Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows

[Drake Tungsten]

Why are private corporations limited in the number of shareholders they can have?

[KrazyHorse]

Not necessarily, in all three cases. Focusing only on the negatives in order to deny people the right to marry who they want...

Why are private corporations limited in the number of shareholders they can have?

So that governments will retain the right to soak larger businesses?

[notyoueither]

All of those are easily addressed by the fact that polygamy is illegal. Legalize it and some of these problems go away.

The abusive aspects of polygamy, especially regarding children, have more to do with the main group practicing it, whack job Mormons. Take religion out of the picture and those problems will disappear as well. In any event, the abusive aspect of polygamy also exists within monogamous marriage, including the marriage of children against their will.

Legalising polygamy is not going to give fathers more time to pay more attention to more children and more wives.

In smaller communities it will lead to older boys being sent away to keep them from competing for brides with older men who are more favoured in the community. This is observed in Bountiful, BC.

Legalising polygamy is not going to create a surplus of women so that lower status and less wealthy men can still find partners.

And then what of consent? I am rich. I have a trophy wife. She begins to age. I find another trophy. Is number one consulted before I can add to my harem?

[KrazyHorse]

Drake, he's talking about the limits on the number of owners of an S corp in the US (not sure what the term is for the Canadian equivalent) which is a bastardization between LLCs and publically traded corps.

[Drake Tungsten]

I understand what he's talking about. I'm confused about what the **** it has to do with gay marriage/polygamy...

[notyoueither]

So that governments will retain the right to soak larger businesses?

I thought it had to do with problems with the structure when it grows too large. You need to go public and meet the greater obligations for reporting so that shareholders can know what is going on.

I'm not finding answers on that.

But I can tell you that the government soaks corporations based on income, so a very profitable private corporation still gets soaked, in Canada at least.

[Solomwi]

Solomwi, when someone says your terms need to be clarified, that's a sign that you need to step back. I honestly didn't have a clue where you are coming from, and I still don't.

You keep arguing about this mythical 'perpetual consent' which I keep telling you doesn't exist. Contract law asks one question, whether consent was given at the outset, and uses that to determine the breach. Divorce is a breach of contract and ought to be treated as such. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about my argument.

When someone says that in the face of clear terms, it's not.

If that had been your argument, we'd have had much less problem, but it's never been, and your posts show that unequivocally. Divorce IS treated as a breach of contract. That's not what you say you want when you say it should require mutual consent. Contracts can be breached unilaterally. Your original statement seeks to prohibit unilateral breach. Contract law looks to that moment of mutual consent to determine whether a contract was formed, but that's not the only question it asks. A second question is how to treat a breaching party. Of course, this doesn't strike us as much of a question, because it was answered hundreds of years ago and really hasn't been questioned since. We don't punish someone who breaches a contract, because we recognize that a person shouldn't be forced to remain in an arrangement he no longer consents to. Similarly, courts are loathe to force a party to follow through with a contract he now wants out of (specific performance) because they recognize the principle of ongoing consent, and that it's better to minimize forced interaction between parties who have decided they no longer want to interact. Far better to simply force the breaching party to make good the other party's damages as nearly as possible. Now, change all the pertinent parts of that to reflect a divorce, rather than a generic contract, and you have the philosophy behind our divorce regime today.

The only thing difficult to understand about your argument is why you think you know anything about contract law.

[KrazyHorse]

I thought it had to do with problems with the structure when it grows too large. You need to go public and meet the greater obligations for reporting so that shareholders can know what is going on.

Polygamous marriages wouldn't be publically traded, AFAIK.



I'm wondering if you have a point here.

[MrFun]

Do they hook everyone who gets married up to an attraction gage and if the gage is too low they can't get married? Fail.

They deny themselves and demand special rights, and that the law change to accommodate them. Special rights!= equal rights.

Do you see anyone else in this thread backing you up on this ridiculous notion that straight men and gay men are treated the same under the laws concerning marriage??

I use words like "retarded" because that's what arguments like yours are. First, you seem to have no concept that two people who marry one another are usually attracted to one another - of course there's no literal attraction gauge device involved, you idiot.

And seriously, WTF do you mean by "gay men denying themselves" anything!? Gay people are not demanding special rights - they are demanding the SAME RIGHT to marry a consenting person whom they're attracted to, just as straight people have the freedom to marry a consenting person they are attracted to. Asking for the SAME RIGHTS that others have does not equal special rights.

