^ I think it's a tax/benefits problem. Marriage carries with it a very specific set of legal rights that are granted to spouses. Allowing a person to take as many spouses as they want, runs the risk of abusing this system.
Don't know what to think about the Burqa law in France.
- Thread starter infinix
- Start date
What if three people love each other and commit solely to each other?
You can't make a value judgement if we want to change marriage from one man and one woman.
I say leave 'marriage' to private ceremonies/religions/organizations and only have civil unions in the eyes of the state, and issue them to any number/combination of persons who desire them.
Huh? Are you suggesting that there are attitudes that allow married couple to enjoy sexual promiscuity? Then what's the point of getting married? To abuse the legal system for the benefits?
I'm not making a value judgement. But I want to know why are those three people intent on calling it a marriage?
What about the other legal rights granted to a legal marriage? Like I said in my previous post. Tax issues alone would break the system almost immediately. I will go out and declare civil union with as many people as I can so I can pay less taxes. Hell, there are people willing to pay for fake marriages to get a green card. What do you think will happen when civil unions are granted in every form possible?
Under what you propose, there can't be any tangible benefits to a civil union (taxes, inheritance, insurance, spousal privilege, etc.) otherwise people will abuse the hell out of it. However, if the state will not grant any tangible benefits to civil unions, then what's the point? Its just a label.
Are you kidding? Swinging? Heinlein?
I'm not making a value judgement. But I want to know why are those three people intent on calling it a marriage?[/quote]
That's how some people roll. It's almost always people from unpleasant cultural milieus like Mormonism or Islam, but the basic concept isn't a terrible one, and need not be terrible in execution. For one thing, equal protection would require any state recognition of polygamy to include polyandry as well. I wouldn't mind being some sugar mama's second husband, particularly if I were able
Get rid of tax-based marriage incentives (if there are any, my tax code fell apart and is sitting in pieces in my car
), and make it a child-based system. I think this is pretty much where it stands today anyway.I don't really care that much about people who want to come to America.
Inheritance is still totally workable. Spousal privilege is wholly workable. Insurance companies could be free to do what they want: I don't know of any law now that requires insurers to insure spouses, they just do because the market bears that. If the market can't bear double spouses, then it won't offer insurance to more than the first spouse.
It is just a label. It's a label some people want, and it regulates some legal relationships, and people should be allowed to structure their legal relationships as they see fit, so long as it harms no one.
Well that IS a value judgement. If you change marriage from one man and one woman, then you can't deny it to bigamists or polygamists. Otherwise you're just being intolerant. Either anything goes or only one thing goes.
You'd have to prove it, and you'd have to live together. Obviously you have to have some level of regulation.
But you can not allow gay marriage, then turn around and imprison polygamists. There has to be absolute equality or none at all, otherwise we have hypocrisy.
Assuming that you prove you are in a multi-person marriage/civil union all the benefits would have no downside. Unless you want to claim that people now routinely fake marriages for the tax breaks.
Other than that, I like what Myasishchev had to say.
The tax code alone will kill the proposal of maintaining legal privileges for civil unions of all types and sizes. And yes, you get tax breaks for filing jointly vs filing as a single person. The richest families in the US are already doing everything they can to avoid paying taxes. Estate tax is a perfect example. Look up the article "Spending millions to save billions."
You guys do know that you are allowed to declare your spouse a dependent, right? and that spouses is considered a co-owner when it comes to property. If civil unions and marriages can be between any number of people, then the rich will simply declare civil union with whoever they wish to leave their money to, and nothing will ever get taxes.
I'm also surprised at this line of argument. You guys are basically playing the case of why Republicans wants to ban same sex marriage. Republicans argued that legalizing same sex marriage will open the door to legalizing polygamy and incest.
The proponents of the bills said "No, we only want to marry the one person that we love. Don't make us out into polygamists and incestuous people." And here we are, quite a few people wanting to legalize polygamy.
Where does this end? Will I eventually be allowed to be married to my pets? I ain't hurting nobody.
Going back to the legal benefits. The only thing I will agree with you guys is that the only way to get what you guys want is to remove all legal recognition of unions of any type.
I know for a fact that people routinely fake marriages to gain citizenship status.
