Sex

[Oldguy]

From the responses so far, it would seem that most do not equate marriage with sex, even though we assume this when people get married.

So why should government discriminate against polygamy then?

Because The People have decided it's not in the public interest.

They're free to change their minds and may do so someday.

 

[AmyNation]

At least I know everyone will read my post now.

Here are some questions I have.

1. What role, if any, should sex play in the government? Specifically, why should we get tax perks and certain privlidges just because of sexual unions?
it's social engineering by the government, and it should end
2. Should sexual relations imply obligations legally of any kind? Should a spouse be allowed, for example, to simply leave all of their estate to someone other than their sexual partner, or should the fact that two people had sex together for a specified time make them legally obligated to get a cut?
depends
3. Why buy a marriage license? Why should we pay?
you don't have to buy one if you don't want to
4. Should those who are monogomous be allowed to discriminate against those who are not by having special government privlidges over them?
see 1st response
5. What about asexual people? Shouldn't they have the same rights as those who are sexually active? For example, if two people live together and are the best of friends but don't have sex together, why is it they can't file jointly with taxes and provide the same privlidges those that have sex have?
they could marry and file jointly, nothing is stopping them unless they are of the same gender

...

 

[Votto]

You're beginning with the faulty assumption that sex is the only reason people get married, that it's little more than prostitution by contract.

That's a rather narrow and dim view of marriage. In spite of the fact that it is that for too many people (see: divorce rate), that doesn't negate the fact that marriage is much, much more than just a deal for lifetime sex.

For men it is a lifetime contract for sex and maybe to have children. For women it is a romantic fantasy which rarely lives up to their ideal.

Well, I never thought of marriage like that ~shrug~

Personally I think that saying marriage has nothing to do with sex is being disingenuous, since we all think of it that way. However, the alternative is to acknowledge that government is in our bedrooms and those that want government in the marriage business want to keep it that way. Defending government in such a personal matter is rather an embarassing position to be in, so I guess they just deny it altogether.

 

[Dreamy]

From the responses so far, it would seem that most do not equate marriage with sex, even though we assume this when people get married.

So why should government discriminate against polygamy then? In fact, if it has nothing to do with sex, you could say that we are all married in a way since we now have the responsibility to pay certain fees and undertake certain responsibilities etc. for each other in government.

Why is the government involved in marriage at all?

 

[Bigfoot]

You're beginning with the faulty assumption that sex is the only reason people get married, that it's little more than prostitution by contract.

That's a rather narrow and dim view of marriage. In spite of the fact that it is that for too many people (see: divorce rate), that doesn't negate the fact that marriage is much, much more than just a deal for lifetime sex.

For men it is a lifetime contract for sex and maybe to have children. For women it is a romantic fantasy which rarely lives up to their ideal.

Meh. It's worked OK here for more than 40 years.

Well done!

 

[Dreamy]

For men it is a lifetime contract for sex and maybe to have children. For women it is a romantic fantasy which rarely lives up to their ideal.

Well, I never thought of marriage like that ~shrug~

Personally I think that saying marriage has nothing to do with sex is being disingenuous, since we all think of it that way. However, the alternative is to acknowledge that government is in our bedrooms and those that want government in the marriage business want to keep it that way. Defending government in such a personal matter is rather an embarassing position to be in, so I guess they just deny it altogether.

Who needs a marriage to have sex today?

 

[AmyNation]

From the responses so far, it would seem that most do not equate marriage with sex, even though we assume this when people get married.

So why should government discriminate against polygamy then? In fact, if it has nothing to do with sex, you could say that we are all married in a way since we now have the responsibility to pay certain fees and undertake certain responsibilities etc. for each other in government.

I personally think polygamy should be legal.

However, I've seen debates on the issue that do bring valid criticisms of why it is illegal. The legal complexity of joining multiple people, issues of large sometimes unsustainable families, issues of abuse of women and young girls.

 

[Votto]

From the responses so far, it would seem that most do not equate marriage with sex, even though we assume this when people get married.

So why should government discriminate against polygamy then?

Because The People have decided it's not in the public interest.

