NJ Allows Gay Something - Page 2

9th Engineer · 11-05-2006, 09:37 PM

I wonder if this is going to have any impact on the benefits extended to couples with children, and how the paperwork is handled. Beyond just adding a few checkboxes to the forms, do you think that fewer and fewer perks are going to be tossed at parents? Maybe it's not as bad as it looks, it may start to turn back the trend of the educated classes having 1.2 kids while Mr. Woodsman goes home to his family of 12.

Aliantha · 11-05-2006, 09:51 PM

I don't see what polygamy and gay marriage have in common. I don't see why there is or should be any connection between the legislation of gay marriage and polygamy.

Clodfobble · 11-05-2006, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I don't see what polygamy and gay marriage have in common. I don't see why there is or should be any connection between the legislation of gay marriage and polygamy.

The arguments for them are generally the same. 'Consenting adults should be able to marry who they want.' Can you think of an argument that makes polygamy inherently wrong, as long as all of the adults involved are consenting?

Aliantha · 11-05-2006, 10:07 PM

Well I don't see anything inherantly wrong with either, so I see the point now. Thanks. I had no idea that was the main argument against it.

Novae · 11-05-2006, 10:36 PM

In response to everything that was said after my post:

You know, this is going to sound false, but I mean it. You guys have kind of changed my mind. It isn't fair for any consenting adults to be restricted in their affections, emotional, physical or otherwise.

The government should have no power over consenting relations.

Undertoad · 11-05-2006, 10:49 PM

The gummint doesn't have any power over consenting relations (in most states), but it has the ability to restrict a set of rights.

To the state, a marriage is a financial and legal partnership. To deny this partnership to any two individuals is wrong, but the state can call it whatever it wants to.

As for the polylove argument: that such partnerships simply can't be three-way, seems much more logical than to say a legal partnership can't be made between two people of the same sex. The legal difficulties of a three-way partnership are mind-boggling to start.

Novae · 11-05-2006, 10:59 PM

Yeah, the legality of it is what matters. I don't think many people are pushing for religiously recognized same-sex marriage. Then again, I could be wrong.

I don't understand polygamy, which I suppose would give me more license to research it than to condemn it. That would be pretty hard to govern, but at the same time, the more I think about it, the more it just seems like another consenting relationship.

That's the main word, consent.

Happy Monkey · 11-06-2006, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novae

Yeah, the legality of it is what matters. I don't think many people are pushing for religiously recognized same-sex marriage. Then again, I could be wrong.

If they are, it's a separate argument, and more - it's a separate argument in each religion.

I've heard some campaign commercials that advocate anti-gay-marriage laws and ammendments by implying that priests will be forced to officiate over gay marriages. The fact is, even if every other religion, and every nation on Earth, allows gay marriage, the lone holdout would still be perfectly free to refuse.

Interfaith marriage happens all the time, even though there are plenty of religions that won't officiate over them.

Clodfobble · 11-05-2006, 11:16 PM

Ugh, just try to imagine a polygamist divorce: Joe wants to divorce wife #2, Anne, while staying married to Betty and Louise. Is Anne entitled to half of the value of the house, or 1/4th? If it's not half, do you also take into account the fact that Betty has been part of the marriage for several more years than Anne? What if Louise and Anne share a car; are they getting divorced too, or is it just a divorce from Joe? What a nightmare.

On the other hand, the type of people who get into polygamist marriages are also not usually the type to divorce.

Spexxvet · 11-06-2006, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Ugh, just try to imagine a polygamist divorce: Joe wants to divorce wife #2, Anne, while staying married to Betty and Louise. Is Anne entitled to half of the value of the house, or 1/4th? If it's not half, do you also take into account the fact that Betty has been part of the marriage for several more years than Anne? What if Louise and Anne share a car; are they getting divorced too, or is it just a divorce from Joe? What a nightmare.

On the other hand, the type of people who get into polygamist marriages are also not usually the type to divorce.

