"Why not polygamous marriage?"

Beerina said:
I do. It's none of the government's damned business.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. The government gives tax breaks to married couples, and pays for the courts to regulate the dissolution of marriages. That makes it their business.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Discrimination based on sex is very different from discrimination based on number.
Click to expand...

This!

Most importantly, the former is illegal in most of the civilized world, whereas the latter isn't.

I have a right to get to do what other people are allowed to do without anyone looking down either their parts or my pants.

There is no such provision against counting; however.

So the argument for same-sex marriage is simply "you cannot make or keep it illegal, as that is simply in violation of existing law." (I don't think engaging into any other argument is a good strategy. It is simply irrelevant if gays can love one another or if their relationships can be committed, or whatever else you have.)
 
JJM 777 said:
2) Monogamous marriage is a redefined one. Ancient marriages were polygamous.
Click to expand...

And that can work out just fine if you get rid of other modern silliness such as equal rights for women (or any rights at all). As soon as women are back to being treated like property, there is no reason why a man should only have one wife. After all, I can have two cars and two shirts as well.
 
Strawberry said:
Its not irrelevant at all. Gay marriage, where it has been legalised, has been at the request of gay people themselves. How many married people are calling for polygamy to be legalised?

This is just a BS response from ultra conservative homophobes who can't think of an argument against gay marriage on its own terms, and therefore try and scare people with a slippery slope argument instead.
Click to expand...

There is a certain number who have called for it. This is also useful to explain why there are differences and how you can be for one and not the other.

Polyamory is farther outside mainstream culture than homosexuality is and it does not have the established advocacy groups that homosexuals do.

Now the legal complexity coupled with the small percentage of people who would use it means I do not expect to see it enacted, but it is a frequent point of argument here, so I have refined a position on it. There are multiple members of this board who would use such a law if it was passed.
 
Strawberry said:
Yes, it is. The government gives tax breaks to married couples, and pays for the courts to regulate the dissolution of marriages. That makes it their business.
Click to expand...

Also immigration, but I guess that might also be none of the governments business.
 
ponderingturtle said:
This thread is about legal marriage not how people structure their life. Sure I agree that it is odd that Newt cheating for decades us no big deal but asking for an honest nonmonagamous relationship instead of his dishonest one being reprehensible is odd.

So you were just making off topic statements I guess.
Click to expand...


Crikey, did you get out of bed on the wrong side this morning?

I tell you what, I won't offer any more opinions and you can go and find a fight elsewhere. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Undesired Walrus said:
When hearing debates about granting marriage to same sex couples (Something I'm firmly in favour of), I often hear "If you are redefining marriage, why not have polygamous ones?" from the conservative side. Now, for the record, I can't say I'm in favour of polygamous marriage, but at present I can't actually answer the above question satisfactorily. What's the answer?
Click to expand...

Well personally my response would be "Yes, absolutely. Why not have polygamous ones? I can't think of a reason not to, can you?"

If they can't, then you win. If they can, then you say "Yes, I agree. So we've settled why we shouldn't have polygamous marriage. What was your point again?" And you also win.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Polyamory is farther outside mainstream culture than homosexuality is
Click to expand...
Actually most men quite openly admit that they are sexually interested in more than one woman in the world, while admitting that they are sexually interested in a man is far less common. Men´s omnivorous sexual interests are the mainstream culture, now as religion has fallen from dictating what mainstream culture should be.

There definitely are more heterosexuals going to bed with varying partners than there are practicers of homosexuality in the world.
 
Last edited:
JJM 777 said:
Actually most men quite openly admit that they are sexually interested in more than one woman in the world, while admitting that they are sexually interested in a man is far less common. Men´s omnivorous sexual interests are the mainstream culture, now as religion has fallen from dictating what mainstream culture should be.

There definitely are more heterosexuals going to bed with varying partners than there are practicers of homosexuality in the world.
Click to expand...

But most are serial monogamists, or casually sleeping around, not people looking for multiple committed relations at the same time.

Personally, I envisage a future where being able to marry multiple people leads to the formation of vast marriage networks, and in the end Communism!
 
