Quantcast

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Polygamy. What do I win?
another wife capable of squirting out a dozen kids when she's not making scrapbook pages of the favorite pies she's baked

oh, and date night is watching napolean dynamite w/ the kids on the couch (teh 2 smallest up her shirt - sorry, bro :( )
 

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,549
0
I'm homeless
That the judge overturned the voters and made voting worthless. That what he did is unconstitutional. And that he should be tarred and feathered or in some other way humiliated and punished for doing this. And it goes on and becomes more colorful/ignorant/bigoted. Rather not repeat that stuff.

My opinion? I don't care. Really. Could care less. The way they go on about it though, you'd think that the agenda is to make the entire country gay...

No, sorry, Attack Attack did that to the kids already.
Ummmm, check your history/ constitution knowledge. The framers had a HUGE fear of the majority flipping out and doing something bad to a minority, it's well documented and if you take a look at things like filibusters you will see the government has checks in place to prevent this. ****, look at our federal government, originally the people elected the house; That's it, the state legislatures picked the senate, the electoral college picket the president and the president decided on judges. Is genocide OK if the people support it popularly?

This is America, where in theory personal liberty come over "democracy." In fact, it mentions life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the whole point...... it talks about a republic, but not a democracy
 

KavuRider

Turbo Monkey
Jan 30, 2006
2,565
4
CT
Ummmm, check your history/ constitution knowledge. The framers had a HUGE fear of the majority flipping out and doing something bad to a minority, it's well documented and if you take a look at things like filibusters you will see the government has checks in place to prevent this. ****, look at our federal government, originally the people elected the house; That's it, the state legislatures picked the senate, the electoral college picket the president and the president decided on judges. Is genocide OK if the people support it popularly?

This is America, where in theory personal liberty come over "democracy." In fact, it mentions life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the whole point...... it talks about a republic, but not a democracy
:confused:
You obviously didn't read this thread if you feel you have to lecture me on our government...
My post was in response to this:
You should definitely share what's being said.
 

rockofullr

confused
Jun 11, 2009
7,342
924
East Bay, Cali
Little extra wrinkle which hasn't been mentioned in any of the major news outlets:

Judge is openly gay!

Tell the geezers at work and watch their heads explode :thumb:

Also don't anyone rush out to the courthouse, a stay has been issued so no one is having faggy weddings quite yet.
 

KavuRider

Turbo Monkey
Jan 30, 2006
2,565
4
CT
Little extra wrinkle which hasn't been mentioned in any of the major news outlets:

Judge is openly gay!

Tell the geezers at work and watch their heads explode :thumb:

Also don't anyone rush out to the courthouse, a stay has been issued so no one is having faggy weddings quite yet.
Oh, they know, they're convinced it was a conspiracy because of that and they were calling him all sorts of wonderful names.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Oh, they know, they're convinced it was a conspiracy because of that and they were calling him all sorts of wonderful names.
try out this phrase on them "by this logic..."

c'mon, dude, take one for the team!
 

reflux

Turbo Monkey
Mar 18, 2002
4,617
2
G14 Classified
My new favorite reaction from my Tea Bagger friend on Facebook.

"If the judge feels that Prop 8 was too restrictive, what's preventing him from expanding the rules of marriage to include everything else? I mean, if it's okay for same sex couples to marry, why can't a man marry a car, marry many wives, or tie the knot an animal!"

Wait, what?
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
My new favorite reaction from my Tea Bagger friend on Facebook.

"If the judge feels that Prop 8 was too restrictive, what's preventing him from expanding the rules of marriage to include everything else? I mean, if it's okay for same sex couples to marry, why can't a man marry a car, marry many wives, or tie the knot an animal!"

Wait, what?
While I support the ruling, I agree to a small extent with your friend... why not allow polygamy? Assuming all parties are consenting adults, I fail to see the harm.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
While I support the ruling, I agree to a small extent with your friend... why not allow polygamy? Assuming all parties are consenting adults, I fail to see the harm.
a fair point, esp when making the argument for property, as well as from a contract law perspective

i've yet to get a direct answer from gay-marriage proponents why polygamy should remain illegal.

from different members of this same group, however, i've got many answers as to why it too should be made legal.


"how does polygamy hurt your gay marriage?"
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Oddly, wasn't it mostly the mormons who financially backed the whole anti gay marriage campaign in Cali? You'd think the gays would have been smart enough to get polygamy on the docket too, in an effort to divide the enemy.
 

reflux

Turbo Monkey
Mar 18, 2002
4,617
2
G14 Classified
While I support the ruling, I agree to a small extent with your friend... why not allow polygamy? Assuming all parties are consenting adults, I fail to see the harm.
And you know what, I don't entirely disagree with him on that specific issue. Where he fails is in his Tea Bagger adherence to constitutionality. Once Prop 8 was ruled to violate the strict guidelines of the Constitution, he changed his entire argument to say that the marriage ruling didn't go far enough.

