Reassignment Possible For Gay Wedding Refusals

TerryRC wrote:I never said polygamy was a 'disaster' or would 'financially ruin' this country and it's certainly not a religious issuse for me.

Your words:

If the government cannot define marriage at all and same sex marriage is allowed using the 14th amendment, then the government cannot prevent polygamy either and with that you get a whole host of financial problems.

You then whet on to state that there are 100 to 150 other issues about allowing polygamy.

I admit you didn't come out and say "disaster" but you damn well implied it.

So what are these hosts of problems that polygamy/polyandry will bring? You hint at ghosts but never describe them.

So why should my tax burden be increased to pay for them?

Show that it will be.

My words. "A whole host of financial problems".

Perhaps you can explain how that becomes financial ruin or "disaster"?

As for the increased cost, all one has to do is use just a touch of common sense ( ) and look at the financial benefits of marriage, allow for multiple recipients and it's not hard to figure out, it's going to increase cost somewhere.

Why should I bear any of that burden?

As for the increased cost, all one has to do is use just a touch of common sense ( Rolling Eyes ) and look at the financial benefits of marriage, allow for multiple recipients and it's not hard to figure out, it's going to increase cost somewhere.

Such as...?

Explain it to me.

Estates will have to be divided. Taxes on earned income still have to be paid.

So far, the only financial benefit you have mentioned for polygamous groups that hurts the fed is the SS issue. You haven't shown that it will be any worse than serial monogamy has.

Even if it is, there are ways around it. If the wives have an income, they will be paying toward their own SS benefits, anyway.

How about a benefit? In group child rearing, social services are less likely to be used. How about another benefit? Muslims, Hindus and Mormons will be able to more freely live their lives more in line with the tenets of their religion.

You haven't been able to show you would have any increased burden, Aaron. Why do you hate religious freedom?

I don't hate religious freedom Terry. That's a lie by you to try and deflect the conversation. It's not working.

You made a statement, I proved you wrong and now you continue to spout your tripe. There was well over 100 'benefits' that if allowed by polygamy, would increase tax payer cost. I showed them. You've yet to prove even one of them wrong.

I'm still waiting.

You made a statement, I proved you wrong and now you continue to spout your tripe. There was well over 100 'benefits' that if allowed by polygamy, would increase tax payer cost. I showed them. You've yet to prove even one of them wrong.

You are fibbing.

You posted a link to the benefits of marriage in the US. It didn't even mention polygamy.

Aaron. Surely if the problems that will be caused are so "common sense", you could list a few. So far you have only mentioned SS.

You want to keep a form of religious institution illegal and can't provide any evidence that it should be.

What am I to assume except that you wish to stifle religious freedom?

No, I mentioned bereavement leave 3 times. You ignored that one.

How about health insurance. An employee generally pays about 20% to 25% of a premium. The employer pays the rest. If you allow multiple wives, the cost increases. Who foots that bill for public employees? Joe Taxpayer.

Currently there is $100,000 paid to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty. What if a cop has 137 wives?

What about survivor benefits for federal employees?

Of all the benefits for public employees alone, there is a potential for the cost to increase and the revenue providers-Joe Taxpayer-foots the bill. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a WV Agriculture employee to figure that one out.

You can keep spouting the same tripe but you've yet to disprove what I've stated.

Keep going Terry. Perhaps if you would get off your soapbox and try, you might make some headway in debunking at least one of the items I've put forth.

Hop to it!!!

No, I mentioned bereavement leave 3 times. You ignored that one.

I did respond, you missed it. I said that bereavement leave is not a protected right. The employer can set the rules.

How about health insurance. An employee generally pays about 20% to 25% of a premium. The employer pays the rest. If you allow multiple wives, the cost increases. Who foots that bill for public employees? Joe Taxpayer.

Per person cost. Many health care providers do that already.

Currently there is $100,000 paid to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty. What if a cop has 137 wives?

Exaggerating a bit? How would he support that many wives in the first place? The award should be per family. Let them figure it out.

Same for federal employee survivorship bennies.

The 137 ex-wives can support each other. After all, they are family.

You haven't made your case for keeping polygamy/polyandry illegal, Aaron.

I agree, Terry, that polygamy should be legal (I don't believe in it, but there's many things "legal" that I don't think to be "profitable" or "good")

I still wish there would be no legal distinction between the married and the single. I believe in Christian marriage. Muslims can believe in Muslim marriage. Atheists can believe in "their thing between each other." Why must it ever be a state affair?

I still wish there would be no legal distinction between the married and the single. I believe in Christian marriage. Muslims can believe in Muslim marriage. Atheists can believe in "their thing between each other." Why must it ever be a state affair?

I would toast to that.

I've not been trying to keep polygamy illegal. You stated that allowing same sex marriage had no consequences. I stated that if SSM is allowed under the EPC, then polygamy would have to be allowed as well and there are financial ramifacations from doing that. I've proven it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Personally, I agree with Mike. I don't think the government should be in the marriage business at all. Nadda. For any reason. That's my personal opinion.

I've not been trying to keep polygamy illegal. You stated that allowing same sex marriage had no consequences. I stated that if SSM is allowed under the EPC, then polygamy would have to be allowed as well and there are financial ramifacations from doing that. I've proven it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

I never said that same sex marriage didn't have consequences. I said it doesn't have any that aren't already there for mixed sex couples.

It was after that I got the slippery-slope polygamy argument.

Whatever dude.

I'm pretty sure you did. This discussion was propelled by my statements to Tan. If I weren't going out to ride this afternoon, I might prove you wrong. As you said, some of us have lives outside this board.

Whatever dude.

Simple enough. Just go back and re-read the thread. I already have...

You haven't been able to prove much of anything, so far.

Consider yourself served. I have.

Enjoy your day. I will.

Consider yourself served. I have.

Enjoy your day. I will.

Enjoy day? Yes, I did. Consider myself served? Obviously not as I wasn't.

You did not make one single case that supported your argument. You mentioned "hundreds" of ways allowing it would be a "financial problem" and then mentioned two (SS and funeral leave) that were easily refuted.

If that is what you call "serving" someone, well, it is good to see someone with such low expectations. I'll bet you are rarely disappointed.

I, myself, don't really care too much. I just wanted to meet the polygamy argument as that is what the moralists use to oppose gay marriage - "If you let gays marry, what is next? Polygamy?"

I'm glad to see you don't oppose it, anyway.