Gay Marriage

[Upchurch]

I will PM you with my prediction on the page count of this thread, under the agreement that you not deliberately bump/influence the page count as a result. I have my eye on the million. Yes, you get a cut, but only if you are "clean hands" on the page count matter.

*PM sent*

DR

Ah, that makes more sense. And it's a deal, but the question I replied to you with still stands.

 

[toddjh]

Default position? Monogamous marriages don't have a default position. It isn't automatically 50/50, you know.

It is in Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin, plus Puerto Rico.

You're talking about a person violating a contract. It isn't a matter of complexity or discrimination.

I don't see why a contract between three people would forbid one of the parties from entering into another contract later, unless there's a clause to that effect.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

You're talking about a person violating a contract. It isn't a matter of complexity or discrimination.

One question that would have to be resolved if polygamy were to be made legal, though, is if one has the right to marry into more than one polygamous marriage group. Say you have Group A, a bisexual female married couple, and Group B, a man and two women, all married together. Can the man marry into Group A (assuming it's ok with his present wives) without completely merging the two Groups? The legal issues would quite mind-boggling then.

 

[toddjh]

Say you have Group A, a bisexual female married couple, and Group B, a man and two women, all married together.

Can I be the guy in Group B?

Please?

Can the man marry into Group A (assuming it's ok with his present wives) without completely merging the two Groups?

For that matter, why does it have to be okay with his present wives (legally speaking)? If you're going to have arbitrarily large marriage graphs, what legal right do they have to stop him from marrying someone else if he wants?

 

[Upchurch]

Sorry. He's Cool Hand. I thought the Newman av would give it away.

I generally keep av's turned off. It only confuses me when people change them significantly, like putting on a mask. Plus, I used to surf the board a lot at work and some av's are better not seen with people looking over your shoulder.

Again, he only considered divorce, and not even every aspect of that. He did not consider tax law, federal student financial aid, estate junk, or anything else in which marital status is involved.

I don't see how it would be any different. With taxes (which is the only issue you mentioned that I have much in the way of experience), you have to designate a head of the household anyway. I am that person for my wife and I and, believe me, it is only on paper. More spouses would just mean more dependents.

I do agree that all these complications could be overcome, and if I understood anti-polygamy laws to be discriminatory, I would argue that they should be overcome. Since I do not see the discrimination, however, I cannot see that dealing with the complexities is something that necessarily should be accomplished.

And that's fair. I just don't agree.

Until I met and got to know some polyamerous people myself, I was a weirded out by the idea. I used to argue against polygamy until I came to the realization that there I could come up with no rational argument against it. Complexity means something is hard, but just because something is hard does not mean that it is a reason not to do it.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Can I be the guy in Group B?

Please?

Sure, but I should warn you that my next thought on this hypothetical is what happens if the man gets deathly ill? The entire FMLA would require serious revision were polygamy legal.

 

[toddjh]

Sure, but I should warn you that my next thought on this hypothetical is what happens if the man gets deathly ill?

I'll still take it!

 

[toddjh]

Complexity means something is hard, but just because something is hard does not mean that it is a reason not to do it.

If complexity means that it will cost the taxpayers money, I would consider that a reason not to do it.

It's all well and good to say that people entering into polygamous marriages would bear the cost of the updated system, but in reality the cost would be substantial and the number of people who really want a polygamous marriage is probably very small. It would be prohibitively expensive.

Edit: Since you're portraying polygamy to be a "right" in the same vein as interracial marriage and same-sex marriage, it would also be unfair to force them to bear the cost -- only the rich polygamous groups would be able to exercise their right; the poor ones would be discriminated against.

 

[wahrheit]

What if Jane and Sue want to be married, and John Dr. Adequate just wants to watch them through high-powered binoculars?

Hypothetically.

Fixed it.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I don't see how it would be any different. With taxes (which is the only issue you mentioned that I have much in the way of experience), you have to designate a head of the household anyway. I am that person for my wife and I and, believe me, it is only on paper. More spouses would just mean more dependents.

Well, besides griping about paying them, I have little experience with taxes. My main experience is with federal financial aid, and I can tell you that the existing marriage and divorce laws often make that a nightmare for FA offices.

Polygamy would almost certainly create more job in those FA offices to deal with it, though, so maybe we should legalize it to boost the economy.

Until I met and got to know some polyamerous people myself, I was a weirded out by the idea. I used to argue against polygamy until I came to the realization that there I could come up with no rational argument against it. Complexity means something is hard, but just because something is hard does not mean that it is a reason not to do it.

I have never met any face to face (knowingly), but the ones I know from here are without exception spandy people, so I am not against the practice, and I am only against the legal recognition in the sense that I don't feel there is compelling reason to change. For what it's worth, I imagine if it was already legal, I would not argue against it, for pretty much the same reason I do not currently argue for it.

 

[Upchurch]

One question that would have to be resolved if polygamy were to be made legal, though, is if one has the right to marry into more than one polygamous marriage group. Say you have Group A, a bisexual female married couple, and Group B, a man and two women, all married together. Can the man marry into Group A (assuming it's ok with his present wives) without completely merging the two Groups? The legal issues would quite mind-boggling then.

Assuming I'm following all that correctly, you have a man in two concurrent marriage contracts. That's bigamy (which would probably be considered a misnomer if all of this came about).

I should probably point out that I consider one of the non-arbitrary aspects of a marriage contract is exclusivity. Whether talking about a monogamous, polygamous, or open marriage, one of the defining aspects of marriage is that you are only in one marriage at a time.

Now, as I'm thinking about it here, I suppose that you could define a "marriage" contract that does not require exclusivity, but at that point I think I fail to see how it could be considered a "marriage".

There are many definitions of what "marriage" means, but all the ones I found tend to talk in terms of "union" and "melding parts into a single whole". Even when we use the term "married to an idea", we are saying that we cannot be parted from it. If we hold to this most generic form of the term, one person could not be united into two separate single wholes.

If someone is a bigamist, they are not truly entering into a marriage, a single union, for the simple reason that the people in the various marriages are not in union with each other. Even if they are okay with the situation, they are still separate entities that simply share a common member and would not constitute a marriage. (This would make for a great Venn Diagram.)

 

[toddjh]

I should probably point out that I consider one of the non-arbitrary aspects of a marriage contract is exclusivity. Whether talking about a monogamous, polygamous, or open marriage, one of the defining aspects of marriage is that you are only in one marriage at a time.

Why is that a defining aspect of marriage? After all, an awful lot of people think that "one man, one woman" is also a defining aspect of marriage.

If you're arguing that marriage should be expanded to include one group of multiple people, why not multiple groups of multiple people?

Sure, a marriage is a union, melding parts into a single whole, but why can't a guy just have more than one marriage? You've argued in favor of polygamy on the grounds that people should have legal recognition of the type of relationship they want...so why stop there? "Bigamists" (I agree that's a strange term to use in this context, but you know what I mean) have their own idea of what type of relationship arrangement they want, so I don't see why you would exclude them from having legal recognition of it.

 

[Upchurch]

I have never met any face to face (knowingly), but the ones I know from here are without exception spandy people, so I am not against the practice, and I am only against the legal recognition in the sense that I don't feel there is compelling reason to change.

**looks up definition of spandy**

ah. The ones I know are total urban vegetarian hippy types and all around good people. We know them through the neighborhood association and are working with them on establishing a dog park.

My experience with them (not that kind) has led to a sharp learning curve about the difference between polyamery and swinging. The former is about loving relationships, the latter is about sex. (although definitions do seem to vary)

For what it's worth, I imagine if it was already legal, I would not argue against it, for pretty much the same reason I do not currently argue for it.

It's not even on my radar in the real world. This is the magical land of internet forum boards where things that aren't that big of deal become very big deals.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

If someone is a bigamist, they are not truly entering into a marriage, a single union, for the simple reason that the people in the various marriages are not in union with each other. Even if they are okay with the situation, they are still separate entities that simply share a common member and would not constitute a marriage. (This would make for a great Venn Diagram.)

You did follow that correctly. I don't know that once you allow larger groups than two to marry, there is any good reason to disallow simultaneous participation in more than one such group. At this point, it all boils down to semantics, to one's definition of marriage. If polygamy were ever legalized, I imagine the next front in the marriage war would be just this issue. Polypolygamy, maybe.

Of course, the fact that a union of more than two people violates some people's definition is one of their biggest arguments against polygamy.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

**looks up definition of spandy**

Neat. I never knew anyone else used it. It's my own personal term that just means cool. I might need a new one, I guess.

It's not even on my radar in the real world. This is the magical land of internet forum boards where things that aren't that big of deal become very big deals.

Out of curiosity, if you know, how big of a deal is it to your polyamorous friends?

 

[Upchurch]

Why is that a defining aspect of marriage? After all, an awful lot of people think that "one man, one woman" is also a defining aspect of marriage.

If you're arguing that marriage should be expanded to include one group of multiple people, why not multiple groups of multiple people?

Because of all that stuff I wrote?

Sure, a marriage is a union, melding parts into a single whole, but why can't a guy just have more than one marriage?

