Cohabitation and marriage...thoughts?

[Uncle Ted]

No they don't.

Either way, I just don't see public opinion swaying in favor of polygamy. Too much child abuse and welfare fraud.

When does the court rule because of public opinion?

There are laws against child abuse and welfare fraud and apparently not all polygamy involves this if you ask the Sister Wives guy. On the other hand, Warren Jeffs is serving hard time in Texas until at least 2038 for child abuse. I am guessing he has made lots of boy friends in prison. I don't think he was convicted of any cohabitation or whatever. Texas knows how to take care of those b*tards unlike Utah and Arizona.

Of course, how is it welfare fraud if a sister wife and her child are just living with someone and not legally married? She is a single mom in the eyes of the law. Or should any single mom that happens to be living with someone be denied welfare? It seems, legally, she and her child are entitled to the welfare. Or are there welfare exceptions for single mothers impregnated by a legally married man?

[Uncle Ted]

One of several reasons why it won't happen.

Of course, if there wasn't estate tax this wouldn't even be an issue.

It is not that much in the way of tax revenue...



and just causes the very rich, like Rmoney, to blow their money on stupid things like running for President.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/est...epublicans-say

[Jeff Lebowski]

When does the court rule because of public opinion?

I didn't say it did. But changing societal attitudes create the groundswell of support and momentum to push these things forward. If you think we would have had gay marriage without changing societal attitudes, you are nuts.

There are laws against child abuse and welfare fraud and apparently not all polygamy involves this if you ask the Sister Wives guy. On the other hand, Warren Jeffs is serving hard time in Texas until at least 2038 for child abuse. I am guessing he has made lots of boy friends in prison. I don't think he was convicted of any cohabitation or whatever. Texas knows how to take care of those b*tards unlike Utah and Arizona.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. Sure, you can have polygamy without abuse and fraud. But there is so much abuse and fraud that it would be tough for them to get much public sympathy. Furthermore, being gay is mostly biological. That is not the case with polygamy. Huge difference.

Of course, how is it welfare fraud if a sister wife and her child are just living with someone and not legally married? She is a single mom in the eyes of the law. Or should any single mom that happens to be living with someone be denied welfare? It seems, legally, she and her child are entitled to the welfare. Or are there welfare exceptions for single mothers impregnated by a legally married man?

Based on the books and articles that I have read, welfare fraud is a standard practice in the FLDS community. I believe they call it "bleeding the beast" or something like that. They falsify income and list all but the alpha wife as in poverty state, even if the husband is actually worth millions. Then the wives typically have to hand over the entire check to the husband anyway and if they are lucky they get a tiny amount back. Sometimes it doesn't even cover food and clothing so they sometimes find ways to make money on the side and hide it from the husbands.

[Uncle Ted]

As to the first question. My modest opinion is that if you are going to have kids, you need to get married. If you are not going to have kids (by choice), it doesn't matter (and I don't understand why you would get married in that case). Either way, the non-married co-cohabitants are likely to separate (more-so than those who were married). If they have kids, the kids are more likely to end up the products of a broken home.

So why aren't there laws to require expecting parents to be/get married?

There are laws already for the biological parents to take financial responsibility of their children. Maybe those laws should be changed to the point people will seriously think about the financial obligations of being a parent so crap like this doesn't happen...

octomom-300x250.jpg

As to the religious morality, I don't care in the slightest whether someone gets married or not. As to general morality, people should get married and stay married for the kids and for themselves. They will likely be happier and richer and their kids will likely be happier and richer. Those are good things. I encourage morality that leads to such positive results.

I don't think the so-called movement will affect the church in any significant way.

If parents would teach their kids responsibility and consequences of those choices (along with sex education) then they will most likely be happier and richer even if they get married (or not to take advantage of the tax benefits).

[Uncle Ted]

I didn't say it did. But changing societal attitudes create the groundswell of support and momentum to push these things forward. If you think we would have had gay marriage without changing societal attitudes, you are nuts.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. Sure, you can have polygamy without abuse and fraud. But there is so much abuse and fraud that it would be tough for them to get much public sympathy. Furthermore, being gay is mostly biological. That is not the case with polygamy. Huge difference.

Given the common place of extramarital affairs I don't know if you can say that humans are not polygamous by nature. Also, our evolutionary cousins, the chimpanzees are known for being very polygamous.

Based on the books and articles that I have read, welfare fraud is a standard practice in the FLDS community. I believe they call it "bleeding the beast" or something like that. They falsify income and list all but the alpha wife as in poverty state, even if the husband is actually worth millions. Then the wives typically have to hand over the entire check to the husband anyway and if they are lucky they get a tiny amount back. Sometimes it doesn't even cover food and clothing so they sometimes find ways to make money on the side and hide it from the husbands.

If they are handing the checks over to the husbands the man they are living with or anyone else then that is welfare fraud. There are laws against that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Given the common place of extramarital affairs I don't know if you can say that humans are not polygamous by nature. Also, our evolutionary cousins, the chimpanzees are known for being very polygamous.

You know what I meant.

[Jacob]

So why aren't there laws to require expecting parents to be/get married?

Fortunately, we retain some liberties. Perhaps the laws regarding financial obligations should be strengthened. That's why marriage and family law are needed. Not so that 2 people can express their love for each other. That's got nothing to do with it.

If parents would teach their kids responsibility and consequences of those choices (along with sex education) then they will most likely be happier and richer even if they get married (or not to take advantage of the tax benefits).

I doubt it has much to do with what the parents are teaching the kids. Kids do what they do. mostly regardless of their parents. But the one area parents may have the most influence is in keeping an in-tact family. Having a father in the home along with the mother. And don't keep them in the dark re: sex ed.

[Uncle Ted]

Fortunately, we retain some liberties. Perhaps the laws regarding financial obligations should be strengthened. That's why marriage and family law are needed. Not so that 2 people can express their love for each other. That's got nothing to do with it.

Couldn't folks also express their love for each other with a religious ceremony that doesn't involve the government determining who gets a marriage license or not?

As for marriage and family law couldn't that be a civil agreement between the two (or N-number) of parties?

I doubt it has much to do with what the parents are teaching the kids. Kids do what they do. mostly regardless of their parents. But the one area parents may have the most influence is in keeping an in-tact family. Having a father in the home along with the mother. And don't keep them in the dark re: sex ed.

Very true. Kids are very much influenced by peers and their teachers at school than their parents. They spend relatively very little time with their parents unless they are home schooled and dad works from home. Then they might have social issues when they grow up.

[Uncle Ted]

You know what I meant.

LOL. Maybe we should get a ruling from Woot on this...

[ATTACH]1722[/ATTACH]

[Jeff Lebowski]

LOL. Maybe we should get a ruling from Woot on this...

No, I get your point. People like to have sex with multiple partners. This is true of gays, straights, polygamists. But it has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Don't pull your smartass contrarian routine with me, young man. I know you too well.

[Idon'tgnawonmywife]

It's none of my business except I don't think that a couple living together for a decade should make a big deal out of a wedding or engagement.

Ha, yeah, it's gonna be interesting to see their timeline towards marriage affects any of that.

All I know is, you got a Presbyterian (of the non-predestination variety apparently) and a Methodist getting together.

Funny thing is, the bride to be (Methodist) once described her religion to me as thus: "you know, when you're Methodist, you don't have to go to church!"

This was in response to my declining of a boating invitation on a Sunday - cuz teaching in Elders' quorum is so much more fun!

[Uncle Ted]

It seems that cohabitation will become the new norm... like it is in Europe:

European Social Survey contains data on 25 European countries. Respondents were asked about how much they approve or disapprove if a woman or a man lives with a partner without being married to him or her.


All in all, respondents are more positive than negative towards unmarried unions: twice as many people are approving (43%) than disapproving (20%). Every third person has a neutral viewpoint: they neither approve nor disapprove of non- marital cohabitation. This group may include people who do not prefer any relationship form over the others and people who do not have a strong opinion.
[...]

http://www.demografia.hu/letoltes/RH...ried.cohab.pdf

[imanihonjin]

No, I get your point. People like to have sex with multiple partners. This is true of gays, straights, polygamists. But it has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Don't pull your smartass contrarian routine with me, young man. I know you too well.

You still haven't presented much of a case as to the why the same arguments that those who supported gay marriage wouldn't apply to polygamous marriages. You cite fraud and abuse of welfare, but that isn't an argument against polygamous marriage because recognizing a polygamous marriage wouldn't cause more welfare fraud to happen...in fact recognizing polygamous marriages would make welfare fraud more difficult for the instigators. You also claimed child abuse but as Ted pointed out there are already laws against that and this argument was one that was used against the gays as well. You then state that there isn't public support of the idea....I get what you are saying here, which is that when the public overwhelmingly supports something miraculously the courts find some way to legalize whatever that thing is. However, this idea shouldn't be expanded to mean that courts will only issue rulings that are in line with culturally popular ideologies.

You also seem to claim that gays were shouting from the rooftops for the "right to marry one person".....as was pointed out, that is more of a statement rather than an argument as to why gays should be allowed the right to marry. Lastly, you claim that gays were born that way so that means they have a leg up on some dude who just wants to shack up with multiple women. I don't mean this lightly, but have you spend time around other males? Did your desire to be with other women dissipate the moment you said "I do"? It is natural for men to want to have multiple women and monogamy presents a challenge for the carnal man. Wanting to mate with multiple women is a common trait in most males and obviously men are physiologically capable of mating with a whole hoard of women to produce offspring. So I am pretty sure that if we are going on the "born that way" argument to rationalize legalization, that that is also an argument that doesn't really hold much water.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You still haven't presented much of a case as to the why the same arguments that those who supported gay marriage wouldn't apply to polygamous marriages. You cite fraud and abuse of welfare, but that isn't an argument against polygamous marriage because recognizing a polygamous marriage wouldn't cause more welfare fraud to happen...in fact recognizing polygamous marriages would make welfare fraud more difficult for the instigators. You also claimed child abuse but as Ted pointed out there are already laws against that and this argument was one that was used against the gays as well. You then state that there isn't public support of the idea....I get what you are saying here, which is that when the public overwhelmingly supports something miraculously the courts find some way to legalize whatever that thing is. However, this idea shouldn't be expanded to mean that courts will only issue rulings that are in line with culturally popular ideologies.

You also seem to claim that gays were shouting from the rooftops for the "right to marry one person".....as was pointed out, that is more of a statement rather than an argument as to why gays should be allowed the right to marry. Lastly, you claim that gays were born that way so that means they have a leg up on some dude who just wants to shack up with multiple women. I don't mean this lightly, but have you spend time around other males? Did your desire to be with other women dissipate the moment you said "I do"? It is natural for men to want to have multiple women and monogamy presents a challenge for the carnal man. Wanting to mate with multiple women is a common trait in most males and obviously men are physiologically capable of mating with a whole hoard of women to produce offspring. So I am pretty sure that if we are going on the "born that way" argument to rationalize legalization, that that is also an argument that doesn't really hold much water.

I haven't even begun to describe all of my reasons for thinking the cases are different. But I can't muster any enthusiasm to debate it with you. Sorry.

[imanihonjin]

I haven't even begun to describe all of my reasons for thinking the cases are different. But I can't muster any enthusiasm to debate it with you. Sorry.

Sure bro....it's okay to admit you were wrong.