Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

ACLU defends polygamy.

http://www.aclu.org//religion/frb/16163prs19990716.html

What are your thoughts?

Edited to fix link.

I think your links broken (add some url tags)

I think it's fair that if they are going to defend the union of two members of the same sex (based on the argument that the government shouldn't interfer with that aspect of people's lives) that they also defend polygamy (on the same basis).

Just like same-sex marriage, I don't exactly understand why someone would want to do it, but then again, who am I to say what is right/wrong. (I have trouble enough trying to please 1 wife, I can't imagine having more )

ps... to my lovely wife, if she reads this post. You know I was kidding

EDIT::

I just read the article, it was posted on 7/16/1999. Any ideas on where they stand today (6 and a half years later!)

_________________

New link:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.a ... E_ID=44977

Appears they haven't changed.

This is the bestest part of the article:



Cracks. Me. Up.

Also, the sky is falling; the ACLU denies involvement.

_________________

I feel like it would be really difficult to maintain a loving relationship with more than one person at a time, but if you want to try, go ahead. Whatever happens, that's your responsibility.

RARRR MUST DESTROY ALL RELIGIOUS VALUES XD

_________________

Polygamy is cool with me. I just don't want to do it.

_________________

logically, it makes perfect sense as something they would defend. personally i think that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely and leave it to the religious authorities. there shouldn't be benefits for married couples (straight or gay), or married groups i guess. there also shouldn't be automatic "common law" status for co-habitation beyond a certain time limit. the state has nothing to do with our interpersonal relationships, they should stay out of it.

not that i'm morally defending polygamy, i'm just saying that the government doesn't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to regulating stuff like that. it's the same reason i was against redefining the concept of marriage to include same-sex partners: i'm not particularly in favour of STRAIGHT marriage being recognized by government, so i certainly don't think it should be extended further.

It's like you took the words right out of my mouth.

_________________

Yeah, that would be great if they left the marraige business to the religious authorities. It would help SO MANY issues and non-issues alike. Gay marraige? Talk to the preist. Polygamy? Talk to the priest. Benefits? Nonexistant. That sums up my views on that.

On polygamy, I really don't care about it as long as nobody is hurt. Just as long as everybody agrees and nobody is forced into it, unlike the Freakedup LDS where it's tough cookies if you don't think you should be a polygamist. (FLDS, I'm not describing LDS.)

_________________

The problem most people have with polygamy (at least most people I know) is the whole idea of "marrying" someone off. The stories that make the news are the ones involving 14-15 year old girls being married off to 40+ year old men. Not right in any case, polygamy or not.

If two consenting adults wish to join in a union, they should be able to. I don't see why 3, 4, or a dozen (or a dozen dozen) want to get married. THe state ought to stay out of it.

I think I have burned out my religious/political-side. Thanks for dinner guys, it was fun

_________________

Why do you think the gov't encourages marriage through tax breaks and the like?

I was under the impression that there was a tax "penalty" for marriage.
It came up in Bush v. Gore, and there was talk of eliminating it, but I don't think anything ever came of it
Has that changed?

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I'll have to do more research, but all I know is that once I got married, my tax rates went way down, with nothing else changing.

I do know there is a tax credit for each child you have.

I think it's a tax penalty if both of you were working and making good money before marriage, and then you both keep working the same afterwards. I'm not sure whether or not that situation has improved or not. For my spouse and I, we were both working when we got married, but we were still in school, so neither of us were making real money. Soon we had a baby and it was just me working at a real job, and being married with only one person pulling in an income is a huge tax benefit.

Anyone have an answer for this?

I don't have an actual answer, but my suspicion is that it's mostly for historical reasons. Historically the male partner in a marriage assumed the financial burden of both parties (i.e. women didn't work) and then the financial burden of the children who were assumed to follow.

_________________