Which is it?
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
a fair point, esp when making the argument for property, as well as from a contract law perspective

i've yet to get a direct answer from gay-marriage proponents why polygamy should remain illegal.

from different members of this same group, however, i've got many answers as to why it too should be made legal.


"how does polygamy hurt your gay marriage?"
It shouldn't be illegal.

It would be easier to just make every marriage a civil union and be done with it. Then you can marry as many people as you like, without pulling the splinter Mormon scam of getting everyone in your little inbred retard community on the welfare rolls.
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
a fair point, esp when making the argument for property, as well as from a contract law perspective

i've yet to get a direct answer from gay-marriage proponents why polygamy should remain illegal.

from different members of this same group, however, i've got many answers as to why it too should be made legal.


"how does polygamy hurt your gay marriage?"
In effect, it's conveying additional benefits over and above what other people have the option to do. For example, if I have 5 wives, I would be able to get 5x the health insurance benefits, tax benefits, dependent credit, etc as someone else. A SS marriage is only conveying the state-granted benefits to a same-sex partner instead of an opposite-sex one. The option for benefits stay the same, it's just the gender of the recipient that changes.

At least that's how I justify it.
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
40,143
16,538
Riding the baggage carousel.
It shouldn't be illegal.

It would be easier to just make every marriage a civil union and be done with it. Then you can marry as many people as you like, without pulling the splinter Mormon scam of getting everyone in your little inbred retard community on the welfare rolls.
:stupid:
Next up: Gay Polygamy. :weee:
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
In effect, it's conveying additional benefits over and above what other people have the option to do. For example, if I have 5 wives, I would be able to get 5x the health insurance benefits, tax benefits, dependent credit, etc as someone else. A SS marriage is only conveying the state-granted benefits to a same-sex partner instead of an opposite-sex one. The option for benefits stay the same, it's just the gender of the recipient that changes.

At least that's how I justify it.
In other words, "It's just not natural" :rofl:
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
It shouldn't be illegal.

It would be easier to just make every marriage a civil union and be done with it. Then you can marry as many people as you like, without pulling the splinter Mormon scam of getting everyone in your little inbred retard community on the welfare rolls.
but this would lead to much needed welfare reform

and while it would disproportionately affect blacks, you can't break eggs w/o making an omelet
 

Jim Mac

MAKE ENDURO GREAT AGAIN
May 21, 2004
6,352
282
the middle east of NY
Little extra wrinkle which hasn't been mentioned in any of the major news outlets:

Judge is openly gay!

Tell the geezers at work and watch their heads explode :thumb:

Also don't anyone rush out to the courthouse, a stay has been issued so no one is having faggy weddings quite yet.
but wasn't he also a Poppy Bush appointee? Gayness neutralized! :rofl:
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
In other words, "It's just not natural" :rofl:
????

No, I'm talking about in a purely financial, reasonable sense. Under federal law I have the ability to bestow tax and property advantages to one person. Under current law I can only bestow those benefits to one person of the opposite sex. What SS marriage proponents are aiming to do is to strike out the qualifier "of the opposite sex". "Steve" can still only convey tax and property benefits to one person, whether it's someone named Laura or Gary. Steve always had the ability to give those benefits to one person, so the actual outlay is not different. The problem with polygamy is that suddenly Steve can give benefits to Laura, Amy, Rebecca, Jill and Sandy.

Hell, if polygamy proponents wanted to say that there could be one federally recognized "marriage" between two people and that the rest of the women could live together as a huge family without any of the legal protections, benefits or implied contracts that come with "marriage", GO FOR IT!!
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Hell, if polygamy proponents wanted to say that there could be one federally recognized "marriage" between two people and that the rest of the women could live together as a huge family without any of the legal protections, benefits or implied contracts that come with "marriage", GO FOR IT!!
...or the benefits would be divided equally among them, or whatever yeah. I was kidding around because that seemed like such an obvious tweak you'd have to make, it wouldn't really count for much of an argument.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Hell, if polygamy proponents wanted to say that there could be one federally recognized "marriage" between two people and that the rest of the women could live together as a huge family without any of the legal protections, benefits or implied contracts that come with "marriage", GO FOR IT!!
ok, your position's a little clearer now.

yeah, that would certainly deal w/ the perception of treating 1-1 marriages "unfairly" (as if fairness should be a consideration - but i digress)

but how would current tax law (f'rinstance) deal w/ this & not offend current tax law of - say - when a couple takes in a relative as a dependent? i'm thinking of when grandad can no longer take care of himself & doesn't have the means or desire to be in an old folks' home.

i have to imagine there's going to be some re-application of existing law here, possibly to the point of abuse.
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,160
2
california
Oddly, wasn't it mostly the mormons who financially backed the whole anti gay marriage campaign in Cali? You'd think the gays would have been smart enough to get polygamy on the docket too, in an effort to divide the enemy.
Yes and no.

