| Author |
Topic:
Polygamy
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
5/8 5:37pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
- Date Edited:
5/8 5:38pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
J-Rod
|
That's not an answer to my question.
I had already expressed my opinion about what my marriage means and should allow me. I've also already answered the question of why I believe M/F relationships should be recognized.
But I need to know; In your opinion what would be the reason that the state needs to recognize any other type of relationship? What compelling need of the state is fulfilled?
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are" 
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Eleventh_Guard
Registered:
Dec '05
|
Date Posted:
5/8 6:18pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
|
I'm not saying they do. I'm saying that there's no reason for them to recognize one type but NOT the other(s). It makes no sense to arbitrarily - or for reasons of tradition - give rights to one group but not groups that are very similar, different in trivial ways.
-----signature-----
A conversation on Dathomir:
Welk: My daughter did that... I am blameless. I'm not even armed.
Jacen: And you just let her do whatever she wants?
Welk: You're new here, aren't you?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
chibiangi
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
5/8 7:16pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
|
The reason not to recognize multiple partner marriages, besides the messy legalities of who gets the ultimate say in decision making when health, death and money is concerned, is the fact that the state has no real reason to legitmate a man fathering several children he cannot possibley support. Six wives and 20 children? Come on, there are welfare checks out the butt going on there.
-----signature-----
Talk nerdy to me.
mujaki na kao de boku ni hohoemu
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
5/9 5:48am
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
Eleventh_Guard posted:
I'm not saying they do. I'm saying that there's no reason for them to recognize one type but NOT the other(s).
Yes there is. In fact I have shown that there are differences between different types of relationships that have differnt origins and different goals and as such they should be treated differently.
Look, as an employee I have a tax standard and regulations that I have to meet. It's implemented by the government.
Then I also have a business. Though my relationship with my business is simular to my relationship with my employer, I fall under a whole different set of tax laws and regulations. Also implimented by the government.
My point is that the government can, does, and IMO should treat different relationships with different standards.
Not everything in this world is equal. You can't treat everything as if it is equal.
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
king_alvarez
Registered:
May '07
|
Date Posted:
5/9 6:14am
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
J-Rod posted:
I had already expressed my opinion about what my marriage means and should allow me.
How would someone else's marriage status at all affect your marriage or in any way diminish what your marriage means to you?
-----signature-----
Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?"
Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
5/9 8:07am
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
king_alvarez posted:
J-Rod posted:
I had already expressed my opinion about what my marriage means and should allow me.
How would someone else's marriage status at all affect your marriage or in any way diminish what your marriage means to you?
I've kinda already went over this. Marriage has been devalued over the last 30 or 40 years. Messing with the definition will only further devalue it.
What do I mean by devalue?
Well, legally marriage isn't the be all end all when it comes to family relations. Parents can and often do sue for property or rights after a spouse's death. All property and rights need to be the sole ownership of the spouse unless otherwise specified. And can we please remember the Terri Shivo case?
Granted I believe that her husband was scum and had only his selfish desires in mind, but his should've been the last word on Terri's condition.
Socially there used to be this really cool "shunning" that would occur when we found out that a person stepped out side the marriage or inserted themselves into someone else's marriage. Can't we, as a society, get back to that?
I mean when did it be "cool" or acceptable to do this kind of crap? I would never, ever be friends with an unrepentant or habitual adulterer. That's a fatal lack of character in my book.
I guess, as a nation, we need to have more character and integrety.
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
king_alvarez
Registered:
May '07
|
Date Posted:
5/9 8:36am
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
- Date Edited:
5/9 8:37am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
king_alvarez
|
But none of those things affect your specific marriage. None of those influences what your marriage means to you. Will changing the general definition of marriage change how you personally view and treat your spouse?
Trying to maintain a specific definition of marriage isn't going to make everyone else suddenly try to uphold your values. Additionally, I don't think it's the government's role to try to regulate specific individual values.
-----signature-----
Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?"
Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
5/9 11:32am
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
|
How does marriage having less legal power than it use to have not affect my marriage?
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
king_alvarez
Registered:
May '07
|
Date Posted:
5/9 11:48am
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
J-Rod posted:
How does marriage having less legal power than it use to have not affect my marriage?
Somehow I don't think that's really what you had in mind when you were speaking of marriage being devalued. But if legal power is your primary concern here, all of those things are still available through other legal means. I suppose they could even create a clause saying that all marriages before a certain date would retain all rights and powers that they previously had. In other words, existing marriages wouldn't change, but the definitions going forward would be revised.
-----signature-----
Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?"
Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
5/9 1:08pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
Somehow I don't think that's really what you had in mind when you were speaking of marriage being devalued.
Yes it was. From my very first post a page or two ago I talked about it. Look it up.
But if legal power is your primary concern here, all of those things are still available through other legal means. I suppose they could even create a clause saying that all marriages before a certain date would retain all rights and powers that they previously had.
This is my very point. Why have recognized marriage when you have to go through point by point and say that you want this right and that right of a married couple? It should be automatic. It needs to be automatic.
In other words, existing marriages wouldn't change, but the definitions going forward would be revised.
After asking this how can you possibly say that marriage isn't being devalued and that, to a point at least, you expect it to continue to devalue?
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Eleventh_Guard
Registered:
Dec '05
|
Date Posted:
5/9 3:13pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
It wouldn't have less legal power. It would be the same power but applied to more people than it currently is. (Not many more.)
This is my very point. Why have recognized marriage when you have to go through point by point and say that you want this right and that right of a married couple? It should be automatic. It needs to be automatic.
Why should it be automatic, and why does it need to be automatic? Because it's more convenient? Well, of course it would be. It would also be more convenient if the IRS would calculate my tax refund or payment for me, but apparently that's not good enough a reason not to have to do it myself.
I am not sure what you mean by marriage being devalued. If expanded to more people, it would have the same value.
"Sam is giving Bobby $10 a month, but isn't giving any money to Judy. But now Judy wants $10 too! If Sam gives EACH $10, then Bobby gets less!"
No, actually, he doesn't. His payout hasn't changed. Marriage is not a zero-sum concept. It can be expanded to more people without lessening any of your current privileges under the system.
-----signature-----
A conversation on Dathomir:
Welk: My daughter did that... I am blameless. I'm not even armed.
Jacen: And you just let her do whatever she wants?
Welk: You're new here, aren't you?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
chibiangi
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
5/9 4:12pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
- Date Edited:
5/9 4:17pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
chibiangi
|
n/m.
-----signature-----
Talk nerdy to me.
mujaki na kao de boku ni hohoemu
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
5/9 4:39pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
- Date Edited:
5/9 4:42pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
J-Rod
|
Why should it be automatic, and why does it need to be automatic?
Huh? Why wouldn't it be? You seem to think that marriage should be a commitment without the commitment.
What do you think marriage is supposed to be?
EDIT:chibiangi, I'm really interested in what you have to say. Honest.
I'm enjoying this debate a lot.
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LtNOWIS
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
5/22 9:30pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
Slate.com compares the Texas Polygamy raid to the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Link: http://http://www.slate.com/id/2191009
More about the legal system than the actual morality of polygamy, but it's rather interesting.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
5/22 11:49pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
|
Well, its also coming out now that Texas didn't have the ability to take the kids out of that compound with the grounds that they were able to prove. Way to go Texas.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
