What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

joecct said:
Why does everyone think that a poly marriage must have more F than M?

A valid marriage can have MMFF, MFF or any combination thereof > 2. As long as there is no spousal abuse, the State should be OK.

Incest? Between consenting adults? What could be wrong with that?

The camel's nose is under the tent flap. Good luck stopping the rest of it.
Click to expand...

I hope you are not suggesting there is an equal protection argument for poly marriage as there was for gay marriage.

The camel's nose you think you see is a horse"s arse.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

5mn_Major said:
I'm progressive...and was fine with gay marriage 20 years ago. Poly marriages will never happen and I would not be supportive. Sooner or later they are destructive and demeaning to some of the parties (who typically believe they have little alternative). There's nothing in the Constitution that would mandate they must be legal and both genders esp women would be solidly against the concept.
Click to expand...

If all parties are willing, go for it. Doesn't bother me one bit.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

geezer said:
found it: "Under the Banner of Heaven." I forgot it's by Jon Krakauer, should be a good read.
Click to expand...

Hope you're prepared for a bit of exaggeration.

While I trust Krakauer's account of the 1996 Everest mess to a point - I think the reality is somewhere between his writing and the survivors' account.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

geezer said:
I don't know, they'd probably all be dependents same as a bunch of kids are. Maybe we could work something else out, maybe call it the "three fifths compromise" or something.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I object to (at least, one of the things). You should only be able to claim one spouse as a dependent, period. Otherwise, you could have a case where a rich lady "marries" 100 homeless guys (flipped the genders just for fun) that she's not actually supporting just to get the tax breaks.
 
LynahFan said:
This is exactly what I object to (at least, one of the things). You should only be able to claim one spouse as a dependent, period. Otherwise, you could have a case where a rich lady "marries" 100 homeless guys (flipped the genders just for fun) that she's not actually supporting just to get the tax breaks.
Click to expand...

Then change the tax code so everyone files as single. That way couples who live together but not married are not discriminated against.
 
burd said:
I hope you are not suggesting there is an equal protection argument for poly marriage as there was for gay marriage.

The camel's nose you think you see is a horse"s arse.
Click to expand...

Why not? The only qualification for marriage is that the parties love each other.
 
joecct said:
Then change the tax code so everyone files as single. That way couples who live together but not married are not discriminated against.
Click to expand...

The equal protection clause allows for discrimination where the government has a (rational/legitimate/compelling) reason. The government clearly has an interest in promoting and encouraging marriage. There's only hundreds of cases/studies supporting that, same reason your car insurance drops when you get married.
 
unofan said:
The equal protection clause allows for discrimination where the government has a (rational/legitimate/compelling) reason. The government clearly has an interest in promoting and encouraging marriage. There's only hundreds of cases/studies supporting that, same reason your car insurance drops when you get married.
Click to expand...
My insurance company has a rate for "significant other".

But to address the main point, if there is a vested government interest in folks getting married, why are more and more people not? And why are these same people procreating and getting benefits? Is our government working at cross purposes?

BTW I agree with you that the government has a compelling reason to encourage marriage. It seems, though, that the masses are not heeding the message.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

joecct said:
But to address the main point, if there is a vested government interest in folks getting married, why are more and more people not? And why are these same people procreating and getting benefits? Is our government working at cross purposes?
Click to expand...

Because kids shouldn't be punished for the poor choices of their parents.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I question what polys do because they have a documented history of cultish incest and domestic abuse, neither of which is OK. If you can prove that polygamy isn't associated with these movements a majority of the time, then maybe I'll start thinking about it.
Click to expand...

IINM about a decade ago some anthropologists published an enormous comparative analysis of world history, and found that out of about 1200 distinct "cultures" (I'm sure they defined it beautifully, I just don't recall the definition) about 1000 were polygamous. OTOH, about 80% of those cultures had only a tiny rural, tribal population.

It seems to be a sort of law of human society that tiny, isolated, rural societies have animist gods, communist economy, and polygamy, town-sized societies have agricultural gods, barter economy, and monogamy with a strict religious definition, and urban societies have abstract or no gods, market economy, and monogamy with a loose individualistic definition.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

geezer said:
Of course. What fun would ripping the Mormons be if you couldn't exaggerate (or at least pick on the wacky fringe)? 10 years ago every gay person was a deviant child molester. Today every poly is a degenerate abuser. When that's got the stamp of approval in a year or two, they'll go after "interspecies companionship." (Why should we care what someone uses their dog for?)
Also, look up what people were saying about "interracial marriage" way back in the day. Same thing as gays yesterday, and poly today, and dogs tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Sorry to disappoint you geezer, but you aren't going to be able to marry your dog anytime soon. And while you might say what you do behind closed doors is YOUR business, be mindful that animals can't consent so you will still be arrested if discovered by the local authorities. :eek:
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Rover said:
Sorry to disappoint you geezer, but you aren't going to be able to marry your dog anytime soon. And while you might say what you do behind closed doors is YOUR business, be mindful that animals can't consent so you will still be arrested if discovered by the local authorities. :eek:
Click to expand...

you're just jelly honey. #loveislove
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Rover said:
Sorry to disappoint you geezer, but you aren't going to be able to marry your dog anytime soon. And while you might say what you do behind closed doors is YOUR business, be mindful that animals can't consent so you will still be arrested if discovered by the local authorities. :eek:
Click to expand...

There is the woman who married a roller coaster... http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/08/woman_to_marry.html
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Kepler said:
You must be this tall to...

Why don't conservatives ever make good jokes? Again, it's a no-go, because inanimate objects can't consent. Make better jokes, dammit.
Click to expand...
Punchlines can't make jokes, they are the joke.

If you want to feel really ****ed off, check out this video from some victimized bigots. https://youtu.be/I6PPk2NOQXs
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Foxton said:
Punchlines can't make jokes, they are the joke.

If you want to feel really ****ed off, check out this video from some victimized bigots. https://youtu.be/I6PPk2NOQXs
Click to expand...

It doesn't make me mad, if anything it makes me kinda sad. Their happiness actually rests on keeping others unhappy. That's the most un-Christian sentiment possible.

I'd say they should be ashamed, but the lack of self-reflection they* show suggests they are not capable of shame.

* By "they" I mean the pressure group behind the ad. The people in the ad are just actors, which means the odds are pretty good that the men at least are gay and just cashing a check and laughing at people with this attitude.

War's over, kitten; the good guys won. Find something else to poke your nose into.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top