[hyteckit]

Polygamy would make divorces so much more complicated. Who gets to keep the kids? Who is entitle to what amount of the assets?

A polygamy of 10 husbands and 10 wives. What if 2 husbands and 1 wife decides to split with the other 8 husbands and 9 wives? Wow, that would be a nightmare for the divorce court.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Polygamy would make divorces so much more complicated. Who gets to keep the kids? Who is entitle to what amount of the assets?

A polygamy of 10 husbands and 10 wives. What if 2 husbands and 1 wife decides to split with the other 8 husbands and 9 wives? Wow, that would be a nightmare for the divorce court.

Exactly. And just who are the parents of the kids? All of the adults? Or do you do DNA tests to identify the biological parents? It's a huge mess.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

Well, the problem here is, you're wanting two mutually exclusive things. For it to be legal, the government has to at least acknowledge legality. Conversely, for the government to shut its fat mouth on the subject, it cannot explicitly acknowledge legality.

Perhaps what you want is for it to be acknowledged as legal and THEN for the government to shut its mouth afterwards?

No. In a free society, everything which is not explicitly outlawed is legal. Thus, in a free society, the government isn't required to acknowledge legality. So if it doesn't explicitly outlaw polygamy, it'd be legal and the government would be shutting its fat mouth.

I realise the concept of freedom is lost on most of you colonials, who're mostly labouring under the illusion of freedom and replace said with "constitutionality", but there ya go.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Exactly. And just who are the parents of the kids? All of the adults? Or do you do DNA tests to identify the biological parents? It's a huge mess.

Same for gays.

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No. In a free society, everything which is not explicitly outlawed is legal. Thus, in a free society, the government isn't required to acknowledge legality. So if it doesn't explicitly outlaw polygamy, it'd be legal and the government would be shutting its fat mouth.

I realise the concept of freedom is lost on most of you colonials, who're mostly labouring under the illusion of freedom and replace said with "constitutionality", but there ya go.

Here's the thing -- if you can agree to live as such with X number of individuals and all consider yourself to be married, you're absolutely free to do so. However, to be able to do things like claim survivors' benefits, determine inheritance rights in a way that keeps it out of eternal litigation, apply spousal health benefits, etc, then the government does need to apply some sort of legal recognition to at least the social framework of what you want.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Same for gays.

To a lesser extent. Heterosexual couples that are unable to conceive have the same legal complexities that homosexual couples have. Plural marriage (potentially) multiplies that by the number of participants.

You can look at polygamy through your rose-coloured glasses all you want but it's just not as simple as binary marriage. There's no two ways around it. You're dealing with humans here. Humans are rarely rational beings. I'm just trying to stress the fact that a plural marriage is bound to be a complicated one.

And I will again argue that plural marriage as it has been practiced historically has never been truly consensual. Just recently I was reading about a small group of people in India that practice a form of polygamy where brothers typically marry the same woman. It's purely for practical reasons, and when asked, many women would rather have a single husband but were afraid to dishonor their family by going against what was the social norm.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

And I will again argue that plural marriage as it has been practiced historically has never been truly consensual. Just recently I was reading about a small group of people in India that practice a form of polygamy where brothers typically marry the same woman. It's purely for practical reasons, and when asked, many women would rather have a single husband but were afraid to dishonor their family by going against what was the social norm.

Particular anecdotal observations about plural marriage don't necessarily speak to the whole of human experience with those unions. A lot of marriage stink, but that shouldn't be a general indictment of marriage.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

Here's the thing -- if you can agree to live as such with X number of individuals and all consider yourself to be married, you're absolutely free to do so. However, to be able to do things like claim survivors' benefits, determine inheritance rights in a way that keeps it out of eternal litigation, apply spousal health benefits, etc, then the government does need to apply some sort of legal recognition to at least the social framework of what you want.

And here's the thing: Government should run in "shall issue" mode most of the time for most things. If I want to immigrate to the US with 15 wives, then what's it got to do with the government as long as I'm not a threat to national security and don't require state aid?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Particular anecdotal observations about plural marriage don't necessarily speak to the whole of human experience with those unions.

I've yet to find any real evidence of rampant consensual plural marriage anywhere in history. Throughout Asia and Africa (which is where most of the historical polygamy seems to exist) every indication is that it is either a religious thing (traditional Islam) where women have about as much rights as a goat, or where the wealthy keep many wives. Maybe I'm just injecting my western ideology into this debate. I suppose several hundred years ago a poor woman would have been thrilled to be some rich guys 10th wife.

A lot of marriage stink, but that shouldn't be a general indictment of marriage.

I'm not quite sure where I was indicting marriage. On the contrary, I support marriage. I think it's a great thing. I fully believe in committed monogamous relationships.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I fully believe in committed monogamous relationships.

If you're going to put qualifiers in there, you might just as well have said:

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I fully believe in committed monogamous heterosexual relationships.

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And here's the thing: Government should run in "shall issue" mode most of the time for most things. If I want to immigrate to the US with 15 wives, then what's it got to do with the government as long as I'm not a threat to national security and don't require state aid?

Polygamy/polygny is enough of an exception to the modern marriage paradigm that it can't be handled by a default "shall issue" mode. Again, consider the list of complications in my prior post; none of those can be dealt with without having some sort of legal framework to define them in a multi-spouse arrangement. They're already complicated enough with just two people involved.

State aid really has very little to do with it; things like private insurance need a legal framework within which to work -- without one I guarantee no employer-provided plan (or privately purchased one) would ever touch a polygamous marriage. Hell, they don't touch marriages that meet the societal norm without official documentation.

"Shall issue" is fine for many things, I agree, but marriage of any stripe isn't one of 'em.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

Polygamy/polygny is enough of an exception to the modern marriage paradigm that it can't be handled by a default "shall issue" mode. Again, consider the list of complications in my prior post; none of those can be dealt with without having some sort of legal framework to define them in a multi-spouse arrangement. They're already complicated enough with just two people involved.

State aid really has very little to do with it; things like private insurance need a legal framework within which to work -- without one I guarantee no employer-provided plan (or privately purchased one) would ever touch a polygamous marriage. Hell, they don't touch marriages that meet the societal norm without official documentation.

Show me the legal framework which says it's legal to get cancer.
I assume, since insurance is for health matters and in your own words requires a legal framework, that in order to pay out for chemotherapy they need to be sure that acquiring cancer is actually legal in the first place.

[hyteckit]

Get rid of marriage.

Everything solved. No messy divorces. No fighting about marriage laws.

You can live with how many lovers you want.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Show me the legal framework which says it's legal to get cancer.
I assume, since insurance is for health matters and in your own words requires a legal framework, that in order to pay out for chemotherapy they need to be sure that acquiring cancer is actually legal in the first place.

I think we need to differentiate between "legal polygamy" in the sense of not getting prosecuted and "legal polygamy" in the sense of getting state and federal benefits from plural marriages. You seem to be talking about the first one while this thread is more about the latter concept.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think we need to differentiate between "legal polygamy" in the sense of not getting prosecuted and "legal polygamy" in the sense of getting state and federal benefits from plural marriages. You seem to be talking about the first one while this thread is more about the latter concept.

Are they not related?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If you're going to put qualifiers in there, you might just as well have said:

I never said in exclusion to other types of relationships. It was in response to his claim that I was indicting marriage.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

We don't define the fundamental right of marriage by how different religions define it.

Then how do you define it? And you never answered my question: what is the reason for the denial?

I agree with this.

Innateness doesn't necessarily, as you rightly point out, make a trait deserving of protection.

But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The innateness of sexual orientation does matter in this context: consensual adult relationships.

There's no baby here to throw out. It's a deception. You're inventing arbitrarily complex distinctions just so you can discriminate against one group while feeling morally superior to people who discriminate against another group for the same reason.

As I said in my "Mr. Chief Justice Crook" post (Thanks, Big Mac!), it's just not one of those classifications that affect something immutable or fundamental. It's not a suspect classification. And there just doesn't seem to be any lack of reverence for laws that discriminate on the basis of the number of couples in a marriage. So for polygamy, the state should be able to come in and articulate any old reason it wants, basically, to prohibit the practice.

Basically you just said something is wrong simply because we (mostly) agree that it's wrong. So if gays were all still ashamed to be gay, that would make it morally right to outlaw gay marriage? You're taking great pains to rationalize your bigotry against polygamists, at the same time trying to condemn bigotry against gays. The contortions are quite humorous, even while the hypocrisy of it is rather sickening. Why can't you admit that 3 people can love each other, as much as 2 of the same gender can (just as much as 2 of different genders can)?