They're free to change their minds and may do so someday.

I never understood this position when the real question is equality under the law. What do the opinions of others have to do with it? In fact, why are voters asked to vote whether they are for or agaainst gay marriage at all? I find this type of divisive activity as toxic to the political health of the nation. Either it is a right upheld by the current laws or it is not.

If not, then would you support banning marriage to a gay or a polygamist simply based upon a democratic vote?

 

[Votto]

Well, I never thought of marriage like that ~shrug~

Personally I think that saying marriage has nothing to do with sex is being disingenuous, since we all think of it that way. However, the alternative is to acknowledge that government is in our bedrooms and those that want government in the marriage business want to keep it that way. Defending government in such a personal matter is rather an embarassing position to be in, so I guess they just deny it altogether.

Who needs a marriage to have sex today?

I think that if government got out of the marriage business and took the financial incentives out of the picture, divorce rates would plummit.

If they did this, only people who were really committed to each other would seek to marry.

Of course, the legal profession would take a drastic cut in pay, so I would not look for lawmakers to pursue this at all.

 

[Votto]

From the responses so far, it would seem that most do not equate marriage with sex, even though we assume this when people get married.

So why should government discriminate against polygamy then? In fact, if it has nothing to do with sex, you could say that we are all married in a way since we now have the responsibility to pay certain fees and undertake certain responsibilities etc. for each other in government.

I personally think polygamy should be legal.

However, I've seen debates on the issue that do bring valid criticisms of why it is illegal. The legal complexity of joining multiple people, issues of large sometimes unsustainable families, issues of abuse of women and young girls.

Now we are entering into what is "good" or "bad" for people to do. The trouble is, people are going to do it either way. If you take such a position, I would think that the state would be inclined to outlaw people practicing polygamy without it being recognized by the state.

 

[Dreamy]

From the responses so far, it would seem that most do not equate marriage with sex, even though we assume this when people get married.

So why should government discriminate against polygamy then?

Because The People have decided it's not in the public interest.

They're free to change their minds and may do so someday.

I never understood this position when the real question is equality under the law. What do the opinions of others have to do with it? In fact, why are voters asked to vote whether they are for or agaainst gay marriage at all? I find this type of divisive activity as toxic to the political health of the nation. Either it is a right upheld by the current laws or it is not.

If not, then would you support banning marriage to a gay or a polygamist simply based upon a democratic vote?

Would large unions affect more than moral concerns some have? How about practical concerns?

What if a man works for a company and has 10 wives at home. Must his company provided health insurance covering all 10 wives and all the children that may result from this union?

Should any type of government sanctioned union between adults be off limits? Keep in mind you are discussing this under the all must be equal banner.

 

[Votto]

From the responses so far, it would seem that most do not equate marriage with sex, even though we assume this when people get married.

So why should government discriminate against polygamy then? In fact, if it has nothing to do with sex, you could say that we are all married in a way since we now have the responsibility to pay certain fees and undertake certain responsibilities etc. for each other in government.

Why is the government involved in marriage at all?

Control and power.

Think for a bit. The gay lobbyists have had to pour millions of dollars into the pocket books of the politicians as they help form a block vote for gays.

However, the political flavor of the month is left wing, so conservative polygamists will be left out in the cold......unless they can muster a similar assault on the system. They will have to empty their pockets and sell their collective souls to a particular party if they ever want the right to marry.

 

[Truthmatters]

Any two people should be allowed to tie their lives together in this way for whatever reasons they choose.

Thaat is why I think it would be better named civil union.

You want a marriage go to a church for a symbolic union and then go to the court for a ciuvil union legally.

Two neighbors should be allowed to get a civil union so they can leave their possions to each other and be able to make the medical decisions in a situation where one is not capable.

Think ab out it.

two old ladies who have known each other for 40 years whos hubbies are dead and have no kids or they live thousands of miles away.

They should be able to get a simple civil union to be able to help each other.


And old man who has a neighbor of even maybe a second cousin who is years younger and comes to his house to cook his meals and give him a ride to the dr.