Because what you're talking about is "a guy" (but could be anyone) dividing himself, not forming a union, which appears to be the central concept in most, if not all, forms of the word "marriage".

You've argued in favor of polygamy on the grounds that people should have legal recognition of the type of relationship they want...so why stop there? "Bigamists" (I agree that's a strange term to use in this context, but you know what I mean) have their own idea of what type of relationship arrangement they want, so I don't see why you would exclude them from having legal recognition of it.

A fair point.

However, at the point of bigamy, I think you could argue impossible complexity from a legal perspective. Let's turn to an analogy:

Let's say you have a car and you sell that car to two seperate and otherwise unrelated groups. The immediate question is, who owns the car? But more importantly, if the car racks up a number of unpaid parking tickets, who is responsible for those tickets?

(Okay, I'll admit it's a weak argument and that I'm more comfortable with my above philosophical approach to the concept of marriage.)

 

[Thanz]

What's funny is, she's legally married (but estranged) to another man, but HE'S not on the insurance. Meanwhile, I am, though I have no legal claim to her whatsoever (and am, in fact, married to someone else).

If the coverage is supposed to be for a spouse, then I expect that what you are doing is actually committing insurance fraud. And this is just one of the issues.

You claim that every possible issue has been dealt with by the Courts. Completely false. Not every possible issue with 2 person marriages has been dealt with by the Courts. When you add more parties, the number of problems and possible situtations just increases.

With regards to the potential breakdown of your relationship, while I wish you no ill, you simply cannot assume that it will be amicable. Every divorce started as two people in love, promising to stay together forever. And a lot of those divorces end in the bitterest of fights in the Court.

The law surrounding marriage is designed for 2 people. Changing the identities of those 2 people does not change the underlying law. Changing the number of people does.

In any event, if you want to convince people that polygamy should be legal, you need to do so on the basis that polygamy should be legal - not on the basis that if homosexual marriage is legal, then so should polygamy. The two are not remotely related.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Assuming I'm following all that correctly, you have a man in two concurrent marriage contracts. That's bigamy (which would probably be considered a misnomer if all of this came about).

I should probably point out that I consider one of the non-arbitrary aspects of a marriage contract is exclusivity. Whether talking about a monogamous, polygamous, or open marriage, one of the defining aspects of marriage is that you are only in one marriage at a time.

Now, as I'm thinking about it here, I suppose that you could define a "marriage" contract that does not require exclusivity, but at that point I think I fail to see how it could be considered a "marriage".

There are many definitions of what "marriage" means, but all the ones I found tend to talk in terms of "union" and "melding parts into a single whole". Even when we use the term "married to an idea", we are saying that we cannot be parted from it. If we hold to this most generic form of the term, one person could not be united into two separate single wholes.

If someone is a bigamist, they are not truly entering into a marriage, a single union, for the simple reason that the people in the various marriages are not in union with each other. Even if they are okay with the situation, they are still separate entities that simply share a common member and would not constitute a marriage. (This would make for a great Venn Diagram.)

This runs very counter to traditional multiple marriages. As for example the wives would not generally be viewed as married to each other.

I generally do not agree that just because two men are married to a woman they are necessarily married to each other(why should all the examples be multiple women anyway?)

 

[Upchurch]

You did follow that correctly. I don't know that once you allow larger groups than two to marry, there is any good reason to disallow simultaneous participation in more than one such group. At this point, it all boils down to semantics, to one's definition of marriage. If polygamy were ever legalized, I imagine the next front in the marriage war would be just this issue. Polypolygamy, maybe.

I thought about taking the stance that bigamists were really just dishonest polyamerists and that such arrangements don't involve mutual consent of all parties involved, but there is no way for me to know that for sure.

Of course, the fact that a union of more than two people violates some people's definition is one of their biggest arguments against polygamy.

I could argue that bigamy (as we're using it) violates everyone's definition of marriage, but again, there is no way for me to know that for sure.

Out of curiosity, if you know, how big of a deal is it to your polyamorous friends?

We're not really that close enough for me to ask. It's not the polyamorous thing that weirds me out (anymore). It's the somewhat militant vegetarian hippie thing.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

(why should all the examples be multiple women anyway?)

Because we're all guys, and it's hotter that way.

I could argue that bigamy (as we're using it) violates everyone's definition of marriage, but again, there is no way for me to know that for sure.

Well, I was mostly just yanking your chain. It just seems to me it's another issue that must be dealt with if polygamy were to be legalized. If it was decided against, it would cause little additional problem. But the complications get fierce if it was allowed.

We're not really that close enough for me to ask. It's not the polyamorous thing that weirds me out (anymore). It's the somewhat militant vegetarian hippie thing.

Yeah. Creepy.