Federal judge strikes down key parts of Utah's polygamy law

[Londo_Jowo]

And why should your registered sex-partner receive medical benefits? You have essentially made civil unions into a registered sex-partnership.

The company for whom I work started offering benefits for same sex spouses of employees that were married in states where it's allowed. These benefits include medical, dental, & vision care as well as being the beneficiary of the company's provided life insurance. I suspect many companies are beginning to offer such.

 

[Smoblikat]

The ruling is a small step forward in getting Big Government out of the bedroom.

Absolutely.

I have no interest in polygamy (or even monogamy 😛 ) nor would I ever want to be gay, but I think it is everyone's right to make that decision for themselves, just like I can decide not to.

 

[waggy]

good.

I Don't care that the guy had 5 wives (though i think he is fucking crazy for it). who cares? it's not effecting me. long as they are adults and able to make such decisions then it's not my business.

same with gay marriage. 2 adults want it? great. i don't give a fuck.

 

[nehalem256]

The company for whom I work started offering benefits for same sex spouses of employees that were married in states where it's allowed. These benefits include medical, dental, & vision care as well as being the beneficiary of the company's provided life insurance. I suspect many companies are beginning to offer such.

The question was why

Why should a person's live-in sex partner get medical, dental, & vision care as well as being the beneficiary of the company's provided life insurance?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The question was why

Why should a person's live-in sex partner get medical, dental, & vision care as well as being the beneficiary of the company's provided life insurance?

It's none of your business, it's between the company and the employee/legal spouse (whether it be an opposite or same sex marriage). They feel it's more important to treat their employees with respect/reduce attrition of trained/valued employees.

 

[nehalem256]

It's none of your business, it's between the company and the employee/legal spouse (whether it be an opposite or same sex marriage). They feel it's more important to treat their employees with respect/reduce attrition of trained/valued employees.

Sounds like you are avoiding the question:
Why should a person's live-in sex partner get medical, dental, & vision care as well as being the beneficiary of the company's provided life insurance?

It really shouldn't be so hard to ask such as basic question.

 

[Texashiker]

The question was why

Why should a person's live-in sex partner get medical, dental, & vision care as well as being the beneficiary of the company's provided life insurance?

That question is why the US is becoming a third world nation when it comes to healthcare.

What goes on in a house between consenting adults is none of anyones business.

 

[nehalem256]

That question is why the US is becoming a third world nation when it comes to healthcare.

What goes on in a house between consenting adults is none of anyones business.

Marriage is a lot more than what goes on in a house between consenting adults:

From a gay marriage advocate:

But part of it was inherent in the battle for marriage, which, after all, takes its very meaning from the quest for public recognition of a couple’s union. The whole point of a wedding, from a cultural perspective, is for a couple to invite their community to recognize and help enforce—indeed to approve of—their union as a positive thing worth supporting. There has always been something a bit disingenuous about gay rights activists insisting that they deserve marital recognition from their society because their relationships are nobody’s business but their own. Marriage is all about making your relationship other people’s business.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Sounds like you are avoiding the question:
Why should a person's live-in sex partner get medical, dental, & vision care as well as being the beneficiary of the company's provided life insurance?

It really shouldn't be so hard to ask such as basic question.

There is no insurance company as they're self insured.

 

[Texashiker]

Marriage is a lot more than what goes on in a house between consenting adults:

From a gay marriage advocate:
Marriage is all about making your relationship other people’s business.

I respectfully disagree.

How people decide to live their life is their business.

Sounds to me like gay marriage advocate is pushing an agenda.

~ EDIT ~

And link to the source you are quoting? I did a google search and did not find what article you were referencing.

 

[nehalem256]

There is no insurance company as they're self insured.

WTF does that have to do with anything. Once again you are avoiding the question. I think we all know why.

I respectfully disagree.

How people decide to live their life is their business.

Sounds to me like gay marriage advocate is pushing an agenda.

Its actually about a gay marriage advocate admitting that the whole same-sex marriage movement has been based on a fundamental lie.

Marriage is not a private act. It is fundamentally a public one.

If 2 people want to live together and not seek recognition from others than they should be free to do so, but that is not a marriage.

~ EDIT ~

And link to the source you are quoting? I did a google search and did not find what article you were referencing.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...iendly_as_they.html?google_editors_picks=true

 

[bshole]

Sounds like you are avoiding the question:
Why should a person's live-in sex partner get medical, dental, & vision care as well as being the beneficiary of the company's provided life insurance?

It really shouldn't be so hard to ask such as basic question.

The company offers those benefits to attract more potential employees to their company. The company is not doing it out of a sense of altruism, they are doing it because they believe it will improve their bottom line. They are doing it because of their own GREED!

The REAL question is, how the hell could you not know this? The question is about as stupid as asking why google pays it's engineers more than just about every other company...... um, because they want to attract the very best engineers in the business!

I am a little shocked that a supposed conservative is not versed on what drives a capitalist society.

 

[BoberFett]

Marriage is a lot more than what goes on in a house between consenting adults:

Why should a man and a woman get married? So they pump out a bunch of crotch dumplings, that's my problem how? Keep that shit private.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I fully agree.

Also, to have true marriage equality polygamy and polyandry both need to be legalized.

I concur.

Never thought I'd agree with Texashiker, but wow... I totally do

 

[nehalem256]

The company offers those benefits to attract more potential employees to their company. The company is not doing it out of a sense of altruism, they are doing it because they believe it will improve their bottom line. They are doing it because of their own GREED!

The REAL question is, how the hell could you not know this? The question is about as stupid as asking why google pays it's engineers more than just about every other company...... um, because they want to attract the very best engineers in the business!

I am a little shocked that a supposed conservative is not versed on what drives a capitalist society.

They are doing it because other companies are doing it.

That isn't really any answer to my question. It is mere self-perpetuation. Outside of self-perpetuation why should companies do it?

 

[nehalem256]

Why should a man and a woman get married? So they pump out a bunch of crotch dumplings, that's my problem how? Keep that shit private.

Yeah its not like society spends $100s of billions a year on those crotch dumplings...

 

[BoberFett]

Yeah its not like society spends $100s of billions a year on those crotch dumplings...

And a massive number of them have nothing to do with marriage. Try again.

 

[nehalem256]

And a massive number of them have nothing to do with marriage. Try again.

And this is provably a bad thing. Because society is forced to spend more supporting those children.

And those children are far more likely to you know try and car-jack you. Which is your problem.

 

[bshole]

They are doing it because other companies are doing it.

That isn't really any answer to my question. It is mere self-perpetuation. Outside of self-perpetuation why should companies do it?

Holy crap! Really dude? Seriously? For real? My IQ dipped 50 points just reading your response.

Ok, according to you (defying all logic and common sense) the company is not doing it to improve its bottom line. What is IT doing it for then? I can think of NO OTHER reason. Enlighten us Einstein.

While you are at it, why did companies start offering health insurance in the first place (in the 1940s)? Since it wasn't offered to attract employees, why was it offered?

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

If men and women can marry, then:
Men/men and women/women should be able to marry
Women and multiple men and men with multiple women should be able to marry (all consenting of legal age, as with any other marriage)
People should be able to marry men and women in any combination if they so choose.

Designate one (or a set number of "primary beneficiaries") and then have "secondary beneficiaries". Get rid of tax benefits for marriage, tax people at the same rate regardless of their marital status (so tax laws don't get more complex and create more loopholes), and only allow 2 people to claim a dependent. Done.

Oh and call any of it regardless of which form it takes (straight, same-sex, plural, etc) a "civil union" as far as the government is concerned.

 

[nehalem256]

Holy crap! Really dude? Seriously? For real? My IQ dipped 50 points just reading your response.

Ok, according to you (defying all logic and common sense) the company is not doing it to improve its bottom line. What is IT doing it for then? I can think of NO OTHER reason. Enlighten us Einstein.

While you are at it, why did companies first start offering health insurance in the first place (in the 1940s)? Since it wasn't offered to attract employees, what was it offered?

The question is why should any companies offer benefits to people's sex partners?

It is a theoretical question. It is obvious, as a practical matter, why if other companies are doing it you have to as well.

 

[Matt1970]

Holy crap! Really dude? Seriously? For real? My IQ dipped 50 points just reading your response.

Impossible.

 

[CZroe]

Nobody cares what remote tribes are doing. This thread is about the US culture and our laws.

A good number of our laws are based off old Roman law, and medieval European law. Both of which regulated marriages.

You are dodging the point of this thread and crawfishing on your statements.

And a good portion of my point has been that we shouldn't have ever given up our freedom over 200 years ago just like we shouldn't let them make 40 and 60 watt incandescent lightbulbs illegal on January 1st. Everything that is accomplished with legally recognized marriages can be accomplished just as easily with unions.

The goal of marriage has never been population growth. It has been population CONTROL. As only heterosexual couples can reproduce, even if they don't the goal of population control is achieved.

Stop mixing arguments. The reason the government ENCOURAGES marriage is for population growth, plain and simple. The reason for the legal status does not require recognition of marriage. I can make a will or a contract doing the same thing right now.

