"Why not polygamous marriage?"

[crimresearch]

No you are just ignoring the word relatively.

'Relatively' has nothing to to with the conflation that spousal rape and chattel mean exactly the same thing.
They are not interchangeable, spousal rape immunity was a product of the chattel system. Chattel itself covered many more things, such as preventing a wife from working, signing a contract, or even from voting.
And the last laws on chattel were not struck down in NC in the 90s, that was the marital rape exemption.

 

[Marduk]

That's changed a bit from "legally binding appelation" hasn't it?

People (including people employed by public bodies) may use the term, but that does not mean it has any real meaning.[/QUOTE]

please go back and read my first post where I mentioned "common law marriage" reasses how serious I was about it then get back to me

You have also claimed several times now that it "was European law". Care to provide a link to legislation, regulation or case law to support that?

have you missed one of my posts or did I imagine writing it,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7302433.stm

 

[ponderingturtle]

'Relatively' has nothing to to with the conflation that spousal rape and chattel mean exactly the same thing.
They are not interchangeable, spousal rape immunity was a product of the chattel system. Chattel itself covered many more things, such as preventing a wife from working, signing a contract, or even from voting.
And the last laws on chattel were not struck down in NC in the 90s, that was the marital rape exemption.

Well at least raping your wife is still a lesser crime compared to raping a stranger in 33 states.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

People (including people employed by public bodies) may use the term, but that does not mean it has any real meaning.

please go back and read my first post where I mentioned "common law marriage" reasses how serious I was about it then get back to me
[/quote]

Sure. Can I also base it on your posts where you claimed it was used as a "legally binding appelation" by government departments in relation to Tax, social benefits and police involvement? Or are you going to claim that was just a joke?

have you missed one of my posts or did I imagine writing it,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7302433.stm

Nope I read it.

You do know the difference between a news report and "legislation, regulation or case law" right?

And I assume you noticed that the BBC news report you linked to doesn't mention European law at all?

 

[Marduk]

Sure. Can I also base it on your posts where you claimed it was used as a "legally binding appelation" by government departments in relation to Tax, social benefits and police involvement? Or are you going to claim that was just a joke?

I have already admitted my error, you seem to have an issue with people who disagree with you, you need to deal with that rather than continually bringing up the same point over and over again
you jumped down my throat originally because you didn't get a joke, now you've gone too far with it
drop it
thanks

You do know the difference between a news report and "legislation, regulation or case law" right?

And I assume you noticed that the BBC news report you linked to doesn't mention European law at all?

it doesn't ?
so when it says

It wants to harmonise Greek law to European standards

it was talking about what standards ?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Let me guess. State. Violence. Force. AIDs. Blah blah blah.¹ The ignore feature can be a good thing.²

1. You guess wrong. Do you have a sensible response to the point?
2. Use it. Or don't, and participate in a reasonable discussion.

 

[Marduk]

The sex ratio at birth is pretty close to 1:1. Unless that ratio changes significantly by age 20, a polygamous society.....

how about
1. no one in this thread is thinking that allowing polygamy would result in a polygamous society, polygamy is already allowed, and we are not as a result a polygamous society
2. the sex at birth ratio is meaningless in a world where up to 13% of the population is homosexual
3. you are suggesting that making polygamy illegal will somehow address male violence, good luck with that one

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I have already admitted my error, you seem to have an issue with people who disagree with you, you need to deal with that rather than continually bringing up the same point over and over again
you jumped down my throat originally because you didn't get a joke, now you've gone too far with it
drop it
thanks

Think you need to reread the thread and see who brought it up again. Clue: it wasn't me.

it doesn't ?
so when it says


it was talking about what standards ?

Easy for you resolve, just quote the EU law or European law that you claim has something to do with common law marriage. You've claimed it a few times, how about backing it up?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, it sucks.

We should really stop putting off some of the legal things as you never know when something dreadful happens, for example, if one of us ended up in hospital, the NHS might be sympathetic to a lot of issues, but I wouldn't be surprised if a few serious treatment options would need a family member to verify the treatment (assuming unconsciousness).

Ironically, if we moved back to New Zealand, if we could demonstrate that we have been living together for a year, then I would be able to have some sort of residency status.

I must admit I like the idea of a civil partnership more, but that is only available to gay couples.

What is it about the word marriage that bothers you?

 

[RandFan]

...polygamy is already allowed, and we are not as a result a polygamous society

Do you mean polyamory is allowed? Authorities might turn their head when it comes to polygamy but that does not mean it is allowed. I would also say that polygamy is looked down upon culturally. In the future I've no doubt that our relationships will be very, very different. Polyamorous relationships and various forms of polygamy will be common.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Do you mean polyamory is allowed? Authorities might turn their head when it comes to polygamy but that does not mean it is allowed. I would also say that polygamy is looked down upon culturally. In the future I've no doubt that our relationships will be very, very different. Polyamorous relationships and various forms of polygamy will be common.

There is a generally accepted legal principle in the US and presumably Britain that what adults get up to is their business as long as it is consensual. See Lawrence v Texas. The difference is that polyamory does not require governmental recognition of the relationship while polygamy does.