You're a real imbecile, either because you're so dense to sincerely believe in the fallacious arguments you make, or because you know the arguments you make are false and continue to use them anyway.

[chequita guevara]

Legalising polygamy is not going to give fathers more time to pay more attention to more children and more wives.

In smaller communities it will lead to older boys being sent away to keep them from competing for brides with older men who are more favoured in the community. This is observed in Bountiful, BC.

Legalising polygamy is not going to create a surplus of women so that lower status and less wealthy men can still find partners.

And then what of consent? I am rich. I have a trophy wife. She begins to age. I find another trophy. Is number one consulted before I can add to my harem?

You're thinking in too patriarchal a mode. Women can have more than one spouse as well as men if polygamy is legal. You could have multiples on each side of the equation, three women and two men, for example. Or three gay men decide to get married, etc.

As for consent, it could be determined a number of ways. Consent of all partners in a marriage could be required before adding a new souse. It could be by democratic vote.

And, Bountiful, BC is a fundamentalist Mormon community. So again, the problem is religious abuse.

[notyoueither]

Polygamous marriages wouldn't be publically traded, AFAIK.



I'm wondering if you have a point here.

The government rightly regulates relationships among citizens, including number of people involved, based on considerations of combinations that are detrimental to some of the participants.

It's not a strong argument, but it is not illogical.

[notyoueither]

You're thinking in too patriarchal a mode. Women can have more than one spouse as well as men if polygamy is legal. You could have multiples on each side of the equation, three women and two men, for example. Or three gay men decide to get married, etc.

As for consent, it could be determined a number of ways. Consent of all partners in a marriage could be required before adding a new souse. It could be by democratic vote.

And, Bountiful, BC is a fundamentalist Mormon community. So again, the problem is religious abuse.

Our society and many relationships in it are still quite patriarchal. I think we need to take into account who would likely want to avail themselves of legalised polygamy.

A democratic vote would be interesting. Three people involved vote 2 to 1 to add a fourth. That would put the disenting person in an interesting position.

Unanimous consent sounds like a path to divorce court when one person says no. Speaking of divorce, say you have two men and four women in such a relationship. Two of the women and one of the men work and their children are cared for by the other two women and one of the men.

One of the women who works wants to leave. Sort out the custody, Soloman. And does she owe support to the women she is leaving behind who cared for her children and made her home?

Edit: and I think that saying anything that involves religion where abuse exists is the fault of religion is simplistic. It's people abusing other people, and it is an example of what could happen in communities regardless of religion.

[Monk]

Ben,

It's fairly obviously implied when you marry that your spouse may divorce you at any time - not everybody says 'to death do you part' when they get married, and even if they do, that doesn't mean as much in the legal sense as you'd like it to mean.

Secondly, did it ever occur to you while arguing marriage should be more like other contracts, did it ever occur to you that it's utterly irrelevant for the usual contract if the people signing it happen to be the same sex? And would it be demanding 'special rights' to expect a right to rent an apartment from a male landlord?

Oh, and - you didn't really just say homosexuality as practiced was abusive, did you? Please tell me I'm not supposed to read it that way.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ongoing consent means both spouses need to continually work to make the other happy. Your view makes marriage meaningless. Under your view, it's a permanent reminder of a momentary feeling. Your view is a recipe for abuse, abandonment and misery. My view allows unhappy spouses to both seek happiness elsewhere.

Ahh, I was waiting for this. The issue isn't contract law. Let's get that straight. The issue is that we have very different views of divorce.

First off, if I am making the promise, 'until death do we part', them I'm going to damn well make sure I keep my end. I already said, personally I would never divorce my wife even if I were unhappy with her. That's not the point. She is not responsible for my happiness. I am responsible for my happiness. If I am unhappy, then I need to grow up and deal with it. Marriage isn't always happy, sometimes it can be very difficult, but honestly it's a hell of alot more rewarding then not getting married.

A spouse who blames the other for their unhappiness is going to be in for a nasty shock when they realise that even if everything is perfect, they might still be unhappy. Is the partner at fault? Hardly.

Yes, it can. Of course, we're not talking about your bat****, boy-banging cult here, but the civil institution, which is the only one that matters to both of us.

