Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

.

 SickSix wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
There is no barrier now to legal polygamy. It is a matter of time before it is brought before the courts and it must be legalized now.

Under what claim though?

Tell me how you would stop it?

To stop polygamy you have to define marriage. Well where are you going to get your definition from? Can't use religion.

Polygamy has to be legal. You cannot logically deny it now that there is same sex marriage.

(Personally I believe government has no place in defining/regulating/legislating marriage.)

No, please say what claim of discrimatiom polygamy has under current laws.

"Person marries person = marriage"

Interracial marriage went to the Supreme Court under discrimination because they could claim "I can marry a white person, but get discriminated against if I marry a black person.

Same sex marriage can show discrimination because they can show "I can marry a male person, but I get discriminated against if I want to marry a female person" (reverse at will)

Polygamist can marry a person, same as everyone else. They can't marry more than one, same as everyone else.

The state has always had it be a union of two. The makeup of the two has been challenged in many ways because the makeup of the two partners has been subject to unequal laws. So what legal argument is there to "it's unfair that I can't marry more people than everybody else"?

I'm not arguing against it as much as I am trying to get an actual compelling case for why it should be legal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Random Dude wrote:
Polygamy goes against many people's faith.

Faith has absolutely feth all to do with law though, and this is coming from a very religious person here.

And some religions allow polygamy (see Islam second largest religion on the planet accounting for 1/5 of its population). Hinduism and Buddhism have also recognized it (or still do). Also: Old school Mormons. EDIT: And of course, early Christians were divided on the issue of polygamy. The early church didn't mandate monogamy until Synod of Hertford in 673 and that consensus was not universally accepted until the 11th century.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It may actually hurt someone else. Many polygamist marriages are just male power houses where a man gets to control many women for the purpose of making babies, and unshamlessly bedding a younger women when he feels like it

You could make the same stereotypical claim about monogamous heterosexual marriage as well. You could say something similar about gay marriage too, just minus the baby-making part.

That doesn't mean any of it is true. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but when it does it's because of people doing crappy things in their relationships, it's not because the nature of the relationship itself requires that abuse like that must happen.

 Hordini wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It may actually hurt someone else. Many polygamist marriages are just male power houses where a man gets to control many women for the purpose of making babies, and unshamlessly bedding a younger women when he feels like it

You could make the same stereotypical claim about monogamous heterosexual marriage as well. You could say something similar about gay marriage too, just minus the baby-making part.

That doesn't mean any of it is true. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but when it does it's because of people doing crappy things in their relationships, it's not because the nature of the relationship itself requires that abuse like that must happen.

I agree. Just ask any woman that has spent the better part of their marriage getting the gak beat out of them, along with the kids, by some donkey-cave of a husband.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just for the record, I am not for Polygamy and think it is wrong on religious grounds, but I think a lot of change is in the wind this next decade.

 Random Dude wrote:
Polygamy goes against many people's faith.

So?
What does your faith have to do with how I live my life?

OT:
Go for it I say, but before actually going for it, step back a bit and plan out as many little details as you can think of so you don't have to take more time than necessary.

 SickSix wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
There is no barrier now to legal polygamy. It is a matter of time before it is brought before the courts and it must be legalized now.

Under what claim though?

Tell me how you would stop it?

To stop polygamy you have to define marriage. Well where are you going to get your definition from? Can't use religion.

Polygamy has to be legal. You cannot logically deny it now that there is same sex marriage.

(Personally I believe government has no place in defining/regulating/legislating marriage.)

So there should be absolutely no legal benefit from being married either in your mind then. No getting your wife/husband on your health insurance, no benefits for your dole (or whatever it is called over there, social security maybe? Unemployment benefits?), none of that. Because if the government can't define or regulate it, or legislate on it, then none of those things can happen.

I don't care if people want to be polygamous; the private living and loving arrangements that are formed between consenting adults are none of my business.

My bottom line, as always, is that the state has no role in the marrying business, period.

 motyak wrote:
So there should be absolutely no legal benefit from being married either in your mind then.

Yes. In my opinion, there should be no tax benefit or penalty for being married, or not.

 motyak wrote:
No getting your wife/husband on your health insurance, no benefits for your dole (or whatever it is called over there, social security maybe? Unemployment benefits?), none of that. Because if the government can't define or regulate it, or legislate on it, then none of those things can happen.

Well, I also don't think that your health insurance should be tied to your employment; I think our current status quo is bizarre but that's another thread. As is, I think that private health\life insurers can provide insurance under whatever guidelines they choose so long as it's not discriminating against a protected class and that's their call, and you always have the right to pick a competing insurance who does cater to your situation. I don't think wee need government to define or regulate marriage for those things to happen.

inb4 marrying animals or buiildings afterwards

 Sigvatr wrote:
inb4 marrying animals or buiildings afterwards

However, not between being intentionally obtuse with a puerile argument that requires you to not-read everyone saying these laws should apply to consenting adults.

