I find it interesting from your projection standpoint what unintentionally baits you, as it reveals your sole M.O. on the revelant topic. :lol:Ontologuy said:It never ceases to amaze me how pre-conceived ideology, left, right, or libertarianly schizoid, can so greatly dumb down its sufferer to the degree that the obvious is rendered nebulous to them. :roll:
It never ceases to amaze me how those most prone to disparaging the intelligence of other show nothing of the stuff, themselves. Dressing up poorly written bigotry with words gleaned from a thesaurus does not a compelling argument make.
Right. This is entirely arbitrary. You heave and haw over people that see changing the definition of marriage to include homo marriages as 'bigots' yet you prefer your own specially brewed brand of bigotry against poly marriages. Fascinating.So you get to decide what criteria people use to decide for themselves the answer to the question?
My first criteria when it comes to the LAW is whether or not the LAW is constitutional in nature. The marriage laws as they current sit are an unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of gender in my mind, so I don't agree with them. I see no constitutional issue what so ever when it comes to discriminating against polygamists.
And some people feel exactly the same way about gay marriage....My next criteria would be is it a worth while, necessary, useful law that falls within some general scope of the Government. In terms of polygamy, I don't view it as exceedingly needed nor worth while in terms of the multitude of legal issues that it interjects into things.
When gay marriage is approved there will be no legal case against civil unions/marriages for those with polyamorous proclivities. Again, you want to change the current legal status of marriage to include homos (your favored group) but not polys based on so far as I can see....nothing but personal preference.I don't see any compelling reason to change the legal code significantly to allow for polygamy to be recognized under the law. "They're consenting adults" is not a compelling reason as we don't have the government officially recognizing MANY things consenting adults can do together. "But yo'ure letting the gays do it!" is not a compelling reason, because there's an actual strong constitutional reasoning behind allowing for that in my mind...one that is simply not present when it comes to polygamy.
No, polygamists shouldn't be able to get married in a sense that is legally recognized and incentivized by the Government.
Certain sects in certain parts of the country place heavy coercion on the practice. Be that as it is, I still agree with your statement that it's fine as long as consenting adults are involved. I'd like to eliminate (as much as possible) the coercion in those few sects, though.
Right. This is entirely arbitrary. You heave and haw over people that see changing the definition of marriage to include homo marriages as 'bigots' yet you prefer your own specially brewed brand of bigotry against poly marriages. Fascinating.
And some people feel exactly the same way about gay marriage....
When gay marriage is approved there will be no legal case against civil unions/marriages for those with polyamorous proclivities.
Again, you want to change the current legal status of marriage to include homos (your favored group) but not polys based on so far as I can see....nothing but personal preference.
But your implied dualism is simply false, an erroneous construction.The word 'marriage' itself in a secular country is not important to me.
A domestic partnership civil union is exactly what marriage -- between a man and a woman as husband and wife -- is in the government's eyes.A civil union would be just fine as far as I am concerned.
A SCOTUS pre-conceived ideological mistake of allowing SS couples an association with marriage, not requiring a separately named domestic partnership civil union for them, would simply be a mistake, an egregious violation of definitive propriety, complete politically motivated.Although, I don't see how it preserves the sanctity of marriage from your POV provided that (read IF) the SC allows for gay marriage.
They should, perhaps, but too often what some say are "obvious differences" are simply not, but merely personal constructs, and the obvious topical difference -- the foundational definitive propriety reality that marriage is between a man and a woman as huband and wife -- is completely ignored.As to the differences between gay marriage and polygamy, the differences should be obvious.
Yes .. but that's neither here nor there with respect to what marriage is: between a man and a woman as husband and wife.Sexual orientation is hard wired,
Polygamy is an aspect of human history .. but so is homarriage and marriage.while polygamy is an entirely societal construct.
Absolutely ludicrous! :lol:As Ikari pointed out, such a traditional construct is based upon subjugation and repression,
Though consent is a requirement for some, it is not the foundational argument that separates human-animal "relations" from human-human ones, as global humanity has engaged in pre-arranged marriages for thousands of years, and that means, obviously and famously, that these relationships often had one or more partners who were not giving their consent, but merely acquiesced to the marriage, sometimes under threat of the penalty of death if they refused.As to the inane arguments about marrying other species, these do not address the matter of consent, so obviously so that anybody suggesting this is any sort of logical outgrown from allowing gay marriage deserves nothing but complete ridicule.
