Why should polygamy be illegal?

[Z]

Marriage shouldn't be recognized by governments, period. If people want government-recognized rights, they should enter into legal contracts with other consenting adults, run through their lawyers (preferably with a dull lance), and enforced by courts. Contract law, plain and simple.

Marriage was SUPPOSED to be a religious contract of sorts in the first place. Why government got involved is beyond me.

 

[toddjh]

Marriage shouldn't be recognized by governments, period. If people want government-recognized rights, they should enter into legal contracts with other consenting adults, run through their lawyers (preferably with a dull lance), and enforced by courts. Contract law, plain and simple.

Did you read the discussion about this a page or two ago? There are things like spousal privilege, social security survivor benefits, and asset sharing that can't be replicated with private contracts. Are you comfortable eliminating those things?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Marriage was SUPPOSED to be a religious contract of sorts in the first place. Why government got involved is beyond me.

Why do people claim this? Marriage was appropraited by the church, I don't see any particular evidence that marriage in anchient rome was a religious contract at all.

So should athiests have funerals? Those are religious too after all, probably much more universaly than marriage.

 

[Cavemonster]

Marriage shouldn't be recognized by governments, period. If people want government-recognized rights, they should enter into legal contracts with other consenting adults, run through their lawyers (preferably with a dull lance), and enforced by courts. Contract law, plain and simple.

Marriage was SUPPOSED to be a religious contract of sorts in the first place. Why government got involved is beyond me.

Supposed by who?

Versions of marriage go back through recorded history and religions that don't at all resemble the one we have today.

Through Egypt, Israel, Sumer, Athens, all different religions, the constants have always been the practical contract of marriage as the supposed deities overseeing it shifted. It seems odd to consider it a religious contract when religion can be seen from this perspective as window dressing.

 

[AWPrime]

What goalposts? It's been my contention that developed societies have practically a complete lack of slavery. You're the one trying to convince me that sex-slavery is in large enough quantities to qualify. I apologize if I don't consider cultures that have values pulled out of the medieval ages to qualify for comparison to the U.S. -- you know, the same place that we're discussing allowing polygamy in, in the first place. You also said "many" countries, suggesting that slavery is this huge epidemic globally. I contend that there's far more countries, of far superior size and population, where slavery is not that big a deal, especially anywhere compared to the past.

You just moved the goalposts to include legality. And just because its illegal doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

I'm afraid that I don't trust your imagination or experiences enough to consider you an authority for all mankind.

The feeling is mutual. But do you have any argument for the idea, that actually can make it a normal option?

I don't agree. Looking at the divorce rate for heterosexual couples, even when the majority don't work out, we still keep marriage around. Stating that it will collapse because some of the groupings will fail, is... pretty weird, really.

And that gives polygamous relationships any better chances?
The qualifications for polygamous relationships are far higher. That is why I state that the idea that 'it could become a substantial part' is delusional.
On one hand we have the difficulty in keeping such a relationship stable and equal on the other hand we have the side-effects on society such as the 'lost boys' phenomenon.

 

[Skeptic]

Yeah, see... the problem is, an awful lot of people make it work. You're comfortable denying that "reality", because it contradicts your notions, but its true.

There are also people who are close blood relations who make it work. There are people who have satisfying emotional relationships with their pets.

So let's legalize incest and bestiality. Hey, just because it doesn't fit your narrow and bigoted worldview, that doesn't mean we should restrcit their freedom, does it?

 

[Z]

Did you read the discussion about this a page or two ago? There are things like spousal privilege, social security survivor benefits, and asset sharing that can't be replicated with private contracts. Are you comfortable eliminating those things?

Absolutely. Let the courts find a way to replicate it with private contracts. There's no reason a contract, court enforced, can't replicate any and all of this, if the courts wanted to do so.

For example: survival benefits. Simply add a clause in the contract that designates a survival benefitee. Make a slight change in social security to allow a person to designate another recipient of any survivor's benefits. For example, say I entered a social contract with my aged mother-in-law, because for some reason I was taking care of her; and I entered into the contract that the social security I'm currently getting would transfer to her as a survivor should anything happen to me, in order to ensure her better quality of life. I'm all for that. Keep the offspring portion of the clause, but let adults determine who, if anyone, gets any related adult survivor benefits. Maybe I don't want my wife to have it - maybe I want to pass it to my girlfriend. And my social contract would reflect that. If the wife didn't like it, we wouldn't be 'contracted' and it still wouldn't be the issue.

There's no current benefit to legal marriage that couldn't ultimately be passed to the contract model, if we were willing to try.

Otherwise, all I can see is that we'll eventually have to approve of marriage for gays, bisexuals, poly marriages, incest marriages, and any other strange unions between consenting adults over the course of time - and at that point, well pretty much have the same thing anyway. Why not just shortcut the process, eliminate marriage altogether, and save most everyone a lot of time and trouble?

 

[Z]

Why do people claim this? Marriage was appropraited by the church, I don't see any particular evidence that marriage in anchient rome was a religious contract at all.

So should athiests have funerals? Those are religious too after all, probably much more universaly than marriage.

No, athiests shouldn't have funerals, either. Maybe a good wake, but not funerals. Definitely not burials. Buried bodies are a waste of potentially good land. If it were MY world, we'd dig up each and every cemetary - including Arlington - and replace them with something useful.

Marriage has almost always been a spiritual bonding, whether we choose to call it 'religious' or not. There have been exceptions, of course - like the fact that many 'marriages' in the Wild West were modeled after mining claim rights, where the woman was property - but those exceptions are less like today's conventional marriage, and more like the form of contract law I'm proposing.

Sure, some cultures treat marriages as a simple social ceremony - but if so, why bother recognizing it in the government? Why give special treatments because people chose to undergo social ceremonies? And why does the government choose to honor SOME social ceremonies, while denying OTHERS?

There's only two common situations in which to get married today: church marriages and government marriages. That's part of the problem. And the goverment only currently recognizes a few types of marriage - in most places, only one. That recognition falls in line with certain church beliefs, but goes directly against other church and social beliefs. Why is the government favoring the marriage model of some churches, but not of others? Isn't the government supposed to not show favoritism?

In order to better model a proper separation of church and state, the government should not recognize marriage at all. Either that, or we need to see government-approved marriages showing up at McDonalds, or conducted by bus drivers, or as defined by the Lion's Club....

Besides, marriage is bad for people. I propose living in 'sin' - as much as possible, in fact.

 

[Z]

Supposed by who?

Versions of marriage go back through recorded history and religions that don't at all resemble the one we have today.

Through Egypt, Israel, Sumer, Athens, all different religions, the constants have always been the practical contract of marriage as the supposed deities overseeing it shifted. It seems odd to consider it a religious contract when religion can be seen from this perspective as window dressing.

I never said it was a CHRISTIAN practice - but it's nearly always been a spiritual practice. It has no more place in government than Christenings or Bat/Bar Mitzvahs.

 

[toddjh]

Absolutely. Let the courts find a way to replicate it with private contracts. There's no reason a contract, court enforced, can't replicate any and all of this, if the courts wanted to do so.

For example: survival benefits. Simply add a clause in the contract that designates a survival benefitee.

But that's not the point of the survivor benefits. It's not just as simple as "Oh, everybody can have one person that receives their benefits after death." It's more like, "Since X and Y were married, it's presumed they pooled their assets and incomes to a certain extent. Therefore, Y bore part of the burden when X paid his Social Security, and vice versa. When one dies, the other is entitled to part of his benefits."

It's not enough that there was a partnership; the point is that it was a close, even intimate, partnership. Outside of that type of relationship, there's no reason to grant survivor benefits to anyone, contract or no.

What about spousal privilege? Are you going to argue that people should be able to sign a contract saying that someone else can't be compelled to testify against them, and that all communication with them is privileged and confidential? Do you not think that might open the possibility of abuse?

Or what about my car example? Give a car to someone not your spouse, and they'll have to claim it as income on their taxes. Are you saying you should be able to sign a contract saying that yeah, I can give all the gifts I want to somebody, and they don't owe any taxes on it? Do you really think the government would go for that in a million years?

Otherwise, all I can see is that we'll eventually have to approve of marriage for gays, bisexuals, poly marriages, incest marriages, and any other strange unions between consenting adults over the course of time

Gays and bisexuals, yes -- there are legitimate equal protection and due process issue involved there. But none of the others have any legal issues at all. The slippery slope argument is the product of people who are completely unfamiliar with U.S. law.

 

[Cavemonster]

I never said it was a CHRISTIAN practice - but it's nearly always been a spiritual practice. It has no more place in government than Christenings or Bat/Bar Mitzvahs.

But through every religion that endorsed it, it was the economic and social agreement that stayed constant. The involvement of religion has been because of religion's role in society.

In court, witnesses have traditionally been asked to swear on a bible, does that make truth or testimony a religious practice?

There needs to be a distinction between the ritual attached to things and the things themselves.

 

[ponderingturtle]

In court, witnesses have traditionally been asked to swear on a bible, does that make truth or testimony a religious practice?

Of course justice is a religious concept.

 

[Cavemonster]

Of course justice is a religious concept.