Good to see the gloves come off, and root out some more anti-Catholics. Always a pleasure to get to the real root.

Uh huh, and contracts don't work that way. Besides, what you still fail to acknowledge is that initiating a unilateral divorce, even under a no-fault system, still has consequences. The initiating spouse is still expected to fulfill his or her duties to both the other spouse and any children involved. You no longer consent to the marriage, but must still live with the consequences of having consented to it in the past.

What responsibilities? It's one sided. A wife has zero, zilch, nada, no responsibilities to her husband once she writes him off, while a husband will be paying for it for the rest of his life? That's fair?

Yes you do what? Disaffirm that divorce should require mutual consent? Also, WTFBen? How does the system state that the one divorcing gets a payday? The joke that divorce is so expensive because it's worth it has far more basis in reality than your portrayal of the system.

Uh, alimony and getting half of the hubby's assets is a real sweet ticket. Easily over and above legal fees.

What that paragraph means is that you're conflating the issue of consent with the issue of consequences. The change you want on the former, the only one I'm arguing about, is a logical impossibility. I don't really care about your opinion on the latter, because you're not a party to my marriage, and thus have no say in it.

I wasn't referring to your marriage, but obviously you think I'm targetting you. I think it's obvious. If you are unhappy and want out, then divorce and accept the consequences. You pay half your assets earned throughout the marriage outright, and see what it's like for the poor sap who gets a divorce dumped on his lap.

No, you didn't acknowledge that outright, and you continue not to do so when you claim non-custodial, non-breaching spouses shouldn't be liable for child support.

The other parent has already made the unilateral decision to deprive them of their children. Why should the non-custodial parent be required to support a child they never get to see, and had no say in the decision? Again, it would be a warning against people who do that, if they realised they weren't going to get child support and had to support the child with their full freight.

Who breached simply doesn't matter on child support. Each parent owes a duty of support to the children. Each is held to that duty through the divorce. Your spouse leaving you is no reason for you to get to shirk your duty to your children.

It's no justification to take the children away from the other parent. Ever hear of parental alienation? It's wrong. I agree with you that both parents have a duty to support their child, but I also believe they have a right to look after their own child too. It isn't right for one parent to take the child away from the other. I think the other parent has an obligation to their child to provide for their child, but the answer isn't handing a cheque over to the other parent. They should buy some of the essentials that their child needs, go shopping, etc, or whatnot.

Again, that parent has to pay the burden he took on when he brought the child into the world. It's completely independent of the marriage. Child support is not a reward to the custodial spouse.

Then why does the state decide the amount? The parents should decide between them what's fair and appropriate.

Nor is it punishment to the non-custodial. Nobody's being punished by requiring child support, because it's simply a change in form of a burden the non-custodial parent was already carrying. Not requiring some form of child support from a non-custodial spouse punishes the children because it removes part of the support they had been relying on. Besides, the spouse had a hand in bringing the child into the world.

That is true, but it's not right to deprive the child of their parent, or to deprive the other parent of their child.

That's not skipping out without consequence, since the remaining spouse will be able to enforce whatever rights he has in the courts. You can do that in fault-only jurisdictions, too. And the only thing requiring mutual consent would change is that the spouse wouldn't bother filing for divorce. Your wife would take the kids and leave, and you wouldn't even have recourse to the courts to get visitation rights, etc., because your preferred rules have removed the divorce mechanism.

And she'd end up in jail for kidnapping. It's not right, and I'm astonished you'd defend this behaviour, by saying, "they'll just take the kids anyways." Bull****. It's wrong, period.

I've tried to be patient, but it's wearing thin. Either defend your statement in terms relevant to it or admit that you didn't understand what you were saying. If you continue to say, "Divorce should require mutual consent. I don't mind if one spouse files for divorce, but he should have to pay through the nose." and pretend those aren't contradictory, you'll hit my ignore list.

They aren't.

1. is a 'should' statement. Divorce should only occur through mutual consent. However, it is permissible to divorce without mutual consent with the payment of a fine.

Just because I believe something should be a certain way doesn't mean that it's enforceable. I agree with you that it's unenforceable which is why it should be permissible.

Perhaps I haven't explained it clearly enough, but it's crystal clear. We permit all kinds of things, in the name of liberty. People shouldn't swear in public, but it is permissible for them to do so.

[MrFun]

Don't quote Ben!

I is sowwy.