And why should your registered sex-partner receive medical benefits? You have essentially made civil unions into a registered sex-partnership.

You must be reading the exact opposite of what I wrote to keep saying this. The person you CHOSE to give those benefits to gets them BY CONTRACT and NOT because you live with them or have sex with them. I can give my mother the right to my property and medical decisions if I want to and I always could through a will, power of attorney, etc.

Your sex partner AND your marriage would be COMPLETELY IGNORED. Only the registered union partner you CHOSE and GAVE that status to would get those benefits and privileges. If you say "Why should someone I live/screw with get X?" the answer is "They don't. Only someone you legally gave those benefits and privileges to gets them."

Except if you divorce the ideas of marriage from civil unions there are no reasons to grant any benefits to them. And in fact the only reason people would want a civil union is because everyone would know its a *wink* marriage *wink*.

No. The reason people would want it is because it gives someone you trust the power to make legal decisions for you and solves all kinds of property disputes. It also provides a tax benefit should they raise a child.

Pretend marriage didn't exist. Would anyone go you know what the girl I screw should make medical decisions for me? Or that she should automatically inherit my stuff? Why should the idea of making medical decisions and inheritance even be connected?

It sounds like you get it, but you don't: The person you WANT to have those things will have those things when you decide to give them to him/her. Period. No one else unless you dissolve the union legally (divorce). It doesn't matter who you screw. It's irrelevant. Why are they connected? Because someone you trust for one thing is almost always the person you trust for the other. If you are unconscious in the hospital and a medical or financial decision needs to be made, this let's the person you want make it. That also the person you'd usually want deciding what happens to your estate if you die and something isn't covered in the will.

 

[Texashiker]

Everything that is accomplished with legally recognized marriages can be accomplished just as easily with unions.

Civil union, marriage,,, whatever you want to call it is the same thing.

The reason the government ENCOURAGES marriage is for population growth, plain and simple.

That is simply no true. You do not know your history do you?

As I posted before, one of the main reasons why marriages are recorded is so families can pass down property to the rightful heir.

And to make sure fathers and or mothers support their children.

If there was no record of the marriage, where does the property go? Who makes decisions for a sick family member?

Without registered marriage - husband dies, woman has to prove she was married to him so the property can be signed over to her. Two or three women can stand up and say they were his wife. Then the ownership of the property is in dispute. Four or five women stand up and say they were married to a rich landowner. Without some kind of official paperwork everything can be disputed.

With registered marriage - husband dies, wife has proof she is the wife and rightful heir to the property.

CZroe you do not know your history do you? I am going to guess you have never read anything about the middle ages, or medieval Europe?

As peasants started to own property it became important to make sure the land and other property went to the rightful heirs. A registered marriage license through the local government creates documentation so that property is passed down through the family.

 

[CZroe]

Civil union, marriage,,, whatever you want to call it is the same thing.




That is simply no true. You do not know your history do you?

You do know the difference between "encourage" and "recognizes," don't you? Stop pedaling backwards. The reason they ENCOURAGE it *IS* population growth. The reasons they recognize it are numerous and INCLUDE population growth.

As I posted before, one of the main reasons why marriages are recorded is so families can pass down property to the rightful heir.

Which is something that is handled automatically for children without marriage and would be handled by a civil union instead should the government stop recognizing marriage. Got it?

And to make sure fathers and or mothers support their children.

Yep. Another part of "population growth."

If there was no record of the marriage, where does the property go? Who makes decisions for a sick family member?

Same as an unmarried couple unless they unified in ADDITION to their unrecognized marriage. It'd not that hard to understand, you just aren't trying.

Without registered marriage - husband dies, woman has to prove she was married to him so the property can be signed over to her. Two or three women can stand up and say they were his wife. Then the ownership of the property is in dispute. Four or five women stand up and say they were married to a rich landowner. Without some kind of official paperwork everything can be disputed.

Why would the woman try to prove something irrelevant? If it's not in writing and they didn't go through the legal unification process in addition to their vows, there is no legal difference. Got it? If they take vows and they want those benefits, they must also apply for a civil union. SIMPLE! It's the way it always should have been instead of pretending that the government has any say in who you and make promises to.

With registered marriage - husband dies, wife has proof she is the wife and rightful heir to the property.

How is that any different from a civil union providing the same to spouses and other unions? It's now an UNregistered marriage with a registered UNION.

CZroe you do not know your history do you? I am going to guess you have never read anything about the middle ages, or medieval Europe?

As peasants started to own property it became important to make sure the land and other property went to the rightful heirs. A registered marriage license through the local government creates documentation so that property is passed down through the family.

OMG! I must have totally neglected to suggest a substitute for that! 🙄