Polygamy, good? Bad? (1 Viewer)

[Kal'Stang]

I figured that it was about time to start up a thread about polygamy. There are so many gay threads that claim the slippery slope arguement and use polygamy as one example to not allow SSM, as if there was something bad about polygamy.

Is there? I honestly don't know. I haven't done an in depth look into polygamy......yet . From what I do know of it I have no problem with it. But that is what this thread is going to be for. What is wrong with polygamy? What is good about it? Let's get the facts out there people. Now is your chance to prove your point about polygamy.

 

[rathi]

In theory, I have no moral problems with polygamy. However, I do see serious legal issues trying to handle a marriage with more than 2 people. In practice, polygamy also tends to be quite sexist.

 

[Hicup]

In theory, I have no moral problems with polygamy. However, I do see serious legal issues trying to handle a marriage with more than 2 people. In practice, polygamy also tends to be quite sexist.

All agreed.. However, adding that in addition to your legal example, another legal problem exists. That of denying polygamy with the same level of scrutiny applied to unleash SSM. The same way Walker struck down CA's law can be applied the very same way to polygamy, IMO.

Also, note that from an evolutionary standpoint, there are striking advantages to polygamy even over heterosexual monogamy.





Tim-

 

[Kal'Stang]

In theory, I have no moral problems with polygamy. However, I do see serious legal issues trying to handle a marriage with more than 2 people. In practice, polygamy also tends to be quite sexist.

For example? I'd like this thread to be as indepth as possible.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I have neither moral nor societal objections to polygamy. It would require extensive revision of our marriage laws, however, for very little benefit.

 

[rathi]

All agreed.. However, adding that in addition to your legal example, another legal problem exists. That of denying polygamy with the same level of scrutiny applied to unleash SSM. The same way Walker struck down CA's law can be applied the very same way to polygamy, IMO.

Polygamy is quite distinct from SSM insofar as the legal issues. The legal requirements of marriage don't change based on the gender on those involved, but adding more than 2 people is a substantial problem.

Also, note that from an evolutionary standpoint, there are striking advantages to polygamy even over heterosexual monogamy.

I doubt it, provide some evidence of exactly how polygamy is useful.

 

[rathi]

For example? I'd like this thread to be as indepth as possible.

Problem A is divorce, trying to split assets and handle custody between 3 or more people would become incredibly complicated. Tax credits and joint filing become difficult with more than 2 people. It also has potential for abuse, like marrying 1000 people to get them citizenship. I wouldn't say that such problems couldn't be worked out, but it certainly wouldn't be easy.

 

[molten_dragon]

I have neither moral nor societal objections to polygamy. It would require extensive revision of our marriage laws, however, for very little benefit.

This. I don't think it's morally wrong, but I have to question whether the massive amount of work that overhauling our marriage laws would be, would be worth it considering the fairly small group of people that I suspect would actually participate in legal polygamous marriages.

 

[maquiscat]

In theory, I have no moral problems with polygamy. However, I do see serious legal issues trying to handle a marriage with more than 2 people. In practice, polygamy also tends to be quite sexist.

Let's clear something up. Religious based pologamy tends to quite sexist. Please go to sites like lovingmore.com and read up more on the poly community. There are more of us out there that are respectiful of our mates and spouses than there are those who mistreat them. but like plane crashes vs car crashes....guess which one gets the more attention.

 

[maquiscat]

This. I don't think it's morally wrong, but I have to question whether the massive amount of work that overhauling our marriage laws would be, would be worth it considering the fairly small group of people that I suspect would actually participate in legal polygamous marriages.

I will have to agree with you there. Most polys I know of that are greater than 3 tend to get sperate marriages for legal purposes and then fill in the blanks with POA's and other legal paperwork.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I figured that it was about time to start up a thread about polygamy. There are so many gay threads that claim the slippery slope arguement and use polygamy as one example to not allow SSM, as if there was something bad about polygamy.

Is there? I honestly don't know. I haven't done an in depth look into polygamy......yet . From what I do know of it I have no problem with it. But that is what this thread is going to be for. What is wrong with polygamy? What is good about it? Let's get the facts out there people. Now is your chance to prove your point about polygamy.

My view is in two parts - I'll keep it simple.

