Why should polygamy be illegal?

luchog said:
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.
Click to expand...

What I've said is too hard to sort out, but plural marriage isn't. Right.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So they need to make a decision for you and do not agree, who's decision wins? Enter the lawyers to fight it out.

It is easy to say that when things work, but when they break down does it still hold?
Click to expand...
How is this any different from family squabbles over who has the right to make decisions? Example: Mum on life support, with three children squabbling over whether to apply "extraordinary" treatment, or just "let her die with dignity".

Explain the difference. Aside from one situation being an accident of birth, and one being a chosen association.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Good we need to abolish sex discriminatory bathrooms. No more mens rooms and ladies rooms, just bathrooms.
Click to expand...
That's absurd false equivalency.

It's been done, many places, many times. It's just a ludicrious adherence to religion-derived tradition that keeps it from being more common.
 
AWPrime said:
Oke I will use several examples:
Click to expand...
If you're honestly claiming that heterosexual bonds are inherently unequal, then there is no way to discuss this further. The premise itself is absurd.
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.
Click to expand...
Argumentum ad ignorantum.
 
luchog said:
Semantic quibbling.
Click to expand...

No, you see if it was all in contract law then some of the illegal acts Kent Hovind was convicted on would be legal. He just give the tax free gift clause from marriage into his employment contracts and get out of paying payroll tax.

Or are gifts between spouces now taxed in this new system to increase freedom?
 
luchog said:
If you're honestly claiming that heterosexual bonds are inherently unequal....
Click to expand...
I see that you are very comfortable with your strawman. Why don't you actually try and post something with substance. Your previous replies to be were also so empty but filled with babble.

Argumentum ad ignorantum
Click to expand...
You should try and not walk into mirrors.
 
Last edited:
AWPrime said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay, I think I can get what you mean here. And if I may I'd like to respond with an anecdote.

WARNING: ANECDOTE FOLLOWS (the reason for saying this will become clear in a moment)

My in-family partner, whom I'll call KL (to distinguish her from my out-family partners K, L and T - KL is the mother of my son, and may therefore be assumed to be a "primary" (although I despise that term)) currently maintains a relationship with one of my very good friends TC. Neither TC nor I have any homosexual attraction to one another. However, KL has recently decided to become submissive (for reasons I completely understand) and I cannot be dominant in the way she wants. TC can. So KL now has a sexual relationship with TC, but not with me. However, she is still the mother of my son, and my feelings for her will never change. TC and I are, as I said, very good friends, and that doesn't look like changing either.

So what you suggest doesn't really apply in this specific case. But it certainly may in others.

Please remember that I am speaking about my own experiences only, and what I say here should NOT be taken as a general comment (the reason for saying this will become clear in a moment).

AWPrime said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that. It certainly isn't true in my case.

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

...

So quad marriages would have a 0% divorce rate?
Click to expand...
And here we have the reason I implied earlier. I don't believe I EVER said that my experience can be generalised to all, or even any other poly relationships. And quite frankly, to suggest such a thing is so patently ludicrous that I won't even name the logical fallacy that ponderingturtle has just made. False generalisation. Damn! I wasn't going to do that!

AWPrime said:
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.
Click to expand...
This I cannot disagree with.

ponderingturtle said:
The problem is that your experience does not speak to many of the effects of marriage laws and regulations.
Click to expand...
Nor this. However, I maintain that I cannot see any reason in the future that some of these laws and regulations apply to our situation. That does not mean that it could never happen. Such a statement is extremely naive. But I will cross that bridge if and when I come to it. I promise that if it comes to that I will post my experiences here. I believe that we have set ourselves up such that it's unlikely to cause any major problems.

NOTA BENE:

I have never claimed that my situation is anything but unique. Please remember that all I'm saying is that this works for me. I think that I have sufficiently falsified the claim that "it cannot possibly work" or "one partner always has to be lower than another".

Remember, love is not a zero-sum game. Just because I love KL does NOT mean that I cannot also love, or be in love with, anyone else. I love KL. I love T. I love L and I love K. KL loves TC. And I think I can say that I love TC too, although not in a sexual way (MD on the other hand...). All these statements are mutually compatible. It can work. It does not always work, but it can.
 
arthwollipot said:
Okay, I think I can get what you mean here. And if I may I'd like to respond with an anecdote.

