Pyrian on 1/7/2015 at 18:00
1) Saying you cannot marry Bob because you (or Bob) are already married is fundamentally different than saying you can't marry Bob because you're male. So much so that I don't think the connection is even meaningful.
2) Some people are just outright gay. Virtually everybody, however, is "poly", at least inasmuch as they'd like to have access to extra partners. There's nothing abnormal or even unusual about it. I am unimpressed with the cries of men who claim they're just can't be happy without multiple partners, since their luxury likely means some other shmuck is going to have to get by without any partner at all.
3) Sure, legalizing poly marriage allows women as well as men to have multiple partners, but women are substantially less motivated and frankly less wealthy, as well. I don't think it's a coincidence that all the poly groups I know involve one man - the exceptions advertise themselves heavily, but I'm pretty sure they're very much exceptions. Probably you'd see the ratios mirror the ratios between male and female rock stars sleeping with their groupies. I think you'd (eventually?) see a relative increase in the degree to which wealthy, older, and/or successful men sponge up more women in that scenario - leaving an underclass of young, angry, frustrated men. Which is disastrous (e.g. the Middle East).
So. Practically, I think poly would be okay as long as you restrict it as follows: All male, all female, or equal numbers of both. Therefore no threesome marriages. Legally, that won't fly for the same reason restrictions on gay marriage didn't fly, so I say just leave the practice illegal. You can still have your harem, just don't expect the legal system to bend over for you.
bjack on 1/7/2015 at 18:59
Pyrian, and how would one restrict in the way you propose? Your restrictions would violate the 14th amendment of free association and equal protections under the law. Marriage laws are now redefined by fiat by the SOCTUS. All female, all male, or only equal mixed plural marriages? Denying equal protection to mixed marriages would violate the 14th as now defined. You would be denying equal protection and freedom of association.
Muzman on 1/7/2015 at 19:39
Quote Posted by bjack
Marriage laws are now redefined by fiat by the SOCTUS.
I think technically they invalidated a bunch of previous fiat definitions. I'd be interested to see if there's room for further definition. Some writers seem to think there is. Like maybe you can only get married to one person at a time.
But I'm pretty far from a US constitutional lawyer.
Pyrian on 1/7/2015 at 20:27
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Practically, I think poly would be okay as long as you restrict it as follows: All male, all female, or equal numbers of both. Therefore no threesome marriages. Legally, that won't fly for the same reason restrictions on gay marriage didn't fly....
Quote Posted by bjack
Pyrian, and how would one restrict in the way you propose? Your restrictions would violate the 14th amendment...
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Legally, that won't fly for the same reason restrictions on gay marriage didn't fly....
It is normal that as a thread gets long enough, I can reply to all responses by simply quoting myself. It is depressing, however, when I can do so by quoting the very same post being replied to. Yes, that idea was unconstitutional.
It's interesting to review the SCOTUS record on miscegenation - interracial marriage. This was illegal in the south since before the U.S. formed. In 1883, the SCOTUS decided miscegenation laws were constitutionally legal, based on the assertion that it satisfied the 14th amendment (which itself was created to apply to race in particular) due to the fact that white people as well as non-white people were punished for interracial marriage. It wasn't until 1967 that this was finally undone: "...it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor." - Justice Potter Stewart. Substitute gender for race and you have the latest decision, but it doesn't really get you any closer to legalizing poly.
bjack on 1/7/2015 at 21:07
Pyrian, I apologize for not paying enough attention to your post in detail. That was very sloppy of me. I was in a rush. My momma called and she needed her insulin. The rabbit died. My cat has HIV. OK, no excuse... Thank you for the way you pointing this out. Very fair. :D I stand corrected.
Meanwhile, I am sitting on the sidelines with popcorn waiting for some fringe people in UT, NV, AZ, ID to come forward and proclaim they have the right to plural marriage. It will be a hoot, especially the gymnastics the courts will have to perform to deny it. Of course I could be completely wrong. I have no stake in either side though. Just observing.
Queue on 1/7/2015 at 22:11
Your cat is gay?
bjack on 1/7/2015 at 22:24
Quote Posted by Queue
Your cat is gay?
HIV is passed through many ways. Especially feline HIV. In all seriousness, it is pretty tragic and not something for jest... NOT! No, he is not gay, but he is a pussy.
Fafhrd on 2/7/2015 at 03:01
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
I don't think you understand exactly how bad they are. Nowadays to get any cop-pay that is under 5 grand would require me to spend over $400/month AFTER subsidies. How are you supposed to pay on a yearly income of under $20 grand, all of which is both unearned income from a university housing benefit and compensation for previous on the job injuries?.
I'm calling bullshit on this. You're either confusing your co-pay with your deductible, or your Co-Pay Maximum with your co-pay. A $5000 co-pay has never existed in the history of anywhere, ever.
faetal on 2/7/2015 at 09:28
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
No.
You're falling into the dialectic trap of lumping direct causations and strong correlations in with a vague "slippery slope". The Supreme Court decision effectively guts the remaining arguments against polygamy, for the reasons why are currently being discussed endlessly in the media so it's not worth repeating here.
As to what it does to women, the historical correlation between polygamy and poor gender rights is so strong that to call it a "slippery slope" argument would be intellectually dishonest.
(
http://news.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monoga...mist-cultures/)
You know better than I do that in the world of hard science that the appearance of a consistently strong correlation merits further investigation and can not be ignored as mere coincidence(or a "slippery slope). It's no different for social sciences.
You're falling into the non sequitur trap of talking about polygamy for some reason. Also, it is a classic slippery slope argument - you've looked at the supreme court decision regarding same sex marriage, and have described a slippery slope leading to the eventual enslavement of women by men via polygamy. You haven't even paused to describe how being
allowed to marry someone of the same sex will allow men to
force multiple women to marry him and become his slaves. Also, ditch the "not worth repeating here" rhetoric and either stop making references to vague "stuff in the media" or be specific. You aren't a very good communicator.
Quote:
1) Yes Frats have issues. In reality they're are they're pretty fucking tame to what exists in many areas of the world......especially in polygamous cultures. The stories about women being stoned to death because they didn't prevent their own rapes are real, and much more in line with what life in those societies is like for women than you'd think. US Fraternities don't even come close to that.
No one is equating fraternities to societal subjugation of women, but it's a stupid argument to make. It's like saying "there's nothing wrong with muggings because murder is wronger".
Quote:
2)Your comments are particularly rich coming from someone who doesn't even live on the American continent. Exactly how much experience do you have with Fraternity "douchebag" culture besides what you see on TV?
Plenty, given that the culture exists outside of fraternities. I've spent plenty of time in the company of guys who refer to women as objects, joke around about getting women so drunk they can easily sleep with them etc... I didn't realise you were specifically referring to only culture which exists inside actual frat houses, I thought you were making a generalisation about frat boy-
esque douche-baggery. Of that, I know many people who've been on the receiving end of date rape, coercion into group sex, being too drunk and choose and the guy not accetping no, blaming the woman for leading him on etc... Rape culture is a real thing which affects people. You regularly insinuate that it's something which has been fabricated by SJWs to get outraged about to discredit business owners or whatever your latest conspiracy theory is, but I know people who've suffered because it exists. You either don't or you're just annoyed at the general tone of those who are shrill about it and want to discredit them by trying to downplay it or claim it isn't real. Or you just make stupid arguments about how it's not a real problem because others have it worse.
Time to level up your debating skills (seriously, posting opinion pieces as PROOF?!) or post less maybe.
faetal on 2/7/2015 at 09:31
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
In terms of the available research, what outcome is more likely to result in Western Society? A "culture with great disparities in wealth" is one of the defining aspects of America.
You haven't even remotely shown how this ruling will force women into polygamous marriages with men, who will then own them.
I'm giving you an F-
