), so there is no reason to assume they would not come forward as much as the other polygamy families would should it be made legal. If they could do it why would wealthy women not hoard men as the wealthy men were hoarding women?
    Fine. Once we have as many wealthy women wanting to practice polygamy as wealthy men, we can legalize it.

  2. #462
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    16,299

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Oh no! The 0.0001% of Americans that are billionaires are going to take all the women!!
    Weak debate ability when you have to ignore half my post to make an irrelevant argument.

  3. #463
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,268

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Weak debate ability when you have to ignore half my post to make an irrelevant argument.
    Lol, you're the one arguing that polygamy shouldn't be legalized because a bunch of extremely rich guys will marry way too many women.

    (BTW, the number of male vs female millionaires is not all that different)

  4. #464
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,435

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    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.
    That is because we move forward to more enlightened positions, and these tend to work better for EVERYONE. We move forward to morally superior positions. We have not moved backward, thanks to the supreme court.

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat
    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 have not even proffered an argument an argument why recognition of polygamy is a move forward for society so it does NOT follow than numerous wives should be covered by state and federal benefits, when the systems clearly were not designed to support that type of relationship. The statistics don't work is you radically change the underlying assumptions. So, why do you think they should all be covered when the systems were not designed to do that?

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat
    So why should I have to pay one cost for a spouse and 9 kids and a different one for 9 spouses?
    The answer is obvious. You will not have children with your 9 children, but in most cases you will have children with your spouse or spouses. Therefore in most cases, a plural marriage would end with many more than nine people in it. That is why if you enter a plural marriage, you should pay a higher "family coverage" health insurance rate. Its the same reason that family coverage costs more than single, or employee + spouse coverage. More people potentially and generally spend more on health care, therefore the premium increases. That is the way insurance works.

  5. #465
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    16,299

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Lol, you're the one arguing that polygamy shouldn't be legalized because a bunch of extremely rich guys will marry way too many women.

    (BTW, the number of male vs female millionaires is not all that different)
    You assume that wealthy women have an interest in marrying many men. I see little evidence to support it. And really all I need it a rational state interest. A societal imbalance makes that cut easily.

  6. #466
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,297

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    I find it quite amusing that homophobes seem to think the polygamy and SSM are related. The truth is that polgamy is only legal in muslim countries that deny gays even basic rights. So the truth is the legalization of SSM makes polygamy even less likely to accepted. None of the 21 countries that have endorsed SSM have allowed polygamy too. The idea that we will be the 1st is laughable.
    That isn't a very good argument. You are arguing that polygamy and SSM are not the same in US law because they aren't the same in Islamic law.... You need to go back to the drawing board with that one.

    The point in bringing up polygamy is that the rationale for SSM in the American courts is exactly the same as the argument that will be in the courts for polygamy. By ruling favorably on the broad, lazy argument of the gay marriage movement the SCOTUS has left no argument against any marriage.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  7. #467
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,297

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    You have not even proffered an argument an argument why recognition of polygamy is a move forward for society so it does NOT follow than numerous wives should be covered by state and federal benefits, when the systems clearly were not designed to support that type of relationship. The statistics don't work is you radically change the underlying assumptions. So, why do you think they should all be covered when the systems were not designed to do that?
    That is one silly argument. Answer your own question: Why is recognition of SSM a "move forward" for society? What does gay marriage actually offer the society as a whole? The one solid argument in favor of SSM is actually a detriment to society. The ability for a gay couple to qualify for each other's Social Security spousal benefits is the one thing that a normal contractual agreement couldn't accomplish... but that is just an added drain on a program already in dire straights, so it doesn't really benefit society to create more SS beneficiaries.

    The answer is obvious. You will not have children with your 9 children, but in most cases you will have children with your spouse or spouses. Therefore in most cases, a plural marriage would end with many more than nine people in it. That is why if you enter a plural marriage, you should pay a higher "family coverage" health insurance rate. Its the same reason that family coverage costs more than single, or employee + spouse coverage. More people potentially and generally spend more on health care, therefore the premium increases. That is the way insurance works.
    You missed the point. Insurance charges more per person in a single coverage than in a family plan, especially since most plans cap premiums at 4 family members. 9 individual plans would be far more expensive that a plan for 9 family members.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  8. #468
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    18,261

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    That isn't a very good argument. You are arguing that polygamy and SSM are not the same in US law because they aren't the same in Islamic law.... You need to go back to the drawing board with that one.

    The point in bringing up polygamy is that the rationale for SSM in the American courts is exactly the same as the argument that will be in the courts for polygamy. By ruling favorably on the broad, lazy argument of the gay marriage movement the SCOTUS has left no argument against any marriage.
    Then how can you explain why no other nation that has adopted SSM has done the same for polygamy? Why would we be the first? It is nothing but sour grapes talking. Don't play us for fools.

  9. #469
    Engineer
    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    12,201

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    That isn't a very good argument. You are arguing that polygamy and SSM are not the same in US law because they aren't the same in Islamic law.... You need to go back to the drawing board with that one.

    The point in bringing up polygamy is that the rationale for SSM in the American courts is exactly the same as the argument that will be in the courts for polygamy. By ruling favorably on the broad, lazy argument of the gay marriage movement the SCOTUS has left no argument against any marriage.
    Why should you or anyone else care if polygamy does become legal? What possible effect does it have on your life? Most people still won't be doing it and the ones that do were living together anyway. Why do we have to jump from one group to another trying to impose our will on them instead of just letting people live as they choose? Got Freedom?

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    That is one silly argument. Answer your own question: Why is recognition of SSM a "move forward" for society? What does gay marriage actually offer the society as a whole? The one solid argument in favor of SSM is actually a detriment to society. The ability for a gay couple to qualify for each other's Social Security spousal benefits is the one thing that a normal contractual agreement couldn't accomplish... but that is just an added drain on a program already in dire straights, so it doesn't really benefit society to create more SS beneficiaries.
    You missed the point. Insurance charges more per person in a single coverage than in a family plan, especially since most plans cap premiums at 4 family members. 9 individual plans would be far more expensive that a plan for 9 family members.
    When our citizens have rights and the freedom to live their lives as they choose, society benefits greatly. If we banned Christians (or whatever you identify with) from marrying, would that make America more or less free?
    "If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself." ~ Martin Heidegger

  10. #470
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,435

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    That is one silly argument. Answer your own question: Why is recognition of SSM a "move forward" for society? What does gay marriage actually offer the society as a whole? The one solid argument in favor of SSM is actually a detriment to society. The ability for a gay couple to qualify for each other's Social Security spousal benefits is the one thing that a normal contractual agreement couldn't accomplish... but that is just an added drain on a program already in dire straights, so it doesn't really benefit society to create more SS beneficiaries.
    My argument is not silly, you just fail to understand the gay marriage issue. Perhaps you would like to state why the supreme court should NOT have made it legal across the land. I will explain why they did make it legal. The characteristic of being gay is possessed by a large percentage of the worlds population and it always has been. Estimates vary from 5 - 10% of the population, both male and female. That would make being gay a normally observed human variation in the population. Normal is not bad. You may not understand it, you may not like it, you don't have to. But we all need to respect these peoples dignity as humans. If you think we were made by god, god doesn't make any junk. From the point of view of the state, marriage is not about romantic love, it is about legal rights and responsibilities; rights that people get to enjoy because they chose to commit to a relationship for life, and responsibilities they must live up to within the marriage and afterward if the marriage does not survive. If being gay in a normal human variation in a substantial part of the population, why should those people be denied the right to marry the person they chose?

    The mental health community states that being gay is normal, and we should not try to change the gay person, rather we should change the society so it does not view gay people as wrong or in need of being changed.

    Conversion therapy is any treatment that aims to change sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Such treatments have been criticized as pseudoscience and have been a source of controversy in the United States and other countries. Medical, scientific, and government organizations in the United States and Britain have expressed concern over conversion therapy and consider it potentially harmful. United States Surgeon General David Satcher in 2001 issued a report stating that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed".

    The American Psychiatric Association opposes "any psychiatric treatment, such as 'reparative' or conversion therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation" and describes attempts to change sexual orientation by practitioners as unethical. It also states that debates over the integration of gays and lesbians have obscured science "by calling into question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides of the issue"[6] and that the advancement of conversion therapy may cause social harm by disseminating unscientific views about sexual orientation. As a solution, today's mental health profession advocates for societal change rather than changing individuals' sexual orientation.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

    So, for correct reason, society has changed to recognize that being gay is a normal human variation, and these people should be entitled to all the rights that anyone else is entitled to. The supreme court has ordered the society to change, and that is good.

    But we are still in the realm of "one person marrying another person", or two in the marriage. There is no change to SS, because if the people were not gay and married a hetero partner they would pay in to cover that person, they pay into SS anyway, and so their gay partner is already covered, unless you can show that SS presumed a certain percentage of gay people who would not be covered.

    I await your reasons why polygamy should be allowed.
    Last edited by finebead; 07-05-15 at 07:38 AM.

Page 47 of 55 FirstFirst ... 374546474849 ... 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
  •