Why should polygamy be illegal?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Irrelevant, since there's no reason to assume that they wouldn't be practices equally. A look at the polyamoury subculture is a good indication of that.

Do you have stats on that?

And keep in mind, things rarely scale up.

In any case, as long as they're accepted equally, then it doesn't matter too much what the practices is, since it wouldn't deviate significantly from the current situation. It's only when restrictions come into play that significant deviation occurrs.

Forgive me, but I can't suss out what you're getting at here.

 

[Skeptic]

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.

The difference is that there ARE many groups would love polygamy to be legal.

In particular this includes those from the Muslim world, where it is officially recognized. But it includes many other groups, such as the Mormons, certain African and Asian societies, etc.

If you want to know what polygamy really is, just look at the status of women in polygamous Mormon families and the Muslim world.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Marriage of any kind is rather troublesome.

OK, OK, rub it in.

 

[El_Spectre]

If you want to know what polygamy really is, just look at the status of women in polygamous Mormon families and the Muslim world.

If you wanna know what dessert is, eat apple pie. Surely it matters not that my cherry (apple?) picked example is one of many flavors... if it fits my preconceived notion, its good...

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

Should roommates be able to sue as well? Their ecconomies are intertwined to an extent.

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

She can in the name of her child. But she her self has no standing.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

What is your change then.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It shouldn't have to be sold to anyone. Constitutionally, there should be no basis for government interference in marriage, or any sort of official state recognition or prohibition of homosexual, polyandrous, polygynous, or polymorphous marriages. All legal aspects of such relationships should be dealt with strictly through civil contract. For those who say this is unworkable, it's obviously not, since that is exactly what government-recognized marriage is right now, a civil contract enforced by the state. The only difference is that through marriage laws, the state limits the types of marriage contracts it will consider valid. It's those limits that need to be removed, and prohibition of different types of contracts between consenting adults ended.

It is workable, it just adds even more laywers fees, especialy at the begining of marriage. So marriage and the rights that one gets from it become a thing that only some people can afford. This is why I am against this sort of individualized marriage. Marriage has over a thousand individual effect, all those laws will need to be evaluated and possibly rewritten, and then made optional so that people choose what fits them.

Do you want people to be able to freely choose if they count as a family for finanical aid and such as well?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Which is why corporate business partnerships involving more than two people simply don't exist.

And corperate partnerships have the constitutional right to not incriminate each other.

Oh, wait...

 

[ponderingturtle]

Irrelevant, since there's no reason to assume that they wouldn't be practices equally. A look at the polyamoury subculture is a good indication of that.

And look at polygynous religious subcultures. Not all those who want poly marriage want it in the same fashion, and are they all part of the polyamoury subculture? Is there a strong muslim presence?

 

[ponderingturtle]

For like the fifth time now, I'm not saying that the difficulties associated with polygamy couldn't, through herculean effort, be dealt with. I'm just saying that the government doesn't consider it worth the cost, and it's not under any legal obligation to think otherwise.

And no one here is giving any sort of legal structure for how they want these marriages to be structured or offering anything at all in the way of solutions.

In the U.S., sure it does: the will of the people, through their elected representatives, and under the rights enumerated in the Constitution. The ban on polygamy exists entirely within this framework.



Like I said before, just try to use private contracts to file your taxes jointly.

Edit: A few more things off the top of my head:

Social Security. A person would not be eligible to collect his or her spouse-by-contract's social security after death.

Legal protections. For example, spouses can't be compelled to testify against each other in court. Spouses-by-contract could be.

Insurance. If my wife and I weren't legally married, she'd have to pay for her own insurance instead of sharing my plan.

FMLA Leave. A person would not be guaranteed time off work to care for a sick spouse-by-contract.

Asset sharing. Buy your spouse-by-contract a new car? They'll have to claim it as income on their taxes next year.

And if you move all of those into contract law think of the possibilities for abuse.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The difference is that there ARE many groups would love polygamy to be legal.

In particular this includes those from the Muslim world, where it is officially recognized. But it includes many other groups, such as the Mormons, certain African and Asian societies, etc.

If you want to know what polygamy really is, just look at the status of women in polygamous Mormon families and the Muslim world.

You are just repeating yourself and not addressing the arguements put forward to refute your position.

That is not really good behavior for a critical thinker.

 

[Skeptic]

If you wanna know what dessert is, eat apple pie. Surely it matters not that my cherry (apple?) picked example is one of many flavors... if it fits my preconceived notion, its good...

It's not only the Muslim world. It's the status of women in EVERY society where polygamy is practiced. The Muslim world is simply the most common example.