So the state should not concern itself, just like you say it should not concern itself with marriage?

 

[ponderingturtle]

So the state should not concern itself, just like you say it should not concern itself with marriage?

Apparently.

 

[Z]

But that's not the point of the survivor benefits. It's not just as simple as "Oh, everybody can have one person that receives their benefits after death." It's more like, "Since X and Y were married, it's presumed they pooled their assets and incomes to a certain extent. Therefore, Y bore part of the burden when X paid his Social Security, and vice versa. When one dies, the other is entitled to part of his benefits."

It's not enough that there was a partnership; the point is that it was a close, even intimate, partnership. Outside of that type of relationship, there's no reason to grant survivor benefits to anyone, contract or no.

But we don't grant survivor benefits to anyone in that situation. There are plenty of close, even intimate, partnerships that don't involve marriage. Only by going through the contract with the government that IS marriage, do they gain those benefits.

What about spousal privilege? Are you going to argue that people should be able to sign a contract saying that someone else can't be compelled to testify against them, and that all communication with them is privileged and confidential? Do you not think that might open the possibility of abuse?

Actually, I'm absolutely against spousal privilege, and always have been. That's the real abuse. For that matter, in court situations, I feel that privilege and confidence are a load of crap. No, I don't care how that changes how people will talk to their priests, or doctors, or whatever. Bring it before the courts.

Of course, I say that because I have nothing to hide. I even asked my therapist to testify in court for me once, but she couldn't BECAUSE of that privilege nonsense.

Or what about my car example? Give a car to someone not your spouse, and they'll have to claim it as income on their taxes. Are you saying you should be able to sign a contract saying that yeah, I can give all the gifts I want to somebody, and they don't owe any taxes on it? Do you really think the government would go for that in a million years?

No, I think if you give anything to anyone, there shouldn't be taxes (aside from normally occuring things like getting tags and insurance and what have you). Whether the government would 'go for it' is irrelevant.



[/quote]Gays and bisexuals, yes -- there are legitimate equal protection and due process issue involved there. But none of the others have any legal issues at all. The slippery slope argument is the product of people who are completely unfamiliar with U.S. law.[/QUOTE]

Ah, so you accept bisexuals - but bisexuals have a tendancy to bond with members of both sexes at the same time. Thus, accepting bisexual marriage leads to accepting polyamorous marriages.

U.S. Law has been notorious for some cases of slippery slope, and for some of not doing so. We've not legalized pot yet, or hash, or meth, even though we legalized tobacco and alcohol. That's not to say we never will, though; public acceptance of pot is pretty high, and there are potential taxation benefits to legalizing it. But I doubt it'll ever lead to legalization of meth, for example.

Likewise, I doubt legallizing polyamory will ever lead to legalizing incest, or bestiality. So I don't see a problem there.

But the whole issue could be neatly curtailed by dropping marriage altogether.

 

[Z]

But through every religion that endorsed it, it was the economic and social agreement that stayed constant. The involvement of religion has been because of religion's role in society.

In court, witnesses have traditionally been asked to swear on a bible, does that make truth or testimony a religious practice?

There needs to be a distinction between the ritual attached to things and the things themselves.

Well said. And something to be considered.

But even without a religious element, marriage is better left out of the government. Because at the moment, the government is making unfair distinctions about who can and cannot be married, based largely on religious taboos.

 

[toddjh]

But we don't grant survivor benefits to anyone in that situation. There are plenty of close, even intimate, partnerships that don't involve marriage. Only by going through the contract with the government that IS marriage, do they gain those benefits.

It's the "with the government" part that's important here. It's not something they're likely to enter into unless you do it on their terms. Sure, you can say, "If I had complete control over the legislature and the courts, I could revise contract law so that all these things could be done through private contracts."

And if I had complete control over the legislature and the courts, all would bow before me and tremble!

Actually, I'm absolutely against spousal privilege, and always have been.

Fair enough, but the fact remains that that's a current aspect of marriage that can't be emulated through contracts, no matter how hard you try. You might not like this particular example, but it does disprove your thesis.

Ah, so you accept bisexuals - but bisexuals have a tendancy to bond with members of both sexes at the same time. Thus, accepting bisexual marriage leads to accepting polyamorous marriages.

Huh? I think you've been watching too much porn. Why do bisexuals "have a tendency to bond with members of both sexes at the same time" any more than straight people have a tendency to bond with two members of the opposite sex at the same time?

Edit: And who cares if they do want to? That doesn't create any legal obligation to grant it to them. The slippery slope exists only in the popular imagination. It has no basis in law.

 

[Z]

Of course justice is a religious concept.

