I'm two degrees from so many famous people I've stopped even paying attention. John Beluschi, Levon Helm, Robert Redford, John Lennon, Hunter S Thompson, Henry Kissinger... It's just not fun any more.
I'm two degrees from so many famous people I've stopped even paying attention. John Beluschi, Levon Helm, Robert Redford, John Lennon, Hunter S Thompson, Henry Kissinger... It's just not fun any more.
Scus me Scus me we've got some big celebrity balls coming through here.
I keep expecting the Onion to post an article claiming that some red state has decided to no longer recognize any marriages in an attempt to thwart same sex marriage. I expect a quote along the lines of, "happy now? You broke it for everyone." To be in said article.
So, I'm a new Discogs member, and while building my collection I made some edits to two entries on Your Heart Breaks' page. I made a bunch of mistakes, but someone corrected them. This is cool, because it means that someone else likes and cares about YHB as much as I do.
Man, I wonder if Sun Ken Rock is in a shared universe with Wallman. Both have a character called Nami, both Namis are Korean, and look IDENTICAL. And considering that art style of Boichi's where practically every character looks unique enough to be identifiable, that's unusual. Sun Ken rock(slightly in the past) and Wallman(very slightly in the future, but close enough to present day) are far enough apart chronologically that 16-year-old Sun-Ken-Rock Nami could very easily be 20-something Nami in Wallman.
Have any of the samesex marriage cases brought up the issue of bisexuals? Shouldn't bisexuals be allowed to have polygamy? Otherwise they are being forced to choose to enter either a same or opposite gender marriage.
I think the argument against polygamy will forever be (and rightfully so, in my opinion) that it becomes extremely difficult to stop people from abusing the system to, A: Go all creepy and be the one man with many wives, old school Mormon style. This is harmful to women and helps to create a regressive culture. B: Create polygamous unions between multiple people looking to reap the benefits who are not in an actual long-term committed relationship. And whatever else goes on. The benefits of marriage only make sense when you are devoting yourself to a single person. Nothing against polyamory, but polygamy as a system probably would not work.
What you just said made no sense, however. At all.
Yeah, meant polyamory not bisexual. Point being that if marriage can be redefined to ignore gender than why not also ignore number?
If the goal is child rearing then wouldn't a family with more adults in the marriage (working and at home) be a benefit?
From the tax side wouldn't it benefit the government because a joint return would have a higher income and likely move portions of that income into a higher tax bracket?
Wouldn't divorce be less harmful because rather than tearing a family in half it might only reduce it 20%?
What would a statutory family be in a legal sense?
Is this some sort of civil union compromise that could then be used as a basis to invalidate the state's public policy argument against expanding marriage?
The problem with polygamy (and note that, in theory, I'm 100% for it) is that it's very hard to implement. Take, for example, rights of attorney. Say one person is in a coma, and the other two (or any even number) spouses disagree about keeping them on life support. How do you decide who has greater standing in that kind of matter? We'd have to rework a lot of laws to implement polygamy, and there really isn't the political will to do so.
In terms of ideals and moral justifications, polygamy is a relatively easy thing to be in favor of (providing we have thing like abuse and domestic violence laws, which we do (even if they're not as effective as we'd like)). The problem is only one of implementation (dividing assets and debt, managing custody, child support, debt, inheritance, medical decisions, etc).
Shouldn't be that hard to implement. We would just treat marriage like a corporation where all members have one share/vote in making choices that impact the entirety of the family.
By the time Bruce Springsteen was 17, he was playing Cafe Wha with Bonnie Raitt. By the time Gary Clark Jr was 17, the mayor of Austin had declared April 5th 2001 to be Gary Clark Jr Day. By the time Taylor Swift was 17, she had a record deal. By the time Madeline Adams was 17, she had written and published her first album.
I think I'm getting on the music train too late in my life to make it my profession.
There's a thing Bud Light did for the Superb Owl where they take some random dude on a crazy city adventure thing. That dude is really close friends with my cousin. I've met him at least once before. Just a normal dude. It was for reals.
Comments
A: Go all creepy and be the one man with many wives, old school Mormon style. This is harmful to women and helps to create a regressive culture.
B: Create polygamous unions between multiple people looking to reap the benefits who are not in an actual long-term committed relationship.
And whatever else goes on. The benefits of marriage only make sense when you are devoting yourself to a single person. Nothing against polyamory, but polygamy as a system probably would not work.
What you just said made no sense, however. At all.
If the goal is child rearing then wouldn't a family with more adults in the marriage (working and at home) be a benefit?
From the tax side wouldn't it benefit the government because a joint return would have a higher income and likely move portions of that income into a higher tax bracket?
Wouldn't divorce be less harmful because rather than tearing a family in half it might only reduce it 20%?
Is this some sort of civil union compromise that could then be used as a basis to invalidate the state's public policy argument against expanding marriage?
In terms of ideals and moral justifications, polygamy is a relatively easy thing to be in favor of (providing we have thing like abuse and domestic violence laws, which we do (even if they're not as effective as we'd like)). The problem is only one of implementation (dividing assets and debt, managing custody, child support, debt, inheritance, medical decisions, etc).
I think I'm getting on the music train too late in my life to make it my profession.