Those two people should be able to get a quick civil union to make their lives easier.

i can thinks up hunderdes of examples for you but think a little.

People wanting the help each other because they love each other should be encouraged by this society

 

[Dreamy]

From the responses so far, it would seem that most do not equate marriage with sex, even though we assume this when people get married.

So why should government discriminate against polygamy then? In fact, if it has nothing to do with sex, you could say that we are all married in a way since we now have the responsibility to pay certain fees and undertake certain responsibilities etc. for each other in government.

Why is the government involved in marriage at all?

Control and power.

Think for a bit. The gay lobbyists have had to pour millions of dollars into the pocket books of the politicians as they help form a block vote for gays.

However, the political flavor of the month is left wing, so conservative polygamists will be left out in the cold......unless they can muster a similar assault on the system. They will have to empty their pockets and sell their collective souls to a particular party if they ever want the right to marry.

I am likely the wrong person to discuss this topic because I have never understood the union of government and marriage...any marriage. Take government out of marriage and lobbyists become impotent.

 

[Votto]

Because The People have decided it's not in the public interest.

They're free to change their minds and may do so someday.

I never understood this position when the real question is equality under the law. What do the opinions of others have to do with it? In fact, why are voters asked to vote whether they are for or agaainst gay marriage at all? I find this type of divisive activity as toxic to the political health of the nation. Either it is a right upheld by the current laws or it is not.

If not, then would you support banning marriage to a gay or a polygamist simply based upon a democratic vote?

Would large unions affect more than moral concerns some have? How about practical concerns?

What if a man works for a company and has 10 wives at home. Must his company provided health insurance covering all 10 wives and all the children that may result from this union?

Should any type of government sanctioned union between adults be off limits? Keep in mind you are discussing this under the all must be equal banner.

My only point about bringing up unions is that if government treated everyone the same, then who would give their money to those in government? If everyone was treated equally, then there would be no reason to send them our money in order to get a leg up on the other guy. For example, some unions were exempt from paying into Obamacare for their support and money given to the DNC.

Therefore, the entire survival of the system is predicated on dividing and conquering the population.

 

[Votto]

Any two people should be allowed to tie their lives together in this way for whatever reasons they choose.

Thaat is why I think it would be better named civil union.

You want a marriage go to a church for a symbolic union and then go to the court for a ciuvil union legally.

Two neighbors should be allowed to get a civil union so they can leave their possions to each other and be able to make the medical decisions in a situation where one is not capable.

Think ab out it.

two old ladies who have known each other for 40 years whos hubbies are dead and have no kids or they live thousands of miles away.

They should be able to get a simple civil union to be able to help each other.


And old man who has a neighbor of even maybe a second cousin who is years younger and comes to his house to cook his meals and give him a ride to the dr.

Those two people should be able to get a quick civil union to make their lives easier.

i can thinks up hunderdes of examples for you but think a little.

People wanting the help each other because they love each other should be encouraged by this society

Exactly!!

 

[jknowgood]

I understand that the government is going to be taxing sex. The top 1% of income earners are going to have to pay more too every time they have sex.

Don't tell sandra fluke that, she won't be able to afford to go to school anymore!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Damnit. I thought there might be some nudity in this thread...

 

[AmyNation]

Damnit. I thought there might be some nudity in this thread...

 

[nodoginnafight]

At least I know everyone will read my post now.

Here are some questions I have.

1. What role, if any, should sex play in the government? Specifically, why should we get tax perks and certain privlidges just because of sexual unions?

2. Should sexual relations imply obligations legally of any kind? Should a spouse be allowed, for example, to simply leave all of their estate to someone other than their sexual partner, or should the fact that two people had sex together for a specified time make them legally obligated to get a cut?

3. Why buy a marriage license? Why should we pay?

4. Should those who are monogomous be allowed to discriminate against those who are not by having special government privlidges over them?

5. What about asexual people? Shouldn't they have the same rights as those who are sexually active? For example, if two people live together and are the best of friends but don't have sex together, why is it they can't file jointly with taxes and provide the same privlidges those that have sex have?

I think the idea is that marriage produces a stable household that is deemed beneficial to raising children.