I generally don't think it's okay to discriminate based on race or sex.

Just because they are innate? Or is innateness an arbitrary post-hoc rationalization? Lots of people choose one gender or another, they're called transgender, it's all the rage these days. At least one person has chosen a race. It may become more common in the future. Will that change the way you feel about discrimination based on race or sex, or will it just open your eyes to the fact that the rationale behind it has nothing to do with innateness?

What you're describing is a serious, not easily reversed surgery that is more or less permanent.

So what? First you said it was about something they can't change. Now you say it's about something they had to work really really hard to change. Next you're going to invent some other arbitrary distinction to rationalize your bigotry. Can you really not see the parallels between your argument and the homophobes, with their completely bogus "it's about reproduction" or "historical precedent" lines of reasoning? Why don't you just cut to the chase and admit that you find it icky and "deviant" and you want to hide it from society. That's the only reason to oppose gay marriage, and it's the only reason to oppose polygamy.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Are they not related?

Not exactly. What Barnett and I are saying is that marriage laws as they currently exist in the US can't apply to polygamous marriages. It's not a matter of "We won't let you" (like it is with gay marriage), it's a matter of "Wait, you want a unicorn at your wedding?"

You might be able to go to a church and get married to half the Pussycat Dolls and the remaining members of Danity Kane, but even if we're totally supportive and don't get in your way at all, we don't have any framework to offer your harem the kind of legal benefits that normal couples get. It would take new laws to define what a plural marriage is, not just lifting restrictions on the old laws.

BTW, I wouldn't be against making laws to allow plural marriage. I'm not sure that there's enough demand to make it worthwhile, but I don't see what harm it would do either.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's not a matter of "We won't let you" (like it is with gay marriage)

So the bigamy laws have been repealed then?

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You might be able to go to a church and get married to half the Pussycat Dolls and the remaining members of Danity Kane, but even if we're totally supportive and don't get in your way at all, we don't have any framework to offer your harem the kind of legal benefits that normal couples get.

Well, you don't have any framework to offer gay couples the kind of legal benefits that normal couples get either. At the moment.
So what's the difference?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So the bigamy laws have been repealed then?

No. That's what I'm saying: Even if we repealed bigamy laws, the tax code and other laws still wouldn't define how things work with [insert any number except 2 here] spouses.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well, you don't have any framework to offer gay couples the kind of legal benefits that normal couples get either. At the moment.

That's not true. Marriage laws in general try not to discriminate based on sex — both partners are equal in the marriage. It's only entering the marriage that imposes sex-specific requirements. We can eliminate that one requirement and all the other laws still work. It happened in California just this year. No new law was even made — they just struck down the sex-based entry requirement. But marriage laws don't make any attempt to be agnostic as to the number of spouses in the arrangement — a number other than two could break many existing laws.

Like I said, this isn't a compelling argument that plural marriage must not be legalized, but it does make gay marriage different from polygamy.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I say lets do away with marriages all together.

Marriages is such an ancient concept that doesn't make sense anymore.

That's one of the reasons that gays are attacked so viciously by the far right. More and more people are cohabiting and/or marrying later, so those who don't agree with those actions need to find a group to blame, and gays, being such a small minority, are always an easy target. The fact is that marriage is changing again, and is not viewed as being as important by many, and a vocal minority, who fear they'll be subjugated to different beliefs, because they're not really strong enough in their beliefs, have to point the finger of blame at others, while screaming loudly "See, it's their fault." They constantly harp about a mythical time in America, when "family values" were the norm, and they actually want us to believe that Leave It To Beaver was actually a reality show, when in fact life was not like that for most Americans.

[Buckaroo]

It appears as thought Prop 8 passed. It's a little too early to say for certain.

[The Godfather]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...0.html?cnn=yes

Apple donated 100K, while the LDS donated 20M. Is the LDS 200 times bigger than Apple? Or Apple didn't care enough?

[Chuckit]

The Latter-day Saints these days are pretty much devoted to fighting gays (having already lost the battle against black rights and women's rights). Apple, meanwhile, is a computer company. So yes, I'd imagine they have a bit more invested in this than Apple.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...0.html?cnn=yes

Apple donated 100K, while the LDS donated 20M. Is the LDS 200 times bigger than Apple? Or Apple didn't care enough?

I say $100,000 is a lot of money so I would say Apple does care.

not only that, Apple took a stand on the issue that might upset some people.

btw am I the only one who doesn't think of or worry about gay marriage at all?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

btw am I the only one who doesn't think of or worry about gay marriage at all?

Nope. You aren't. But we have to think about it now because some segments of our society want homosexual couples to have less legal rights than heterosexual couples and that is not acceptable. (Well, not acceptable to me in a country that claims "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for all citizens as one of its founding principles.) So, now you, me and anyone else who doesn't care about same-sex marriage has to suddenly start caring about it because the citizens of California decided to enshrine discrimination into their Constitution. And if we don't care about it then some group is going to come along and try and say some other segment of society does not deserve the same legal rights as everyone else and then our society turns into a caste system of multi-tiered legal rights.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...0.html?cnn=yes

Apple donated 100K, while the LDS donated 20M. Is the LDS 200 times bigger than Apple? Or Apple didn't care enough?

The LDS church is comprised of somewhere between 12 and 13 million people. Apple, I believe is approximately 20k employees, So yes, the LDS church is significantly larger (person wise)

Originally Posted by Chuckit

]The Latter-day Saints these days are pretty much devoted to fighting gays

That's not a fair statement, The church is devoted to preserving what it considers to be proper marriage. It's not about fighting gays, It's about the concept of marriage and what it means to the church.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

That's not a fair statement, The church is devoted to preserving what it considers to be proper marriage. It's not about fighting gays, It's about the concept of marriage and what it means to the church.

Let the LDS church worry about "what it considers to be proper marriage" within the confines of their faith. What the LDS church thinks about marriage outside of the confines of their faith is irrelevant to anyone who is not a member of the LDS church.

In other words, let them decide for themselves what constitutes marriage within their faith and let them keep that viewpoint within the confines of their faith. Their viewpoint on marriage only matters to them and not to any other faith or to people without a faith. So, why the LDS church feels a need to get involved in issues such as this which are outside their faith is beyond me.

(And before anyone says I am singling out Mormons, let it be known I have just as much scorn for the Catholic Church's support for the Prop. 8 movement as I do for the Mormon support for the movement.)

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

That's not a fair statement, The church is devoted to preserving what it considers to be proper marriage.

By fighting gays.

[ironknee]

question: do the Mormons (or any other religious group) think marriage is a creation of god?

Christianity is only about 2,000 years...

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

question: do the Mormons (or any other religious group) think marriage is a creation of god?

Christianity is only about 2,000 years...

Latter-day Saints believe (along with many Judeo-Christian sects I suspect) that Marriage is an institution of God given in the Garden of Eden to Adam and Eve. The second chapter of Genesis (KJV) refers directly to Adam and his Wife. When I look at Marriage, I see something that belonged to God/faith/religion first, and then was qualified by government as a convenient way to identify groups of people.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

Latter-day Saints believe (along with many Judeo-Christian sects I suspect) that Marriage is an institution of God given in the Garden of Eden to Adam and Eve. The second chapter of Genesis (KJV) refers directly to Adam and his Wife. When I look at Marriage, I see something that belonged to God/faith/religion first, and then was qualified by government as a convenient way to identify groups of people.

hi sir

what's worse?

a man and a woman-- who loves each other--marries. they are both athiests

a man and a man*-- who loves each other--marries. they are both christians

*or a woman and a woman

finally, dose "gay marriage" worry a lot of Judeo-Christian as much as the economy, hunger, war, etc?

i'm just asking cause to me, it seems like a topic that isn't that important. i mean how would it influence my world? ... except for looking for a marriage gift for some of my friends. and that would be great!

what do you think?

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

finally, dose "gay marriage" worry a lot of Judeo-Christian

I hardly think that many Christians are “worried” about same sex couples.

They just don’t want marriage to be defined as whatever you want it to be.

[Chuckit]

Not worried? If somebody is proposing constitutional amendments to ban things they aren't worried about, they have got to be sick in the head. It's like, "Honestly, I don't care if you do it. But if you do, I'm going to bludgeon you with a two-by-four. But hey, I don't care." There are some things you just don't do if you aren't concerned.