Pushing the limits of polygamy

[Paratus]

I think the burden should be on the government to justify why they are restricting my rights. I see you listed some benefits but didn't list any costs, unless you count "it's complicated" as a cost.

I'm just saying polygamy has a different cost/benefit ratio than the ratio that normal marriage has that made the government provide benefits in the first place.

In SSM marriage benefits were being applied unequally based on gender.

Polygamists are going to have to make their case to the legislature if they want the government to recognize and provide benefits to multiple partners.

So I don't see ploygamy as a right that's being infringed. While with SSM the right to equal treatment under the law was being infringed based on gender.

 

[WHAMPOM]

To polygamy or to not polygamy, is that the question? No, the question is are you born to polygamy?

 

[Spungo]

The problem with it was until the ruling it discriminated against people based on their gender which is constitutionally prohibited as well as sexual orientation.

IMO, the government is moving in the wrong direction. Instead of legalizing gay "marriage," straight marriage should be dropped to "civil union" status, and gays would have access to civil unions. The religious people are absolutely correct when they say marriage is a religious thing. That's why the government should have no part in it. Being contractually bound to someone is not a religious thing, it should not have a religious name, and it should not be limited in any way. It shouldn't even be limited to relationships. Two straight guys want to have a civil union to share health benefits? Go for it. It's already legal to co-sign a mortgage with your straight same-sex friend, so why not share health benefits? It's not like opposite-sex couples don't do this. It happens all the time.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I've been ruminating on the issue of polygamy since it had appeared as a subject in the wake of the recent supreme court ruling.

In principle, I have no ideological objection to polygamy, but as I think we sussed out in earlier threads, the recent ruling of the court does not strictly apply to plural marriage. More generally, however, I'm leery of the ways polygamy has been practiced in the past amongst religious sects, often including child and spousal abuse, for example.

Slippery slope arguments are informal fallacies, but sometimes what appears to be a slippery slope fallacy is actually not.

I began to wonder, what would be the consequences of massively plural marriages? What if a town of 300 people all got married into one large marriage? What about a town of 3000? 3000000?

As the numbers increase, there are obvious logistical/practical limitations -- how long must a wedding for 3000 people take? -- but these are not limitations in principle.

The core question I was exploring is this: is there some number of spouses where there emerges a compelling government interest to establish a numerical limit? And if the government can see a compelling interest to limit that number, why can't that number simply be 1?

Read "Stranger In A Strange Land", you will find your answer there.

 

[Greenman]

Frankly I don't care as long as all parties are truly consenting and legally able to provide that consent.

If you haven't check out Heinlein's novel Friday which does discuss some issues around complex plural marriages.

Heinlein was a big fan of line marriage, he was also a nudest and a libertarian, with a thing for red heads.

 

[IronWing]

Heinlein was a big fan of line marriage, he was also a nudest and a libertarian, with a thing for red heads.

And thirteen year old girls. As a thirteen year old reader, it didn't phase me but as an adult I was like "dude...".

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I fail to see a problem here. Is there a problem or is this just simple "slut" shaming?

Its a joke relax guy.

 

[Paratus]

IMO, the government is moving in the wrong direction. Instead of legalizing gay "marriage," straight marriage should be dropped to "civil union" status, and gays would have access to civil unions. The religious people are absolutely correct when they say marriage is a religious thing. That's why the government should have no part in it. Being contractually bound to someone is not a religious thing, it should not have a religious name, and it should not be limited in any way. It shouldn't even be limited to relationships. Two straight guys want to have a civil union to share health benefits? Go for it. It's already legal to co-sign a mortgage with your straight same-sex friend, so why not share health benefits? It's not like opposite-sex couples don't do this. It happens all the time.

While what you say seems to make sense on the surface I'm going to have to disagree. There isn't one set of religious people, there are many. Several judeo-Christian sects have allowed same sex partners to get married before a minister and God in a church.

The only reason to change the name of civil marriage to civil union is to deny some group the use of the word "marriage". Since it won't be the gays who are you proposing to restrict marriage from?

Maybe atheists?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

^^^Plus how do you propose we control speech. Everyone calls it marriage do you really think everyone will start calling it civil union? Sell that idea to your wife, good luck.
What would calling marriage something else achieve?
You realize people have been getting married in some form for 4,000 to 5,000 years the practice predates Christianity.

 

[Moonbeam]

Did you mean to reply to me?