1) I'm fine with swinging couple and multi-marriage couples so long as they're ALL involved, ALL in agreement and ALL aware of eachother. I don't *want* that type of relationship for myself or husband but if others do then that's fine by me. I don't care.

2) The part that makes polygamy cults a problem is when marraige is coerced or forced and happens at a young age - within the 'cult' setup. It's the 'cult' nature that creates problems and it is the 'under the age of consent' that creates problems as well.

But if 2 females and 1 male - or 2 males and 1 female want to get together and get married then that's dandy. Or - heck - 3 males or 3 females . .. whatever! I don't believe governmen should limit marriage parameters.

 

[Hicup]

My view is in two parts - I'll keep it simple.

1) I'm fine with swinging couple and multi-marriage couples so long as they're ALL involved, ALL in agreement and ALL aware of eachother. I don't *want* that type of relationship for myself or husband but if others do then that's fine by me. I don't care.

2) The part that makes polygamy cults a problem is when marraige is coerced or forced and happens at a young age - within the 'cult' setup. It's the 'cult' nature that creates problems and it is the 'under the age of consent' that creates problems as well.

But if 2 females and 1 male - or 2 males and 1 female want to get together and get married then that's dandy. Or - heck - 3 males or 3 females . .. whatever! I don't believe governmen should limit marriage parameters.

But don't you see Spiker, and Rathi ... Does any of this "complexity" in legality (Setting it all up so that it can be managed in other words make laws duh?) override any fundamental right to marriage? Can the state make this argument, and does one trump the other?

If marriage is a fundamental right, and the right to contract a fundamental right, the burden to take away those rights rest with the state, and I'm sorry, but I don't see how the state makes a case that rises to the same level of scrutiny denying polygamist marriages based on the fact that it "would be tricky and difficult to legislate for"...


Tim-

 

[Aunt Spiker]

But don't you see Spiker, and Rathi ... Does any of this "complexity" in legality (Setting it all up so that it can be managed in other words make laws duh?) override any fundamental right to marriage? Can the state make this argument, and does one trump the other?

If marriage is a fundamental right, and the right to contract a fundamental right, the burden to take away those rights rest with the state, and I'm sorry, but I don't see how the state makes a case that rises to the same level of scrutiny denying polygamist marriages based on the fact that it "would be tricky and difficult to legislate for"...

Tim-

What's so complicated about having a marriage contract for 3 couples :shrug:

Partner ONE ____
Partner TWO ____
Partner Three ____

For two people - a cost of $150.
For three - $200 . . .and so on.

Why is that complicated :shrug:

The only thing making it complicated is the skewed idea that goverment has to regulate every little thing. When, really, it just means having an extra set of papers on file at health agencies and so on.

 

[Hicup]

What's so complicated about having a marriage contract for 3 couples :shrug:

Partner ONE ____
Partner TWO ____
Partner Three ____

For two people - a cost of $150.
For three - $200 . . .and so on.

Why is that complicated :shrug:

The only thing making it complicated is the skewed idea that goverment has to regulate every little thing. When, really, it just means having an extra set of papers on file at health agencies and so on.

Oh, no I think you misread me. I agree with you. The "red-tape" is minor in compariosn to the fundamental rights issues. That's my point.


Tim-

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Oh, no I think you misread me. I agree with you. The "red-tape" is minor in compariosn to the fundamental rights issues. That's my point.


Tim-

DADT and DOMA have both been shot down . . . the only thing different between gay-rights and polygamy is the number of people involved - it might never be accepted considering that they permit Case Law to dictate some factors in the military and in politics purely on the grounds that some things are traditional in society and thus able to be upheld even if they can be considered to violate human-rights in teh process on some level.

I'm not bothered by it if they permit it.
But I'm not advocating for it (unlike as I have for gay-rights) because it doesn't affect me, myself, my family or my kids in any way) - that's when I usually voice my opinions through petitioning, polling and being otherwise influential.

 

[rathi]

But don't you see Spiker, and Rathi ... Does any of this "complexity" in legality (Setting it all up so that it can be managed in other words make laws duh?) override any fundamental right to marriage? Can the state make this argument, and does one trump the other?

Polygamy is a minor issue that impacts very few Americans. How many polygamists have pressured for legal marriage? The state has finite resources, and there are many laws with greater state interest that should have priority in being re-written.