 

[Marduk]

Do you mean polyamory is allowed? .

oops yes, sorry

Authorities might turn their head when it comes to polygamy but that does not mean it is allowed. I would also say that polygamy is looked down upon culturally.

yes forget me, I was talking about polyamory
I just realised I'm in the wrong thread

 

[bumlet5]

My opinion of what polygamy laws could be (compared to American marriage law, since that's what I know)-

Person A is married to Person B. Person B wants to marry Person C as well. B and C have to sign the Marriage Certificate as is now, and A would have to sign saying that they agree to the union. If it is found out that the B/C marriage happened without the signature of A, that marriage would be invalid and B would be in legal trouble like they would now. It could also be possible for A/B to both marry A, so long as they all sign the certificate.

As for insurance, if we go to a universal healthcare system, it wouldn't really matter how it's done. As it is now, insurance companies already charge based on number of dependents. If person B has the best insurance policy of the family he/she could add A and B as spouses (as well as all children within the family), and the premium would go up accordingly. A policy holder could only add those with whom they were in a marriage with (A couldn't add C onto their policy if they weren't directly married).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

how about
1. no one in this thread is thinking that allowing polygamy would result in a polygamous society, polygamy is already allowed, and we are not as a result a polygamous society
2. the sex at birth ratio is meaningless in a world where up to 13% of the population is homosexual
3. you are suggesting that making polygamy illegal will somehow address male violence, good luck with that one

1. But it is not allowed. Bigamy is illegal.
2. Is 3% "up to 13%"?
3. I'm suggesting that the monogamous pair bond evolved for a good reason. Just consider all the insults thyat amount to "if you got laid more often, you'd mellow out" (e.g., F*** you", "Get f***ed", "kefe", etc.).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

There is a generally accepted legal principle in the US and presumably Britain that what adults get up to is their business as long as it is consensual....

I wish. Prostitution, anti-discrimination laws, minimum wage laws, drug laws. To name a few.

 

[Marduk]

1. But it is not allowed. Bigamy is illegal.

yes thankyou, we covered my illiterate idiocy further up the page

2. Is 3% "up to 13%"?

it depends, the figures I read were anywhere from 2% to 13% I'm guessing the 2% would be somewhere like "Alabama" and the 13% would be somewhere more rural, like "Scotland"

3. I'm suggesting that the monogamous pair bond evolved for a good reason. Just consider all the insults thyat amount to "if you got laid more often, you'd mellow out" (e.g., F*** you", "Get f***ed", "kefe", etc.).

Its a religious institution in the modern world, according to religious doctrine (one of the early saints, I forget which) its based on the fact that Adam and Eve were a couple. Before that, the earliest record or marriage I can find is from Sumer (don't thank me, for me that wasn't difficult), where polygamy was normal in cases where the first wife "bore no fruit", so pretty much as detailed in the Bible with Abraham, Sarah and Hagar.

So really, the "agressive male" concept you've raised holds very little water, when I was single I had a wonderful thing called "masturbation" which was assisted by "pornography" and aside from a charge of attempted murder and several assaults, oh and that time I put four policemen in the hospital and a few people I shot at in the Army I was completely non agressive

 

[RandFan]

There is a generally accepted legal principle in the US and presumably Britain that what adults get up to is their business as long as it is consensual. See Lawrence v Texas. The difference is that polyamory does not require governmental recognition of the relationship while polygamy does.

Uh, yeah. I thought that was understood. Thanks.

 

[epepke]

I don't have an issue with polygamy and if people are polyamorous and find it works for them, all the power to them.

However, traditional polygamy that has been practiced in certain religions or cultures has resulted in some unfortunate social engineering issues, for example, a lot of young men with a shortage of young women to form partnerships.

It just ends in dreadful things like raiding parties and wars.

Maybe it begins with them. That is, I think, how it went with the War of the Triple Alliance. I forget whether it was Uruguay or Paraguay, but the first thing that happened was that 2/3 the male citizens got killed, and then polygyny became legal for a brief time.

Anyway, as with most of these discussions, it's between difficult to impossible to tell whether the arguments are real or alibis.

Mononormativity, heteronormativity, and all that "normal" stuff produces heinous amounts of suffering, but nobody invested in the assumptions of goodness of those things is ever going to criticize them. I could as easily say "if people are naturally monogamous and heterosexual and it works for them, then more power to them, but it just ends in things like Lorena Babbit's cutting off her husband's penis or women stabbing their boyfriends 32 times for playing a video game."

That would be unfair of me but no less unfair than picking out bits from polygamous societies and collecting them together in a folder labeled "What's Wrong with Polygamy." It might even be a bit more fair, as many of the so-called problems with polygamy can be solved by having about equal amounts of polygyny and polyandry, whereas nobody has ever figured out how to make monogamy always peaceful. (Nor is it obvious that people want it to be peaceful; go to a karaoke bar and look at how gleefully they sing those Carrie Underwood songs.)

 

[crimresearch]

I wish. Prostitution, anti-discrimination laws, minimum wage laws, drug laws. To name a few.

So discrimination is 'consensual?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

So discrimination is 'consensual?

Obviously. Freeedom of association and freedom of contract. Employment is (well, was) mutually consensual. If a businessman employs only gay, vegetarian, left-handed, Chinese Methodists, that is quite literally his business. Not mine. Not yours. Not the State's, in a peaceful society.