Forgive Bober. He has a hot bean up his ass and he sometimes accidentally shits when he squats down over a mirror to admire it. He believes the fact that different levels of scrutiny apply to different legal arguments makes democrats bigoted hypocrites. He's very emotional like a rage bag punctured by a load of shot, leaking bile all over the place. Liberals make poor bigots because a rational case made against them if bigoted would get them to see it. But his bigotry keeps him from being able to do that He likes to model the crap he rails against by being what he hates. He does it so well I have high hopes he isn't stupid enough not to see it one of these days.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Take your example: 3000000. If there was a group of 3000000 people that wanted to be joined in marriage and all logistical/practical hurdles were taken care of, why not allow it?

The things I think about are like the fact that with 300,000,000 people in the US, it becomes possible in principle for the country to arrange itself into 100 total marriages of 3,000,000 people each. Aside from the fact that it is a virtual impossibility from a practical standpoint, it would remain possible in principle, and therefore I'd expect that the language of any effective legislation should address it. Maybe the IRS would love to only have to process 100 joint filings each year, but that may present a problem from a gross revenue standpoint. I don't really know, I'm just kinda spitballing.

In other words, why not let the logistical and practical hurdles take care of setting the limit instead of codifying the limit into law?

I dunno, I guess it seems short-sighted to acknowledge the potential quagmires of massively plural marriages and fail to address those ahead of time.

 

[umbrella39]

I can't wait for gay polygamy couples to start showing up...

Why? Looking to join another circle?

 

[MongGrel]

Heinlein was a big fan of line marriage, he was also a nudest and a libertarian, with a thing for red heads.

Interesting you brought that one up.

Especially as a lot of things he wrote as speculation he didn't live in real life and I think he freaked out a bit when people got near him that were into it at the time, like hippie commune types.

He was a strong Libertarian my bad.

Some of my Heinlein history seems a bit at odds.

He went all over the place on many stories.

 

[MongGrel]

The real next step is Corporations will be allow people to actually marry them ...

They are considered people now, right ?

You can have the get a job at Google or something and join the Google Commune etc.

Would come in handy for the near future cybernetic implants too.

 

[Spungo]

The only reason to change the name of civil marriage to civil union is to deny some group the use of the word "marriage". Since it won't be the gays who are you proposing to restrict marriage from?

Under the law, the word "marriage" should not exist.

In the current form, allowing marriage between 2 people but not allowing marriage between 5 people is a clear case of religious discrimination. Religion A's form of marriage is allowed, but religion B's form of marriage is not. Drop all of it. No form of marriage should be officially recognized by the government. There should only be civil unions. You can still get married in a church, but you would be signing a civil union contract at the end.

Think of it like a Jewish bat mitzvah or a Christian girl's sweet 16 party. Does the government officially recognize either of these celebrations? Nope, but they're still celebrated. Straight people can still get married by a church and invite all of their friends, but their religious ceremony would not be recognized by the government.

You realize people have been getting married in some form for 4,000 to 5,000 years the practice predates Christianity.

If you're a true fan of history, you would know that modern day marriage is nothing like traditional marriage. Women were literally property. A "marriage" was the act of taking ownership of a woman. This is why a woman's father walks down the aisle with her and hands her over to the man. In India, women are worth less than property. When you sell a car, which direction does the money flow? The person releasing the car receives the money. How does marriage in India work? The parents of the daughter pay for another man to take her. She actually has a negative monetary value.
In the bible, women are frequently mentioned as if they are property. Do you know what the punishment is for raping a woman? Pay a fine to her father and then marry the woman. It's basically a "you broke, you bought it" rule. I imagine the rules for slaves were very similar. If you kill my slave, you owe me some money to buy a new one.

 

[dank69]

I'm just saying polygamy has a different cost/benefit ratio than the ratio that normal marriage has that made the government provide benefits in the first place.

In SSM marriage benefits were being applied unequally based on gender.

Polygamists are going to have to make their case to the legislature if they want the government to recognize and provide benefits to multiple partners.

So I don't see ploygamy as a right that's being infringed. While with SSM the right to equal treatment under the law was being infringed based on gender.

I think the first step is to make a case for why it should remain illegal. If the government cannot do that, then we can move on to discussing benefits.

 

[FelixDeCat]

I told you this would happen. Now the radical left wingers want gay polygamist marriage.

 

[Paratus]

Under the law, the word "marriage" should not exist.

