Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (71304)	8/1/2003 11:10:57 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Yep. I think Karen underestimates the movement, because it has so far been pretty much underground.

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (71304)	8/2/2003 8:44:59 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

Thanks so much for posting that terrific article. Very well researched and articulated. <<Why is state-sanctioned polygamy a problem? The deep reason is that it erodes the ethos of monogamous marriage. >> IMO, that's the key point in the article. I'm a firm believer in the value of sexual monogamy. I would have liked to hear more about why that might be, more than just: <<From Thomas Aquinas through Richard Posner, almost every serious observer has granted the incompatibility between polygamy and Western companionate marriage. >> He could have summed that up in a couple of paragraphs instead of sending us off to do our own research. The flaw in his position, IMO, is that he's attributing his slippery slope to homosexual marriage when, as I've repeatedly stated, the barn door is already open and the horse out in the pasture, if not all the way down the road to the next county. This is what I mean: <<A Brigham Young University professor, Alan J. Hawkins, suggests an all-too-likely scenario in which two heterosexuals of the same sex might marry as a way of obtaining financial benefits. Consider the plight of an underemployed and uninsured single mother in her early 30s who sees little real prospect of marriage (to a man) in her future. Suppose she has a good friend, also female and heterosexual, who is single and childless but employed with good spousal benefits. Sooner or later, friends like this are going to start contracting same-sex marriages of convenience. The single mom will get medical and governmental benefits, will share her friend's paycheck, and will gain an additional caretaker for the kids besides. Her friend will gain companionship and a family life. The marriage would obviously be sexually open. And if lightning struck and the right man came along for one of the women, they could always divorce and marry heterosexually.>> That type of arrangement is already happening, only now it's restricted to two players of the opposite sex. Opening it up to players of the same sex would make it more common, but it wouldn't invent the practice. The practice is already happening. The only way to get rid of convenience marriages is to have laws that treat married and single the same so there is no incentive to manipulate the system. I have never been sentimental about the institution of marriage, at least since I left childhood behind. IMO, it's the relationship that counts, not the formal sanction. But the legal advantages and disadvantages of marriage are something I've thought plenty about. The marriage tax was a factor in my never re-marrying. And I would engage in a marriage of convenience in a heartbeat, well, maybe not in a heartbeat but after due consideration, were it ever advantageous for me to do so. I'm not the only one. Right now I could only do it with a partner of the opposite sex, which limits the options for finding a suitable partner, but does not obviate the sham marriage. The horse has left the barn.