2016 Election

I did hear today that some companies are now looking at removing benefits for same sex couples who are not married. Great decision, after all fair is fair. Girlfriends or boyfriends could not be covered but gay couples were since they could not get married. Problem now solved on both fronts. Either get married or you don't get benefits. Everyone wins.

Quote: terapined

Lost boys http://www.childbrides.org/boys.html

Quite a few religions disown, shun or do even worse to those it does not want or do not meet their requirements. The Amish, Muslims and even Jews come to mind quickly.

Quote: Boz

I did hear today that some companies are now looking at removing benefits for same sex couples who are not married. Great decision, after all fair is fair. Girlfriends or boyfriends could not be covered but gay couples were since they could not get married. Problem now solved on both fronts. Either get married or you don't get benefits. Everyone wins.

This decision should end all benefits (within a reasonable time, of course...implementing a decision like that without giving time for planning the "how to" is insane...oh, wait...) for non-married partners. Boys and girls, boys and boys, and girls and girls--whether or not anyone agrees with the ruling, time to get married, get your affairs in order, and qualify for the benefits or lose them. All states should move to terminate any form of "domestic partnership" or recognition of such. Marriage is legal; those agreements are unnecessary.

If anyone fights for those types of things to remain after this ruling, they are trying to have two different sets of rules.

Now...some may qualify for a "common law marriage" in a state depending on what those actual laws state is required to have that designation.

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

Good question. Several have stated polygamy doesn't have a chance, along with several other ideas. But polygamy in particular, I think I hear a collective opinion that it is bad, repulsive perhaps? A crime against God and all normal social conventions? I would ask a question in general to those that have said, "now that's a whole different thing". What makes it different, and what makes it bad? I'm not being facetious. I don't know the historical objection to polygamy in most of 'Western Society'. What are the negatives? I will do some research on my own of the history, but for anyone that has implied they think it is bad, why do you have negative feelings about polygamy? Serious question.

As an aside, and less serious, my first thought might be it would be a shame if the rich guys could just buy up all the women!

Below is an Internet site I found. Took awhile to sort thru all the dribble that has been posted in the last few days/months that compares polygamy ( in various forms with more specific nomenclature ) to the recent Supreme Court decision, which is after all a 'Constitutional Decision'. But this article/publication/blog was from Oxford in early 2012, and even though was still couched in terms relating to homosexual marriage, did solicit a large amount of feedback in which a number of individuals ( many fairly eloquently ) spoke about polygamy in several forms. I have still only read about half of the material but found it worthy of mentioning here, if only in answer of my own question.

I do not know how to make it a link, fairly not tech savvy am I.

What is so bad about polygamy? | Practical Ethics
blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/01/why-is-polygamy-wrong/
Jan 16, 2012 - Why do we automatically assume that polygamy is unacceptable and immoral and bad? Why should the argumentative “buck” stop there?

Quote: terapined

Lost boys
http://www.childbrides.org/boys.html

So? Discrediting polygamy with the FLDS is like discrediting gay marriage with NAMBLA. It's not going to come from the Mormons, and no, not the Muslims either, although they might get on the bandwagon. Just like gay marriage, it'll come from the hippies and the nerds.

(hums) "...but they'll fill our hearts with so much, so much love..."

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

What is so bad about polygamy? | Practical Ethics
blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/01/why-is-polygamy-wrong/
Jan 16, 2012 - Why do we automatically assume that polygamy is unacceptable and immoral and bad? Why should the argumentative “buck” stop there?

To reiterate, read Heinlein, especially "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." Most people equate polygamy with polyamory (multiple sexual partners) but that's not necessarily a fair equivalence. The idea of a harem, or of a state-sanctioned N-person orgy, is probably what gives rise to the disgust you're seeing in the popular press right now.

But consider Heinlein's idea of a line marriage, or what I'll call "sparsely-sexual polygamy." In that structure, multiple people are all "married" together in the eyes of the law but are typically only sexual with one partner. The N-person marriage has shared assets, favorable treatment from the authorities, and rights of survivorship -- precisely what all 2-person marriages just achieved with the SCOTUS opinion -- but is otherwise just a formally-recognized collection of couples and families. In other words, not an orgy.

How is that different from a corporation? Or an extended family with well-done estate planning? Or a village?

Why couldn't you form a corporation among multiple families and achieve preferential tax treatment and other marriage-like benefits for a group larger than 2 people? Or can you?

Quote: MathExtremist

To reiterate, read Heinlein, especially "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." Most people equate polygamy with polyamory (multiple sexual partners) but that's not necessarily a fair equivalence. The idea of a harem, or of a state-sanctioned N-person orgy, is probably what gives rise to the disgust you're seeing in the popular press right now.

But consider Heinlein's idea of a line marriage, or what I'll call "sparsely-sexual polygamy." In that structure, multiple people are all "married" together in the eyes of the law but are typically only sexual with one partner. The N-person marriage has shared assets, favorable treatment from the authorities, and rights of survivorship -- precisely what all 2-person marriages just achieved with the SCOTUS opinion -- but is otherwise just a formally-recognized collection of couples and families. In other words, not an orgy.

How is that different from a corporation? Or an extended family with well-done estate planning? Or a village?

Why couldn't you form a corporation among multiple families and achieve preferential tax treatment and other marriage-like benefits for a group larger than 2 people? Or can you?

Glad you're asking these questions. I've always thought the line marriage envisioned by Heinlein could be ideal for any number of reasons, though some of the difficulties are also discussed in his book "Friday" (for a broader view of group marriages). It also has happened many times during locale inequity or other circumstances that a social convention allowing for partner-sharing could have improved many situations, especially those leading to the death of one or more competing suitors (duels, jealous homicide, etc.). Polygamy and Polyandry both make more sense than unhappy adultery and forced divorces among people who otherwise love each other and share children and assets.

Quote: MathExtremist

To reiterate, read Heinlein, especially "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." Most people equate polygamy with polyamory (multiple sexual partners) but that's not necessarily a fair equivalence. The idea of a harem, or of a state-sanctioned N-person orgy, is probably what gives rise to the disgust you're seeing in the popular press right now.

But consider Heinlein's idea of a line marriage, or what I'll call "sparsely-sexual polygamy." In that structure, multiple people are all "married" together in the eyes of the law but are typically only sexual with one partner. The N-person marriage has shared assets, favorable treatment from the authorities, and rights of survivorship -- precisely what all 2-person marriages just achieved with the SCOTUS opinion -- but is otherwise just a formally-recognized collection of couples and families. In other words, not an orgy.

How is that different from a corporation? Or an extended family with well-done estate planning? Or a village?

Why couldn't you form a corporation among multiple families and achieve preferential tax treatment and other marriage-like benefits for a group larger than 2 people? Or can you?

touché.
The harsh mistress was the first Heinlein book I read, was a gift to me from my older brother. I read, I think, all the rest, own copies of all the later ones and many of the earlier ones. There is a great deal of great stuff in those books ( you might have recognized a saying recently in one of my posts, 'never scare a little guy, he might just up and shoot your ass'). That's Heinlein, roughly translated. I will share the books with my son's as they get old enough, that time is soon for the older son, and the older books. Heinlein's advanced thinking on many topics is still very relevant. Family relations is one, a big one.
Thanks for bringing him up in the conversation!

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

touché.
The harsh mistress was the first Heinlein book I read, was a gift to me from my older brother. I read, I think, all the rest, own copies of all the later ones and many of the earlier ones. There is a great deal of great stuff in those books ( you might have recognized a saying recently in one of my posts, 'never scare a little guy, he might just up and shoot your ass'). That's Heinlein, roughly translated. I will share the books with my son's as they get old enough, that time is soon for the older son, and the older books. Heinlein's advanced thinking on many topics is still very relevant. Family relations is one, a big one.
Thanks for bringing him up in the conversation!

Here I go quoting my self again ;-(
I thought a little about "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" again. I remember one armed Manny, and Jill(?) and Mike the computer, and the professor etc but I don't remember that 'family relations' was a significant part of that book, though it was a great read as I remember (from 45-50 years ago). No, I didn't go look any of it up, didn't pull the book out of a box in the basement labeled 'Heinlein'. I just thought about it for a couple minutes. The truly astounding subject matter on 'family relations' came in later books, still years, decades perhaps, ahead of their time. Correct me if I'm wrong. 2F

I loved Heinlein when I was a kid and young
adult. Can't read him now, he's way too
obsessed with sexual subjects for my taste.
He grew up in a very sexually repressed
generation and it shows in his writing. That
is, most of the stuff he wrote after Stranger
in a Strange Land.