|
@deadmanwalking
You are assuming all parties want a divorce. What if some want to stay and some want to go.
How do you define a sham marriage? Was Kim Kardasian's marriage illegal?
I can't even begin to imagine the tax loopholes created if there is no cap on how many people you can marry.
The concept itself implies a commitment to a person, at the exclusion of others. You can be polyamourous, you can have whatever ceremony you like to consecrate it how you like. You can set up a LLC contract for division of assets, but when you are asking for benefits designed to be provided to a single spouse, you have to define those benefits with a cap.
That cap is one.
Saying "It's not exactly rocket science" isn't providing an actual solution. Same Sex marriage is functionally no different than infertile people getting married for all intents and purposes. All of the existing laws work fine, as they all apply to two people agreeing to split assets, etc...
Polygamy is a whole other thing that is counter to the basic concept of choosing a specific person to be responsible for all of the functions of a spouse.
I'm not sure if your are Devil's Advocate at this point or serious, but you can't honestly believe that it isn't fundamentally different legally to have more than two parties involved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the only marriages that should be legal are the ones that are in the bible.
Between a virgin and her rapist.
Between a man and his brother's widow.
Between a man and his wife and his concubines.
Between a man, a woman and her slaves.
Between a soldier and his prisoners of war.
Between a man and many women.
Between a man and a woman (where the man has not had the good fortune to be involved in a war for the promised land, and where the woman had an intact hymen.)
Enough with this modern perversion of the Lord's will. We need to get back to the fundamentals.
|
|
Perhaps the people you were talking to were warning of the dangers of misapplying culture bound ideas. That's not the same thing as what I'm talking about.
That actually strikes me as being very close indeed to what we're talking about here.
@deadmanwalking
You are assuming all parties want a divorce. What if some want to stay and some want to go.
What if one party wants to stay and the other wants to go in a current marriage? The party who wishes to leave pretty much gets to. It's their life. This leaves the marriage existent, but with one less member.
This is really pretty simple stuff to work out, mostly.
How do you define a sham marriage? Was Kim Kardasian's marriage illegal?
No idea, I pay no attention to her (though I had vaguely heard something about her marriage existing).
And you define it legally, probably as one where there is provably no intent to, well, be married or act as a marriage. For example, two people who meet, marry, then never see each other again, especially with something like the pre-nuptial and cash payment idea you suggested. It probably wouldn't be a legal term per se, such marriages would just get annulled.
I can't even begin to imagine the tax loopholes created if there is no cap on how many people you can marry.
Again, practical difficulties make for poor arguments on moral issues.
The concept itself implies a commitment to a person, at the exclusion of others.
No, it doesn't. It usually implies forskaing all others outside the marriage, but not even that is universal.
Also, this is more or les the same argument conceptually as "The concept itself implies one man and one woman." It's true only sometimes historicaly, and deeply unfair to a segment of the population.
You can be polyamourous, you can have whatever ceremony you like to consecrate it how you like. You can set up a LLC contract for division of assets, but when you are asking for benefits designed to be provided to a single spouse, you have to define those benefits with a cap.
That cap is one.
Indeed, and being able to do all that was possible for gay people prior to the legalization of gay marriage. So why wasn't that enough for them? Oh, right, fairness.
And the benefits are originally designed for a couple intending to have children, too. Doesn't mean childless couples can't get them.
Saying "It's not exactly rocket science" isn't providing an actual solution. Same Sex marriage is functionally no different than infertile people getting married for all intents and purposes. All of the existing laws work fine, as they all apply to two people agreeing to split assets, etc...
Yes indeed, and that's why polygamy requires more work to make a viable option legally speaking. It being harder does not mean it shouldn't be done.
We're back to practical difficulties not meaning something isn't the right thing to do here.
Polygamy is a whole other thing that is counter to the basic concept of choosing a specific person to be responsible for all of the functions of a spouse.
I'm not sure if your are Devil's Advocate at this point or serious, but you can't honestly believe that it isn't fundamentally different legally to have more than two parties involved.
I'm absolutely serious. And you're right, doing so would change how marriage functions legally to some degree.
But if all people cared about in regards to marriage was the legal benefits, civil unions would not be considered a lesser or compromise solution. People care that their relationships are considered as valid and societally acceptable as other people's both legally and otherwise.
And if they aren't? That's an injustice, and should be corrected.
"Morality" aside for a moment, Polygamy seems like a lot of paperwork. I'd prefer to just philander, but with men. Technically the definition says "with women" and I'm just not interested in that. ;-)
Here's my argument, in a nutshell.
