Time to Allow Polyamorous Marraiges

I think this is why the government should get out of the marriage business completely. I think consenting adults should be able to marry each other, in any number and in any gender. I don't think the government should be regulating marriages at all.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Why? In a practical sense adding more people makes more relationships that need to keep working for the marriage to work.
Click to expand...

Sort of like a limited partner corporation, ehh? Maybe just a little more intimate, but who's business is that?

As has been argued before, the state only needs to get involved to insure the basic rights of the members (including the existing relatives of all involved) are handled equitably. If it takes a formal contract to do that, then provided the parties can come to terms, what's the basic problem? That's why we have lawyers, right? We can go o the moon but can't find a way in equity to work this?
 
Last edited:
So if I concede the slippery slope, then what harm is there in letting these polyamorous people get married?
Click to expand...

The harm comes form the dishonesty.

First you are told to support gay marriage and that it is totally paranoid to think it would lead to polygamy.

Then you agree that polygamy will be supported if gay marriage is allowed -- just like the "paranoids" claimed -- but that, hey, what's the harm?

The third stage is to declare that anybody who doesn't think polygamy should be allowed is an evil racist homophobe insensitive right-wing extremist, the stage we have now reached with gay "marriage".

This is plain dishonesty -- with the goal to make "self-evident" and a (constitutional) "right", from the beginning, the very social change you claim everybody who suggests will be the result is "paranoid" for thinking so.

It happened with gay marriage, no doubt polygamy is next.

But wait, don't tell me -- it is lying for a good cause, and besides, you're just lying to those awful conservatives, so it's OK...
 
shuize said:
If I could add another wife to the marriage so that the current one would have someone to argue with without me, I might be willing to give it a try.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? They'll gang up on you.
 
shadron said:
Sort of like a limited partner corporation, ehh? Maybe just a little more intimate, but who's business is that?

As has been argued before, the state only needs to get involved to insure the basic rights of the members (including the existing relatives of all involved) are handled equitably. If it takes a formal contract to do that, then provided the parties can come to terms, what's the basic problem? That's why we have lawyers, right? We can go o the moon but can't find a way in equity to work this?
Click to expand...

We might be able too, but it also might effect binary marriage as well. Gay marriage as it stands does nothing to change marriage, this would require rewriting marriage. It might well come out better, but it is tricky business.
 
This is an interesting subject.

I was once part of a triad. Recently - we ended our relationship not quite a year ago.

We (self, female partner, and male partner) heard this argument several times - that gay marriage would lead to polyamory, as if it were self-evident that polyamory is bad/immoral. We knew that the three of us could never get married, aside from symbolically.
 
Skeptic said:
The harm comes form the dishonesty.
Click to expand...

It's not dishonest in the slightest.

First you are told to support gay marriage and that it is totally paranoid to think it would lead to polygamy.

Then you agree that polygamy will be supported if gay marriage is allowed -- just like the "paranoids" claimed -- but that, hey, what's the harm?
Click to expand...

No one told you that. It was only ceded to you that gay marriage leads to polygamy for the sole purpose of finding out what harm polygamy posts. In other words, to factor out the "slippery slope" herring and get right to the issue.

The third stage is to declare that anybody who doesn't think polygamy should be allowed is an evil racist homophobe insensitive right-wing extremist, the stage we have now reached with gay "marriage".
Click to expand...

Now you've gone off the deep end. Does your paranoia know no bounds?

Polygamy is a different issue than gay-marriage. Get over it.
 
Polygamy is wrong because if some other people form a triad, my marriage will obviously suffer, by....um, by....

Hang on. Maybe not.


(Some tell the Marquis it's a little too early to buy his goat a wedding gown.)
 
Marry 2 Woman? No way, you should be allowed to if you want it, but for me 1 woman is mostly enough stress and im not even married.....
 
Back between 1994 and 1996 I was also involved in a Triad. We all assumed that it would take, at least, as long for people to come to grips with people who were dedicated to each other in multiple relationships, as it has taken for folks to even be 'okay' with normal homosexual, one on one relationships.

And, the current spat of states legalizing gay marriage is still only a few weeks/months old. So, I still am unsure just how much 'better' it has become.

It wasn't even a year ago now that the residents of California, of all places, voted on the prop which made same sex marriage illegal. :(

ziztur said:
This is an interesting subject.

I was once part of a triad. Recently - we ended our relationship not quite a year ago.

We (self, female partner, and male partner) heard this argument several times - that gay marriage would lead to polyamory, as if it were self-evident that polyamory is bad/immoral. We knew that the three of us could never get married, aside from symbolically.
Click to expand...
 
Where has there ever been a case where a polygamous group (or incestious couple) was denied a marriage license then sued the government claiming that gay marriage gives them, too, the right to marry?
 
Alt+F4 said:
Where has there ever been a case where a polygamous group (or incestious couple) was denied a marriage license then sued the government claiming that gay marriage gives them, too, the right to marry?
Click to expand...

Although not related to marriage licenses, this sort of case is ongoing as we speak in Canada. Some Mormon polygamists have been charged under the Criminal Code and are making arguments that the constitutionally protected right to same-sex marriage plus the right to freedom of religion gives them the right to practice polygamy.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/563546
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/01/08/bc-polygamy-winston-blackmore.html
http://messengerandadvocate.wordpre...prosecuting-polygamy-protecting-gay-marraige/

They might even win. The CC prohibitions against polygamy may be struck down as unconstitutional. In which case, the slippery slope argument is at least partially correct.
 
I think the government should butt-out of people's relationships.

Stupid tax benefits...
 
Typicallucas said:
I think the government should butt-out of people's relationships.

Stupid tax benefits...
Click to expand...

thats not a solution i think.

its not only about taxes, there are more important things, like who will get money and property in case of death who gets the kids etc.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
thats not a solution i think.

its not only about taxes, there are more important things, like who will get money and property in case of death who gets the kids etc.
Click to expand...

That could be part of the contract, perhaps, a requirement to be addressed.
 
Polygamy is normaly accociated with muslims, mormons, and african tribal law, and have gotten a bad reputation from it.

The equality bit is less of a problem in a "hippi commune" but the law will apply equaly to all.

We got a law in denmark specificaly aimed at muslim immigrants, you have to be 24 years old to marry a forenger. That is to prevent the import and forced marrige of somebodys cousin from the home village.
It is a mayor annoyance to other couples where family preassure is not a issue.

I am not sure what other problems it could cause, but it has been out of use in europe for millenia, there must be a reason.

I wonder what it is.
 
thaiboxerken said:
That could be part of the contract, perhaps, a requirement to be addressed.
Click to expand...

sure but still involves government, and we still need some guidelines we as a community set ourself i guess. Like parents cant marry their kids etc.
 
Toke said:
Polygamy is normaly accociated with muslims, mormons, and african tribal law, and have gotten a bad reputation from it.

The equality bit is less of a problem in a "hippi commune" but the law will apply equaly to all.

We got a law in denmark specificaly aimed at muslim immigrants, you have to be 24 years old to marry a forenger. That is to prevent the import and forced marrige of somebodys cousin from the home village.
It is a mayor annoyance to other couples where family preassure is not a issue.

I am not sure what other problems it could cause, but it has been out of use in europe for millenia, there must be a reason.

I wonder what it is.
Click to expand...

Stress :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom