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!
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!
Legal? Currently, Ricky marries Nat and Ron marries Nancy. They swap wives (husbands). Kids are communally raised. No problem, right, under current laws?
But current law would have major cows in 4 consenting adults were considered one "family unit". Why not recognize polymory??
Ricky and Ron love Natalie and Nancy, and vice versa. All 4 are strongly hetero. Trouble is, if Ricky says he wants to marry Nancy, Natalie is going to be upset. Ditto for Ron. So Ricky and Ron marry Natalie and Nancy. Who sleeps with whom varies.
Legal? Currently, Ricky marries Nat and Ron marries Nancy. They swap wives (husbands). Kids are communally raised. No problem, right, under current laws?
But current law would have major cows in 4 consenting adults were considered one "family unit". Why not recognize polymory??
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!
My understanding is that the gubmint doesn't want one guy having 7 wives because that leads to 30 kids, which few people in the population can support. That puts them on the govt dole. Now one could argue if someone makes a pledge not to use govt resources, then should they be allowed to marry multiple wives? I say the answer is still no as you can't guarantee that will always be the case plus its most likely unhealthy to grow up in a household with that many siblings including many of the same age (see the Duggars!!!
).
My understanding is that the gubmint doesn't want one guy having 7 wives because that leads to 30 kids, which few people in the population can support. That puts them on the govt dole. Now one could argue if someone makes a pledge not to use govt resources, then should they be allowed to marry multiple wives? I say the answer is still no as you can't guarantee that will always be the case plus its most likely unhealthy to grow up in a household with that many siblings including many of the same age (see the Duggars!!!
).
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!
Because of the complexities of benefits and other economic by-products of marriage. Being a spouse confers all sorts of rights. As long as we're dealing with pairs that's fine. But if all the adults in Delaware announce they're a 500k-person group marriage, it breaks the system.
It has nothing to do with morality, if that's what you're asking.
Because of the complexities of benefits and other economic by-products of marriage. Being a spouse confers all sorts of rights. As long as we're dealing with pairs that's fine. But if all the adults in Delaware announce they're a 500k-person group marriage, it breaks the system.
It has nothing to do with morality, if that's what you're asking.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!
I'll type this s--l--o--w--l--y so you can understand:
Poly marriage could be legalized by a state legislature, but the courts have not ruled that there is a Constitutional right to poly marriage and I seriously doubt that they will within the next 50 years. The vast majority of people who support gay marriage do not support poly marriage, and that is a perfectly consistent, perfectly legal position. Pouting in the corner going, "but why? but why? but why?" just makes you look like a 3-year-old. Stop it.
Keep barking - you might by random chance find a tree holding a boogeyman someday.
I'll type this s--l--o--w--l--y so you can understand:
Poly marriage could be legalized by a state legislature, but the courts have not ruled that there is a Constitutional right to poly marriage and I seriously doubt that they will within the next 50 years. The vast majority of people who support gay marriage do not support poly marriage, and that is a perfectly consistent, perfectly legal position. Pouting in the corner going, "but why? but why? but why?" just makes you look like a 3-year-old. Stop it.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!
All Christians need to learn that intolerance of their intolerance, is NOT hypocrisy.
All Christians need to learn that intolerance of their intolerance, is NOT hypocrisy.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!
The reason people oppose policies of inclusion is because exclusionary policies are used to enforce said "inclusion". Take a look at affirmative action, for example. Race still matters. You have to have a certain percentage of a race in order to "not look racist". In essence, you have to be racist to not be racist. That doesn't make much sense. If we really wanted to end -ism, we would offer apprenticeships, interviews, and similar opportunities to any willing person regardless of classification. Even equal opportunity employers shuffle the order of candidates in various interview rounds based upon race, gender, age, and whatever other classification comes up. They can't say yes/no based upon them, but they stack the deck to take advantage of a typical "first come first serve" mentality.
The reason people oppose policies of inclusion is because exclusionary policies are used to enforce said "inclusion". Take a look at affirmative action, for example. Race still matters. You have to have a certain percentage of a race in order to "not look racist". In essence, you have to be racist to not be racist. That doesn't make much sense. If we really wanted to end -ism, we would offer apprenticeships, interviews, and similar opportunities to any willing person regardless of classification. Even equal opportunity employers shuffle the order of candidates in various interview rounds based upon race, gender, age, and whatever other classification comes up. They can't say yes/no based upon them, but they stack the deck to take advantage of a typical "first come first serve" mentality.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!
