Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ahtman wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you need a license for it then it's not a right, rights don't require a license.

Most firearms require a license...

Not where I live.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you need a license for it then it's not a right, rights don't require a license.

Most firearms require a license...

Not where I live.

Same here with long guns. Pistols are still controlled by Jim Crow laws though.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you need a license for it then it's not a right, rights don't require a license.

Most firearms require a license...

Not where I live.

Only if I wanted to carry it hidden where nobody can see it.... In fact, I've NEVER lived in a state where you need a license to OWN a firearm, but I've lived in several that require licensure in order to "carry" one

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Only if I wanted to carry it hidden where nobody can see it.... In fact, I've NEVER lived in a state where you need a license to OWN a firearm, but I've lived in several that require licensure in order to "carry" one

What use is one that you cannot "carry"? Do you yell at the bad men that you have a firearm at home?

That aside I was indeed thinking of the carry license, not a license for a firearm, though I think you still need one for some like Class 4.

Assuming you mean class 3, you need a tax stamp, not a license. You only need a license to be a dealer or manufacturer.

And even carry permits are not required everywhere. Open carry without a permit is allowed in some states/jurisdictions.

In Texas nothing is needed to carry in your vehicle. Massively Overkill is suggested however.

I'd guess you need a licence for a machine gun or a howitzer

You need a tax stamp for the machine gun, it is a class 3 weapon.

Thread successfully derailed.

If you were shot by an illegal immigrant, or perhaps a policeman while surrendering, would you be entitled to free treatment in a county hospital or condemned by a socialist death panel unless you had been previously incorporated and were counted as a person?

Welp, I'm going to be busy for a while. Head just exploded. I gotta clean this up before it stains.

(how in the world did this turn into a gun thread?). Back on track:

So let's say something comes down that blanket grants the right to same sex marriage. Would anything stop the states from doing something like:

Form A: Lists the name of Husband (Man) & Husband (Man) to be married.
Form B: Lists the name of Husband (Man) & Wife (Woman) to be married.
Form C: Lists the name of Wife (Woman) & Wife (Woman) to be married.

Then only make Form B meaningfully/easily accessible. Say, printing only 5 copies of Form A and C per year, or only making them available from the most remote offices. Or maybe something a bit less transparent.

Recently states have been using these kind of technicalities like "Saftey" regulations for abortion clinics and "Fraud" regulations for voting, to remove rights from people they don't wish to have those rights.

It seems like it'd take a pretty heavy handed action to make anything stick in the more backwards parts of the country.

 Frazzled wrote:
No the one spouse is thrown out the rest retained. The other spouses usually have no official say in either the marriage or divorce. Aint love grand?

How would you determine the division of assets?

 dogma wrote:
How would you determine the division of assets?

How do you determine the division of assets when a business with three or more owners breaks up or one of the owners leaves?

 Peregrine wrote:

It isn't multiple relationships, it's a single relationship with multiple people.

Not really. Polygamous and polygynous marriages involve the marriage of multiple people to a single person, implying the existence of separate relationships. What you're describing is a polyamorous marriage.

 Peregrine wrote:

How do you determine the division of assets when a business with three or more owners breaks up or one of the owners leaves?

What sort of business?

Either way, even unincorporated businesses with multiple owners exist under a contract specifying percentage of ownership and liability. In a polygamous of polygynous marriage the core spouse is bound to each of his/her spouses under separate contracts, as such one would required to separate the assets of the core spouse from those the spouses not being divorced in order to determine the division of assets. Good luck with that.

 Peregrine wrote:

 dogma wrote:
How would you determine the division of assets?

How do you determine the division of assets when a business with three or more owners breaks up or one of the owners leaves?

By the shares. In fact that is how it is done if the business has two owners or even only one.

 dogma wrote:
Not really. Polygamous and polygynous marriages involve the marriage of multiple people to a single person, implying the existence of separate relationships. What you're describing is a polyamorous marriage.

Nope. The actual definitions:

Polygamy = general term for marriage involving more than two people.
Polygyny = one man with multiple wives.
Polyandry = one woman with multiple husbands.
Polyamory = general term for relationships between more than two people that may or may not involve marriage.

The idea that polygamy is limited to one man with multiple women is a misconception that comes from the fact that most (or at least the best-known) modern polygamy involves religious groups that only allow that one form.

What sort of business?

