Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I thought Hilton was the home of the whores

Yes, teh major parties reserved those already, leaving the polygamists to the Marriott.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The government could rationally conclude that it does not make good public policy to have 100 women to 5 men, and 95 bachelors, as opposed to having 100 married couples.

But if 2 women marry each other, that leaves 2 bachelors who may not be gay. So that reasoning could equally be applied to not recognize gay marriage.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If the legislature decides that polygamy should be outlawed because, empirically, young teenagers are likely to be forced into, that will be enough.

That argument fails empirically. There are more young teenagers forced into monogamous marriages that they don't want than polygamist marriages simply because there are more monogamous people. It is not just the fundamentalist mormons who arrange marriages. Young Indian and muslim and asian women in this country are forced to marry older men that they don't want to marry because their families believe in arranged marriages.

The legislature would have to look at those arranged monogamous marriages to be able to tell whether it was more likely to occur with polygamy. It isn't just polygamy that involves arranged marriages in which young women are forced to marry older men that they don't want to marry. It happens all the time in the US in certain cultural communities. And more forced marriages occur in monogamous marriages simply because there are more of them.

A legislature could not find it more likely to be the result of polygamy if they actually looked into it because many subcultures in the US practice that sort of crap in a monogamous setting.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, strict constructionists are, by definition, stupider than others?

No, not stupider. It's just more likely that their liberal arts education preceding law school was utterly wasted, since it's used only recreationally if at all.

Then again, the strict constructionists I've met are far more likely to buttonhole me at cocktail parties to harangue me about how life was better when law was a LL.B. undergraduate degree and not a pseudodoctorate or some shit like that. Go figure.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
No, not stupider. It's just more likely that their liberal arts education preceding law school was utterly wasted, since it's used only recreationally if at all.

Yes, having standards with which to judge new situations is very inconvenient.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Yes, having standards with which to judge new situations is very inconvenient.

Bitch, please. Read any of my nine GAZILLION posts on religion to figure out whether I think it's worth examining timeless standards, esp. to determine what they actually were to the people who wrote them down.*

Of course, as with religion, I, along with several past Supreme Courts, think it's insanely stupid to apply the strict language of a document even when it inflicts avoidable harm, net-net-net.** All but the most wingnutty religions find ways to avoid the incredibly sexist passages in Paul, for example. The wingnuts who don't are generally unwelcome in polite society. Yet strict constructionists still get invited to cocktail parties.

*Very often, upon examination, we find that the written word didn't mean to them what it means to us. What to do then? Strictly construe, or construe as would have been construed?

**Find a way to reconcile "Congress shall make no law" with the result in U.S. v. Schenk, for example.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Bitch, please. Read any of my nine GAZILLION posts on religion to figure out whether I think it's worth examining timeless standards, esp. to determine what they actually were to the people who wrote them down.*

Of course, as with religion, I, along with several past Supreme Courts, think it's insanely stupid to apply the strict language of a document even when it inflicts avoidable harm, net-net-net.** All but the most wingnutty religions find ways to avoid the incredibly sexist passages in Paul, for example. The wingnuts who don't are generally unwelcome in polite society. Yet strict constructionists still get invited to cocktail parties.

*Very often, upon examination, we find that the written word didn't mean to them what it means to us. What to do then? Strictly construe, or construe as would have been construed?

**Find a way to reconcile "Congress shall make no law" with the result in U.S. v. Schenk, for example.

As ususal, I can't make heads or tails out of this, other than you seem a bit excited.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
As ususal, I can't make heads or tails out of this, other than you seem a bit excited.

Most of the religion posts seem to be on the FB. I think he is saying that he is quite interested in history, and in figuring out what people meant in the various texts they wrote, and how what they meant at the time might be different from what a modern reader might interpret things because language is somewhat fluid.

Re: Paul, don't know how much of a New Testament background you have, but I have gleaned that a modern reader of Paul would conclude that the writer was a big ol' misogynist whose position was that Christ put a whole lot of restrictions on women. However, either stuff meant different stuff back when, or that the language can be given a gloss to kinda maybe allow women to like leave the house or whatever.

That may not be any clearer.

[Dave]

Just remember: No Means No.

Except when it means Maybe, or even Sure Why Not.

Hope this helps.



ETA: And the opposite point of view, of course, is that No Means Whatever You Want It To Mean, Except When It's Expedient For It To Mean No.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
But if 2 women marry each other, that leaves 2 bachelors who may not be gay. So that reasoning could equally be applied to not recognize gay marriage.

* * * * *

That argument fails empirically. There are more young teenagers forced into monogamous marriages that they don't want than polygamist marriages simply because there are more monogamous people. It is not just the fundamentalist mormons who arrange marriages. Young Indian and muslim and asian women in this country are forced to marry older men that they don't want to marry because their families believe in arranged marriages.

The legislature would have to look at those arranged monogamous marriages to be able to tell whether it was more likely to occur with polygamy. It isn't just polygamy that involves arranged marriages in which young women are forced to marry older men that they don't want to marry. It happens all the time in the US in certain cultural communities. And more forced marriages occur in monogamous marriages simply because there are more of them.

A legislature could not find it more likely to be the result of polygamy if they actually looked into it because many subcultures in the US practice that sort of crap in a monogamous setting.

At this point, you must recognize that you are making arguments that would be laughed out of court on rational-basis review.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
That argument fails empirically. There are more young teenagers forced into monogamous marriages that they don't want than polygamist marriages simply because there are more monogamous people. It is not just the fundamentalist mormons who arrange marriages. Young Indian and muslim and asian women in this country are forced to marry older men that they don't want to marry because their families believe in arranged marriages.

Jesus Christ! (Speaking of religion)

Why in the world do you people keep talking to her/him about polygamy? This has to be nothing more than a subtle form of trolling. It is post after post of discourse going in circles about questions that not only can't be answered, but have gone past the point where they're really, really stupid.

Please stop. Please.

S_A_M

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

Tradition be damned, this is what should be done.

The State-sanctioned contract now typically called "marriage" should be changed to be called domestic partership or whatever. Regardless of M-F, F-F, M-M, whomever. And anyone who wants to enter into such a contractual relationship - barring legitimate state interests like protecting minors, etc. - should have this right.

"Marriages" should be then left to the church under whatever rationale they choose.

Takes the church/state issue out of it and puts everyone on equal footing.

Too slow, I said that last week. Ask the Sidd Finch.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

The triple net lease is really only used for industrial property where the tenant probably can get cheaper repairs and lawnmowing than the owner.

No, the motivation is choosing who gets to depreciate the property. If the purported lessor is only a lender, they can't get the deductions.

[Can you hear me now?]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Bitch, please. Read any of my nine GAZILLION posts on religion to figure out whether I think it's worth examining timeless standards, esp. to determine what they actually were to the people who wrote them down.*

Of course, as with religion, I, along with several past Supreme Courts, think it's insanely stupid to apply the strict language of a document even when it inflicts avoidable harm, net-net-net.** All but the most wingnutty religions find ways to avoid the incredibly sexist passages in Paul, for example. The wingnuts who don't are generally unwelcome in polite society. Yet strict constructionists still get invited to cocktail parties.

*Very often, upon examination, we find that the written word didn't mean to them what it means to us. What to do then? Strictly construe, or construe as would have been construed?

**Find a way to reconcile "Congress shall make no law" with the result in U.S. v. Schenk, for example.

<retch>

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
maybe so, but this would have at least given Shape Shifter a chance to get a "date."

Shouldn't you be rearranging your teacup collection?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Shouldn't you be rearranging your teacup collection?

Had to sell it to make room for wife number 4.