Marriage Equality Warriors: "Not without Polygamy"

[werepossum]

These qualify for the tax break:
child or stepchild
foster child
sibling or step-sibling
descendants of any of these, such as your grandchild

You can then also deduct for these relatives if they are also dependent on you:
Siblings, including half or step-siblings
Parents, grandparents or any other direct ancestors
Stepparents
Aunts or uncles
Nieces or nephews
Fathers-in-law, mothers-in-law, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, brothers-in-law or sisters-in-law

Time to dump the tax break dependent write off argument.

Time to dump all arguments; the war is over. Except for Republican fundraising anyway.

 

[Annisman*]

Here is a real serious question that you need to answer before going any further with this line of argument.

Do you believe that humans ever needed a government benefit to encourage reproduction?

Unless you answer to that question is, 'Why, yes! We were in danger of extinction because everyone just kind of got tired of sex, and if it wasn't for that sweet tax benefit we would all just spend our time on more entertaining endeavors.' then your argument is full of shit.

Nope, which is why all benefits should be eliminated.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nope, which is why all benefits should be eliminated.

They won't be on your say so nor are most people so vindictive as to want them eliminated now that married gays get them. Your bigotry is talking.

 

[TheSlamma]

Time to dump all arguments; the war is over. Except for Republican fundraising anyway.

true true

 

[werepossum]

Your argument is the same dead horse that has been beaten and tossed into the river years ago.

Your argument assumes many false things:

--Only hetero marriages can produce children (not true)
--Heteros only marry to produce children (not true)
--Married couples are required to produce children as some rule of marriage (not true)
--Apparently, there is no need for adoption in this world. Likewise, raising adopted children does not deserve the same federal benefits as rearing one's spawned children (again, not true)
--All hetero marriages are capable of producing children (guess what? This isn't true, either)

I am seriously considering a kickstarter to fund my new business buying horses near death and selling their carcasses. Beating dead horses appears to be the growth opportunity of our age.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Sometimes I hate being right all the time.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Nope, which is why all benefits should be eliminated.

It think it is a mistaken idea that benefits were put in place to encourage people to reproduce. I think the reality is that those benefits were put in place because more married people vote than unmarried and some politicians saw a way to win major political victory points by being pro-family.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Sometimes I hate being right all the time.

That's because calling a spade a spade is an easy thing to do. Polygamy is a stupid idea that will never work because its impractical. Its a worse idea than legal prostitution.

The only way the fruitcakes make any headway these days is through the courts. But this time even the supremes would agree that polygamy has no place in America.

 

[bozack]

That's because calling a spade a spade is an easy thing to do. Polygamy is a stupid idea that will never work because its impractical. Its a worse idea than legal prostitution.

The only way the fruitcakes make any headway these days is through the courts. But this time even the supremes would agree that polygamy has no place in America.

Bigot

 

[FelixDeCat]

Bigot

I should call this Felix's law. When leftists loose an argument they pull the bigot card, as if its some sort of magical retort to anything.

 

[zinfamous]

That's because calling a spade a spade is an easy thing to do. Polygamy is a stupid idea that will never work because its impractical. Its a worse idea than legal prostitution.

The only way the fruitcakes make any headway these days is through the courts. But this time even the supremes would agree that polygamy has no place in America.

what do you mean by fruitcake?

I should call this Felix's law. When leftists loose an argument they pull the bigot card, as if its some sort of magical retort to anything.

boczak is hardly a leftist. You're just a goddamn moron.

 

[bshole]

I am seriously considering a kickstarter to fund my new business buying horses near death and selling their carcasses. Beating dead horses appears to be the growth opportunity of our age.

At least on this forum. When was the last time that ANY of us made an original argument. We just keep recycling old ones. Hey at least we aren't harming anybody.... just boring them... LOL!

 

[Moonbeam]

what do you mean by fruitcake?



boczak is hardly a leftist. You're just a goddamn moron.

boczak is maybe kidding but his statement is right. A bigot is a person who takes a biased position on something based on nothing but brainwashing. He knows he is right but can't produce a logical argument to support his position. His arguments look correct to him because they support his bigotry. All the DeCat can produce is truthiness certainty. I am right because I know I am.

