|
|
Post by Stal on Sept 18, 2004 23:30:49 GMT -5
Laissez Faire's problems were shown to be very evident at the turn of the 20th century.  Get with the times. |
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Sept 19, 2004 0:35:27 GMT -5
I wonder if there's a word for several people of both genders--say three men and three women--in a plural marriage all together? Totally off topic, I'm sorry... That just sort of reminds me of the concept of a 'Chain Marriage' from the book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". Polygamy has no real place in the modern world. The only way I could see it is in a country or hypothetical world where there are limited resources or a really screwed up male-to-female ratio. I was watching this one program that documented this family... I just wish I could remember the country... There were several men who married one woman because they could only afford her dowry if they all scraped up the cash. As for polygamy in America? I think it's sort of silly. I don't see any reason for it. In the legal sense I don't agree with it because it seems like a sticky wicket tax-wise. However I'm not really for or against it. I don't actually care who you decide to marry and why. Heck, in this economy you practically can't get by with a two income household. Why not add an extra income? (jk) Having a relationship with several people at once sounds like it'd be sort of odd, though I can picture certain senarios where it'd be kind of fun... |
|
Stalos needs brain bleach
Guest
|
Post by Stalos needs brain bleach on Sept 19, 2004 0:40:51 GMT -5
Having a relationship with several people at once sounds like it'd be sort of odd, though I can picture certain senarios where it'd be kind of fun... .... *nose bleed* Yeah, sick mind, but still.... *gets some tissue* |
|
|
|
Post by Ducky being lazy on Sept 19, 2004 0:48:38 GMT -5
.... *nose bleed* Yeah, sick mind, but still.... *gets some tissue* *smacks Stal upside the head* (Hehe...I like saying that.) Anyways, I'm against polygamy. It's A married man and A married woman (or man/man woman/woman for the people who are for Gay Marriage. I don't want to get into two debates at once.) It's TWO people, not twenty. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Sept 19, 2004 0:52:01 GMT -5
*smacks Stal upside the head* (Hehe...I like saying that.) Anyways, I'm against polygamy. It's A married man and A married woman (or man/man woman/woman for the people who are for Gay Marriage. I don't want to get into two debates at once.) It's TWO people, not twenty. *turns all Vash* Owwwwwww....that hurt! *stiffen* Well then. That may be how I feel about things, too...single marriages and all...but you know...just...*nose bleed* .... |
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Sept 19, 2004 2:32:31 GMT -5
Erm, could you not refer to that as the mormon version of marriage? Since that's highly innacurate, since the church has long renounced that. If you're polygamist now, they're going to excommunicate you. Sorry, my mistake. It was originally changed due to political pressure (there were federal laws passed against polygamy, and Utah didn't become a state until shortly after the church withdrew support of polygamy), and I didn't realize it was now considered immoral instead of just not officially done. In any case, forcing a church to change its marriage practices so the territory its members lived in would be admitted to the Union isn't exactly tolerant or nondiscriminatory. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2004 20:46:38 GMT -5
Laissez Faire's problems were shown to be very evident at the turn of the 20th century. ;) Get with the times. That was for the economy. Laissez faire means "let do," or, "let the people do as they please." I think marriage should not be determined by the government. As I think I said before, there really is no reason for marriage in the U.S. aside from tax breaks. People who say that it's constitutionally wrong are correct, but they shouldn't base their morals/beliefs on the consitution, nor should the constitution dictate morals and/or beliefs. If you ask me, the one-man-one-woman concept is against constitutional idea of seperation of church and state, because marriage is considered religious. Therefore, the consitution contradicts itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Sept 19, 2004 20:52:47 GMT -5
That was for the economy. Laissez faire means "let do," or, "let the people do as they please." I think marriage should not be determined by the government. As I think I said before, there really is no reason for marriage in the U.S. aside from tax breaks. People who say that it's constitutionally wrong are correct, but they shouldn't base their morals/beliefs on the consitution, nor should the constitution dictate morals and/or beliefs. If you ask me, the one-man-one-woman concept is against constitutional idea of seperation of church and state, because marriage is considered religious. Therefore, the consitution contradicts itself. Constitution says nothing about seperation of church and state. Go read it. And Laissez Faire, as we've been covering in my social studies class it means more "Leave alone". It's the ideology of no government intervention. Basically what you said, but 1) It's for more than the economy 2) minor problem with the translation. Heheh. But it's called humor, Comedian. I wasn't trying to start anything. |
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Sept 19, 2004 23:38:43 GMT -5