If we are arguing that the dictionary and legal definition doesn't have any intrinsic value, in other words we can redefine it as we wish without risking gross social harm, we have to examine what we as citizens want it to mean, through the lens of what it has meant historically.
The best definition, that fits everyone, is a union between people in a committed, romantic relationship, and a promise to share property and domestic responsibility, usually for the function of raising children.
ciretose's objections are that, dang it, it might be difficult to figure out some weird corner cases of potential abuse. I'd say that marriage is already abused as such (getting a green card, to get on insurance, etc.). I'd say that gay marriage already has some problems going for it, like in most states the spouse of a mother is automatically considered the father of the child--what about lesbians? Can a woman be designated father, legally? There are issues with solutions, and two people on a RPG discussion board not having those solutions is not proof they don't or can't exist!
DD's objections seem to be that the dynamic creates social harm. Leaving aside the argument that "Johnny can't get laid" isn't really a social problem, the problem arises in the DYNAMIC not the legalization of the dynamic. In other words, it's one guy with tons of women that leave other guys out in the cold. No poly groups I know are waiting for the legalization to live their life. Indeed I suspect there are hundreds of polygamists who simply get married in the church and, lacking legal documents, live just fine with 2 or more wives in states where polygamy is illegal (I've met some). So denying them the legal protections afforded to groups of 2 (but no more!) seems rather punitive.
I invite you to discuss legal solutions to the problem that will both provide no greater encouragement for the religious cults who use the practice to leverage sexual and socio-political power over women, AND to help provide equal protection under the law for my friends and acquaintances living in such a union. I suspect the solution begins and ends with "round up the leaders of the singular, specific, cult that is causing this problem and put them in jail", however.
|
|
I invite you to discuss legal solutions to the problem that will both provide no greater encouragement for the religious cults who use the practice to leverage sexual and socio-political power over women, AND to help provide equal protection under the law for my friends and acquaintances living in such a union. I suspect the solution begins and ends with "round up the leaders of the singular, specific, cult that is causing this problem and put them in jail", however.
Sadly, it's not precisely one cult. There are several polygamist Mormon groups that splintered off when that church made polygamy not allowed (or later). So, they've got a fair amount of momentum going, and there are a number of them, several not directly connected to each other. So arresting the leaders is easier said than done, and likely to simply result in their replacement by others of their ilk.
I'm in agreement with your basic point and the rest of your post in its entirety, however.
I invite you to discuss legal solutions to the problem that will both provide no greater encouragement for the religious cults who use the practice to leverage sexual and socio-political power over women, AND to help provide...
I'll just retreat to my position of getting gov't out of the marriage business.
I invite you to discuss legal solutions to the problem that will both provide no greater encouragement for the religious cults who use the practice to leverage sexual and socio-political power over women, AND to help provide...I'll just retreat to my position of getting gov't out of the marriage business.
I'm with you!
It just seems all these marriage arguments are predicated on the notion that the government has some business choosing which relationships are legitimate or not.Short anecdote: I have a pretty conservative christian friend (the fellow I've talked about before that is getting a Masters in Theology from a Jesuit school at the moment) who has only been with one woman his whole life. And I mean it, they've been dating since he was like 12 or something. I was introduced to her as his wife, but I later come to find out they were married in a church at 16, were living together with consent of their parents (and presumably doing the nasty) at that age, but weren't "legally" married until a few years ago. They only got married legally because they wanted to start popping out babies.
|
|
@Deadmanwalking
If you think one party leaving a group of married people would be simple, I suspect you have not dealt with the court very often.
Divorce between two people is hard. Eviction is hard. Having one person removed from a polygamous marriage...damn. And now imagine if they don't want to be removed...
I think we will get nowhere until we define terms.
If marriage isn't between two people, it ceases to have what I believe to be it's strongest limiting factor. Exclusivity.
@meatrace
My argument is not just about it being difficult legally, but also it not having benefit over existing law to warrant the added difficulty.
Also Divorce isn't a "weird corner case"
Laws exist for purpose. A large part of marriage law is the ability to bring someone into a family and grant them full legal status and privilege. The trade off being that you can't do this for everyone, so you have to be selective about it.
If you want to have government out of it, you also lose the legal benefits that come with it.
|
|
I'm with you!
It just seems all these marriage arguments are predicated on the notion that the government has some business choosing which relationships are legitimate or not.
