Gay Marriage Supporters: Hateful bigots

I think that's what I said, isn't it?

 

An important distinction needs to be made here: Polygamy is not "Mormon." The LDS church officially abandoned the practice in 1890. Church members can be excommunicated for practicing. The polygamists to whom you refer are known colloquially as "Jack Mormons" or Fundamentalist Mormons (FLDS). Modern-day Mormons like Mitt Romney and Harry Reid do not practice polygamy.

 

I'm very interested in hearing your rationale for this statement. I disagree, of course, but I'm all ears.

There is no functional difference in my view. Just like a corporation which may be owned by dozens or thousands of stakeholders, the same rules would apply only being rationally different.

California may want you to believe there is a rational basis for those limits. Of course, right next door in Nevada, a single individual can be the sole owner of a regular C Corp.

I really don't think it would be that complicated at all. The Jack Mormons do it already, and all within the confines of the law, excepting the statutory rape, of course, which is de rigueur in many cases, but not all.

Reductio ad absurdum notwithstanding, that's largely outside of the realm of possibility.​

 

Not sure I can express it better than I already tried to. Basically if you tell someone he can only partner with a black or a woman, you're making the decision for that person as to who they can associate with. That violates freedom of association. Sure that liberty can be denied with sufficient reason (as can any liberty) but even when the courts rule there is sufficient reason they're in the realm of constitutional rights. In contrast, limiting how many folks someone can marry does not violate freedom of association. You can marry anyone you like, the choice isn't made for you. You're just limited to how many times you can do it.​

 

OMG wow! You aren't stupid. Every post you have made up to this one was, great job!

You do realize however that progress in government is made by baby steps right?

Step 1 is realizing we have freedom of religion and we cannot have laws that prevent gays from getting married because it is a sin and our country is based on christianity. Christians don't throw stones.
Step 2 is realizing that polygamy won't effect you either. Except you might say, "gross".

I don't agree with gays getting married because I am raised christian. I also don't have anything in common with them and they make me uncomfortable when I am around them. But I WON'T judge them. I will simply try to steer them in the right direction, because I'm not an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

I renege. You never intended for polygamy to be accepted.

 

As you scale up the max number of 'owners' the rights of owners in those larger partnership types are generally reduced. They have to be because it get's more complicated (expensive). Pass through taxes for example, they're possible in S Corp but not a C Corp. And yea, you can always choose to have less than the maximum number of folks in a partnership type. One guy can own a C Corp -- but he'll get taxed twice on his income, face stricter accounting standards, and forgo other advantages that are possible with (for example) an S Corp.

I'm not saying you couldn't come up with a reasonable partnership type for polygamous marriage. I'm not saying we shouldn't try (if there is sufficient interest and resources available).

I am saying it's quite a different proposition than removing the same sex restriction on marriage. You can't just draw a line through the number "2" in the law the way you can the mixed sex requirement and be done with it. Making marriage non-exclusive or not limited to two people would be basically creating a new partnership type. It will be expensive, complicated, and the size limit won't go away -- it's just be a different number.​

It would be impossible to manage. Which is why we'll have a size limit. We can't possibly support a marriage as large as some folks ambition / imagination. I'll cite any page in Guiness Book of World records or just Octamom as examples of that aspect of human nature.​

 

OK, I understand your point now. Thank you for the clarification. Technically, the Constitution does not address "freedom of association" but the USSC has affirmed that we do indeed have such a right. I do not recall the court stipulating any particular attributes or qualifications to free association, however. IOW, your position seems to rest upon a distinction without a difference. So really, I'm still left wondering how you conclude that the government can not tell you whom you can marry, but it may tell you how many.

 

Heh heh. Speaking of records, was it Brittney Spears who was married for 58 hours?

As an aside, if you practice proper tax balancing, you can significantly reduce your tax liability as the sole owner of a C Corp. I should know, I own three of them! As for the very nice company car my "Board of Directors" bought me (it's a one-man board wink wink) all I can tell you is "it's not mine... but I've got the keys!"

 

Any of your C-corps have to do with real estate? I have found it amazing how ALL of the money I spend keeping up real estate is for rental properties. The house I live in never seems to need a thing!

 

Wholesale distribution. Sold my rental properties at just the right time. Did OK, but yes, the expenses pretty much eat any profit, don't they? I mean I hope most real estate investors realize it's a value play anyway, but the short position can be a tricky one in that field.

 

Law could impose either limitation. For example, the law tells felons who they can associate with and it tells protestors how many can gather in a single location. We pass and uphold many laws that discriminate and limit our freedoms. Those laws that reduce our liberties just require a clear necessity.

But crossing the line of an explicitly guaranteed liberty, in this case freedom of association, is a more serious concern that limiting an otherwise unexpressed liberty or entitlement. It will invite greater scrutiny and must meet a higher standard. Especially when that limitation utilizes as historically contentious a criteria as race, religion, on (in this case) gender.​

 

I think it was Brittney you're thinking of. I doubt she owns the record though, Hollywood marriages are a different breed. An S corp can also own property, but sure -- there are definitely reasons not to file an S election even if you don't plan on having hundreds of share holders today.​

 

That is really weird. You support gay marriage so much that you think that anyone who opposes it is either a bigot or has a brand new medical condition known as homophobia, and, you think that how people arrange their personal affairs is no business of the governments. Help me square this circle: How can you think that how people arrange their personal affairs is no business of the government and also believe the government must accede to your wishes to create a government sanctioned status to manage their personal affairs?

 

Government unavoidably interacts with people. Most of our laws assume they're dealing with people who are living independent lives. But sometimes the government comes up against two people who are living one life. If it treats them as individuals it can create an unnecessary, even unintentional, burden on them because of that lifestyle choice.

'Married' status puts a label on that couple so laws know to adapt to those who are sharing one life. Not preferentially, but differently, to accommodate that different lifestyle.

It's not about the government status helping manage a person's life, it's about the government status letting the unavoidable laws that will impact our lives treat a couple as a couple instead of two individuals.​

 

...it's the same thing, if he didn't force his drinking problem on me, I wouldn't know he had one...so, if you are gay (just like having a drinking problem) and I know, you aren't keeping it to yourself...


Kabuki Joe

 

...I thought you are smart?...didn't we just go over the difference between gender and biological sex?!?!?...it's called SAME-SEX, NOT SAME-GENDER!!!!!...


Kabuki Joe

 

So you'd have no problem if he threatened you with a gun while sober? Seems the 'threatening with a gun' is a more valid complaint than the 'he didn't hide who he was from me.'​