Why should polygamy be illegal?

[Uncayimmy]

The problem is that part of the modern definition of marriage is that it marks the person who is most important and closest to you. It gives them primacy. How does this work with two people?

How does it work with parents having a child? In a sense that child is married to two adults, both of whom are responsible.

Really, what you're driving at is nothing more than minor contractual issues. Partnerships are formed every single day. Businesses seem to function just fine and dandy with all sorts of partnership arrangements.

Working out the logistics would not be difficult. Hell, you could leave the statutory rights out of it and simply require the filing of partnership agreements just like we already do for, well, partnerships.

 

[Anerystos]

All true, but irrelevant. The discussion is not about whether people should be allowed to indulge in polyamorous relationships*. It is about whether the state should recognize those relationships and afford the same types of rights and privileges to them as to (purportedly) monogamous pairings.

Not irrelevant. Whatever the state recognises or doesn't recognise is immaterial. In the long term only the lawyers profit from it.

People f***; people fight about the consequences; lawyers win.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Whatever the state recognises or doesn't recognise is immaterial.

Um, actually, it's the entire point of the thread.

 

[toddjh]

How does it work with parents having a child?

Barely, and at great cost. Family law can charitably be described as a "cluster####." It eats up so much time and takes so much specialized consideration that they have their own courts and lawyers. We have to have them because people have kids and there's nothing to be done about that, but polygamy is another story. It would only exacerbate the problem.

 

[ponderingturtle]

How does it work with parents having a child? In a sense that child is married to two adults, both of whom are responsible.

Yes, all parents are responcible regardless of their own genetic relationship to the child. That is the point.

Really, what you're driving at is nothing more than minor contractual issues. Partnerships are formed every single day. Businesses seem to function just fine and dandy with all sorts of partnership arrangements.

Marriage is not a simple contract, it is also a status.

 

[Anerystos]

Um, actually, it's the entire point of the thread.

Sorry MdC, I disagree. What the law says is less important than what people do. Fundamentally, that is the problem in sexual behaviour.

People f***; the law says they "shouldn't"; but they still do.

Or maybe it isn't a problem - it's just an inconvenience.

 

[toddjh]

Sorry MdC, I disagree. What the law says is less important than what people do. Fundamentally, that is the problem in sexual behaviour.

People f***; the law says they "shouldn't"; but they still do.

Or maybe it isn't a problem - it's just an inconvenience.

You're obviously not married, since you seem to be under the impression marriage has something to do with sex.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Becuase if you prevent legal recognition of marriage then only someones blood relatives get all kinds of rights that their spouce currently gets.

It is a way to legaly add someone to your family after all.

I would rather real wills be made for legalities such as that.
It's not at all like the current marriage system clears that up much at all.

See: lawyer

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Sorry MdC, I disagree. What the law says is less important than what people do. Fundamentally, that is the problem in sexual behaviour.

People f***; the law says they "shouldn't"; but they still do.

We're not talking purely about sexual behaviour, though. We're talking about how the government deals with the parties involved in certain relationships, which probably, but not necessarily, align with sexual activity. Right now, so far as I am aware, the law is not stopping you from living in a polyamorous household. It's just that, legally, you'd be roommates, whatever kind of sex was going on between the members present. The question is should those members qualify for a special legal status beyond roommate?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I would rather real wills be made for legalities such as that.
It's not at all like the current marriage system clears that up much at all.

See: lawyer

Here is a simple example, how do you give a non blood relative standing to sue for wrongful death with out marriage?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Yes, all parents are responcible regardless of their own genetic relationship to the child. That is the point.

I don't follow.

Marriage is not a simple contract, it is also a status.

A partnership is a status, so what is your point? Are you arguing that polygamy should remain illegal because of some alleged difficulty in working out the details?

 

[GreNME]

A slippery slope argument is only a fallacy if the slope isn't in fact slippery.

But, as your own post shows, the slope IS slippery.

First we hear from gay activists that it is ABSURD to suppose that legalizing same-sex marriage could POSSIBLY lead to polygamy being recognized, just because some PARANOID RACISTS claim that if you recognize gay marriage, there is no way polygamy will not be recognized too.

Then we begin to get opinion like yours -- namely, that, on second thought, what the heck is so bad with poygamy anyway?

The last stage is to claim that polygamy is a natural step, indeed an invevitable one, and all those polygamaphobes who have anything against this are just racist, prejudicted, etc.: After all, if you recognize gay marriage, there is no way to not recognize polygamy!

In short -- the anti-gay-marriage claimant's predictions turn out to be 100% correct, but he is constantly attacked as racist and stupid.

It's not a slippery slope. It's a red herring disguised as a slippery slope. You may as well be arguing that those proposing that people will want to marry farm animals next is a slippery slope because someone is going to ask why it's wrong in the first place.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't follow.

Being married means you have rights to the children produced in said marriage. Genetic relationship is not nessacary.

 

[toddjh]

Are you arguing that polygamy should remain illegal because of some alleged difficulty in working out the details?

I am if he's not. The government has made it clear that it's not interested in entering into that kind of contract with people, and as far as I know there are no constitutional issues which say it must. On top of that, the cost would be high, and I really don't think that many people are interested. I can't say I see a reason why it should be legalized.

 

[quarky]

Hopefully, this isn't too much of a derail:

I'm somewhat surprised that 4-some marriages aren't a happening movement.
Two men/two women. Commited to sharing their lives/car/house/kids.
The 2 couples could be gay; or 1/2 and 1/2; or all bi-sexuals; whatever.

Is there a name for two couples teaming up, or is it polygamy?

 

[Texas]

Who cares? If my neighbor marries two women and three men and a goat, how does that affect me (assuming he keeps none of them in a pen next to my fence)? If it doesn't affect me, what business of mine is it? If they settle their property affairs quietly, if they deal with health insurance without costing me, if they raise their children well, I should be satisfied and shut up.

How many people can support 2 or 3families without massive government aid? What employer would ever provide insurance to an employee supporting multiple families as dependents? For that matter what insurance company would even write a policy for that situation. The list goes on and on.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Here is a simple example, how do you give a non blood relative standing to sue for wrongful death with out marriage?

Show that their economies are intertwined, maybe they have a kid together?

Can single mom's not sue someone who killed their knocker upper?

 

[Uncayimmy]

I am if he's not. The government has made it clear that it's not interested in entering into that kind of contract with people, and as far as I know there are no constitutional issues which say it must. On top of that, the cost would be high, and I really don't think that many people are interested. I can't say I see a reason why it should be legalized.

First, we, the people, are the government. Second, what makes you think the cost would be high? Where's your evidence or at least a hypothesis as to why?

It saddens me to hear someone say, "I can't say I see a reason why it should be legalized." I prefer a society where we need damned good reasons to make things illegal.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Here is a simple example, how do you give a non blood relative standing to sue for wrongful death with out marriage?

As I understand it wrongful death did not come from common law but was brought about by statute. So, if need be, change the statute. It's not brain science or rocket surgery.

 

[gumboot]

Hopefully, this isn't too much of a derail:

I'm somewhat surprised that 4-some marriages aren't a happening movement.
Two men/two women. Commited to sharing their lives/car/house/kids.
The 2 couples could be gay; or 1/2 and 1/2; or all bi-sexuals; whatever.

Is there a name for two couples teaming up, or is it polygamy?

One of the societies I have developed for my writing uses that model, except children are paired with "best friends" of the same gender in childhood and the pairs marry together to form a single four-person domestic unit.