I, too, tend to agree with this position.
Of course, I'm both a Libertarian, and the child of two people who've been together over 30 years and never got married (for this very reason, in fact). So my personal perspective on marriage is...rather strange.
.
.
.
But if there is government interference in this sort of thing (which seems likely to continue being the case), it should at least be done fairly. Dammit.
|
|
@Deadmanwalking
If you think one party leaving a group of married people would be simple, I suspect you have not dealt with the court very often.
Divorce between two people is hard. Eviction is hard. Having one person removed from a polygamous marriage...damn. And now imagine if they don't want to be removed...
Well, sure. But those people already have equal or greater interpersonal problems doing so today. And likely wind up with some seriously unfair 'solutions' since they lack recourse to the law.
And besides, we're back to practical considerations not trumping moral ones.
I think we will get nowhere until we define terms.
Feel free. Not marriage, obviously, as that's the term under discussion (ie: just because you define it one way doesn't mean I'll agree with you, or that it will aid the discussion), but anything else you want to operationalize, I'd be more than pleased.
If marriage isn't between two people, it ceases to have what I believe to be it's strongest limiting factor. Exclusivity.
Perfect example. Please define what you mean by exclusivity. I can think of three relevant definitions and want to be clear on which you're using.
@meatrace
My argument is not just about it being difficult legally, but also it not having benefit over existing law to warrant the added difficulty.
It does for the people in question.
You can't base everything on cost/benefit analysis on human rights or other moral issues, or things get really unpleasant really quick.
Laws exist for purpose. A large part of marriage law is the ability to bring someone into a family and grant them full legal status and privilege. The trade off being that you can't do this for everyone, so you have to be selective about it.
That's...really not why the law was created. Nor why most people do it, or how it's intended to be used. So all that can be readily changed somewhat.
If you want to have government out of it, you also lose the legal benefits that come with it.
Not necessarily, write it up like any other contract, sign it and go through the legal stuff and many of the benefits are indeed carried over.
I'm not ignorant, but maybe I misunderstand why this is a big deal to you.
In some very isolated cults, a small number of men parlay their religious piety into multiple wives, sometimes underage (already illegal). This creates a social dynamic (again, ONLY IN THOSE ISOLATED CULTS) wherein men, reaching adulthood, have too much "competition for mates" (i.e. can't get laid) and are often removed from the cult entirely.
Apart from the facts that this, again, is only in these isolated FLDS cults, who already are questionably legal for a number of reasons including underage marriage and property tax laws, and that it only affects a tiny TINY TINY minority of US citizens... Why aren't you angry at the cult, and the insidious religion that created this situation?
The whole of the problem, as you've presented it, is a couple thousand socio-economically displaced young men. Which is really unfortunate, but they're probably better off not in that cult anyway, amirite?
By the way, nice way of DODGING all my other points, by just picking on one turn of phrase. I owe myself a candy bar, because I knew you'd do that, exactly that, and only that in any debate.
|
|
The moral issue isn't a moral issue to me until you define the terms of marriage in a way that isn't a contract of commitment between two people.
Which is to me what it is.
Saying it is immoral to not let many people into what is for me the commitment between two people is like saying it is immoral not to let three people ride on a bicycle built for two.
In my mind, the institution as we know it was designed, legally and morally, as a way for two people to be functionally and legally treated as a single person in many aspects of life, beyond the scope of a LLC contract.
So until marriage is defined otherwise, it becomes for me simple a legal issue to point out evidence of the intent of design of marriage laws to facilitate two people and not more, as otherwise the whole process pretty clearly becomes a cluster.
This isn't to say someones polyamourous arraignment effects my marriage or my values, but it is to say that if the concept of marriage is two people making a commitment to each other, above all others (which is the general perceptions) it doesn't work so well when it actually means, above all others, most of the time, because several of us are technically co-equal partners...
As to the morality, what I really want to say is, respectfully, can't people just make up their mind and commit to someone or something. Because if you can't, then no you don't get the added benefits of society. It is a trade we are making, and you aren't posting your part of the bill.
This isn't to say you can't do it, or you are wrong. But it is to say that you aren't entitled to the privileges if you can't meet the bare minimum expectation of the concept. That being you select someone specifically to marry, because you want that person to be THE person who gets the rights and privileges.
When you want many people to get them, you aren't asking for parity, but special privilege.
Sometimes life is about choices.
So again I ask you to define terms.
There's no point in addressing ANY of your points if you're not going to debate honestly (as is evidenced by your deliberate straw man).
