Page 48 of 55 FirstFirst ... 384647484950 ... LastLast
Results 471 to 480 of 548

Thread: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

  1. #471
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,435

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator
    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.

    No, you miss the point. It doesn't make any difference to the discussion whether the cost per person is higher or lower for an individual, its irrelevant. The reason most plans cap premiums at 4 family members is because on average, that is the size of a standard family in the US (Its actually 1.9 children per married couple since 1980, so if they charge for 4 people they can scrape together a few extra dollars to cover those few people with 3 or more kids).


    Here is a typical polygamous family with Dad, 4 wives and 17 children (that's a total of 22 people in the family). If all the marriages were legal, I don't think an insurance company is going to want to cover them for the same premium that they cover the typical american family of 4.


    The show follows the lives of advertising salesman Kody Brown (46), his wives Meri Barber (44), Janelle (45), Christine (42) and Robyn Sullivan (36) and their seventeen total children. In the first season the show televised Brown's courting and eventual marriage of his fourth wife, Robyn Sullivan, who herself had three children from a previous marriage.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Wives


    So, you miss the point. The premium for family coverage can be capped at 4 people simply because that is on average how many people are in the typical american family, per the census data. If that were to swell substantially due to the introduction of polygamy, the health insurance policies would have to be rewritten to cover that with a new family class called "plural" or something, unless you want to pay for their expenses in your rate, and I do not.


    In fact the Dad may not be able to afford his plural family period. I posted above that 65% of plural families are on welfare, and there is a reason for that. The father cannot cover all the expenses for his large family without help from the state. That is another argument against polygamy as a viable institution, it is not generally economically viable.

  2. #472
    Randian PUA
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    58,606

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Why is recognition of SSM a "move forward" for society? What does gay marriage actually offer the society as a whole?
    It provides greater security and stability for the children of same sex couples
    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. #473
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,682

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Heh, I think you misinterpreted my post. I was responding to another poster who claimed that polygamy would be extremely rare, even if legalized, I suggested that acceptance was growing, and that even if he might not consider such an arrangement, there's a chance his children or grandchildren would, should this trend continue to grow.
    I guess I did then, but I do not think I was the only one. It I do agree with you, and would further point out that polygamy and polyamory are already growing trends and that there has been much more of it out there that was not before the public eye, FLDS aside, that people realized. A look at the sites I linked to earlier in this thread (#29 I believe) will show accounts of how people have been doing this for decades. I guess the poly closet is the next one for people to come out of.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  4. #474
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,682

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    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.
    You assume that wealthy men have an interest in marrying that many women. While I see evidence that many would keep a bunch around for their various "interest", why would they necessarily want to marry them, again FLDS aside.

    That aside what about all the women unavailable now because they are lesbian, bi with other women, or just plain asexual? Is that not also creating an imbalance? I also note that you have not addressed the poly families like mine and others where there is a mix of men and women.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  5. #475
    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 maquiscat View Post
    That aside what about all the women unavailable now because they are lesbian, bi with other women, or just plain asexual? Is that not also creating an imbalance?
    Only if you assume that there are far more of them than there are gay men, bi with other men, or just plain asexual. is there any evidence that this is the case?
    "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

  6. #476
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    08-12-16 @ 12:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Let's see here -- we have some Middle eastern countries where the more powerful men have many wives, where men in general control the sexuality of women, where ancient patriarchal patterns prevail, and where the pent-up sexual frustration of the men without sexual outlet manifests itself in all sorts of truly delightful ways.


    ...... and we need to regress our society back to such a primitive state why, again?
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  7. #477
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,682

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    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.
    Since the concepts of moving forward or backwards, and more or less enlightened, as well as morally superior and inferior are purely subjective concepts you have no argument here. I agree that we have a majority in this country that would agree with you, but that makes the position no less or more subjective.

    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?
    It does follow, but you are clouded by certain assumptions. Assumption based, I readily admit, on the current structure, which would need to change in order for polygamy to work as a legal entity within the US. I do not deny that the systems were not designed for more than 2 individuals within a single marriage, but the country has adapted before. Our laws were not designed to handle all the new things that arose from the internet. Yet we adapted, such as with internet bully and stalking laws, as a minor example. We are constantly creating and changing and that which we had designed for before has to either be adapted or changed out for something new. Do you think that the original laws governing free speech and free press and such were designed with radio and television and internet in mind? we had to adapt and/or create new laws to account for these changes. Why do you think that we would no need to make changes?

    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.
    I don't necessarily disagree that if a family grows and continues to grow that they shouldn't have to pay more for various services. If a couple keeps pushing out kids, then yeah, the premiums should be allowed to go up. I only note that if we're basing such things on family size then it is on family size, regardless of who is in the family, kids or adults. A household of two adults and 8 kids, would be the same as 4 adults and 4 kids. Hell I would not have an issue if it were separated by adult and child, that when an child becomes an adult and remains living with the parents and still on their insurance, that the premiums shift from, say 2 adults and 1 child to 3 adults.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  8. #478
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,682

    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.
    Whether you intended to or not, you just put forth a major correlation/causation fallacy. Polygamy is practiced in many countries where is it not legal, just without the legal paperwork thus making no conflict between the poly family and the government. In some places there were other laws that tried to cover that bypass, such as Utah's cohabitation laws, which were finally shot down.

    You also have another major logic fail. We weren't the first country to allow interracial marriage. We weren't the first country to allow SSM. But we were fighting for those rights when other countries made them legal. Thus the fight goes on and whether the US is first or not remains to be seen. But the goal is not to be first with polygamy, but to get it passed.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  9. #479
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,682

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    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.
    Statistically speaking, which is what you are seeming to do, normal is neither good nor bad. Good or bad are subjective terms. In statistics, normal only refers to that which fall within a certain range. Depending on what you are looking at normal can indeed be bad.

    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.
    And this would differ between a 2 person marriage and a 4 person marriage how?
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  10. #480
    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 maquiscat View Post
    But the goal is not to be first with polygamy, but to get it passed.
    I wish you luck. There are lessons that you can learn from the SSM issue: 1) that it is possible to turn around a blanket rejection of your position to an acceptance with reason, struggle and hard work, and 2) that you've about 50 years of hard yakka ahead of you, since LGBT faced similar hostility to that you are confronting as recently as the 1960s.
    "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 48 of 55 FirstFirst ... 384647484950 ... 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
  •