Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Want to know how Apple, Google, MasterCard and Chik-Fil-A responded to the SCOTUS making everyone get gay married? If so, you are probably a lonely person with too much time on your hands. But here it is anyway   (slate.com ) divider line 107
    More: Amusing, U.S. Supreme Court, MasterCard, Google, AllThingsD  
•       •       •

14105 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jun 2013 at 10:10 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



107 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-27 09:35:55 PM  
If so, you are probably a lonely person with too much time on your hands.

You're new to Fark, aren't you subby?
 
2013-06-28 09:36:27 AM  

washington-babylon: Deucednuisance: washington-babylon: Give the U.S. twenty years and Zoophiles will be clamoring for the same treatment... and getting it.

Call us the day an animal can legally consent to a contract (which is what civil marriage *is*) and we can talk.

Till then you can just wear the same "sloppy thinker" label as the rest of you silly lot.

Heheheh. Got one!


No fair!  People have been honestly making that argument all over the place, ya big meanie!

BMFPitt: Deucednuisance: Dude, your hypothetical excludes itself with a single word: unmarried.

Why?


Seriously?

Because "marriage" is the name for the nice little package of contracts that the state enforces, and which are the subject of discussion.

Unmarried people are not entered into such contracts, so their affairs are not what is being discussed.

Can you honestly be this unaware of  what's being discussed and the utter irrelevance of what you're saying?
 
2013-06-28 09:54:36 AM  
Deucednuisance: Seriously?

Because "marriage" is the name for the nice little package of contracts that the state enforces, and which are the subject of discussion.

Unmarried people are not entered into such contracts, so their affairs are not what is being discussed.

Can you honestly be this unaware of what's being discussed and the utter irrelevance of what you're saying?


Your argument against polygamy was that the state was unequipped to handle questions of inheritance, etc, for multiple spouses. I pointed out that they handle identical situations among children, siblings, etc, all the time.

Your response seems to be to say that they are completely different, because of a ring or something.
 
2013-06-28 10:18:33 AM  

BMFPitt: Your argument against polygamy was that the state was unequipped to handle questions of inheritance, etc, for multiple spouses.


Not at all.

It was that it chooses not to.

(see: 2:31:51)

 And again, stop referring to "spouses" when using an example where the entanglements of the marriage contract don't exist.
 
2013-06-28 10:30:46 AM  

Deucednuisance: BMFPitt: Your argument against polygamy was that the state was unequipped to handle questions of inheritance, etc, for multiple spouses.

Not at all.

It was that it chooses not to.

(see: 2:31:51)

 And again, stop referring to "spouses" when using an example where the entanglements of the marriage contract don't exist.


OK, so then you are completely giving up and admitting you have no rational basis for discriminating?
 
2013-06-28 11:18:53 AM  

BMFPitt: Your response seems to be to say that they are completely different, because of a ring or something.


You know, this flippant a response deserves its own smackdown.

Even thought I've said the word "contract" at least once in every post on the subject, you seem to think I'm some dewy-eyed naif who is only concerned with "putting a ring on it".

Nonsense.  I was partnered for 16 years before I married Ms. Nuisance twelve years ago, precisely because of an aspect of that many-faceted contract: to get her on my health insurance.  (And curiously enough, her current job has better health care than I get as a Fed, so she's off mine, but guess what?  We're still married!  Crazy, huh?)

But let's play your game.  Four people, A, B, C, and D, two males and two females want to enter into a four-way marriage.  Great.  Let's see how current property law plays out in a Joint Property state, that is, each partner continues to individually own property brought to the marriage, but all after-acquired property is jointly held.  After the wedding, it's clear that none of the parties owns a house large enough for the new family so a new house is purchased.  All's great until D decides she doesn't want to be married to A, anymore.  They divorce.  Is D still married to B and C?  Are B and C still married to both A and D?  What happens to the title to the house?  Or any other after-acquired property?  May D still reside in the marital residence?  May A?  If D dates is she committing adultery against B and C?  Suppose the reason that D divorced A is that he is a secret alcoholic, prone to rages and abuse.  Suppose further that A has a child from a previous relationship, but his alcoholism proves him an unfit parent.  May D sue for custody? Can either of the other two step-parents object, or themselves sue for custody, although they are still married to A?  If D leaves the residence, may she sue to compel sale of the property to retrieve her share, although she is still married to B and C?  Should A die, in what manner is his estate to be divided should he have failed to record a will?  If his will leaves his estate to D, may B, C or his issue object?  If they severably object, which party should prevail?

I'm just scratching the surface, here.

"Marriage" is simply a label for a bunch of contracts between two parties.  It simply isn't equipped to handle the entanglements of group marriages.  As we've famously been told, there are over a thousand Federal programs where marital status effects the outcome.  Just a group of four increases the number of parties by an order of magnitude, and increases the number of simple pair-bonds from 1 to 12, not to mention the tri- and quad- bonds.

The basic rules for the marriage contract are pretty well established, yet Family Law is a thriving practice.  And you think that the State is coloring outside the lines when it sees what a mess assigning all the rights and obligations of marriage to partnering groups and says "No, thanks"?

You want group partnerships?  Bully for you.  Have at it.

Just don't expect the State to write your rule book and play referee.
 
2013-06-28 11:22:54 AM  

BMFPitt: OK, so then you are completely giving up and admitting you have no rational basis for discriminating?


It's entirely rational.

You may not like it, but that doesn't make it irrational.

The law has a long-standing antipathy to multi-party contracts, and an absolute bar on contracts that bind unwilling third parties.

Are you really that short on imagination that you don't see how easily such a barred situation could arise in a multi-party marriage contract?

25.media.tumblr.com
 
Displayed 7 of 107 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report