Legalized polygamy next ....

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



(since I said pretty much the same thing Toxick said; I'll save you from repeating yourself )

Polygamy doesn't degrade this mythical 'stability of marriage'. How does what one person does change what you do?

It doesn't, and I never contended it did.

It's not about what someone else does, and how it effects me. My marriage is no different because it's legally recognized, and I submit that a homosexual union is not marginalized to those involved by lack of legal recognition, nor are multiple-partner unions.

However, just like we give charitable organizations tax-exempt status because of the stabilizing effect they have on society, the overall good they bring to a community, we do the same with traditional marriage. Centuries of experience have proven that a strong foundation of married citizens are more law-abiding, pay their bills, keep their jobs, care for their children, etc., etc.

In the 1960s, the divorce laws were liberalized, making ending a marriage much easier. This lead to a general decline in how marriage was viewed by society, and lead to higher crime, less full parenting of children by (especially) fathers, etc.

Did the liberalized divorce laws effect each particular marriage? No, of course not, that would be absurd. Did the increase in divorce rate, the reduction of prominence of traditional marriage effect society? Of course.

So, when you dilute the traditional, stabilizing effect of marriage by (1) making ending marriage easier, (2) including more things than just the traditional definition of marriage in the legal definition of marriage - you hurt society at large.

Other people's divorces, people living together who are the same sex, or multiple partners, or whatever don't effect my personal relationship at all. Just like it shouldn't.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



You beat me!

It should be legally recognized because...again...there's absolutely no reason not to. Not reglcognizing it is denying one's right to - in part - the pursuit of happiness. Since polygamy doesn't infringe on my (or anyone else's) pursuit of happiness it should be legal.

Again, it's not illegal to live together with multiple partners. Only when you effect society as a whole does it become illegal (like, lying about your status to gain tax advantages, etc.)

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



You beat me!

It should be legally recognized because...again...there's absolutely no reason not to. Not reglcognizing it is denying one's right to - in part - the pursuit of happiness. Since polygamy doesn't infringe on my (or anyone else's) pursuit of happiness it should be legal.

Again, it's not illegal to live together with multiple partners. Only when you effect society as a whole does it become illegal (like, lying about your status to gain tax advantages, etc.)

It should be noted that one of the few 'tax hikes' I agree with is not giving tax breaks for marriage. I don't get why the govt seems to think one needs and incentive to marry. (...and let the jokes about how horrible marriage is so we need to get laid for it... )

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



It should be noted that one of the few 'tax hikes' I agree with is not giving tax breaks for marriage. I don't get why the govt seems to think one needs and incentive to marry. (...and let the jokes about how horrible marriage is so we need to get laid for it... )

It's not an incentive to marry. It's a relief of burden consistent with the lowered burden marriages are to society with respect to all other forms of unions/non-unions.

 

[Toxick]

It's a relief of burden consistent with the lowered burden marriages are to society with respect to all other forms of unions/non-unions.

This may be the most subjective statement I've ever read.




If not, it's way up there.

 

[This_person]

This may be the most subjective statement I've ever read.




If not, it's way up there.

In your opinion

 

[Toxick]

In your opinion

Funny, but, no... It is a fact that your argument is completely subjective and there is no possible way you can aver that male/female relationships provide a more stabilizing effect on society (which, by the way, I reject as a reason to incentivize it) than other couples/unions, as fact.

It is not a fact and should not be couched as one.

 

[This_person]

Funny, but, no... It is a fact that your argument is completely subjective and there is no possible way you can aver that male/female relationships provide a more stabilizing effect on society (which, by the way, I reject as a reason to incentivize it) than other couples/unions, as fact.

It is not a fact and should not be couched as one.

Well, go back the hundreds of years and come up with a better reason why traditional marriage is traditional. And, you can't say it was strictly for religious reasons, because otherwise there would be other strictly religious laws, which there are not (kind of the opposite).

 

[vraiblonde]

Laws should not be changed unless there is a reason to change them. Make the case to change.

The case to change is to get the government out of our personal lives that are none of their freaking business. Really, how much control do you really want Obama and Martin O'Malley to have over you?

 

[This_person]

The case to change is to get the government out of our personal lives that are none of their freaking business. Really, how much control do you really want Obama and Martin O'Malley to have over you?

I would be far more for stopping any legal recognition of marriage than I would for arbitrarily adding things into the mix.

Of course, then you'll get those who "marry" incestuously, pedophilically, etc. If you stop any definition of marriage, you really can't justify holding back anything, can you?

 

[Toxick]

Well, go back the hundreds of years and come up with a better reason why traditional marriage is traditional. And, you can't say it was strictly for religious reasons, because otherwise there would be other strictly religious laws, which there are not (kind of the opposite).

Go back hundreds of years and everyone said the earth was flat and lived at the center of the universe.

The above does not imply your assertion is a fact - or is anything but a wildly arbitrary statement based on perceived righteousness.

 

[vraiblonde]

I think the societal benefit of the stability that marriages fosters

Can we do away with that "marriage creates stability" saw once and for all? Clearly and demonstrably, marriage does not create stability, nor does it enhance society in any way. Maybe it did back in the day, but since the advent of divorce, open marriages, bi-coastal marriages, etc, etc, marriage is nothing more than a quaint tradition to most Americans.

And if marriage = stability, you'd think traditionalists would be all for gay marriage and polygamy. More stability, right? And wouldn't that be better for society?

 

[This_person]

Go back hundreds of years and everyone said the earth was flat and lived at the center of the universe.

The above does not imply your assertion is a fact - or is anything but a wildly arbitrary statement based on perceived righteousness.

Righteousness? Where do you get that from?

I'll buy it's subjective (I have no quantifiable fact, no study, just common sense), but "righteousness"?!? Are you being a bit subjective yourself?

 

[This_person]

Can we do away with that "marriage creates stability" saw once and for all? Clearly and demonstrably, marriage does not create stability, nor does it enhance society in any way. Maybe it did back in the day, but since the advent of divorce, open marriages, bi-coastal marriages, etc, etc, marriage is nothing more than a quaint tradition to most Americans.

Um, thank you for making my point.

When traditional marriage was the norm, it created stability. As the definition and societal "norm" of marriage changed, so did the societal stability.

It's what I said, and what you just said. TY

And if marriage = stability, you'd think traditionalists would be all for gay marriage and polygamy. More stability, right? And wouldn't that be better for society?

Again, it's not that "marriage = stability". It's that "traditional marriage = stability". All others, not so much.

 

[vraiblonde]

Of course, then you'll get those who "marry" incestuously, pedophilically, etc. If you stop any definition of marriage, you really can't justify holding back anything, can you?

Let's drop the pedophile and bestiality argument, because neither of those have anything to do with consenting tax-paying adults, which is what we're talking about.

For the record, I don't care about incestuous marriages, either. I admit I find it somewhat repulsive, but I find a lot of couplings equally repulsive, if not more so. Carmen Electra and Dennis Rodman, for example. Incest is only repulsive to me because of my cultural programming.

 

[Toxick]

Righteousness? Where do you get that from?

From what I read.

You sound offended by my use of this word. Instead of righteousness lets say perceived "This-way-is-the-correct-way"ness.

Cool? I'm not trying to be insulting.

I'll buy it's subjective (I have no quantifiable fact, no study, just common sense), but "righteousness"?!? Are you being a bit subjective yourself?

I don't believe I am.

 

[This_person]

Let's drop the pedophile and bestiality argument, because neither of those have anything to do with consenting tax-paying adults, which is what we're talking about.

For the record, I don't care about incestuous marriages, either. I admit I find it somewhat repulsive, but I find a lot of couplings equally repulsive, if not more so. Carmen Electra and Dennis Rodman, for example. Incest is only repulsive to me because of my cultural programming.

I never mentioned bestiality - where is your mind?

I submit most consenting, tax-paying adults (who vote) do care about incest and pedophilia - thus the definition of marriage that precludes that.

 

[This_person]

From what I read.

You sound offended by my use of this word. Instead of righteousness lets say perceived "This-way-is-the-correct-way"ness.

Cool? I'm not trying to be insulting.






I don't believe I am.

"Righteousness" has a moral implication to it. I've not offered a single moral argument.

However, I still have the common sense to see that, historically, traditional marriage has provided a benefit to society. I can try and do the research for you, but:
Married people have statistically higher income - more taxing from all points (income, purchases, real estate, etc.) (10-50% more according to that conservative beacon the NY Times)
Married people are healthier statistically - lower medical costs to other insured in their plan/medicare/medicaid. (of course, only conservative/religous outlets like the Washington Post say so)
Married people are more likely to vote. (those damned rightwingers at ABC say so)
Married people are more likely to be involved in civic organizations.
Married people are more likely to donate to charity.

Of course, there are the "yeah but my uncle so and so was married/not-married and he was a load on society/great person" arguments, but I'm talking statistically, not anecdotally.

 

[vraiblonde]

Married people have statistically higher income - more taxing from all points (income, purchases, real estate, etc.)
Married people are healthier statistically - lower medical costs to other insured in their plan/medicare/medicaid.
Married people are more likely to vote.
Married people are more likely to be involved in civic organizations.
Married people are more likely to donate to charity.

Again, if marriage is such a benefit to society, why would we try to prevent it? Do you have statistics that prove a same-sex couple, or a polygamist family, do not enjoy those same benefits?

 

[This_person]

Again, if marriage is such a benefit to society, why would we try to prevent it? Do you have statistics that prove a same-sex couple, or a polygamist family, do not enjoy those same benefits?

That would not be my function. See, it's my point of view that you don't change laws unless there's a reason. Do you have statistics that suggest they add to society in the same way, to justify the change in law?

Do you have any suggestion that diluting the definition of marriage won't hurt what is now a good thing for society?

(you have to have both, to balance out that the good that may be done will not be outdone by bad)