In the current form, allowing marriage between 2 people but not allowing marriage between 5 people is a clear case of religious discrimination. Religion A's form of marriage is allowed, but religion B's form of marriage is not. Drop all of it. No form of marriage should be officially recognized by the government. There should only be civil unions. You can still get married in a church, but you would be signing a civil union contract at the end.

Think of it like a Jewish bat mitzvah or a Christian girl's sweet 16 party. Does the government officially recognize either of these celebrations? Nope, but they're still celebrated. Straight people can still get married by a church and invite all of their friends, but their religious ceremony would not be recognized by the government.

You just answered your own question the government doesn't have to recognize any particular religious ceremony. So a Jewish boy doesn't get to vote just because he's had his bar-mitzvah and is now considered a man by his church.

When it comes to marriage it's not the religious marriage ceremony that provides the government benefits it's the fact the minister is also liscenced by the state to fill out the state marriage license. This is in addition and separate to being able to perform the religious ceremony. It's noting more than a courtesy so couples don't have to get married in a church and then drag their wedding party down to the courthouse.

 

[realibrad]

IMO, the government is moving in the wrong direction. Instead of legalizing gay "marriage," straight marriage should be dropped to "civil union" status, and gays would have access to civil unions. The religious people are absolutely correct when they say marriage is a religious thing. That's why the government should have no part in it. Being contractually bound to someone is not a religious thing, it should not have a religious name, and it should not be limited in any way. It shouldn't even be limited to relationships. Two straight guys want to have a civil union to share health benefits? Go for it. It's already legal to co-sign a mortgage with your straight same-sex friend, so why not share health benefits? It's not like opposite-sex couples don't do this. It happens all the time.

So just a heads up, but "Marriage" has become connected with religions, but it did not start from religions. If you go back far enough, marriage predates all western religions. Religion took hold of marriage as it was a big part of society, and religion likes to take anything that gives it more power. Just about every culture has come up with what we would consider marriage.

 

[Paratus]

I think the first step is to make a case for why it should remain illegal. If the government cannot do that, then we can move on to discussing benefits.

So what is the "it" that is illegal? Is it the old Mormon version of polygamy? What about the Islamic version? Any religious version is likely going to run afoul of equal protection so don't we need a secular legal version like 1-1 marriage?

How do you expect a judge to declare polygamy legal without any legal rules defining what "it" is.

A legislature is going to have to be involved somewhere to create the legal rules first, until then legal polygamy is undefined in my opinion.

 

[dank69]

So what is the "it" that is illegal? Is it the old Mormon version of polygamy? What about the Islamic version? Any religious version is likely going to run afoul of equal protection so don't we need a secular legal version like 1-1 marriage?

How do you expect a judge to declare polygamy legal without any legal rules defining what "it" is.

A legislature is going to have to be involved somewhere to create the legal rules first, until then legal polygamy is undefined in my opinion.

Okay, how about this line of argument:

Right now we are discriminating against married people. Single people can obtain licenses to marry other people but a married people cannot.

 

[sm625]

I dont care as long as all references to the words "married" and "spouse" are removed from my tax forms. It's so dumb that those words even appear on tax forms... the last thing I want to see is "Spouse 1:", "Spouse 2:", "Spouse 3:", "If More Spouses use form 8639A"

 

[realibrad]

I dont care as long as all references to the words "married" and "spouse" are removed from my tax forms. It's so dumb that those words even appear on tax forms... the last thing I want to see is "Spouse 1:", "Spouse 2:", "Spouse 3:", "If More Spouses use form 8639A"

I don't think we need to subsidize marriage anymore. If the population starts to decline then we can look at it again, but we don't need it now. Let people who want to get married get married, just dont make the government pay for it.

 

[Paratus]

Okay, how about this line of argument:

Right now we are discriminating against married people. Single people can obtain licenses to marry other people but a married people cannot.

Married people have a marriage license. Seriously I have a copy of ours in the safety deposit box. So how does my having one mean I can't have one?

My only point here is that polygamy has significant differences from 1-1 marriage. To become legal it's going to have to follow a different path than SSM, most likely through the legislature if at all.

 

[dank69]

Married people have a marriage license. Seriously I have a copy of ours in the safety deposit box. So how does my having one mean I can't have one?

...

It doesn't mean you can't have one, it means you can't have another one. Plus it isn't just about having a second marriage license. Denying you access to a second license denies you the ability to marry another person, so a single person can marry Sally but a married person cannot marry Sally. What gives the government the authority to refuse to allow a married person to marry Sally?