So make up the rules before making it legal. If they want in, they have to play by the rules of the game.

Novae · 11-05-2006, 11:24 PM

Jesus, I'd never thought of those legal tie-ups... that would be such a bitch for the one to deal with the paperwork.

Quote:

On the other hand, the type of people who get into polygamist marriages are also not usually the type to divorce.

Good point.

11-07-2006, 02:40 AM

The problem with polygamy is that people would use it for business purposes.

Our marriage had nothing religious at all in it... so, in the eyes of a neo-con are we married? Not that I give a shit, but religion and marriage should have nothing to do with each other. The state and religion should have nothing to do with each other, EVER.

Happy Monkey · 11-07-2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

The problem with polygamy is that people would use it for business purposes.

I don't think that's a problem for anybody except the people who try to do it. There are a ton more legal implications to marriage than the ones that might be attractive from a business standpoint, and that could get real creepy real fast.

But if someone manages to make it work, more power to 'em.

11-05-2006, 09:37 PM	#1
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	I wonder if this is going to have any impact on the benefits extended to couples with children, and how the paperwork is handled. Beyond just adding a few checkboxes to the forms, do you think that fewer and fewer perks are going to be tossed at parents? Maybe it's not as bad as it looks, it may start to turn back the trend of the educated classes having 1.2 kids while Mr. Woodsman goes home to his family of 12. __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.

11-05-2006, 10:07 PM	#4
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	Well I don't see anything inherantly wrong with either, so I see the point now. Thanks. I had no idea that was the main argument against it. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

11-05-2006, 11:16 PM	#9
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	Ugh, just try to imagine a polygamist divorce: Joe wants to divorce wife #2, Anne, while staying married to Betty and Louise. Is Anne entitled to half of the value of the house, or 1/4th? If it's not half, do you also take into account the fact that Betty has been part of the marriage for several more years than Anne? What if Louise and Anne share a car; are they getting divorced too, or is it just a divorce from Joe? What a nightmare. On the other hand, the type of people who get into polygamist marriages are also not usually the type to divorce. __________________ My book My other book My spirit animal

11-05-2006, 09:51 PM	#2
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	I don't see what polygamy and gay marriage have in common. I don't see why there is or should be any connection between the legislation of gay marriage and polygamy. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

11-05-2006, 10:36 PM	#5
Novae Art may imitate life, but life imitates T.V. Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Seattle, Washington. Coffeetown. Posts: 27	In response to everything that was said after my post: You know, this is going to sound false, but I mean it. You guys have kind of changed my mind. It isn't fair for any consenting adults to be restricted in their affections, emotional, physical or otherwise. The government should have no power over consenting relations.

11-05-2006, 10:49 PM	#6
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	The gummint doesn't have any power over consenting relations (in most states), but it has the ability to restrict a set of rights. To the state, a marriage is a financial and legal partnership. To deny this partnership to any two individuals is wrong, but the state can call it whatever it wants to. As for the polylove argument: that such partnerships simply can't be three-way, seems much more logical than to say a legal partnership can't be made between two people of the same sex. The legal difficulties of a three-way partnership are mind-boggling to start.

11-05-2006, 10:59 PM	#7
Novae Art may imitate life, but life imitates T.V. Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Seattle, Washington. Coffeetown. Posts: 27	Yeah, the legality of it is what matters. I don't think many people are pushing for religiously recognized same-sex marriage. Then again, I could be wrong. I don't understand polygamy, which I suppose would give me more license to research it than to condemn it. That would be pretty hard to govern, but at the same time, the more I think about it, the more it just seems like another consenting relationship. That's the main word, consent.

11-07-2006, 02:40 AM	#12
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	The problem with polygamy is that people would use it for business purposes. Our marriage had nothing religious at all in it... so, in the eyes of a neo-con are we married? Not that I give a shit, but religion and marriage should have nothing to do with each other. The state and religion should have nothing to do with each other, EVER.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)