MRC_Hans said:
Yes, why not? I assume that is the next step, if it is not Caper's: If all is allowed, why have marriage at all?

Hans
Click to expand...

Legally the term "marriage" should be meaningless. The governments interest should be based on property laws, inheritance, child support etc. If two or more people want to declare vows of mutual fidelity they could register their intent. Property laws could be complicated in the case of polyandry, polygamy or plural marriage. You would probability have to base it on a corporate shareholding model.

Sounds romantic huh? :)
 
Seems to me the big hurdle is the legal problems. Property, child custody, divorce...All rendered more complex.
Elaborate per-nup arrangements, perhaps?
 
But seriously. Why not just get rid of marriage all
Together. I mean the governments role in it. Why does government really need to be that involved in people's lives?
 
JJM 777 said:
Actually most men quite openly admit that they are sexually interested in more than one woman in the world, while admitting that they are sexually interested in a man is far less common. Men´s omnivorous sexual interests are the mainstream culture, now as religion has fallen from dictating what mainstream culture should be.

There definitely are more heterosexuals going to bed with varying partners than there are practicers of homosexuality in the world.
Click to expand...

But see Newt for the standard. His sleeping around was not a problem but an openly nonmonogamous relation was beyond the pale. Look at how it is presented in popular fiction, it is never in a positive light.

Non monogamy is big just look at infidelity rates. But open non monogamy is unacceptable.
 
Caper said:
But seriously. Why not just get rid of marriage all
Together. I mean the governments role in it. Why does government really need to be that involved in people's lives?
Click to expand...

Because people want the things that require government involvement. Like wrongful death, immigration, inheritance, tax law, and of course divorce.

There are very few people who want to do away with all that.
 
I have absolutely no moral problem with poly marriage. If someone could show me a way of rearranging the laws so poly marriages received the same benefits of "regular" marriage, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, the system as it is makes that difficult.
 
Why not indeed.

Bikewer said:
Seems to me the big hurdle is the legal problems. Property, child custody, divorce...All rendered more complex.
Elaborate per-nup arrangements, perhaps?
Click to expand...
The existing mechanisms for regulating companies and partnerships could provide a basis.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
When hearing debates about granting marriage to same sex couples (Something I'm firmly in favour of), I often hear "If you are redefining marriage, why not have polygamous ones?" from the conservative side. Now, for the record, I can't say I'm in favour of polygamous marriage, but at present I can't actually answer the above question satisfactorily. What's the answer?
Click to expand...
Denying a license to marry is denying a license to marry.

The thing the Court decides is whether or not there is a reasonable basis for making an exception to the 14th amendment.
Denying it on the basis of race used to be quite 'reasonable' to the Court... 100 years later it was deemed unreasonable.

Denying it on other grounds like age, will likely be reasonable as long as the law considers children to be unable to consent below a certain age
.
Deying it on the basis of gender is becoming more and more unreasonable in state legislatures and in the lower courts, as well as in public opinion, so there are good reasons to expect the Supreme Court to acknowledge that.

On polygamy, I expect a similar pattern will be followed... in about 100 years. Right now, social disapproval is still heavily against it, and the long legal process for ripeness has barely left the station.
 
Bikewer said:
Seems to me the big hurdle is the legal problems. Property, child custody, divorce...All rendered more complex.
Elaborate per-nup arrangements, perhaps?
Click to expand...

Oddly, I've given this matter considerable thought, not that I am interested in multiple marriages. But, the rich are different than normal people, and can afford such things and people will do almost anything for money. Hence...

Pre-nuptule contracts. Establish legal rights/responsiblities to taxes, children, inheritance, divorce, additional partners, etc. Actually, since it's a contract, no reason not to call it a "marriage contract" and allow it to last 3, 5, 10 years, or until death, with dissullution details predefined.

If you don't want additional partners, it's in the contract, so you don't need to worry. If you allow it, it could state parameters, or new perks.

Someone mentioned immigration. All that would be required is the party's to the marriage create such a contract that covers all the predefined points.

Before the law passes, NORCO will have fill in forms for it.

Easy Peasy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom