The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

...it's the sexual abuse of underage children that is the core problem in most of the testimony to which you refer.

That's another side of it.

I don't like it...someone could easily make an argument that relationships that come from trailer parks have a higher rate of being abusive in nature, or relationships involving someone of a certain profession are more likely to be abusive. Does that mean that people from those situations shouldn't be allowed to marry, just because there happens to be a higher % of *******s in those areas than in regular society?

As said, there can be victims. And I am not making a case for or against it...I'm just talking about how society works. In any case, its not often stated that living in a trailer home is the direct cause of family abuse. Maybe being poor, but you can't make being poor illegal. And professions with the risk of abuse are not outlawed, but those that have been deemed as abusive in the past (such as coal mining) are highly regulated for worker protection.

Polygamy is a bit different than other occurances of societal abuse such as you say professions or living situations...in these latter cases, its more difficult to identify what is driving the abusive behavior. And once those more precise drivers of abuse are indentified, they can be dealt with by law rather than outlawing say an entire profession. The claims against polygamy is that the nature of polygamy itself is the driver of abuse...and as a result, society finds the entire practice unacceptable. This is my read on the situation.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Its called Polygamy and its illegal in 50 states.

Thanks for pointing that out, captain obvious.

Just because something is illegal now does not mean it will be indefinitely, nor does it mean the law will be upheld in court as being constitutional if and when it is challenged. There simply is no constitutional basis for disallowing marriage for more than two people, just like there isn't one for disallowing it for different races or individuals of the same gender.

If the idea here is to get out of the way of consenting adults that want to enter into a marital agreement with each other, then allowing polygamy is the logical next step.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Thanks for pointing that out, captain obvious.

Just because something is illegal now does not mean it will be indefinitely, nor does it mean the law will be upheld in court as being constitutional if and when it is challenged. There simply is no constitutional basis for disallowing marriage for more than two people, just like there isn't one for disallowing it for different races or individuals of the same gender.

If the idea here is to get out of the way of consenting adults that want to enter into a marital agreement with each other, then allowing polygamy is the logical next step.

Nice to see some people around here get the ramifications.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I'm in favor of the ramifications. I want the misery of marriage to be available to everyone.

It's only a matter of time before the gays have a severe case of buyers' remorse on this one.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Nice to see some people around here get the ramifications.

He explained it very well, but I'm not on board with "ramifications". I really don't care one way or another if some guy wants to deal with having multiple wives. It wouldn't bother me if it were legal. I'd rip the **** out of them for being ****ed up and backwards, but hell, that's just entertainment. Actually, we could use some new people to make fun of, people get ****ed when you make fun of the gays these days.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

He explained it very well, but I'm not on board with "ramifications". I really don't care one way or another if some guy wants to deal with having multiple wives. It wouldn't bother me if it were legal. I'd rip the **** out of them for being ****ed up and backwards, but hell, that's just entertainment. Actually, we could use some new people to make fun of, people get ****ed when you make fun of the gays these days.

By ramifications I just meant the logical extension of the thinking being put forward by others, which they fail to acknowledge.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I can't wait for the government to outlaw making fun of people as "bullying".

Oh, and a wave of polygamy-themed reality programming is bound to happen if and when that becomes legal.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I can't wait for the government to outlaw making fun of people as "bullying".

If this happens, 50% of the internet will be outlawed. The other 50% is porn.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

If this happens, 50% of the internet will be outlawed. The other 50% is porn.

Are you sure it's just 50% porn?

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Are you sure it's just 50% porn?

I was rounding.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Are you sure it's just 50% porn?

What brings it down is that 48% of the internet is ads.

Though there is an intersection between the two sets.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Having said that, its not against the Constitution. And as with gay marriage, if some day it were acceptable to society...then it could well be legal.

Just because something is illegal now does not mean it will be indefinitely, nor does it mean the law will be upheld in court as being constitutional if and when it is challenged. There simply is no constitutional basis for disallowing marriage for more than two people, just like there isn't one for disallowing it for different races or individuals of the same gender.

If the idea here is to get out of the way of consenting adults that want to enter into a marital agreement with each other, then allowing polygamy is the logical next step.

Nice to see some people around here get the ramifications.

Which post is not like the others?

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

What brings it down is that 48% of the internet is ads.

Though there is an intersection between the two sets.

Do you count ads that offer to increase your dick size as porn ads or not?

Clarity is extremely important here.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Do you count ads that offer to increase your dick size as porn ads or not?

Clarity is extremely important here.

Extenze infomercials have been seen on non-premium cable television, possibly even network. They should not be counted.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Extenze infomercials have been seen on non-premium cable television, possibly even network. They should not be counted.

Remember the legendary quote from Justice Potter Stewart??

I know it (pornography) when I see it.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Which post is not like the others?

This one.

 

[French Rage]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I can't wait for the government to outlaw making fun of people as "bullying".

Oh, and a wave of polygamy-themed reality programming is bound to happen if and when that becomes legal.

"Sister Wives" on TLC.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I can't wait for the government to outlaw making fun of people as "bullying".

Oh, and a wave of polygamy-themed reality programming is bound to happen if and when that becomes legal.

If the government outlawed bullying, they themselves would become illegal.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

"Sister Wives" on TLC.

It's always 1 guy and whole bunch of women. Why can't we get 2 + 2 or 2 + 5 or even 5 + 2. You can bet in the latter those women are treated like queens!

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

It's always 1 guy and whole bunch of women. Why can't we get 2 + 2 or 2 + 5 or even 5 + 2. You can bet in the latter those women are treated like queens!

Well, religious-inspired polyam is always multiple women for one man, because (1) it's demographically efficient (parallel pregnancies), and (2) duh: "God told me to nail your younger sister." "Um..." "GOD told me to." "Oh. OK."

"Polyam lifestyle" types are theoretically talking about x + y but 95% of the time it's just an excuse for some creepy old goat to plow multiple girls with poor self-esteem and/or economic dependency. The other 5% are college kids playing grown-up. (So, basically... Libertarianism.)