An animal cannot consent to a legal arrangement.

A building cannot consent to a legal arrangement.

So thanks for "contributing" on that front, someone sure had to.

 Ouze wrote:

My bottom line, as always, is that the state has no role in the marrying business, period.

Pretty much, I definitely agree with this sentiment in an ideal setting, but while the state gives benefits for being married, they are forced to be involved. Unless they find a way to completely cut all ties between marriage and any and all benefits, they need to be a part of it to try and stop discrimination which would otherwise be present (and is).

 Ouze wrote:

 motyak wrote:
So there should be absolutely no legal benefit from being married either in your mind then.

Yes. In my opinion, there should be no tax benefit or penalty for being married, or not.

 motyak wrote:
No getting your wife/husband on your health insurance, no benefits for your dole (or whatever it is called over there, social security maybe? Unemployment benefits?), none of that. Because if the government can't define or regulate it, or legislate on it, then none of those things can happen.

Well, I also don't think that your health insurance should be tied to your employment; I think our current status quo is bizarre but that's another thread. As is, I think that private health\life insurers can provide insurance under whatever guidelines they choose so long as it's not discriminating against a protected class and that's their call, and you always have the right to pick a competing insurance who does cater to your situation. I don't think wee need government to define or regulate marriage for those things to happen.

To be honest my understanding of how insurance works in your country is about as limited as it can possible get, I'm just aware that marriage can get your spouse the benefit while others haven't been able to in the past in certain states. That is it. And as I said above, we shouldn't need government to define or regulate it for that to happen, but they are, for the foreseeable future, linked far too thoroughly for it to be changed on a whim

I support polyamoury, as long as all parties involved are legitimately in favour of the arrangement. I would also support polygamy as a legal construct if I was convinced the inherent complications of the higher order handshake problem had been resolved:

- If your spouse wanted your marriage to expand, you must have absolute confidence in your ability to refuse consent without repercussions.
- If a polygamous marriage breaks up, it should be known in advance how to do so in a reasonably equitable manner. This is already a problem in monogamous marriages, but as the number of members increases, so does the chance of catastrophic failure.

I also see nothing inherently wrong with polygamous or polyamorous relationships, so long as everyone is content with that.

As for the subject of marriage, that becomes a little difficult. Various benefits that are shared between spouses become difficult to manage once you include more than two parties into the group.
Reducing the legal benefits of marriage solely to next-of-kin status might be in order to support it, but that would require some restructuring of how various benefits work the country over.

The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that polygamy is specifically against the law in most western countries.

The "two consenting adults" model of marriage is well defined and easily extended to situations in which the adults are not different sexes.

It is not as simple to extend the definition to multiple partners since things like health insurance and pension benefits are all on the basis of two partners rather than three or seven.

This could be tackled in law, if it is thought desirable to give married people special benefits compared to un-married people.

I wonder, though, how widespread polygamy and the desire for polygamy really is.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that polygamy is specifically against the law in most western countries.

The "two consenting adults" model of marriage is well defined and easily extended to situations in which the adults are not different sexes.

It is not as simple to extend the definition to multiple partners since things like health insurance and pension benefits are all on the basis of two partners rather than three or seven.

This could be tackled in law, if it is thought desirable to give married people special benefits compared to un-married people.

I wonder, though, how widespread polygamy and the desire for polygamy really is.

Gay marriage was illegal and unthinkable also.

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that polygamy is specifically against the law in most western countries.

The "two consenting adults" model of marriage is well defined and easily extended to situations in which the adults are not different sexes.

It is not as simple to extend the definition to multiple partners since things like health insurance and pension benefits are all on the basis of two partners rather than three or seven.

This could be tackled in law, if it is thought desirable to give married people special benefits compared to un-married people.

I wonder, though, how widespread polygamy and the desire for polygamy really is.

Gay marriage was illegal and unthinkable also.

I don't believe it was illegal, it just wasn't possible. That is an important distinction I think. If a man tried to marry a man in America you just get told 'no'. If you marry several partners, you are actually breaking the law, right? At least that is my understanding of Kilkrazy's post. That polygamy is in direct violation of the law, and if just randomly legalised will cause significant problems with many laws and practices, problems that gay marriage won't.

Note: The above talk about law is just my understanding of your country, I could be off and gay marriage could have been actually illegal.

There is a difference between polygamy, which is one man having many wives. That's more or less several different marriages, and cultures have handled that throughout history without a lot of complications. I think a brief tour of the child support records for any large city would show that our system can handle men that have children with multiple women.

What would be more complicated would be group marriage, where instead of several people marrying one person (like spokes on a wheel), multiple people all wish to marry each other (forming a net). Polygamy (and it's female equivilent of polyandry) is very different from modern polyamory. You also have very different people interested in each (polygamy is super traditional/conservative, polyamory is super hippie/liberal).

I don't see a huge issue with legalizing either. I think polyagmy/andry is reasonably simple to implement and dissolve, and would legitimize no small number of de facto arrangements.

As for what claim? the same one they've had for 150 years: freedom to practice religion. It's been a non-starter, and especially since the mainstream LDS has disavowed polygamy, I doubt we'll see a concentrated push on it. There are also more convincing state arguments for not allowing polygamy: payment of benefits to multiple spouses, next of kin decisions, inheritience rights, etc. Basically all the stuff that marriage is supposed to simplify becomes more complicated again.

The problem with it, at least in the US, is that the few who do practice it, practice it in an abusive manner. If you want to look it up, check out the Lost Boys of Mormonism. Basically, if you are born male into a polygamist clan, more than likely you'll be booted out into the world, orphaned.

In those same instances, you get rumors (and occasionally actual evidence and court cases) that the "patriarch" of the polygamist household has married an underage girl.

Which is why, I think, the US government will never accept polygamy in any form.

 Polonius wrote:
There is a difference between polygamy, which is one man having many wives.

Sorry, but you start off wrong and continue from there. Polygyny is one man having many wives. Polyandry is one woman having many husbands. Polygamy is any combination of three or more people being married.

 motyak wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that polygamy is specifically against the law in most western countries.

The "two consenting adults" model of marriage is well defined and easily extended to situations in which the adults are not different sexes.

It is not as simple to extend the definition to multiple partners since things like health insurance and pension benefits are all on the basis of two partners rather than three or seven.

This could be tackled in law, if it is thought desirable to give married people special benefits compared to un-married people.

I wonder, though, how widespread polygamy and the desire for polygamy really is.

Gay marriage was illegal and unthinkable also.

I don't believe it was illegal, it just wasn't possible. That is an important distinction I think. If a man tried to marry a man in America you just get told 'no'. If you marry several partners, you are actually breaking the law, right? At least that is my understanding of Kilkrazy's post. That polygamy is in direct violation of the law, and if just randomly legalised will cause significant problems with many laws and practices, problems that gay marriage won't.

Note: The above talk about law is just my understanding of your country, I could be off and gay marriage could have been actually illegal.

Not that long ago in this country just being gay was illegal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The problem with it, at least in the US, is that the few who do practice it, practice it in an abusive manner. If you want to look it up, check out the Lost Boys of Mormonism. Basically, if you are born male into a polygamist clan, more than likely you'll be booted out into the world, orphaned.

In those same instances, you get rumors (and occasionally actual evidence and court cases) that the "patriarch" of the polygamist household has married an underage girl.

Which is why, I think, the US government will never accept polygamy in any form.

The same thing has been said of gay marraige, and gays adopting children with facts and figures brought forward. I am not defending Polygamy here, mind you, and I think it is wrong.
I am just looking down the road envisioning a push for polygamy. I have known people that practiced it or are related to those that do and really don't believe it is a great stretch.

There are American judges taking Sharia Law into consideration when making judicial decisions.

Islam is the second largest religion. If you don't think there wont be a polygamy movement soon, you need to open your eyes.

 SickSix wrote:
There are American judges taking Sharia Law into consideration when making judicial decisions.

Oh look, it's this old gem.

 SickSix wrote:
There are American judges taking Sharia Law into consideration when making judicial decisions.

Islam is the second largest religion. If you don't think there wont be a polygamy movement soon, you need to open your eyes.

Most muslims aren't polygamous. Why would they push for the right to a practice they generally don't practice?

I couldn't care less about polygamy... if they want to marry let them! if they want to marrry 2 people? let them! if they want 2 people in a relationship to marry another each... let them...

Being difficult to sort out in a court is no reason to ban it lol. If thats the case ALL marriages should be banned.

I personally feel all marriages of any time should be required by law to have a prenuptial agreement that explicitly states the end result of a break up or death in the marriage. There complicated problems fixed before the marriage.

However... i have to add this in. I don't think anytime in the next 20 years this will become an issue. There simply are not enough polygamists to start the necessary movement in this country at this time. If that changes... good for them!

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that polygamy is specifically against the law in most western countries.

The "two consenting adults" model of marriage is well defined and easily extended to situations in which the adults are not different sexes.

It is not as simple to extend the definition to multiple partners since things like health insurance and pension benefits are all on the basis of two partners rather than three or seven.

This could be tackled in law, if it is thought desirable to give married people special benefits compared to un-married people.

I wonder, though, how widespread polygamy and the desire for polygamy really is.

Gay marriage was illegal and unthinkable also.

Gay marriage wasn't illegal, it simply wasn't called marriage in most legal codes.

The war on women continues. We can't let them have sister wives. Oh the humanity.

 LordofHats wrote:
Polygamy would also be a legal nightmare for courts in case of dissolution. And child custody. *Shutters*

Yes divorces could be potentially very messy.

What if it is the wife that wants to marry a wife in addition to her husband?

Homosexual polygamy?

We are not ready for this!

Some people might say that one spouse was bad enough.

And that's why we have hitmen.