That you would align with similar Ikari so extremistly victimish likely has some sad personal underpinnings.
.
Not only do you rile against an absolutely non-existent nothing, but, given the chance to have a topically relevant detailed discussion of the particulars of the issue, you defer in lieu of your typical M.O.: initiation of personal ad hominems sans topically relevant content.Have you ever considered the many merits of a remedial writing course?
Each of these domestic partnership civil union contracts must have a unique separate name, as do all such contracts, including those that are topically germane.Marriage, in today's society, is no longer an "institution", an instrumental foundation of society. It is nothing more than a legal contract acknowledged, rewarded, and protected by government for no discernible reason.
Therefore, government should not be in the business of marriage any longer and if it is, it no longer has any basis for discrimination and must leave the contractural decision making up to the adults involved. If I, as a man, wish to enter into a contractural arrangement with any other person, the government should not and, if the law continues to move, may not stand in the way of that contract.
As long as each and every partner in a polygamous relationship enter into such a contract freely, openly, and knowingly, it must now be protected as any other "marriage" contract moving forward.
However, if one partner in a "marriage" is not aware of additional "marriage" partners his/her partner has contracted with, then the first contract must prevail over any other contract unless, again, all parties to the contract reach agreement.
Because a triangle is the most unstable thing in human affairs, whether they are politics, international diplomacy, or the living room. On the practical side, though, if there are two wives and the husband becomes incapacitated then who makes the medical decisions for him? If both agree then everything is great but what if they don't? Also, is the third spouse responsible for children from the other two?I don't see why not, if all are consenting adults.
Because a triangle is the most unstable thing in human affairs, whether they are politics, international diplomacy, or the living room. On the practical side, though, if there are two wives and the husband becomes incapacitated then who makes the medical decisions for him? If both agree then everything is great but what if they don't? Also, is the third spouse responsible for children from the other two?
I'd tend to agree with you on an individual freedom level but there are a lot of legal complications that arise when you add a third party into the mix.
But now you're getting into "protecting people from themselves" territory. Not saying these concerns don't exist, but is it the government's responsibility to do something about it?Because a triangle is the most unstable thing in human affairs, whether they are politics, international diplomacy, or the living room. On the practical side, though, if there are two wives and the husband becomes incapacitated then who makes the medical decisions for him? If both agree then everything is great but what if they don't? Also, is the third spouse responsible for children from the other two?
I'd tend to agree with you on an individual freedom level but there are a lot of legal complications that arise when you add a third party into the mix.
How about squares?
I am rather confident that such specific issues could be hammered out in a contract when you go in to get your marriage license.
I understand that - but the same could be said, now, of all marriages, couldn't it? Then why do we even bother? As I've argued in the SSM thread, marriage is mostly a matter of the convenience of a default position. There are a few exceptions:How about squares?
I am rather confident that such specific issues could be hammered out in a contract when you go in to get your marriage license.
It's the issues I noted above that are the problem. The triangle was an example because it would no doubt be the most common and create some issues all by itself - for example, conflicting decisions by two for the third. Yes, it's the government's responsibility because they hold the legal keys. Those legal issues need to be addressed. SSM doesn't have those problems because it's only two people just like we legally recognized, now, so there's no substantial legal difference.But now you're getting into "protecting people from themselves" territory. Not saying these concerns don't exist, but is it the government's responsibility to do something about it?
The bases of the pyramids are all square, not triangular.I was going to say that the Pyramids, perhaps the most famous of triangles every established by humans have survived centuries - who's to say polygamous marriages wouldn't be equally as strong.
The bases of the pyramids are all square, not triangular.
That's true. I don't disagree with that.
I think this discussion is a bit too one-sided, focusing on individual liberty, without regards to the effects on society as a whole. Govts role is not merely to protect the rights of individuals. It is also to maintain the social order and promote the general welfare
The raising of children to be productive citizens is of critical importance to both the maintenance of the social order, and the promotion of the general welfare. There is overwhelming support (both popular and sociological) for the idea that children benefit from a stable home with two parents. IMO, it is not enough to say that children can do as well in homes with more than 2 parents; there needs to be good reason to believe that having the govt protect and promote polyamorous relationships is superior to the current situation in order to justify having the govt do so.
So you're in favor of polygamy provided there's at least four sides in the mix. Understood.
Does that mean that only squares can join? Doesn't sound like a good selling point, so how do they get new recruits? :shock:
You're sounding a little too interested there, Lady P. Does your husband know what's going on here??
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?