WARNING: ANECDOTE FOLLOWS (the reason for saying this will become clear in a moment)

My in-family partner, whom I'll call KL (to distinguish her from my out-family partners K, L and T - KL is the mother of my son, and may therefore be assumed to be a "primary" (although I despise that term)) currently maintains a relationship with one of my very good friends TC. Neither TC nor I have any homosexual attraction to one another. However, KL has recently decided to become submissive (for reasons I completely understand) and I cannot be dominant in the way she wants. TC can. So KL now has a sexual relationship with TC, but not with me. However, she is still the mother of my son, and my feelings for her will never change. TC and I are, as I said, very good friends, and that doesn't look like changing either.

So what you suggest doesn't really apply in this specific case. But it certainly may in others.

Please remember that I am speaking about my own experiences only, and what I say here should NOT be taken as a general comment (the reason for saying this will become clear in a moment).

I don't know about that. It certainly isn't true in my case.
Click to expand...
If I am reading this correctly this is serial monogamy right?
 
UncaYimmy said:
You pointed out the patently obvious. Of course there are relationships like that. If there weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Click to expand...
My entire point was about the legal protections afforded to spouses who have no economic power, actually. Did you miss that?

UncaYimmy said:
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).
Click to expand...
And obviously, those of us in favour of allowing polygamy think that such things are absurd without evidence of child abuse.

UncaYimmy said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
Ok, I just want to avoid any confusion. I'm an Australian, and our family law is all federal. In Australia, separation of a married couple involves all assets and liabilities being counted as common property, and divided equally, although there is some extra provision for people who have sacrificed their economic capacity to the relationship. Separation of a de facto relationship follows a different set of laws, and basically involves a civil suit instead of going through the Family Law court. The intention is that de facto relationships should be treated effectively the same as married couples, but they are quite definitely treated differently.

Exactly what "community property state" and "non-community property state" means is not obvious from what you are saying. I have assumed that "community property state" implies a similar arrangement to what we have here in Australia, which means that a third party sharing domestic arrangements with a married couple is very likely to be treated by the court as not deserving of a share in the community property, since the law is set up with specific mention of marriage. In more conservative US states, I would imagine that would certainly be the case. If a (legally) single person brought a suit claiming to have been sharing a domestic relationship with a married couple, and the married couple denied it, I would expect the suit to be dismissed in many or most cases.
 
ponderingturtle said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe. TO be honest, that particular case has never really occurred to me. But even so, that I think the state should recognise both kinds of multiple marriages doesn't mean I think they should be recognised in the same way.

ETA: PT, you seem to be very much focussed on every possible negative outcome. Can you not admit that there could be a way to legally allow multiple marriages in such a way that the overall benefits would remain the same, and the legal protections extended to those that need them?
 
Last edited:
AWPrime said:
Are the relationships with T, L and K just sexual?
Click to expand...
No. But to different degrees.

ETA: I suppose I'd better add more information.

L is friends-with-benefits. I enjoy spending time with her watching movies, or just hanging out. Sex is secondary (although it is always good).

K is someone I've had a sexual relationship with for many years. She's so much a part of my life that I rarely actually think about defining our relationship.

T I am genuinely in love with. Are you aware of the difference between loving someone and being in love with someone? I love KL, K and L. I am in love with T.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Nor this. However, I maintain that I cannot see any reason in the future that some of these laws and regulations apply to our situation. That does not mean that it could never happen. Such a statement is extremely naive. But I will cross that bridge if and when I come to it. I promise that if it comes to that I will post my experiences here. I believe that we have set ourselves up such that it's unlikely to cause any major problems.
Click to expand...

The point is that it sounds like you have avoided many of the most legaly complicated parts of creating poly marriage.
 
politas said:
Well, maybe. TO be honest, that particular case has never really occurred to me. But even so, that I think the state should recognise both kinds of multiple marriages doesn't mean I think they should be recognised in the same way.

ETA: PT, you seem to be very much focussed on every possible negative outcome. Can you not admit that there could be a way to legally allow multiple marriages in such a way that the overall benefits would remain the same, and the legal protections extended to those that need them?
Click to expand...

I am focused on the things I think are profound legal complications that those in favor of changing the status's do not propose fixes for. It is easy to find things that are not fair, but sometimes it is impossible to make things fair for everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom