patrick.net

This SCOTUS legislation is really scary. Next, they are going to authorize hunting licenses to Immense Hirsute Lesbians to bag anything with testicles for one week of the month.

SoftShell says

Hmm 3 wives and me...no more I've got a headache ...and my costs go down to 25% of gross...what's not to like? I'll give the libbies their due on this one...

Reality says

Polygamy will probably soon be repackaged as a "progressive" idea

Depending on a person's income level. My personal cost of living is much less than 25% of my gross income. The reason why I'm not taking on 3 girlfriends at the same time is because I don't have the time to deal with 3 women simultaneously in addition to supporting my ex-wife and kids from marriage. OTOH, dealing with one girlfriend at a time then rotate her out after about 3-5 years and support my child with her for the next 20 years while entertaining a new girlfriend will be quite manageable. In fact, more kids will give me the incentive to work harder and be more productive. I can see some other high income individuals might be able to manage time more efficiently than I do or just prefer spending more time on girls than on work.

I'll bet you large money polygamy will not be on even the most ardent Fundie Mormon's legal mind for a while. It took this long for a sliver of the conservatives to realize they had gay friends, family and that it might be something they might have to kinda stop using as their personal vote-rousing whipping boy. They're still maggots in the remarkable process of becoming flies. Let's let them savor their defeat.

I was not aware of the AmericanThinker article, but thanks for bringing that cogent article/argument.

curious2 says

Religious "conservatives" claim that the only real marriages are the ones the Pope or their imaginary friend would bless, regardless of what our Constitution says, because they hate America and are in love with their imaginary friend (aka their own ego). Frankly, even though you came from South Carolina Baptists, you should know better, having got legally married to a Catholic.

I can give two craps what the Pope thinks, he doesn't affect my tax code.

I don't watch FoxNews or CNN. I don't even turn on the TV unless when people visiting me.

My prediction on polygamy was actually from a logistical perspective:

1. Men are biologically programmed to want to have sex. That's what testosterone does, in men as well as in women. Men just happen to have much higher testosterone levels. That latent male sexual energy can be directed towards woman just as easily towards another man. Historical cultural ban against homosexuality in religious texts were evidence of that propensity; the high ratio of homosexuals and bisexuals in historical societies without the ban, like the Ancient Greeks, were further proof.

2. Maintaining long term relationship with a man is lot easier than maintaining a long term relationship with a woman. That applies to both men and women (anyone having married or having had long term GF would know she dumps her female friends frequently). Women are evolved to be takers of resources (in order to nurture her in-uteral fetus as well as post-partum infant/toddler, both were the evolutionary reason why women and men exist); men are evolved to take risks and share the gains. That lopsided risk taking and sharing is why sexual reproduction exist. One of the side effect is that women are more "selfish" and men are more "generous."

3. When there is no cultural prohibition/disadvantage to homosexuality pair bonding, the average and less well off males would quickly find out that it is much less expensive and more rewarding to pair-bond with another man than with another woman! That will leave a vast surplus of women who will need the resources and commitment from fewer and fewer well-off men who do not mind making the sacrifices of helping raising children and placating the whims of women.

4. The result is that a society would have formal polygamy via marriage centered around the few men with a lot of resources, while informal polyandrony via prostitution. A large segment of men would be sexually contented via pair bonding with other men, occasional visits to prostitutes and asexuality. That's what happened to late ancient Greek and Roman world. . . as well as almost the entire pre-industrial world outside of Europe. Europe only became monogamous after religious conversion to "St. Paul's Cult" (aka "Christianity") mandating monogamy .

Polygamy+Bisexuality+Prostitution was the mainstream traditional societal norm!

"A large segment of men would be sexually contented via pair bonding with other men, occasional visits to prostitutes and asexuality. "

Hmm, never thought of it that way. Gay Marriage means that eventually, I will have to toss handfulls of sperm out the window to rampaging, roving bands of heterosexual females who otherwise might mob and turn over my car.

Ceffer,

That may well be the reason why on the day of SCOTUS decision, NPR was talking about someone advocating government collect and freeze sperms from all men (on the ridiculously made-up excuse that sperms are better quality when the man is younger; in reality, sperm quality doesn't decline until the man is in his 70's+, unlike a woman's eggs in her 30's). Perhaps so that women voters can later demand the sperms from the government storage and forcibly making some men involuntary fathers.

While I do not watch FoxNews or CNN, I do listen to NPR when driving, mostly to pick out what the latest conspiracy is. LOL.

SCOTUS has been doing some admirable legislation of late. Maybe we should name them the "Skeleton in Robes" Cobweb Congress.

