SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Another Massachusetts first..... marriage to more than one person.
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Another Massachusetts first..... marriage to more than one person. Login/Join 
You can't go
home again
Picture of LBAR15
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by funnymech:
Who would want to marry more than one person?


This. One is more than enough! Big Grin


---------------------------------------
Life Member NRA

“If you realize that all things change, there is nothing you will try to hold on to. If you are not afraid of dying, there is nothing you cannot achieve." - Lao Tzu
 
Posts: 4635 | Location: New Jersey | Registered: June 21, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Nosce te ipsum
Picture of Woodman
posted Hide Post
Ahh, yes. Where life is one big fish story. The race to create the biggest whopper out of reality. Once EBT and "guaranteed minimum income" exceed 2x McDonald's wages, their world will be perfect.

 
Posts: 8759 | Registered: March 24, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of maladat
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Slippery Pete:
Me and my non gay friend could theoretically apply for the same status even though we aren't "married." And I can't explain the depth of what the benefits might be. Taxes, medical, etc.


I don't think this argument holds any water.

A man and woman who have no romantic or sexual involvement could go down to the courthouse and get married for the benefits.
 
Posts: 6319 | Location: CA | Registered: January 24, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Stop giving MA and CA all the credit. You're not giving cities like Seattle or Portland a fair shake here !! Big Grin
 
Posts: 4979 | Registered: April 20, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
safe & sound
Picture of a1abdj
posted Hide Post
quote:
Are we for smaller government, or not? Because this sounds like a fantastic opportunity to divorce government from marriage altogether.


I'm not married but have been with the same woman for 19 years. We may have to do things a bit differently, but to the best of my experience I have yet to encounter a single "benefit" that a married couple has that we do not.

I was against "gay marriage" for the same reason. It wasn't because I have a problem with gays and their relationships. It was because I believe none of this is any business of the government. Their further arguments of "benefits" also held no water with me based on my real life experience, and their failure to also support polygamists, incestuals, and those who wished to marry trees showed that it wasn't really about "equality".

New laws don't appear to be much different than new security. For every new "improvement" which is made, new avenues are created to manipulate them to the advantage of those who would wish to do so. Think of all of the tax advantages, especially as it relates to estates and inheritance. Nothing will change a government's attitude towards a subject more than cash flow (or lack thereof).


________________________



www.zykansafe.com
 
Posts: 15684 | Location: St. Charles, MO, USA | Registered: September 22, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I Am The Walrus
posted Hide Post
I got enough problems with 1 wife. 2 wives would likely be quadruple the problems. It's exponential... Big Grin


_____________

 
Posts: 13029 | Registered: March 12, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lawyers, Guns
and Money
Picture of chellim1
posted Hide Post
quote:
Think of all of the tax advantages, especially as it relates to estates and inheritance. Nothing will change a government's attitude towards a subject more than cash flow (or lack thereof).

Bingo.

For the record, I'm married and file a joint tax return. This is mostly for convenience not for any tax savings, although there may or may not be some. I don't know; I haven't run the program both joint and filing separate. I don't seek or expect different tax treatment because I'm married.

For me, marriage is defined by my church. It's a sacrament. The government has no business defining what my marriage is.



"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."
-- Justice Janice Rogers Brown

"The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth."
-rduckwor
 
Posts: 23896 | Location: St. Louis, MO | Registered: April 03, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of sigcrazy7
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by airsoft guy:
Honestly, who gives a shit anymore?


I work at a small company. We offer health insurance for our employees and their families. When people start showing up saying they want to add their eight wives and thirty-five children to the plan, the plan will no longer be affordable. What will happen is we will drop coverage for families.

Suddenly I give a shit about this because it will affect many more than just those living in the big love.



Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus
 
Posts: 8189 | Location: Utah | Registered: December 18, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
quote:
Originally posted by airsoft guy:
Honestly, who gives a shit anymore?


I work at a small company. We offer health insurance for our employees and their families. When people start showing up saying they want to add their eight wives and thirty-five children to the plan, the plan will no longer be affordable. What will happen is we will drop coverage for families.

Suddenly I give a shit about this because it will affect many more than just those living in the big love.

That was exactly the point I was going to bring up, especially because that was the purported reason for the policy change.
 
Posts: 2464 | Location: WI | Registered: December 29, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Thank you
Very little
Picture of HRK
posted Hide Post
quote:
A man and woman who have no romantic or sexual involvement could go down to the courthouse and get married for the benefits.


I'd venture there are millions of these arrangements going on, everyday, they may not have started out that way but that's where they are today.....

Otherwise, hookers would be out of business...



 
Posts: 23193 | Location: Florida | Registered: November 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
You have cow?
I lift cow!
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by maladat:
quote:
Originally posted by Slippery Pete:
Me and my non gay friend could theoretically apply for the same status even though we aren't "married." And I can't explain the depth of what the benefits might be. Taxes, medical, etc.


I don't think this argument holds any water.

A man and woman who have no romantic or sexual involvement could go down to the courthouse and get married for the benefits.


I hear you. Back then I think the guy telling me this was saying it's always been between a man and woman. And opening it up to same sex, allows virtually everyone the benefits that had historically been reserved.

Honestly this is not something I've thought all the way through or know all the angles. Just recalling part of what was explained to me back then.

Far as I'm concerned, "Marry" whatever you want but in the eyes of the law I'm not sure we should be going down this road.

And dam right who the hell would want 2 wives? Drive you straight to crazy. Big Grin


------------------------------
http://defendersoffreedom.us/
 
Posts: 6956 | Location: Bay Area | Registered: December 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Expecting multiple domestic partners to get health and other benefits will put this into the courts. What is to stop one person who has "good" benefits (from employer or government) from signing "partnership agreements" with everyone that lives in the same apartment building (for example) and then providing them all with said benefits, for a price that is much lower than they could get on their own?

This was a primary reason for opposing gay marriage by the government and businesses in the past - more people added to their benefit systems, increasing cost. Once things got to the point that businesses would extend benefits to domestic partners of any sex (because they need to be competitive in the market for employees and due to pressure from activists), it became irrelevant to cost. But that was only one domestic partner. I would think with gay marriage being legal, many companies would return to restricting benefits to just spouses.

Anyway, the answer to this problem will be - "if we had universal government healthcare they wouldn't need to do this". Hmmmm, remember the rules for radicals and the tactic to "overwhelm the system". Here we go...
 
Posts: 4687 | Location: Indiana | Registered: December 28, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I do not see this becoming a huge problem for the health insurance industry.
 
Posts: 17140 | Location: Stuck at home | Registered: January 02, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Another Massachusetts first..... marriage to more than one person.

© SIGforum 2024