When you'd look in such societies, you'll easily find that in reality polygamy means "rich guy gets to screw younger woman while keeping his now-older wife under his thumb to cook, clean, and do the dishes, without bothering with divorce; rinse and repeat whenever now-young wife becomes older, as long as one can afford it".

All this stuff about "well, it's just people loving each other in unconventional ways" is simply nonsense. There's no point to "addressing an argument" that has no connection to reality.

It matters not at all whether polygamy could in theory -- in the sense of "not logically contradictory" -- be consistent with women's rights. What matter is whether polygamy ever is in reality consistent with them. It never (or so rarely as to make no difference) is.

One might as well argue that murder should be made legal since it doesn't logically follow that people will get killed. It's possible in theory that everybody would just not commit murder because it's morally wrong, even if there is no law against it. That has about as much chance of actually happening as polygamy becoming feminist.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's not only the Muslim world. It's the status of women in EVERY society where polygamy is practiced. The Muslim world is simply the most common example.

When you'd look in such societies, you'll easily find that in reality polygamy means "rich guy gets to screw younger woman while keeping his now-older wife under his thumb to cook, clean, and do the dishes, without bothering with divorce; rinse and repeat whenever now-young wife becomes older, as long as one can afford it".

And with cleaning women, divorce and trophy wives we have that same effect now.

You still have not address how 100 years ago someone was not supposted to draw the conclusion that marriage is about the oppression of women.

 

[tyr_13]

And with cleaning women, divorce and trophy wives we have that same effect now.

You still have not address how 100 years ago someone was not supposted to draw the conclusion that marriage is about the oppression of women.

Did you just equate cleaning women, paid employees who often work for more than one family, and get to live in their own house with their own relationships, to wives?

Trophy wives are bad and that address the treatment of other wives how?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Did you just equate cleaning women, paid employees who often work for more than one family, and get to live in their own house with their own relationships, to wives?

To wives who have been replaced by younger wives. The effect he was citing was getting to have sex with a young woman and not needing to worry about many house hold chores.

This is easily attainable with money now.

Trophy wives are bad and that address the treatment of other wives how?

Why are trophy wives bad? They chose that position.

 

[Telluride]

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.

Actually, I think it is a slippery slope. Marriage is traditionally defined as between one man and one woman. If we are going make one change to the definition, how can you argue against another (again, assuming that everyone involved is a consenting human adult)?

 

[toddjh]

Actually, I think it is a slippery slope. Marriage is traditionally defined as between one man and one woman. If we are going make one change to the definition, how can you argue against another (again, assuming that everyone involved is a consenting human adult)?

Because the legal issues which mandated the first change don't apply at all to the second? (Speaking about U.S. law here.)

Denial of same-sex marriage is (or will eventually be recognized as) a violation of due process and equal protection. However, the legal logic used to reach that conclusion simply doesn't apply to polygamy.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

If we are going make one change to the definition, how can you argue against another (again, assuming that everyone involved is a consenting human adult)?

See the rest of the thread for examples.

 

[GreNME]

The difference is that there ARE many groups would love polygamy to be legal.

In particular this includes those from the Muslim world, where it is officially recognized. But it includes many other groups, such as the Mormons, certain African and Asian societies, etc.

If you want to know what polygamy really is, just look at the status of women in polygamous Mormon families and the Muslim world.

Don't forget Jewish Orthodoxy, though the requirement for when it should be allowed again has yet to be met according to some pretty old standards. But yes, I know there are groups who would prefer to have polygamy legal. The thing is, they are not the groups who are advocating in favor of same-sex marriage (and are often strictly opposed to it). That is why I'm saying it's a red herring and not a slippery slope.

 

[GreNME]

Actually, I think it is a slippery slope. Marriage is traditionally defined as between one man and one woman. If we are going make one change to the definition, how can you argue against another (again, assuming that everyone involved is a consenting human adult)?

Because the whole "change the definition" argument is disingenuously misleading, much in the same way that changing the rules to make an argument that someone broke the rules would be disingenuous. The only "change" in the definition would be with regard to DoMA (and the subsequent state-level amendments), which didn't exist until, wonder of wonders, the question of whether same-sex marriage came up in the national discourse.

I also notice you (possibly inadvertently) stepped over the other red herring masquerading as a slippery slope, namely by specifying "consenting human adult" in your statement. Not meaning to offend you, but I've honestly grown tired of the general discourse that continually tries to lead the conversation by using revisionist rule-making as its standard, and the "change the definition" argument is one such example of the revisionist rule-making in this regard. It's somewhat like trying to play a game of backgammon with a five-year-old who makes up rules as they go along. The five-year-old is going to continually change the rules so that they win, and if they wind up not winning anyway they'll likely accuse you of cheating.