As for your assertion that competition for females will decrease if polygamy is made legal, you still haven't explained how making polygamy legal will change the ratio of males being born to the ratio of females being born. You still haven't explained how the Lost Boys issue is incidental and not inherent to polygamy in First World countries.
I never made any such assertions. Now who is being dishonest?
It was not a straw man at all. I merely tried to make humor from the issue. You now are saying that the issue is, in whole, "competition for mates". I just termed it differently, but the concept is the same. Just shouting "straw man" doesn't make it so, and even if it were so it doesn't absolve you from having to address an opponent's genuine issues in a debate.I think the "lost boys" issue is inherent in any closed society that not only allows by ENCOURAGES polygyny (and disallows polyandry or other plural forms of marriage like group marriage). In other words one where the members have little to no outside contact, and in which males have a larger amount of legal power. The issue ONLY comes up when those younger females choose to marry older males. Make no mistake it is always their choice, though understand that their ability to make that decision is compromised by merit of being in that cult their whole life. Once you remove that, however, those young women could just as easily choose to go off to college instead of getting married to Elder Jeb at the age of 18.
For the record, you are the one who made the positive statement and as such the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that polygamy is inherent in ALL polygamy. Which you've not. All I have to do is show you one example of a polygamous relationship that, for example, doesn't have children and that assertion falls apart.
Again, I implore you to stop arguing with me about something we both agree is vile, and find a solution that benefits plural, committed relationships and doesn't encourage the scenario you speak of.
So: what do you think of plural marriage if there is enforced gender balance. So, 2 bi men and 2 bi women in one union?
What do you think about ONLY legalizing polyandry?
What do you think about allowing civil unions for additional relationships?
Address my point, please, that it's the actual relationship to which you object which creates the social issues you bring up, and not, in fact, whether or not they're married.
@ciretose-most of those things you're saying about "what marriage is to you" etc.? Those are the arguments against gay marriage.
Let's not go down that road, since we agree that gay marriage is just A-OK, right?
|
|
@ciretose-most of those things you're saying about "what marriage is to you" etc.? Those are the arguments against gay marriage.
Let's not go down that road, since we agree that gay marriage is just A-OK, right?
Not at all. Nothing I have argued is an issue with gay marriage.
Same-Sex Marriage has none of the legal issues I've raised, and frankly no really legitimate legal issues. The limiting factor is exclusivity, which is why bad Adam Sandler movie concepts don't work. If you marry your buddy for health insurance, you can't marry anyone else...which makes it unlikely you will do that.
Polygamy removed the exclusivity.
@ciretose-most of those things you're saying about "what marriage is to you" etc.? Those are the arguments against gay marriage.
Let's not go down that road, since we agree that gay marriage is just A-OK, right?
Not at all. Nothing I have argued is an issue with gay marriage.
Same-Sex Marriage has none of the legal issues I've raised, and frankly no really legitimate legal issues. The limiting factor is exclusivity, which is why bad Adam Sandler movie concepts don't work. If you marry your buddy for health insurance, you can't marry anyone else...which makes it unlikely you will do that.
Polygamy removed the exclusivity.
You've said we shouldn't redefine marriage to be more than 2 people. One could just as easily say let's not redefine it to mean 2 people of the same gender. Or different races...
I'm just saying that, as long as we're redefining marriage from the ground up, expelling all phrases that lead to inequality is a good place to start. Why does it have to be exclusive if no one in the agreement wants it to be. A lot of your problems are "what if X doesn't want Y", well, then, it's not consensual. We're talking about assuming consensus before the marriage goes forth.
Look, you seem like a bright guy, instead of JUST throwing out problems, why don't you think up some solutions? If you need inspiration, look into the dozens of countries that already allow polygamy and see how they deal with these issues. Maybe their solution won't work, or can't be transplanted, but who knows? I'll give you a head start: from what I understand, Australia doesn't allow plural marriages to take place but honors them from elsewhere. They might be a good place to look for shoehorning western cultural norms like gender equality and divorce into polygamy.
@Meatrace
Put your strawman away.
Either define your terms as to what marriage is or move along, because I'm not going to let you put words in my mouth and ask me to defend them, and if you don't have a definition you aren't serious about having a conversation, because you have no real position.
WTF?!
What straw man now?I defined marriage upthread, multiple times, and in the other thread.
But here you go: A domestic collaboration between two or more committed romantic partners, often (but not necessarily) for the purpose of raising children.