There is a lot that could be said on that topic, as well. We do tend to base our justice on ideals that, the common folk believe, were handed down the mountain, as it were. A total overhaul of the entire justice system to make it entirely secular would be a noble, if somewhat wasteful, undertaking.

Nevertheless, over time, our own justice system has managed to grow increasingly secular, and I think our arguments over marriage rites is one of the indicators of this growth. As time goes on, I easily envision gay marriage becoming not just legal, but common and accepted; I also believe we'll see polyamorous marriages reach the same point, though much, much later.

It would help a great deal if our justice system's many members could distinguish between valid secular arguments, and invalid spiritual ones.

What's funny about the marriage situation, though, is that the whole reason we have marriage laws in the first place is because people develop emotional attachments to each other; yet when discussing gay or poly marriage, people tend to discard emotional attachments and try instead leaning on practical or moral judgements (This is too hard to sort out legally; that's just plain wrong; etc.).

Dump marriage entirely from the books, and the law can go back to sorting out social right and wrong without the emotional nonsense.

 

[Z]

It's the "with the government" part that's important here. It's not something they're likely to enter into unless you do it on their terms. Sure, you can say, "If I had complete control over the legislature and the courts, I could revise contract law so that all these things could be done through private contracts."

And if I had complete control over the legislature and the courts, all would bow before me and tremble!

If we're restricting ourselves to what the government is likely to go for, we'd have to stop discussing most issues. I'm not writing a bill to take to Congress; I'm just pontificating on what would be more reasonable.

Fair enough, but the fact remains that that's a current aspect of marriage that can't be emulated through contracts, no matter how hard you try. You might not like this particular example, but it does disprove your thesis.

Not really. Sure, it could be emulated through contracts. The law could specifically recognize a 'mutual privilege' term in a contract, the same way it currently recognizes privilege terms as related to certain professions. And like those terms, it could also choose not to recognize it in certain situations (child abuse, threat to national security, etc.). So my thesis stands.

Would they do it? Not likely, I say now - but I'd have thought the same thing when I heard of 'privilege' in the first place. Yet different courts have before overridden privilege rights when necessary.

Huh? I think you've been watching too much porn. Why do bisexuals "have a tendency to bond with members of both sexes at the same time" any more than straight people have a tendency to bond with two members of the opposite sex at the same time?

I can only speak for myself and the two or three dozen bisexuals I've had as friends over the last 20 years or so, but the issue with bisexuals isn't merely one of attraction to both sexes; it's that we feel complete only when both sides of our attractions are satisfied (this is more true, of course, with midline bisexuals than those that lean one way or another). So while I might be happily married to one person, there's always a part of me she can't reach or doesn't satisfy. Sure, I (leaning toward a preference for womenfolk) can probably satisfy my needs with occassional daliances with men; but ultimately, I might find a man I want to have as much a part of my life as my wife is, and in order to find 'true satisfaction', I'd want to bond both ways.

My experience is that there is a much higher percent of bisexuals who would want to marry two partners than there are straights or gays. I think it would be interesting to try to get the numbers in some kind of census, but my personal experience has always been that bisexuals tend to not just be attracted to both genders, but have a need to be with both genders.

But you are right - I do watch too much porn.

 

[toddjh]

I can only speak for myself and the two or three dozen bisexuals I've had as friends over the last 20 years or so, but the issue with bisexuals isn't merely one of attraction to both sexes; it's that we feel complete only when both sides of our attractions are satisfied (this is more true, of course, with midline bisexuals than those that lean one way or another). So while I might be happily married to one person, there's always a part of me she can't reach or doesn't satisfy.

I hate to break it to ya, but straight guys feel the same way too. Just because they're married doesn't mean they stop feeling sexually or romantically attracted to other women.

Sure, I (leaning toward a preference for womenfolk) can probably satisfy my needs with occassional daliances with men; but ultimately, I might find a man I want to have as much a part of my life as my wife is, and in order to find 'true satisfaction', I'd want to bond both ways.

"Sure, I (as a straight male) can probably satisfy my sexual needs with occasional dalliances with other women; but, ultimately, I might find another woman I want to have as much a part of my life as my wife is, and in order to find 'true satisfaction', I'd want to bond with both of them."

That's not a sexual preference issue; that's a "people are horndogs and monogamy is often an unrealistic expectation for any relationship" issue.

My experience is that there is a much higher percent of bisexuals who would want to marry two partners than there are straights or gays.

Could be, but still not really relevant. The purpose of marriage, as far as public policy is concerned, is to provide a stable foundation for a family unit, not to guarantee "true satisfaction" to anyone.