That's something for the lawyers to figure out. The fact that I'm not a lawyer and don't have a system for asset division prepared does not mean that such a system would be impossible to create. It's only a barrier to allowing marriage between more than two people if you ignore the fact that our legal system is perfectly capable of handling similar situations in the business world, and could very easily come up with new laws to handle the more complex financial relationships between 3+ people.

In a polygamous of polygynous marriage the core spouse is bound to each of his/her spouses under separate contracts, as such one would required to separate the assets of the core spouse from those the spouses not being divorced in order to determine the division of assets.

Why are you assuming that a hypothetical multi-person marriage contract is created in any particular way when it doesn't exist yet? There's no reason to assume that there are separate contracts between each pair of people rather than a single multi-person contract covering the entire marriage group. Obviously it could be done with separate contracts, but that's something to be determined if/when the new laws are created, not something that is automatically true.

 Peregrine wrote:

The idea that polygamy is limited to one man with multiple women is a misconception that comes from the fact that most (or at least the best-known) modern polygamy involves religious groups that only allow that one form.

Well, I stand corrected. However, my point about polyamorous marriage still stands.

 Peregrine wrote:

That's something for the lawyers to figure out. The fact that I'm not a lawyer and don't have a system for asset division prepared does not mean that such a system would be impossible to create. It's only a barrier to allowing marriage between more than two people if you ignore the fact that our legal system is perfectly capable of handling similar situations in the business world, and could very easily come up with new laws to handle the more complex financial relationships between 3+ people.

If you want to compare marriage to a business in the course of argument, then you have to develop the analogy.

As it stands, marriages are not like businesses. People don't "buy in" to a marriage in the same way they "buy in" to a business.

 Peregrine wrote:

Why are you assuming that a hypothetical multi-person marriage contract is created in any particular way when it doesn't exist yet? There's no reason to assume that there are separate contracts between each pair of people rather than a single multi-person contract covering the entire marriage group.

Because polygamy involves several, independent marriages relating to a single, core spouse. Forcing spouses to sign contracts with people they do not wish to marry is tacit to forcing them into a polyamorous marriage.

 dogma wrote:
However, my point about polyamorous marriage still stands.

Not really, since polyamory and marriage are two separate things.

If you want to compare marriage to a business in the course of argument, then you have to develop the analogy.

Why? I'm not developing a complete law for asset distribution in multi-person divorces, I'm just pointing out that our legal system is perfectly capable of handling asset distribution in situations involving group assets with more than two people in the group. The fact that no current law exists to handle the situation does not mean that no law could ever do it.

As it stands, marriages are not like businesses. People don't "buy in" to a marriage in the same way they "buy in" to a business.

You're missing the point of the comparison. Obviously a marriage is not a business partnership, and I never said it was. The point is that adding more co-owners to collection of assets does not magically make it impossible to handle the addition or departure of one (or more) of those co-owners, it just makes more work for the lawyers. The comparison is only about the division of assets problem, not anything else about marriage or business.

Because polygamy involves several, independent marriages relating to a single, core spouse.

No it doesn't. Again, get your definitions right. Polygamy is a general term for marriages involving more than two people. At least two of its forms (polygyny and polyandry) involve one central spouse marrying multiple people who do not have any formal relationship to each other outside of the central spouse, but those two forms are not all that "polygamy" covers.

Forcing spouses to sign contracts with people they do not wish to marry is tacit to forcing them into a polyamorous marriage.

Again, polyamory and marriage are two separate things. And forcing spouses to sign a contract with people they don't wish to marry is not forcing them into anything other than forcing them to sign a contract. If A marries B and C then the hypothetical contract simply says "this is a marriage consisting of A married to B and C", it doesn't have to make B and C married to each other. The purpose is not to create some kind of group marriage where everyone is everyone's spouse, it's to cover the entire marriage with a single contract that is replaced with a new one every time the marriage changes. If B wants to divorce A then the marriage contract ends, assets are distributed, and all three people are now single (though of course A is free to immediately re-marry C under a new contract). If A wishes to marry D then the marriage contract ends, assets are distributed, and all three people from the original marriage are briefly single until all four people in the new marriage sign a new contract that says "this is a marriage consisting of A married to B and C and D".

 Peregrine wrote:

Not really, since polyamory and marriage are two separate things.

That's why I said "polyamorous marriage", and not just "polyamory".

 Peregrine wrote:

You're missing the point of the comparison.

No, I'm pointing out how the fundamental differences between marriage contracts and business contracts makes your comparison inapt.

 Peregrine wrote:

No it doesn't. Again, get your definitions right. Polygamy is a general term for marriages involving more than two people

I think it was quite clear what I meant, given that the term "polygamy" is generally not used inclusively with respect to group marriages.

 Peregrine wrote:

And forcing spouses to sign a contract with people they don't wish to marry is not forcing them into anything other than forcing them to sign a contract. If A marries B and C then the hypothetical contract simply says "this is a marriage consisting of A married to B and C", it doesn't have to make B and C married to each other.

Sure, if the marriages occur at the same time, but what if they don't?

 dogma wrote:
That's why I said "polyamorous marriage", and not just "polyamory".

But "polyamorous marriage" doesn't tell us anything, besides the fact that more than two people are somehow involved (or potentially involved). It's a polyamorous marriage if A marries B and each of them have casual partners, it's a polyamorous marriage if A and B and C are all married to each other and C is married to D separately, it's a polyamorous marriage if A marries B and both are open to additional people but aren't currently dating anyone, etc.

No, I'm pointing out how the fundamental differences between marriage contracts and business contracts makes your comparison inapt.

No you haven't. You haven't said anything about the difficulty of asset division, you've just claimed that they're different in ways that aren't relevant to asset division.

I think it was quite clear what I meant, given that the term "polygamy" is generally not used inclusively with respect to group marriages.

No it isn't clear, and the fact that a lot of people misuse the term "polygamy" doesn't mean that your misuse is correct.

Sure, if the marriages occur at the same time, but what if they don't?

I already addressed that. A marries B, and that's a marriage contract. A later wishes to marry C as well, so the first marriage contract ends, assets are divided (at least on paper), etc. A, B and C then sign a new marriage contract where A is married to B and C.

 dogma wrote:


If you want to compare marriage to a business in the course of argument, then you have to develop the analogy.

As it stands, marriages are not like businesses. People don't "buy in" to a marriage in the same way they "buy in" to a business.

Lol, there is a huge down payment required to buy into a marriage. The ring, and license at a minimum, and the Kardashians are still trying to set a new maximum

the difference is when you cash out, you can sell your shares, but it costs yet more money to "buy out" of a marriage.

 Peregrine wrote:

But "polyamorous marriage" doesn't tell us anything, besides the fact that more than two people are somehow involved (or potentially involved).

Very well, I will specify. By "polyamorous marriage" I mean a marriage in which all parties are married to one another by way of a marriage contract.

 Peregrine wrote:

No you haven't. You haven't said anything about the difficulty of asset division, you've just claimed that they're different in ways that aren't relevant to asset division.

Is that so?

 dogma wrote:

What sort of business?

Either way, even unincorporated businesses with multiple owners exist under a contract specifying percentage of ownership and liability. In a polygamous of polygynous marriage the core spouse is bound to each of his/her spouses under separate contracts, as such one would required to separate the assets of the core spouse from those the spouses not being divorced in order to determine the division of assets. Good luck with that.

Your response:

 Peregrine wrote:

That's something for the lawyers to figure out. The fact that I'm not a lawyer and don't have a system for asset division prepared does not mean that such a system would be impossible to create. It's only a barrier to allowing marriage between more than two people if you ignore the fact that our legal system is perfectly capable of handling similar situations in the business world, and could very easily come up with new laws to handle the more complex financial relationships between 3+ people.

My response seems quite relevant to the distinction between marriage law and, for lack of a better term, business law when it comes to asset division.

It is also worth noting that businesses, whether incorporated or not, to some degree exist independently of their owners. The same is not true of marriages.

 Peregrine wrote:

No it isn't clear, and the fact that a lot of people misuse the term "polygamy" doesn't mean that your misuse is correct.

I never said that it was correct, I said that it was clear given vernacular, US English.

 Peregrine wrote:

I already addressed that. A marries B, and that's a marriage contract. A later wishes to marry C as well, so the first marriage contract ends, assets are divided (at least on paper), etc. A, B and C then sign a new marriage contract where A is married to B and C.

Again, that's forcing someone into a polyamorous marriage.

 dogma wrote:
Very well, I will specify. By "polyamorous marriage" I mean a marriage in which all parties are married to one another by way of a marriage contract.

Or you could just call it what it is, a group marriage, instead of inventing your own term for it that doesn't even make any sense.

My response seems quite relevant to the distinction between marriage law and, for lack of a better term, business law when it comes to asset division.

Yes, but you're only talking about current marriage law. Nobody is disputing the fact that marriages with more than two people wouldn't work very well under current law. The point you keep missing is that the asset division problem is not difficult to solve if/when society decides to allow polygamy. Our legal system is able to handle complex business arrangements with shared assets, and you have yet to provide any convincing arguments for marriage assets being so much more complicated that the problem can't be solved.

Again, that's forcing someone into a polyamorous marriage.

Well, given that "polyamorous marriage" is a term that you invented and means whatever you feel like, I can't really dispute this claim.

Now, if you want to replace that with "that's forcing someone into a group marriage" then no, it isn't. Having a single marriage contract that says "A is married to B and A is married to C" does not mean that B and C have any relationship beyond being married to the same person. It's exactly the same arrangement as A having two separate marriage contracts for their marriages to B and C, except that it can be ended/modified/whatever all at once instead of requiring separate changes to each contract.

 Peregrine wrote:

Or you could just call it what it is, a group marriage, instead of inventing your own term for it that doesn't even make any sense.

I didn't invent the term "polyamorous marriage", I am far too young to have done so. Moreover, I have clarified my meaning with respect to that term.

 Peregrine wrote:

Yes, but you're only talking about current marriage law.

That's because I am pragmatic.

 Peregrine wrote:

...and you have yet to provide any convincing arguments for marriage assets being so much more complicated that the problem can't be solved.

Ok, we'll try this: Would you like to see marriages turned into businesses, incorporated or otherwise?

 Peregrine wrote:

Now, if you want to replace that with "that's forcing someone into a group marriage" then no, it isn't. Having a single marriage contract that says "A is married to B and A is married to C" does not mean that B and C have any relationship beyond being married to the same person. It's exactly the same arrangement as A having two separate marriage contracts for their marriages to B and C, except that it can be ended/modified/whatever all at once instead of requiring separate changes to each contract.

No, it isn't. You need to buff up on your contract law, this isn't like factorization.

 dogma wrote:
Moreover, I have clarified my meaning with respect to that term.

You've clarified your meaning, but that's like saying you've clarified your meaning about "dry water". It's still a nonsense term, and an unnecessary one when a term already exists to describe what you're talking about: group marriage. So I really have no idea why you're so stubborn about defending this idea.

Ok, we'll try this: Would you like to see marriages turned into businesses, incorporated or otherwise?

No, but what does that have to do with anything? The fact that our legal system is able to handle complex asset ownership and division in a business context means that it should be able to come up with a system to handle complex asset ownership and division in a marriage context. It doesn't in any way mean that marriages are or have to become businesses, so why do you keep talking about it like that?

No, it isn't. You need to buff up on your contract law, this isn't like factorization.

Sigh. Once again I'm talking about a hypothetical marriage law created to handle marriages with more than two people, not any current law. So saying "it doesn't work like that" really doesn't make any sense.

yeah, pergrine is right on this one...

at one point, gay marriage was hypothetical, and the laws had to change to accommodate it. That this might confuse people, shouldn't, and didnt, stop it. Let the people who have to sign the marriage papers worry about signing the marriage papers

Plenty of people made up the exact same silly excuses for why it cant/shouldn't/wont work as a legal thing for gay people to get married, so those excuses dont hold water when you try to argue why polygamy should remain outside of legality.

Lonesome Alito Declares Marriage Only Between A Man And The Sea

 Peregrine wrote:

You've clarified your meaning, but that's like saying you've clarified your meaning about "dry water". It's still a nonsense term, and an unnecessary one when a term already exists to describe what you're talking about: group marriage. So I really have no idea why you're so stubborn about defending this idea.

Terms are not equivalent to ideas.

The analogy you drew requires marriages to be equivalent to certain sorts of business agreements, and they are not.

 Ahtman wrote:
Lonesome Alito Declares Marriage Only Between A Man And The Sea

I like that guy, and totally agree.

Another state down, and one judge is pissed:

http://m.newsok.com/justice-thomas-objects-to-courts-signal-on-gay-marriage/article/feed/794701