So with that definition, what legal expectation do you have for the partners.
Edit: And define your meaning of "committed". What are they committed to do and/or refrain from doing.
I don't even know what a legal expectation is, in this context. I think marriage should leave all that stuff open, and leave the actual assignment of responsibility to powers of attorney documents.
As to what they're committed to, they're committed to providing a healthy domestic atmosphere conducive to living life. To being emotionally, financially, and if need be physically supportive of one another. Until death or divorce.
But now I've got to head to work.
Ta!
|
|
So with that definition, what legal expectation do you have for the partners.
Edit: And define your meaning of "committed". What are they committed to do and/or refrain from doing.
I don't even know what a legal expectation is, in this context. I think marriage should leave all that stuff open, and leave the actual assignment of responsibility to powers of attorney documents.
As to what they're committed to, they're committed to providing a healthy domestic atmosphere conducive to living life. To being emotionally, financially, and if need be physically supportive of one another. Until death or divorce.
But now I've got to head to work.
Ta!
So you want all of the benefits without any of the restrictions?
Like Anarchy, I have nothing against Polygamy in theory. I just don't think it works well in practice.
Making a single partner happy is often beyond one's means.
Please note the sign.
Don't feed the trolls.
I know. But sometimes they're fun to play with.
I need to learn not to feed the ducks.
But I'm hungry!!
|
|
So you want all of the benefits without any of the restrictions?Why shouldn't we? I mean, what precisely is the logic of disallowing such a thing?
Logistical concerns (ie: this would be difficult) are an issue, but are they your only one? Is that really it?
If not, please state your others.
I want to eat Ice Cream and not get fat.
For me, the concept of marriage is based in picking a person to be your spouse. When you pick a person, but definition you are not picking someone else.
When we elect a president, it will be A president. We could elect multiple presidents in theory, but logistical concerns mean that we don't.
I posted a link to an article on the historic problems with polygamy, but I am open to an article on the benefits of polygamy to society.
For me, marriage is choosing someone. If you aren't willing to make a choice, fine. But you don't get the benefits of choosing.
|
|
I want to eat Ice Cream and not get fat.
Exercise, my friend, exercise.
Or to put it another way: You can do that, it's just a lot of work. A good analogy, really (as polyamory is hard in and of itself, in addition to the legal concerns you raise).
For me, the concept of marriage is based in picking a person to be your spouse. When you pick a person, but definition you are not picking someone else.
But that's just your definition. "For you", as you say.
Why should it be controlling on a legal level any more than that of the people who say marriage is only between a man and a woman?
When we elect a president, it will be A president. We could elect multiple presidents in theory, but logistical concerns mean that we don't.
No, chain of command decisions mean we don't. I suppose those are logistical in a sense...but that's not why they're so important not to confuse.
And being President is a purely practical concern, not a personal and emotional relationship. The two are very different things, and should be treated differently by the law.
I posted a link to an article on the historic problems with polygamy, but I am open to an article on the benefits of polygamy to society.
That wasn't a scientific article. It was an opinion piece. A fairly reasonable one, but no more actually a source on polygamy being bad than me saying 'meatrace agrees with me.' is evidence of it being good.
And, assuming you've been paying attention to my discussion with Darkwing Duck, this is a point I've already addressed: Polygamy is historically bad because it's exclusive polygyny with no other forms even allowed. This would not be the case here, making the comparison extremely poor. The author of that article skims over that point with 'Oh, but clearly polygyny would still be vastly more common.'...but we have no evidence of that whatsoever.
For me, marriage is choosing someone. If you aren't willing to make a choice, fine. But you don't get the benefits of choosing.
Marriage is choosing someone. It's choosing someone to love and spend the rest of your life with...but polygamy isn't not making a choice, it's just choosing these two or three people instead of that one.
I have not been following these threads. My thoughts are this on Polygamy.
1. In idea for the same reasons I think gay marriage should be a civil liberty, polygamy should be allowed.
a. Marriage is both a legal contract and a religious institution. If one takes these two aspects separately there is no legal ground to disallow it. It is when there is this hazy middle ground that we have this problem created by the opposition to Gay Marriage and Polygamy.
b. Legally its a contract to have shared wealth together.
c. Religiously it is up to the religion, and it is against the 1st amendment rights to favor one religious beliefs over the other.
2. However in practice with Polygamy there have been some seriously bad poster children to how something like this can go very bad, specifically exploiting women.
Cultural issues only need time to work these things out.