Stare Decisis is just too annoying, so we'll just do whatever the fuck we please. Nobody ever agrees, anyway, except that the law should be ever more expensive, slow, predatory and inefficient.

"If you can't be just, be arbitrary."

Reality says

When there is no cultural prohibition/disadvantage to homosexuality pair bonding, the average and less well off males would quickly find out that it is much less expensive and more rewarding to pair-bond with another man than with another woman!

A wise friend explained to me once, people can only really tell you about themselves, and by listening to them you can learn all about their own insecurities and hopes and dreams.

"Cinderella’s Castle at Disneyworld, the White House in Washington and the Empire State Building in New York were among those lit up to celebrate the historic ruling."

More here

curious2 says

When there is no cultural prohibition/disadvantage to homosexuality pair bonding, the average and less well off males would quickly find out that it is much less expensive and more rewarding to pair-bond with another man than with another woman!

A wise friend explained to me once, people can only really tell you about themselves, and by listening to them you can learn all about their own insecurities and hopes and dreams.

1. I actually experimented with homosexuality/bisexuality in my early teens, before my first physical heterosexual experience.

2. If I were to pick a life-time partner again, I'd probably pick a guy! Not for sex though, but for companionship and mutual support/help. However, I'm currently not looking for any life-time partner, only reproductive partners a few years at a time then co-parents for a couple decades while reproductive partnering with the next women.

3. The observation that "it's easier to keep a male friend than a female friend" has been repeatedly told to me by almost all the girls I have dated since after divorce. May have something to do with them all being 8 or 9 out of 10 in looks, but even my 6 or 7 ex-wife used to cycle through her female friends at such a high turn-over rate that it made my head spin. LOL.

I'm ok with marriage equality although I ultimately prefer the government getting out of the marriage business entirely and just have civil unions with personal contracts for everybody. I'd have preferred a state-by-state solution where some states can decide not to marry gay couples as long as they have to recognize marriages from another state (to avoid the continued centralization of big government), but this is fine with me. As de Tocqueville said: 'Rights must be given to every citizen, or none at all to anyone'. On that note, let's get rid of affirmative action and progressive taxation in favor of a flat tax. It's the only logical conclusion.

Indeed, marriage should be a state-by-state issue, besides the mutual recognition of out-of-state marriages. Flat taxation and substantial deduction for dependents would go a long way towards lowering the need for welfare: say, 20% deduction in income tax owed for the 1st minor or elderly dependent, (20% of the remaining 80% = )16% deduction for the second, (20% of the remaining 64% = )12.8% deduction for the third, etc. will go a long way towards having children born into and elderly taken care of in the right family settings. The current system of fixed deductions is as if designed to encourage the wrong households to have dependents.

mell says

It's the logical conclusion not to discriminate against people according to their race, gender or abilities. Your logic simply isn't.

Abilities? What the hell does hat even mean? Ability to do what?

So the NBA shouldn't be able to discriminate against people based on their ability to play basketball?

tatupu70 says

Abilities? What the hell does hat even mean? Ability to do what?

So the NBA shouldn't be able to discriminate against people based on their ability to play basketball?

The ability to make money. Why should a skilled and highly-trained professional pay more in taxes percentage-wise than somebody who isn't? Now surely it seems we have some capital-misallocation due to Fed/government intervention and crony capitalism, so that that the people who make the most don't necessarily all seem the best skilled. But that's no excuse for the government to come down with the hammer on those who actually are skilled and work hard. I can see a temporary levy on the richest / uber-wealthy in crisis times (after those causing the crisis are held accountable) to balance a budget, but as a continuous measure progressive taxation is simply unfair. It's simple logic De Tocqueville would tell you if he'd still be alive today.

Public policy should be constructed on what works best for all, not idiotic philosophical discussions of "fairness".

"high fee assessed on the developers and miners would only result in the lowered competition passing the fee to the consumers"

meanwhile here in the real world:

nice treadmill we've got here

mell says

But that's no excuse for the government to come down with the hammer on those who actually are skilled and work hard.

Are you implying there is a positive correlation between income and how "hard" one works? Because I would almost guarantee that there is a negative correlation. People who sit on their ass doing nothing but earning interest make far, far, far more than the folks working 2 or 3 jbs to try to make ends meet.

In any event, Bill is correct:

Bellingham Bill says

Public policy should be constructed on what works best for all, not idiotic philosophical discussions of "fairness".

Fairness is a completely subjective concept and should NOT be the basis for policy decisions.

