Why should polygamy be illegal?

[arthwollipot]

There are thousands of cases in the courts right now involving people who believed the same thing. We aren't interested in the 'perfect' cases or your group of completely 'rational human beings' (is that an oxymoronic statement?). Taken to the large scale there will be legal disputes. Fine, not in your specific case, but I'm sure you can think of three people that you know that if married could easily come to that.



Anecdotal evidence from your perfect world. Yeah, I'm just jealous.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of my experience. Frankly I don't care whether you believe me or not. But I don't understand the need for sarcasm.

 

[tyr_13]

Because you said it wasn't perfect, so if I use the term perfect, it is easier to say 'perfect' than to say, 'very close to ideal' or 'close to perfect'.

If anything it would seem like your experience is that there is no need for government recognition of polygamous marriage as you've done damn well without it.

 

[arthwollipot]

Because you said it wasn't perfect, so if I use the term perfect, it is easier to say 'perfect' than to say, 'very close to ideal' or 'close to perfect'.

If anything it would seem like your experience is that there is no need for government recognition of polygamous marriage as you've done damn well without it.

Indeed. But it would be nice not to have to have gone to a solicitor to draw up a statement.

 

[tyr_13]

Indeed. But it would be nice not to have to have gone to a solicitor to draw up a statement.

I said the same thing standing in line at the DMV, but hell, I can see why.

 

[politas]

Sure we can have a good long thread on that, but most people are confortable with the idea. The problems I am aware of is with people who do not neatly fit into gender and sex catagories of male and female.

That's not the only issue.

The point is that it is sex or gender based discrimination, you say men can go here and women can go here, and neither can go in the other. That is discriminating on the basis of sex, but most people think it is fair and not unjust discrimination.

People throw the word discrimination around too much assuming that it is always negative, when it just means makeing a descernment based on that quality.

Except that it does have a negative effect, even if most people simply accept it, as can be easily seen at any large event where equal-sized male and female toilet facilities are provided. You can easily note that there will be a much longer queue for the female toilet.

 

[politas]

Now you are redefining polygamy. It's defined as having more than one spouse. A spouse in the USA is defined by the government. Therefore, since polygamy is not legal, then those "extra" spouses really aren't spouses. They are something, but they are not spouses as defined by law.

I considered, when I was writing that post, whether other people would be flexible enough to allow me to avoid complete precision of language when I was being quite clear that I was not actually talking about the legal state. Guess I took the wrong option. People will form relationships in this way whether the law says they can be married that way or not. By not recognising the relationships that are functionally equivalent to a marriage, the state denies some people the legal protections it grants to others.

That's not exactly true. A civil case could certainly be made. In fact it happens all the time when non-married persons split up.

Except that the existence of a legal marriage could, and most likely would be used as a legal bludgeon to deny community property.

I agree that the second tier of spouses have no special rights by statute in community property states, but what about states without community property statutes?

I'll grant you the freedom you denied me and assume that last sentence should be the other way around, but isn't that agreeing with me?

 

[politas]

So they need to make a decision for you and do not agree, who's decision wins? Enter the lawyers to fight it out.

What happens when parents need to make a decision about a child and do not agree? Who's decision wins? Enter the lawyers to fight it out. What's the big difference?

If anything, I'd prefer decisions on my behalf to be taken by a group I trust, with independent arbitration if necessary. A sensible decision is a more likely outcome that way.

There is nothing in polygamous relationships that is entirely unique. There are similarities in other circumstances that can be used as perfect case law.

 

[arthwollipot]

That's not the only issue.

Except that it does have a negative effect, even if most people simply accept it, as can be easily seen at any large event where equal-sized male and female toilet facilities are provided. You can easily note that there will be a much longer queue for the female toilet.

Well, that could also be due to the fact that men can go and pee behind the nearest tree...

 

[AWPrime]

I think you say that from the fact that there are many kinds of love. However that doesn't prevent one bond from being stronger then the other.

Also my example is valid under the stated conditions of 'heterosexual' polygamy. A bisexual or homosexual polygamy relationship might actually work as the bonds between each member can be more equal.

I'm sorry, you've completely lost me on this. Are you saying that homosexual relationships are more equal than heterosexual relationships? 'Cause if not, then I'm completely missing your point.

Oke I will use several examples:

heterosexual + heterosexual
homosexual + homosexual

Here I have two types of monogamous relationships. All persons involved are attracted to each other and the bonds are likely to be equal. Now lets move on to relationships with three persons.


heterosexual + heterosexual + heterosexual
In this example we only have two sexual bonds. And these are all connected to the minority gender. And this situation has a high potential for strive & competition between the two other members.


bisexual + heterosexual + bisexual
homosexual + homosexual + homosexual
In these two examples we can have three sexual bonds. And thus its also more likely that all bonds are equal. Although I still find the chances slim that each of the three persons are equally bonded with the other two.


Its also more likely that any third member in a poly relationship is of the sex-buddy level, but I wouldn't call that a true relationship.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I considered, when I was writing that post, whether other people would be flexible enough to allow me to avoid complete precision of language when I was being quite clear that I was not actually talking about the legal state. Guess I took the wrong option. People will form relationships in this way whether the law says they can be married that way or not. By not recognising the relationships that are functionally equivalent to a marriage, the state denies some people the legal protections it grants to others.

You pointed out the patently obvious. Of course there are relationships like that. If there weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's not just a matter of not recognizing it. The government has convicted people of bigamy based on these relationships, and in Texas they removed several hundred children from their homes on a ranch with polygamists (http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705289880,00.html).

Except that the existence of a legal marriage could, and most likely would be used as a legal bludgeon to deny community property.

That's possible in a community property state, but I don't see why a third party could not lay claim to property. The only difference is that instead of a single owner there are two people sharing ownership. I don't see how that precludes a civil dispute from another party.

I'll grant you the freedom you denied me and assume that last sentence should be the other way around, but isn't that agreeing with me?

Most states are not community property states. In those states issues of ownership are routinely handled in the courts. I don't see it as anything special because spouses are not "guaranteed" anything.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, we have set up everything specifically such that we all have legal rights. We got our solicitor to make sure of that.

But do you all have all the rights that binary marriages have though

I don't know - what's financial college aid when it's at home?

Financial aid looks at how much your family earns.

Take a different approach, what about immigration laws, how would your relationship be taken in different nations, or in your nation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That is unthinkable. We discuss things like rational human beings. Of course we have occasional arguments - we are human beings after all, but for any one of us to call lawyers in against any other is so ridiculous as to be absurd. It's an utterly ludicrous suggestion and I doubt any of us would ever consider it. I certainly wouldn't.

So people who get divorced would never have said much the same thing?

Courts resolve disputes, while your marriage might work, how would a similar group what fell appart how do you resolve such disputes with out the courts?

They haven't broken down in twenty years, and while I don't presume to predict the future, I can't see them breaking down ever.

So quad marriages would have a 0% divorce rate?

Many of the legal effects of marriage are to apply in bad situations so it is hard to say how your relationship differs from a legally recognized marriage until it is under legal stress.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm trying to give you the benefit of my experience. Frankly I don't care whether you believe me or not. But I don't understand the need for sarcasm.

The problem is that your experience does not speak to many of the effects of marriage laws and regulations.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's not the only issue.

Except that it does have a negative effect, even if most people simply accept it, as can be easily seen at any large event where equal-sized male and female toilet facilities are provided. You can easily note that there will be a much longer queue for the female toilet.

You have never been to a gaming convention then.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I considered, when I was writing that post, whether other people would be flexible enough to allow me to avoid complete precision of language when I was being quite clear that I was not actually talking about the legal state. Guess I took the wrong option. People will form relationships in this way whether the law says they can be married that way or not. By not recognising the relationships that are functionally equivalent to a marriage, the state denies some people the legal protections it grants to others.

So marriage needs to be between n people and any person can be involved in n marriages at once?

After all you can not discriminate against people who want multiple marriages instead of one marriage with multiple people. Your arguments mean you must want the state to recognize both.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, that could also be due to the fact that men can go and pee behind the nearest tree...

So can women. If not then they need lessons in how to pee standing up.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You pointed out the patently obvious. Of course there are relationships like that. If there weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's not just a matter of not recognizing it. The government has convicted people of bigamy based on these relationships, and in Texas they removed several hundred children from their homes on a ranch with polygamists (http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705289880,00.html).

It would have been really nice if they could have figured out were all the missing teenage boys were in that situation. Victims of freedom I guess.

 

[luchog]

If they can be granted by civil contract, why is the current system discrimatory?

Do you actually read what i'm posting?

It's discriminatory ecause they cannot currently be granted by civil contract. There are laws preventing them from being granted by civil contract. Change that, and your vaunted "practice difficulties" go away.

Poly groups can spend the extra to get a personalized contract set up for them now just like you want.

No they can't. That's the point. Some privileges are currently reserved only for monogamous heterosexual marriages, by law.

No it is not. Legaly it is a status, it migth be one of the few status's left but that does not mean that it is just a contract. No matter how many times you state that it is.

Semantic quibbling.

 

[luchog]

How do you define valid? Most of the opponents are not against it for abstract moral reasons, but dirrect practical reasons.

Just like desegregation.

 

[luchog]

ONo, my reading comprehension is fine. The problem is that in your hysterics you fail to realize that you found your position on recognition of marriage being a civil right, and that it is why the government should recognize both homosexual and polygamous marriages. You then say that you don't think the government has any place recognizing marriage. Thus, you have advocated that the government deny people their civil rights. You can see how I think this line of reasoning has holes in it.

Wha? That's the biggest load of non-sequitor and word-twisting in this thread so far. I don't even know where to begin trying to refute it, since you're so far removed from reality there's no point of reference.