2016 Election

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?

I am not against it. I support polygamy and always have.

But, if you are only going to be romantically and sexual involved with one person our of the group, why marry at all? Why not just form a joint buisness partnership o
if all you care about is maximizing assets and resources?


To be honest the only way polygamy would interest me is if it is "an orgy" if I have to get married in a polygamous marriage, but can only sleep with one of them, seems kind of pointless..... might as well just sign a financial contract with another married couple.... why bother being in a "relationship" if it only involves money and buisness, seems like a misleading term that will cause unnecessary stigmatization.

Mississippi is considering doing away with
marriage licenses altogether. No more
marriage in MS, go somewhere else and
do it and come back here to live. It would
prevent churches from ever having to perform
Gay ceremonies.

http://www.newsweek.com/following-supreme-court-decision-mississippi-may-stop-issuing-any-marriage-347740

Quote: EvenBob

Year? Try 5 years at least. But it's inevitable,
only a matter of time. So what, who cares
if 5 people want to get married. How does
it effect me.

So according to you, we will go at least five years before we see a single negative consequences from this ruling. That must make this one of the better Supreme Court rulings in all of history

Further, because it is only conservatives who make the connection between same sex marriage and three- or four-way marriages, it could only pass if the we have a conservative Supreme Court. Would that be good or bad?

Quote: EvenBob

Mississippi is considering doing away with
marriage licenses altogether. No more
marriage in MS, go somewhere else and
do it and come back here to live. It would
prevent churches from ever having to perform
Gay ceremonies.

Are you joking? Do you actually think the holding in Obergefell requires any particular religious institution to perform a gay wedding ceremony? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Holy cow. If this is how the ruling is being viewed, I can understand why so many people are hysterical. You should actually read the opinion instead of regurgitating the talking heads on Fox News. It means that a State (not a particular church) may not disallow a same-gender marriage, and further they must respect such a marriage if established in another State. But the way you're talking about it, it's as if SCOTUS just ordered all churches to start performing satanic rituals. The word "church" does not appear in the opinion at all, and only once in J. Thomas's dissent where he suggests "It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples."

That's future tense. It is clearly not the holding of SCOTUS that "churches must perform gay ceremonies," nor would it ever be.

Also, even if Mississippi stops issuing marriage licenses altogether, which would be hilariously spiteful, they would still be required to respect any two-person marriage from any other state.

Quote: EvenBob

Mississippi is considering doing away with
marriage licenses altogether. No more
marriage in MS, go somewhere else and
do it and come back here to live. It would
prevent churches from ever having to perform
Gay ceremonies.

http://www.newsweek.com/following-supreme-court-decision-mississippi-may-stop-issuing-any-marriage-347740

Could a State just simply say, "we don't recognize marriage as a legal union between 2 ( or more) individuals?
Just say, "you're on your on, we'll deal with you one at a time"? And only "one at a time"?

Edited for what I hope and pray is some clarity in what I'm trying to say:

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

Could a State just simply say, "we don't recognize marriage as a significant legal union between 2 ( or more) individuals from a governance standpoint.
Just say, "you're on your on, we'll deal with you one at a time"? And only "one at a time"?

I might like that idea. Marriage originates in the religious community if I'm not mistaken. We have separation of church and state ( thank God ).
The USA has no interest or opinion on marriage, no IRS benefits or penalties, no social acceptance or denial, and no social programs dependent on any marital status. Period.
I will sleep on that idea, and the multiple repercussions.
Tomorrow...

Quote: MathExtremist

It is clearly not the holding of SCOTUS that "churches must perform gay ceremonies," nor would it ever be.

That's where it's going. This ruling was just
the first step. Now Catholic Gays are saying
they want to be married in their church by a
priest and have it sanctioned by the Vatican.

That's where all of this was always headed.
It's always been about religion. The ironic
thing is, estimates are 60% of priests are
Gay. Even Pope Francis says Gay's make
up the 'majority' of the Priesthood. Yet the
Church is totally anti-Gay. None of it makes
any sense.

Quote: EvenBob

That's where it's going. This ruling was just
the first step. Now Catholic Gays are saying
they want to be married in their church by a
priest and have it sanctioned by the Vatican.

Why do you believe that the Supreme Court of the United States has any authority over what happens in the Vatican? We're not in the 1500s when Church and State were, um, not separated. Do you think the Establishment clause of the Constitution is in jeopardy somehow?

Quote: MathExtremist

Do you think the Establishment clause of the Constitution is in jeopardy somehow?

What do you think the point of all this
was? Gays are still not equal to non Gays.
They still can't get married in most major
churches. There's an amendment to the
constitution coming, that's where all this
will end. Yesterday was huge, but it was
just another step.

Quote: EvenBob

What do you think the point of all this
was? Gays are still not equal to non Gays.
They still can't get married in most major
churches. There's an amendment to the
constitution coming, that's where all this
will end. Yesterday was huge, but it was
just another step.

HA-you think we are still following the Constitution? The SCOTUS is now mostly just following public opinion, has for decades but it keeps getting worse. Half of Americans don't even care about freedom, can't handle it. They would prefer a benevolent dictatorship that plans more of their lives and provides for more of their basic needs.

All the proof you need here is how many times do you hear "there ought to be a law" or "the government needs to do something!" Some of it is getting downright scary.