Bellingham Bill says

"high fee assessed on the developers and miners would only result in the lowered competition passing the fee to the consumers"

meanwhile here in the real world:

nice treadmill we've got here

You'd see the climb much steeper if you pull up the equivalent graph for a region where government does derive most of income from land use fees, such as Hongkong. If you think housing is expensive for what we get for our money, you should really take a look at places where the government charges high land use fee, so only the biggest developers can afford to bid on land releases and then build housing. They have much higher housing cost and much higher household wealth disparity than we do.

Reality says

Secondarily, I hope you understand that dictionaries get revised every year . . . precisely because their previous editions need corrections and improvements. In other words, even the dictionary editors themselves recognize their own failings. Your worship of dictionary as if it were some kind of scripture only shows the shallowness of your intellectual depth.

And presumably the dictionary writers realized your old definition of inflation was incorrect and revised the dictionary accordingly. So the question is--why do you continue with the obviously wrong definition?

tatupu70 says

Are you implying there is a positive correlation between income and how "hard" one works?

Absolutely.

mell says

Absolutely.

bwahahahaha. Well that explains a lot of your naïve visions of fairness then.

I can tell you I worked a helluva lot harder at my summer job in college making $10/hour than I do now making well into 6 figures.

I hear some states like Mississippi are looking to ban marriage all together-as in get the state out of the marriage business. Could this be the end of the feminazi marriage slavery? Could men be free to marry and move on and the whore who slept with 100 men and had 5 babies with 5 different men cannot claim half of her husband's income and property for evah???

tatupu70 says

And presumably the dictionary writers realized your old definition of inflation was incorrect and revised the dictionary accordingly. So the question is--why do you continue with the obviously wrong definition?

Because the dictionary editors are not God. They can be driven by carrots and stick into changing certain definitions, just like in "1984." Dictionaries are human creation, subject to human errors; worshiping dictionary and its editors shows the lack of intellectual depth of the person.

Reality says

Because the dictionary editors are not God. They can be driven by carrots and stick into changing certain definitions, just like in "1984." Dictionaries are human creation; worshiping dictionary and its editors shows the lack of intellectual depth of the person.

But I thought you said:

Reality says

because their previous editions need corrections and improvements

So, clearly the new definition is an improvement. Otherwise it would have been revised back to your outdated definition, right?

tatupu70 says

mell says

Absolutely.

bwahahahaha. Well that explains a lot of your naïve visions of fairness then.

Only hubristic minds would dare to imply having a greater intellect than deep thinkers such as Locke and de Tocqueville and swiftly brush them away with an arrogant mindset.

lostand confused says

I hear some states like Mississippi are looking to ban marriage all together-as in get the state out of the marriage business. Could this be the end of the feminazi marriage slavery? Could men be free to marry and move on and the whore who slept with 100 men and had 5 babies with 5 different men cannot claim half of her husband's income and property for evah???

It's a step in the right direction though it will not end alimony or child support, but it will end taking 50% of a fortune and make personal contracts easier.

mell says

Only hubristic minds would dare to imply having a greater intellect than deep thinkers such as Locke and de Tocqueville and swiftly brush them away with an arrogant mindset.

I don't recall brushing away Locke or de Tocqueville. Only you.

tatupu70 says

So, clearly the new definition is an improvement. Otherwise it would have been revised back to your outdated definition, right?

No. There are many newly introduced wrong definitions in a socialist commonwealth. Please refer to NewSpeak in "1984."

Eat shit Crazy says

It's a step in the right direction though it will not end alimony or child support, but it will end taking 50% of a fortune and make personal contracts easier.

If it happens it will be a pre-emptive effort to evade being forced to grant marriage licenses to gay couples. It's a conservative knee-jerk "I'm gonna take my little red wagon and go home" maneuver. "You can't make me" is another one. Yawn. The wingnuts are stinkin' like a hot clutch. They're gonna do SOMETHING even if it's wrong.

Maybe that's their motivation, but they won't be able to do anything to civil unions, neither to churches willing to marry gay couples - which will turn out to be a lucrative business for those that do and all the businesses that come with it - so everyone would be treated equally under the law. I also noticed the deep hatred divide on both sides in this topic coming along with massive de-friending, so what's wrong with dividing the country into states/communities where positive government discrimination is interpreted differently than in other areas? The Amish have been doing that for a while now. It doesn't seem that people with opposing views are willing to live next to each other peacefully or without calling for government intervention anyways, so why not have both? According to the polls the anti-gay-marriage states would be clearly in the minority these days.

Reality says

It is the original meaning of Money Supply Inflation

That has since been revised because it was useless.