One of the arguments against gay marriage is that we'll eventually be pushing for three-way marriages, or four-way, or more. I almost want to say, why not? But then when I thought about it, we're talking about the reason people get married. To have their marriage recognized by the government means that they are connected together legally and can enjoy government benefits (services or money) on each other's behalf.
The other part of marriage is for a church to recognize the union. This isn't always necessary to some people, but it's important to others. If somebody wanted to get married and had no interest in the blessing of the church, they don't have to worry about this. For people that are gay or want a polygamous relationship wouldn't be turning to many churches anyway. And furthermore, churches aren't government sanctioned so you could make up any crazy church you want and have that church bless your union.
If the struggle for legal polygamous marriage hits a road block, there is a work-around. You can just form a corporation. Have you and your fiancés or fiancées go into a legal agreement where you own a certain percentage of the corporation. (By the way, I wanted to point out that the plural of those words alerted the spell-check) It can be an equal share, or if one had more money than others, or whatever they wanted the arrangement to be they could choose uneven shares. It would work the same way a pre-nuptial does.
That way you get to enjoy the loopholes of corporation. You can get tax cuts by claiming certain expenses through the corporation. For example, your house/apartment/condo/etc can be company-owned employee housing. I don't want to get into how it would all work right now, my point is you could just form a corporation. You could even call it "We're married LLC" and get a website while you're at it.
Now if you're following me, and I hope you are, if you could do that for a polygamous "marriage," why couldn't you do it with a monogamous marriage?
Friday, August 24, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
A silly oxymoron
Friday, February 10, 2012
It's not the people in the government that I'm talking about. It's the government itself. There are great leaders in this world and I recognize that. It's just that it shouldn't be a law that any leader is the end all be all leader. Take this down to a triangle of leader and assistant leader and I still hold the same opinion.
Then you can extrapolate it and realize that there should be no ONE leader. But currently, society is looking for that one leader with whatever assistant leaders will tow the line.
Then you can extrapolate it and realize that there should be no ONE leader. But currently, society is looking for that one leader with whatever assistant leaders will tow the line.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Rosa Godwin
There's a term on the internet known as Godwin. It says that all internet forum arguments will devolve until somebody uses Hitler or Nazis to make their point.
I think Rosa Parks will be the new Godwin. Whenever anybody argues about a persons political actions, Rosa Parks name will be brought up.
I used it today to defend Tim Thomas for not going to the White House with the rest of his Stanley Cup winning teammates. I've used it before on this very blog.
She's my go-to when I need to talk about somebody who did something against the norm for the greater good.
This blog sucks, I just wanted to put this idea in here as maybe a jumping off point.
I think Rosa Parks will be the new Godwin. Whenever anybody argues about a persons political actions, Rosa Parks name will be brought up.
I used it today to defend Tim Thomas for not going to the White House with the rest of his Stanley Cup winning teammates. I've used it before on this very blog.
She's my go-to when I need to talk about somebody who did something against the norm for the greater good.
This blog sucks, I just wanted to put this idea in here as maybe a jumping off point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)