If you ask me, the one-man-one-woman concept is against constitutional idea of seperation of church and state, because marriage is considered religious. In some cases yes, in others... no. When an Agnostic/Atheist/whatever wants to get married, they can go to the courthouse, get their blood work done, etc. There are non-religious marriages. People who get married in this fashion either A.) Want to be traditional, follow in their parents footsteps, etc without religious affiliation or B.) Tax break. Marriage in the legal sense provides you with tax breaks, deals with possesion and inheritance issues, and other governmenty stuff. You can have a marriage without religion, at least in the eyes of the law. Polygamy makes certain legal matters very, very hard. If the joint husband dies without a will, who will his possesions go to? In such cases with a 1/1 marriage, his possesions would go to his spouse. Also healthcare. Some companies will cover not only you as an employee, but your spouse. If the company has to cover not only one additional person but two or three per person, it's going to go broke. Either that or cut coverage for spouses. I know that many government workers have that sort of coverage. What about child custody? There are many things that polygamy makes difficult. Could you imagine divorce procidures? There's (I think) a slight difference between having Polygamy legally allowed and having polygamus marriages acknowledged by the government. If you want to marry two or three people, I guess that's your business. However if you want to do so and get all sorts of tax breaks for you and all of your spouses the way a traditional marriage would, I wouldn't agree with it. Then people might start group marriages just for funky tax breaks and such. It's really complicated to me. There are so many cultural implications and such, and it's hard for me to give a yes/no answer about it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2004 15:24:49 GMT -5
Constitution says nothing about seperation of church and state. ;) Go read it. I said it's a consitutional idea. In other words, it was generally implied. Acknowledged. TEoW, I understand where you're coming from. I don't believe tax breaks should be given to marriages and such anyways, since I don't see a point to marriage (although I do see a point to a life-long partner, but with legalized divorce, marriages are obsolete). I just feel that the government should not only acknowledge, but also have it written in their records, polygamous marriages, just as they do with monogamous marriages. As for tax breaks and benefits? Well, I guess that would have to worked out. All I know is that people should be allowed to marry who they please. Some people think that those who want to particpate in polygamous relationships can legally do so in the U.S., they just can't get married. This is not fully true. In some places, like my state, for example, 5 or more people can't even live in the same house if they aren't related. That makes it harder for polygamous relationships to exist. |
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Sept 20, 2004 15:44:06 GMT -5
Ahh, I didn't know that. Limiting the amount of un-related people who can live in a house is outrageous! As long as they're not breaking codes by having a dangerously high occupancy on a small house or something dumb like that, how can they have laws about who you live with?
There are some amazing laws still on the books. It wasn't even until around 2000 in some southern states that people of different races could leagally get married. Social progress is very slow. Right now I'm more worried about getting all of the two peope couples squared away and legal, then we can better address polygamy. How can we define a multiple partner relationship when we don't even have our 1/1s straightened out? What I mean by that is... if it's still against the law for a girl to marry a girl, how are we going to figure out the legality of a girl marrying a girl and a guy?
You bring up some very good points.
(Sorry for all the spelling mistakes.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Jessica Coconut on Sept 20, 2004 23:19:20 GMT -5
That was for the economy. Laissez faire means "let do," or, "let the people do as they please." I think marriage should not be determined by the government. As I think I said before, there really is no reason for marriage in the U.S. aside from tax breaks. People who say that it's constitutionally wrong are correct, but they shouldn't base their morals/beliefs on the consitution, nor should the constitution dictate morals and/or beliefs. If you ask me, the one-man-one-woman concept is against constitutional idea of seperation of church and state, because marriage is considered religious. Therefore, the consitution contradicts itself. Actually, most couples also get married so that they are officially 'taken'. So you don't have other guys (or girls, if the case may be) hitting on you, and whatnot. If you're married, then you don't have too deal with all that crap. Some also do it for social status. Some companies like "family people" for employees, and others get married because then you don't get nagged by married friends at how easy your life is etc. It's just so that you're officially 'together forever'. |
|
|
|
Post by theunorthodox on Sept 22, 2004 21:11:54 GMT -5
I believe there's a verse about the one-man-one-woman marriage somewhere in the New Testament, but I don't have my Bible now, I'm in school. In very discouraging words, yes. In the book of Leviticus, I believe it's near chapter 17 or so, it says yu should only have one wife, but it speaks very freely about having several mistresses.  I do think there is another verse that says something about only having "The Breasts of one woman alone satisfying you" Ewwww XP. I feel pretty much the same way about gay marriage. I don't have much of a problem with the concept of multiple people getting married together. *shrug* As long as none of them have a problem with it. I just don't see why you would want too. o0 |
|
|
|
Post by Tdyans on Sept 22, 2004 23:32:07 GMT -5
In very discouraging words, yes. In the book of Leviticus, I believe it's near chapter 17 or so, it says yu should only have one wife, but it speaks very freely about having several mistresses. Leviticus isn't in the New Testament. Near as I can tell you're referring to chapter 18, but I don't see anything about having several mistresses. The whole chapter seems to be devoted to the people you shouldn't have sexual relations with. |
|
|
|
Post by theunorthodox on Sept 23, 2004 0:38:29 GMT -5
Leviticus isn't in the New Testament. Ohh, I didn't see the New Testament bit in her post. Still in the bible though. I'm pretty certain it was in Leviticus, but I'm not sure about the chapter or verse...I'll check again...later |
|
Get with the times.