When I referred to the Manifesto of 1890 earlier, I referred to the document issued by Mormon leadership that effectively ended/curtailed mainstream bigamy amongst the LDS in an effort to gain statehood for Utah (the first application was filed in 1849 as the state of Deseret, and there were three or four following that throughout the decades), as the practice of plural marriage had been the basis for denying statehood to Utah. It succeeded and Utah finally gained statehood in 1896 after applying again.

HOWEVER - the Manifesto was NOT issued as doctrine (aka, church dogma), and at the time was viewed as a purely political play on the part of the church (it also triggered a small splinter movement resulting in a number of small polyg factions throughout the West). If you want to get into theological technicality, Mormons dogma still teaches polygamy (along with the believe that polygamy is practiced in heaven), though it's not practiced. That said, it's definitely no longer accepted in mainstream Mormon society as practiced in a temporal sense.

If the SCOTUS ruling goes towards the legalization of SS marriage (and upholding Walker's ruling in its basal sense), bigamy will be legal in the US. This will effectively make the Manifesto of 1890 an artifact, and the possibility that more fundamental elements within mainstream Mormon society could trigger a schism within the church would become very real. This is a massive threat to current LDS church leadership. The reintroduction of plural marriage into Mormon culture would be devastating to the church's image, reputation, power, and finances, not to mention any area where the church holds major sway (ie, Utah).

Thus, it is in the best interest of the church to keep SS marriage illegal given the recent ruling. The other major reason for their opposition is the threat it presents to patriarchal Mormon society, but that's a 50 page thesis in the making.

For SaG, the original 1849-50 statehood application, outlined in orange:
 
Last edited:

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Yes and no.

When I referred to the Manifesto of 1890 earlier, I referred to the document issued by Mormon leadership that effectively ended/curtailed mainstream bigamy amongst the LDS in an effort to gain statehood for Utah (the first application was filed in 1849 as the state of Deseret, and there were three or four following that throughout the decades), as the practice of plural marriage had been the basis for denying statehood to Utah. It succeeded and Utah finally gained statehood in 1896 after applying again.

HOWEVER - the Manifesto was NOT issued as doctrine (aka, church dogma), and at the time was viewed as a purely political play on the part of the church (it also triggered a small splinter movement resulting in a number of small polyg factions throughout the West). If you want to get into theological technicality, Mormons dogma still teaches polygamy (along with the believe that polygamy is practiced in heaven), though it's not practiced. That said, it's definitely no longer accepted in mainstream Mormon society as practiced in a temporal sense.

If the SCOTUS ruling goes towards the legalization of SS marriage (and upholding Walker's ruling in its basal sense), bigamy will be legal in the US. This will effectively make the Manifesto of 1890 an artifact, and the possibility that more fundamental elements within mainstream Mormon society could trigger a schism within the church would become very real. This is a massive threat to current LDS church leadership. The reintroduction of plural marriage into Mormon culture would be devastating to the church's image, reputation, power, and finances, not to mention any area where the church holds major sway (ie, Utah).

Thus, it is in the best interest of the church to keep SS marriage illegal given the recent ruling. The other major reason for their opposition is the threat it presents to patriarchal Mormon society, but that's a 50 page thesis in the making.

For SaG, the original 1849-50 statehood application, outlined in orange:
Interesting, thanks for the insight.
I knew that certain segments of mormon society obviously still support the idea of polygamy (based on seeing and reading reports of those small desert communities where dudes are banging/marrying their 13 year old neighbors and not letting them leave and kicking out the young men) which is why I made that post, but that's a good point about the guys in charge, obviously controlling the money, where it goes, all of that.
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
ok, your position's a little clearer now.

yeah, that would certainly deal w/ the perception of treating 1-1 marriages "unfairly" (as if fairness should be a consideration - but i digress)

but how would current tax law (f'rinstance) deal w/ this & not offend current tax law of - say - when a couple takes in a relative as a dependent? i'm thinking of when grandad can no longer take care of himself & doesn't have the means or desire to be in an old folks' home.

i have to imagine there's going to be some re-application of existing law here, possibly to the point of abuse.
http://taxes.about.com/od/dependents/Claiming_Dependents.htm

Claiming Dependents - Tax Laws for Claiming Qualifying Children and Relatives as Dependents
These rules enable you claim a person as a dependent on your tax return. A dependent means that the person relies on you for their support. A person can be either independent (supporting themselves) or the dependent of at most one taxpayer. If more than one taxpayer attempts to claim the same person as a dependent, each taxpayer will be audited to determine who is legally entitled to claim the dependent.
Qualifying Relatives
Taxpayers may claim a dependent for a person who meets the criteria for a qualifying relative. A dependent is a person who meets either the qualifying child or the qualifying relative definitions. To be claimed as a qualifying relative, the person must meet five criteria.
Six Criteria for Qualifying Relatives

To be claimed as a qualifying relative, the person must meet all of the following criteria:
Not a qualifying child - The dependent cannot be a qualifying child of another taxpayer.

Gross Income – The dependent earns less than the personal exemption amount during the year. For 2009 and 2010, this means the dependent earns less than $3,650.

Total Support – You provide more than half of the dependent's total support during the year.

Relationship – You are related to the dependent in certain ways.

Joint Return – If the dependent is married, the dependent cannot file a joint return with his or her spouse.

Citizenship – The dependent must be a citizen or resident alien of the United States, Canada, or Mexico.
Relationship Test for Qualifying Relatives

To meet the relationship test, the dependent must either
be related to the taxpayer is one of the following ways, or
live with the taxpayer for an entire year, and the relationship must not violate local laws.
Qualifying Relationships with no residency requirement

The dependent will meet the relationship test for being claimed as a qualifying relative if the dependent is related to the taxpayer in one of the following ways:
son or daughter, grandson or granddaughter, great grandson or great granddaughter, stepson or stepdaughter, or adopted child,
brother or sister,
half-brother or half-sister,
step-brother or step-sister,
mother or father, grandparent, great-grandparent,
stepmother or stepfather,
nephew or niece,
aunt or uncle,
son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, father-in-law, or mother-in-law, or
foster child who was placed in your custody by court order or by an authorized government agency.
Huh. So technically if you're allowed to live with a harem (according to your local laws) you're allowed to write them off as dependents as long as they fit the rest of the criteria. You're still not allowed to claim additional standard deductions for them, though, or convey any type of survivor benefits or health care on them.
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
My new favorite reaction from my Tea Bagger friend on Facebook.

"If the judge feels that Prop 8 was too restrictive, what's preventing him from expanding the rules of marriage to include everything else? I mean, if it's okay for same sex couples to marry, why can't a man marry a car, marry many wives, or tie the knot an animal!"

Wait, what?
And therein lies the reveal of what this douchebag really thinks.

Gay people are the equivalent of a car. A thing, an object, at the most generous, another farm animal, not a human being worthy of human rights.

I just caught limbaugh on the radio a few hours ago making this same 'case'. All it really does besides show one's own bigotry is claim clearly that they're not afraid of what's in this particular move, but what comes afterwards. Even though what comes afterwards isn't what we're dealing with.
 
Last edited:

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
I'd love to legalize polygamy. And since marriage contracts actually increase the tax burden on the participants in exchange for rights (inheritance, visitation, etc.), I don't see it as a problem to have plural marriages. More tax revenues, and the people that should have a say in their loved one's lives, do.

That and replacing the word marriage with civil union for governmental/contractual purposes would remove all of the straw man arguments covering up the fact that conservatives just hate fags.

edit: to be clear all for polygamy, but totally opposed to the fundy practice of marrying off underage girls (that **** should be even more illegal than it already is).
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
Does this mean marriage to a dog or a horse is now legal too?

That's what you get when allow gays to marry.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
Does this mean marriage to a dog or a horse is now legal too?

That's what you get when allow gays to marry.
It's required. You pay extra taxes if you fail to marry a horse. But you have to produce babies with it, otherwise there's no point in marriage.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
some interesting reading from the right-wing rag LA times:

Prop. 8: You're not helping, Mr. President
The president is opposed to Proposition 8 on the grounds that it's divisive and mean-spirited, but he's still not in favor of gay marriage.

Senior White House adviser David Axelrod explained Obama's position thusly:

"The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control," Axelrod said on MSNBC.

Axelrod noted that Obama had opposed Proposition 8 all along.