Do not be surprised to be called a bigot because that is what you are. You could as easily be raving that the Earth is flat a few hundred years back. You could easily say that you're right about that because everybody else agreed. The blindness you have toward your actual condition is the product of a brain defect. Try not to mock liberals because you are in very bad condition and should focus there. You are trying to save the world from a terrible evil because you are a good person, but the evil you imagine can't be substantiated. Many in this thread have suggested logical reasons why polygamy may have little traction. Other sincere people have tried to present a positive case using reason.

 

[MongGrel]

I should call this Felix's law. When leftists loose an argument they pull the bigot card, as if its some sort of magical retort to anything.

Why not just stop posting that stupid pick to begin with.

It's getting old and annoying.

 

[LightRider]

The government needs to get out of the arbitrary and artificial marriage business.

 

[werepossum]

At least on this forum. When was the last time that ANY of us made an original argument. We just keep recycling old ones. Hey at least we aren't harming anybody.... just boring them... LOL!

lol Isn't that the point of the Internet, old dudes looking for something novel and not finding it?

 

[dank69]

That's because calling a spade a spade is an easy thing to do. Polygamy is a stupid idea that will never work because its impractical. Its a worse idea than legal prostitution.

The only way the fruitcakes make any headway these days is through the courts. But this time even the supremes would agree that polygamy has no place in America.

Wait, what's wrong with legal prostitution?

 

[FelixDeCat]

Wait, what's wrong with legal prostitution?

A woman should not sell her body for money. She needs to get a job and learn a skill. Prostitution is a dead end and often leads to physical abuse, drug abuse, etc.

 

[dank69]

A woman should not sell her body for money. She needs to get a job and learn a skill. Prostitution is a dead end

Says who?

and often leads to physical abuse, drug abuse, etc.

I think that is more a symptom of prostitution being illegal. Maybe those problems are reduced by making the profession legal and regulated.

 

[Bird222]

A woman should not sell her body for money. She needs to get a job and learn a skill. Prostitution is a dead end and often leads to physical abuse, drug abuse, etc.

Does a woman (or man for that matter) have agency over her own body? If so, why can't she use it to make money?

 

[dank69]

Does a woman (or man for that matter) have agency over her own body? If so, why can't she use it to make money?

Well he says it's a dead end job so obviously dead end jobs should be illegal.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally Posted by SMOGZINN
Here is a real serious question that you need to answer before going any further with this line of argument.

Do you believe that humans ever needed a government benefit to encourage reproduction?

Reproductice rates around the world are declining so yes, I absolutely believe that humans need government intervention at this point to encourage reproduction.

Humans only have a weak reproductive instinct. We have a fairly strong sex instinct. Sex leads to reproduction of course. Now, with the invention of birth control and prophylactics, sex is inadequate to guarantee reproduction so other interventions are necessary. Either birth control needs to be banned or reproduction needs to be mananged now.

 

[zephyrprime]

Well he says it's a dead end job so obviously dead end jobs should be illegal.

If it wasn't for dead end jobs, most people would be unemployed.

 

[lopri]

And I can answer them all day, because the answer to most of them are that it is not really different than the solutions we already use in monogamous relationships.

They are vastly different and your default answers ("Just do it as you do in 2 person marriages") are not very helpful, especially when you ignore the (non-)existing frameworks as well as the potential costs. I posed hypos not to disparage or demean those who support plural marriage, but to show that the institution of marriage would become something different than what we have now if we were to accommodate plural marriages.

The gang marriage example in my hypos is exactly on point as to the 5th amendment' guarantee against self-incrimination. Today it is construed as to protect spouses from testifying against each other. We do so because we recognize that spouses take oaths to each other and thus are presumed to be faithful to each other. Having a spouse take to a witness stand would put the spouse in an untenable position, and there is an inherent risk of self-incrimination against the other spouse (the accused).

If an entire gang entered into a group marriage, by law the marriage would effectively shield them from ever testifying. What's more, every recruit would be a potential new spouse which would increase the size of "the family." Issue of true consent and/or coercion will loom large as some members might be blackmailed into the marriage or some may find it nearly impossible to ever leave the gang despite their wishes - all under legal sanctions. Children would also be put in really unfortunate predicaments.

By that point a reasonable person will conclude that spousal immunity under the 5th amendment cannot be sustained in harmony with plural marriages, and that privilege will have to be cast aside. Whether that would be a good or bad development - I do not pass a judgment. But I note that issues as such do not rise in a marriage between two persons of the same sex.

The other hypos serve the same purpose. I do not pretend to know the wisdom and humanity of plural marriages. But I know that a lot will have to be changed in order to accommodate plural marriages, unlike same-sex marriages which only require you to read existing laws in gender-neutral ways. (Many laws are already written that way)

To be frank, I do not see much sincerity in many newly-enlightened advocates of plural marriages. I think it is a fad that will fade away as same-sex marriage settles in our society because most of the poly advocates I have seen are not genuinely motivated. They invoke now "what about poligamy?" in order to instill fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the same-sex marriage which has no logical or practical ties with polygamy or poly-anything. It is a red herring, scare tactic, and illogical slippery-slope argument which pretends to pertain to polygamy, but furtively serves to disparage same-sex couples and their supporters.

Whether time will come for a genuine movement for social recognition of polyamorous relationships is a question that I do not know the answer to. What I know are that;

1. Such a movement should stand on its own merits and persuasions. Same-sex marriage is not responsible for nor lends support to the cause. That the government can no longer discriminate against those who have penis and those who have vagina in issuing marriage licenses have no bearings on plural marriages' virtues and vices, let alone legality.
2. The legal institution of marriage will have to go through substantial changes to accommodate plural marriages. Marriage as we know it today will not be the same marriage as the marriage recognizing plural marriages. This is, again, unlike the same-sex marriage which requires no change to the institution but to treat men and women equally.

 

[SMOGZINN]

They are vastly different and your default answers ("Just do it as you do in 2 person marriages") are not very helpful, especially when you ignore the (non-)existing frameworks as well as the potential costs. I posed hypos not to disparage or demean those who support plural marriage, but to show that the institution of marriage would become something different than what we have now if we were to accommodate plural marriages.

What I'm pointing out is that the problems are not that difficult to solve, and that they solutions are for the most part just expansions of the ones we already have. It is still a judge that decides to gets custody of the kids, people getting divorced still need a court to decide the equitable division of property, a child taken overseas is still handled the same by the law based on if it is a custodial parent or other guardian.
Notice that most of the problems revolve around divorce, not marriage. The problems you are pointing out are not about how it would change the nature of marriage, but how it would change the nature of divorce. I for one, do not think that divorce is a sacred institution that needs to be protected.

If an entire gang entered into a group marriage, by law the marriage would effectively shield them from ever testifying.

This is simply such an edge case that if it should happen we can deal with it then. Personally I don't think that it will ever happen, and as I explained even if it ever became a factor it is unlikely to matter at all since few gang members are going to testify against their brothers because someone told them they had to. Simply put the spousal immunity is not enough of an incentive for gang members to get married. Not when their method of simply killing snitches is so effective.

What's more, every recruit would be a potential new spouse which would increase the size of "the family." Issue of true consent and/or coercion will loom large as some members might be blackmailed into the marriage or some may find it nearly impossible to ever leave the gang despite their wishes - all under legal sanctions. Children would also be put in really unfortunate predicaments.

You are still thinking about plural marriage wrong. A One Marriage, Many People rule would fit this. You can't just keep adding people on to the marriage like building new rooms onto an old house. Even most poly people agree that the many marriages method is too easy to abuse to ever be legally recognised.

To be frank, I do not see much sincerity in many newly-enlightened advocates of plural marriages.

I agree with this. I think that a lot of it is fear mongering by the right, but not all. I'm sincere in my arguments. I practice polyamory in my everyday life.

I think it is a fad that will fade away as same-sex marriage settles in our society because most of the poly advocates I have seen are not genuinely motivated.

I think it will settle down, because I don't think that we are ready for this debate quite yet. But there are a large number of polyamorous people, and we will have this debate in earnest eventually.

Such a movement should stand on its own merits and persuasions.[/B] Same-sex marriage is not responsible for nor lends support to the cause. That the government can no longer discriminate against those who have penis and those who have vagina in issuing marriage licenses have no bearings on plural marriages' virtues and vices, let alone legality.

Yes! Please notice that I have never claimed that the rules against polygamy is because of discrimination. This is not similar to the fight for gay rights, and the fight for gay rights is more important.

The legal institution of marriage will have to go through substantial changes to accommodate plural marriages.

This I disagree with. Plural marriage has been around for a long time. It was even practiced in America. Plural marriage itself is not that different. Divorce might have to change some, but mostly it is the same solutions, only expanded to fit multiple people.