This place is hopeless.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!
Not all. Plenty of them are tolerant, and plenty of them understand that though they have objections in a secular nation they don't get to enact their faith as law.
Behind the front line of noisy self-appointed martyrs, most Christians understand and approve of separation of church and state.
Not all. Plenty of them are tolerant, and plenty of them understand that though they have objections in a secular nation they don't get to enact their faith as law.
Behind the front line of noisy self-appointed martyrs, most Christians understand and approve of separation of church and state.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!
Atheists sure as heck don't approve of it. They're trying to get the government to establish their religion.
Atheists sure as heck don't approve of it. They're trying to get the government to establish their religion.
Never did, though some of the liberals may have thought so, given my stances on other issues. I believe that given recent court rulings, the old societal definitions have been tossed in favor of consenting adults who love each other.
Good thing? Or bad thing? Time will judge.
My understanding is that the gubmint doesn't want one guy having 7 wives because that leads to 30 kids, which few people in the population can support. That puts them on the govt dole. Now one could argue if someone makes a pledge not to use govt resources, then should they be allowed to marry multiple wives? I say the answer is still no as you can't guarantee that will always be the case plus its most likely unhealthy to grow up in a household with that many siblings including many of the same age (see the Duggars!!!
They haven't gone after professional athletes, have they?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!
Absence of declarative statement does not equal declarative statement of absence.
Absence of declarative statement does not equal declarative statement of absence.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!
Hey looky - Texas forgot that the first amendment already exists.
What will they "allow" next? Freedom of the Press? Protection from unreasonable search?
Hey looky - Texas forgot that the first amendment already exists.
What will they "allow" next? Freedom of the Press? Protection from unreasonable search?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!
This is a great piece.
Money shot:
I finally understand the conservative wailing that gay marriage will "destroy heterosexual marriage." What it really means is, this reframes marriage as something other than the man's protection of and dominion over his wife and kids. That cinematic fantasy that underpins the conservative worldview has just been tossed out as obsolete. That must be truly threatening.
This is a great piece.
Money shot:
I finally understand the conservative wailing that gay marriage will "destroy heterosexual marriage." What it really means is, this reframes marriage as something other than the man's protection of and dominion over his wife and kids. That cinematic fantasy that underpins the conservative worldview has just been tossed out as obsolete. That must be truly threatening.
Last edited:
DisplacedCornellian
Let's Go Red!
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!
You've taken it up to another level these days. I mean...you've gone to plaid. Kudos.
You've taken it up to another level these days. I mean...you've gone to plaid. Kudos.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!
But let me ask you a question or two based on your post. You'd be OK with a legislative solution to poly as opposed to the courts? I seems you are staking out a position 180 degrees from your stated position on SSM. Or have I misinterpreted?
You don't like me, and, frankly, I don't like you. But I have not put you on ignore - yet.
But let me ask you a question or two based on your post. You'd be OK with a legislative solution to poly as opposed to the courts? I seems you are staking out a position 180 degrees from your stated position on SSM. Or have I misinterpreted?
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!
Hey, you can't legislate every eventuality.
They haven't gone after professional athletes, have they?
Hey, you can't legislate every eventuality.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!
You've misinterpreted. With respect to gay marriage, I was happy each time a state legislature approved gay marriage, just as I was happy when SCOTUS clarified that there is a fundamental right for it nationally. In other words, I would have been just as happy if all 50 legislatures approved it (plus Congress for the districts and territories) as with a SCOTS ruling. With respect to poly marriage, I would be *indifferent* (as opposed to happy) either way - so long as there are no extra benefits handed out to people in poly marriages and we aggressively enforce existing laws on rape, incest, coercion, and abuse. I just don't think there's a large enough proportion of the population that wants a poly arrangement for it to make a hill of beans of difference in the grand scheme of things.
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!
I would like to say that you are definitely not talking about me. I view myself as conservative but then again, I care way more about the fiscal issues than the social issues. I obviously feel more libertarian than anything and worked very hard in the republican party of minnesota to help Ron Paul. Although based on other things you've said, you probably think I'm a wacko just as much as the social conservatives...
That is a great quote and a great way to understand why so many people have struggled with this issue.
I would like to say that you are definitely not talking about me. I view myself as conservative but then again, I care way more about the fiscal issues than the social issues. I obviously feel more libertarian than anything and worked very hard in the republican party of minnesota to help Ron Paul. Although based on other things you've said, you probably think I'm a wacko just as much as the social conservatives...
- Status