If marriage is a fundamental right, and the right to contract a fundamental right, the burden to take away those rights rest with the state, and I'm sorry, but I don't see how the state makes a case that rises to the same level of scrutiny denying polygamist marriages based on the fact that it "would be tricky and difficult to legislate for"...

At face value, the state has a valid reason to ban polygamy for practical reasons like abusing the ability to grant citizenship. I have theorized that this issue and others can be solved, but that has yet to proven. Polygamy has the vested interest in the situation, so the burden lies upon them to demonstrate an implementable version of polygamy that addresses its problems.

Also, I don't consider marriage a fundamental right. I think the state should stay out of the marriage business and only offer domestic contracts.

 

[Hicup]

Polygamy is a minor issue that impacts very few Americans. How many polygamists have pressured for legal marriage? The state has finite resources, and there are many laws with greater state interest that should have priority in being re-written.



At face value, the state has a valid reason to ban polygamy for practical reasons like abusing the ability to grant citizenship. I have theorized that this issue and others can be solved, but that has yet to proven. Polygamy has the vested interest in the situation, so the burden lies upon them to demonstrate an implementable version of polygamy that addresses its problems.

Also, I don't consider marriage a fundamental right. I think the state should stay out of the marriage business and only offer domestic contracts.

All par for the course.. ut one thing. Walker's decision lifting the ban on gay marriage in CA was based on marriage being a fundamental right. If you think it is not, then you must also agree that Walker's decision is also invalid?


Tim-

 

[Locke_]

Denying that marriage is a fundamental right brings along its own share of issues. If the government is going to stay out of marriage business they would need to change a lot of laws. Laws concerning issues such as visitation rights and power of attorney would need to be revised. Also, I don't see polygamist marriages being abused anymore then regular marriages. It would in fact be harder to use polygamist marriages to abuse laws like citizenship law because I doubt the process would change regardless of the number of partners involved (i.e. would have to remember toothbrush color and such to make it pass the Immigration Investigator). The government has no business dictating what two (or more) people do behind closed doors as long as it does not impede on another person's personal liberty.

 

[Zyphlin]

I think we would need to have a monumental societal shift in regards to the general attitudes of humans in the modern age before something like this could be truly well embraced societally in a general sense. Western societies for centuries have produced an expectations in people in general to expect a devoted coupling, with jealousy issues becoming paramount in these type of situations. CC would be the person to drag into this thread to go more in depth into this kind of thing. I just think in general our society is not set up in its general everyday mindset to handle polymagist relationships on a large scale in a responsible way.

That said, I don't have an issue with it on a personal level and have no issue with someone wanting to privately "marry" multiple spouses and try to balance that on a personal level.

I think the extensive amount of rewrites and reexaminations needed with regards to our legal code for everything from taxes to divorce law to power of attorney to propery rights to parental rights and onwards would be excessively exhausting with little benefit to the government or society in doing so and a significant lacking in constitutional pressure to do such.

 

[liblady]

I figured that it was about time to start up a thread about polygamy. There are so many gay threads that claim the slippery slope arguement and use polygamy as one example to not allow SSM, as if there was something bad about polygamy.

Is there? I honestly don't know. I haven't done an in depth look into polygamy......yet . From what I do know of it I have no problem with it. But that is what this thread is going to be for. What is wrong with polygamy? What is good about it? Let's get the facts out there people. Now is your chance to prove your point about polygamy.

i would have to say i think that polygamy is a sexist practice.

 

[Locke_]

I think we need a monumental societal shift in regards to many things.

 

[Hicup]

I also agree with you Zyphlin. I don't think there's enough calling for it. But, aside from all that, to ponder whether some polygamist movement were to gain some strength, I see no moral argument against allowing it.


Tim-

 

[Locke_]

It's just going to take one court case to make it a hot topic. Sort of like Roe v. Wade did for abortation.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

i would have to say i think that polygamy is a sexist practice.

Why so? Polygamy within a religious setting is ususally considered as one man with two or more wives, yes.
But Polygamous relationships can involve the opposite - in any gender mix, it's really more than two in the relationship together.

 

[liblady]

Why so? Polygamy within a religious setting is ususally considered as one man with two or more wives, yes.
But Polygamous relationships can involve the opposite - in any gender mix, it's really more than two in the relationship together.

polygamy as commonly practiced. where we see it here in the u.s., it's demeaning to women, and sometimes worse.