"The president opposed Proposition 8 at the time — he felt it was divisive and mean-spirited," he said, adding that Obama believes that governing marriage is "an issue for the states."
Gotcha. That was no migraine headache, just a desperate attempt by the neurons in your brain to logically reconcile Obama's conflicting views on Proposition 8 and same-sex marriage.

Look, even the most uncompromising supporters of marriage equality can appreciate the political implications for Obama and the worried congressional Democrats in November. But there's something especially insincere about the president's awkward attempt to endear himself -- or at least try to save face with -- the two sides in this debate, whose positions have practically no overlap.

Even if the pro-Proposition 8 side's arguments against gay marriage are dishonest (Walker devotes much of his decision to explaining why), at least they're speaking truthfully about their moral views on same-sex nuptials. I can't confidently say the same for Obama.
so if it's a matter for the states, why does he disapprove of prop 8? just b/c it's maligned to his [politically convenient] personally held belief? that's a dangerous precident

c'mon, he's "smarter" than this...right?
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
some interesting reading from the right-wing rag LA times:

Prop. 8: You're not helping, Mr. Presidentso if it's a matter for the states, why does he disapprove of prop 8? just b/c it's maligned to his [politically convenient] personally held belief? that's a dangerous precident

c'mon, he's "smarter" than this...right?
As a liberal (and Obama supporter), I think he's doing himself a huge disservice by tying himself in knots trying to stake out a middle-of-the-road position on this. He's obviously trying not to completely piss off large groups of Americans who are against gay marriage but have often voted Democrat in the past: Older Americans, minorities and rural-middle-of-the-country voters. Older Americans and minorities in particular have traditionally been very solid Democratic voters, and both are more opposed to gay marriage than the country as a whole (70% of black voters voted FOR prop 8).

So his waffling, and trying to thread a very, VERY narrow line between supporting gay marriage and not turning off a large portion of his base, leaves him looking like a political opportunist who won't say what he really believes...
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
As a liberal (and Obama supporter), I think he's doing himself a huge disservice by tying himself in knots trying to stake out a middle-of-the-road position on this. He's obviously trying not to completely piss off large groups of Americans who are against gay marriage but have often voted Democrat in the past: Older Americans, minorities and rural-middle-of-the-country voters. Older Americans and minorities in particular have traditionally been very solid Democratic voters, and both are more opposed to gay marriage than the country as a whole (70% of black voters voted FOR prop 8).

So his waffling, and trying to thread a very, VERY narrow line between supporting gay marriage and not turning off a large portion of his base, leaves him looking like a political opportunist who won't say what he really believes...
This is no different than Clinton's "Don't Ask Don't Tell".

It was a ridiculous rule then but it was necessary to appease the f'king homophobes which make up at least 25% of the vote.

Now there is a large segment who are against gay marriage. Is the majority? I don't think, so although when put to a vote, it was.

The flip side for Democrats is this: I'm not happy with the time it is taking to allow gays to serve in the military although I don't see how gay marriage is a Presidential issue (yet).

But if people want to keep complaining, they can deal with Santorum or Huckabee in 2013. How pro-gay are those guys going to be?
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
So his waffling, and trying to thread a very, VERY narrow line between supporting gay marriage and not turning off a large portion of his base, leaves him looking like a political opportunist who won't say what he really believes...
But we're still killing kids in Iraq and Afghanistan right? That'll balance out the gay in Jesus's magical ledger in the sky...
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
It was a ridiculous rule then but it was necessary to appease the f'king homophobes which make up at least 25% of the vote.
what about the other number (a number larger than 25% mind you) who were neither homophobes, nor open-gay service? that's where i was
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,860
1
SoMD
Wait, what? Obama is against gay marriage, still has us locked into a war and is still holding prisoners in Gitmo and talks of "staying the course" to control and bring our economy back????

Hmmmm, sounds vaguely familiar...
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
It was a ridiculous rule then but it was necessary to appease the f'king homophobes which make up at least 25% of the vote.

Now there is a large segment who are against gay marriage. Is the majority? I don't think, so although when put to a vote, it was.
The problem is that while most issues split relatively evenly down the middle of the political spectrum, acceptance of gays is much more of a demographic issue than a traditional political one. Young people (of all political leanings) are pro gay-marriage, and older people (who have traditionally voted Democrat) are against it. White people are more accepting of gay-marriage yet vote disproportionately Republican, while with black people it's reversed.

So Obama's trying not to completely piss off the large percentage of his supporters who are against gay marriage. I definitely think that the country has grown more accepting of it even than in 2008, so it will be interesting to see if Obama ends up being in the minority on this one...