You guys do know that you are allowed to declare your spouse a dependent, right? and that spouses is considered a co-owner when it comes to property. If civil unions and marriages can be between any number of people, then the rich will simply declare civil union with whoever they wish to leave their money to, and nothing will ever get taxes.
I'm also surprised at this line of argument. You guys are basically playing the case of why Republicans wants to ban same sex marriage. Republicans argued that legalizing same sex marriage will open the door to legalizing polygamy and incest.
The proponents of the bills said "No, we only want to marry the one person that we love. Don't make us out into polygamists and incestuous people." And here we are, quite a few people wanting to legalize polygamy.
Where does this end? Will I eventually be allowed to be married to my pets? I ain't hurting nobody.
Going back to the legal benefits. The only thing I will agree with you guys is that the only way to get what you guys want is to remove all legal recognition of unions of any type.
I know for a fact that people routinely fake marriages to gain citizenship status.
Frankly you can't discriminate against polygamists any more than you can against gays.
Some people fake marriages. Whatever, too bad. If you want to reduce fraud, then change it so spouses must remain married for, say five years, to get citizenship.
Some people fake marriages. Whatever, too bad. If you want to reduce fraud, then change it so spouses must remain married for, say five years, to get citizenship.
As long as everybody involved is an informed consenting adult, I don't see how there would be a problem.
There's no justification for banning either polygamy or incest. The tax laws already allow for an unlimited number of dependents. And if the tax laws favor monogamy or are subject to abuse with polygamy, then the tax laws need to be changed; infringing on Human Rights should not be the default position.
And the nonsense about marrying animals is irrelevant; animals aren't humans.
And the nonsense about marrying animals is irrelevant; animals aren't humans.
Isn't the prevailing argument here "As long as nobody gets hurt?"
By that standard, why can't I marry my dog?
It's about consent. Your dog can't consent.
Show me that your dog is legally recognized as a citizen of the United States, has a legal standing in the U.S. court process, can demonstrate an ability to understand the concept of romantic love and marriage and that your dog has the capability to consent to marriage contract, sign the paper work, and take the vows.
Then people can marry their animal.
Considering a dog can't do any of that I'm guessing people won't be marrying pets any time soon.
Exactly.
I know when my dog is displaying a desire to do something, and I know when my dog is displaying a desire not to do something. Why isn't that enough as consent? Dogs can legally inherit. They should be allowed to legally enter a marriage.
Or are you arguing against this because my dog doesn't comprehend the concept of marriage? But aren't we redefining marriage already?
For the record, I am willing to accept the definition of a marriage as between two individuals who are completely devoted to the happiness of each other, regardless of sexual preference. But I draw the line at two individual human beings. In a polygamy, it is impossible for every party to be completely devoted to the happiness of everyone else.
Marriage is hard enough as it is with only two people involved. Polygamy simply does not work because we are not wired that way. Why do you think the polygamist practitioners typically require strong religious brain-washing or social control to force multiple women to be submissive a single man?
Oh, and regarding being a Swinger? I still have to ask. Why did you bother getting married at all?
Times change. Homosexuality was defined as a mental disease less than a century ago. We are obviously more enlightened now.
Like I said previously, pets can legally inherit now. So why not? Let's redefine marriage to include every definition of any union.
Again, show me your dog has the intelligence and capacity to read a marriage contract and enter it willfully.
Otherwise stop being obtuse.
There's no way to independently verify such a claim. He also is not capable of displaying a desire to marry you, because he is not capable of understanding what marriage is.
Also, you are being ridiculous. Take a step back and look at what you're really saying. If you persist in this I will have no reason to believe you are discussing this in good faith but instead being willfully ignorant.
What people choose to wear on their face is none of your or the government's business.
If you don't like them don't wear them. Nobody is forcing you to do so.
Because fuck Winter! Frost-bite is over feared!
Is there any good reason people should not be allowed to mask their face? Other than that .1% of the population who are criminals disguising their identity?
Yes. Because the age of a style of dress should be good reason for us to get rid of it. Pants have had a good 1400 year run as articles of clothing so they have no place in 21st century society either.
Starting tomorrow! No more pants! No man or woman should be ashamed of their naughty bits and be required to have them covered by an overly conservative society.