• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Polygamy (Split from Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack)

JoeMorgue said:
X and Y want to form a relationship. This includes things like co-habitation, sharing of assets, giving a person proxy rights to make legal, financial and medical decision for another person, inheretence of assets upon death, things like that. And honestly I think things like that, the purely legal stuff, is all the the government interest in "marriage" should be limited to.
Click to expand...
It seems like the problem is (at least to me) is that you seem to be minimizing the issues that the government would need to deal with.

Yes, issues like proxy rights need to be dealt with, but I think that by itself can be a major problem (especially if there are cases where people don't define a proper 'marriage contract'.)

Then there are a few other issues:

- immigration... if someone moves to another country, most destination countries will allow them to bring in family. What if the person is part of a polygamous relationship... can they bring in ALL members (spouses of spouses)?

- Taxes and benefits... these can be impacted by marital status. This will get a lot more complex if you have more than 2 people in the relationship.
 
qayak said:
The issue with polygamy and women's rights come about because it is illegal so only the legally married woman has rights.
Click to expand...

That is naive.

Look around the world. Where is polygamy legal? What is the legal status of women where it is legal? It's not good. That correlation isn't a coincidence.

Legalizing polygamy may not directly impact women's rights, but it will do so indirectly, and severely. It always does. Monogamy is a fundamental component of western civilization, you can't remove it and expect everything else that it helps prop up to remain just as it was before. Humans don't work that way.
 
Segnosaur said:
- immigration... if someone moves to another country, most destination countries will allow them to bring in family. What if the person is part of a polygamous relationship... can they bring in ALL members (spouses of spouses)?
Click to expand...

*Shrugs* We don't panic over the complication in the laws of someone bringing 4 kids over instead of 1, why is this different?

- Taxes and benefits... these can be impacted by marital status. This will get a lot more complex if you have more than 2 people in the relationship.
Click to expand...

See above. The tax code doesn't explode when someone has 2 kids instead of 1. I'm sure we can manage.
 
Ziggurat said:
That is naive.

Look around the world. Where is polygamy legal? What is the legal status of women where it is legal? It's not good. That correlation isn't a coincidence.

Legalizing polygamy may not directly impact women's rights, but it will do so indirectly, and severely. It always does. Monogamy is a fundamental component of western civilization, you can't remove it and expect everything else that it helps prop up to remain just as it was before. Humans don't work that way.
Click to expand...

This is the gay marriage argument with a few nouns swapped out.
 
Damn, people are crazy. It's weird enough to legally bind yourself to one other person, but to multiply that mistake? Total madness!

And I don't see why tax advantages should reward marriage. Having kids, sure, because those things cost a lot and we'll need them around to provide donor organs later (bless whoever invented the motorcycle). But two (or more) adults shacking up after a ceremony? What good is that to the country? I don't think I should have to pay more just because some people need legal contracts to get laid on the regular.
 
Ziggurat said:
That is naive.

Look around the world. Where is polygamy legal? What is the legal status of women where it is legal? It's not good. That correlation isn't a coincidence.

Legalizing polygamy may not directly impact women's rights, but it will do so indirectly, and severely. It always does. Monogamy is a fundamental component of western civilization, you can't remove it and expect everything else that it helps prop up to remain just as it was before. Humans don't work that way.
Click to expand...

Of course that is only for the lower classes, the ruling classes never had a problem with official mistresses and the like. These could be quite important positions.

I mean important men were always understood to not need to keep it solely with their wives after all, that too is an important fundamental part of western civilization, like married women losing the ability to make decisions for themselves and own property. Really we have been destroying western civilization letting married women sign contracts and other totally crazy crap for decades.
 
JoeMorgue said:
This is the gay marriage argument with a few nouns swapped out.
Click to expand...

No, actually, it really, really isn't. If you think it is, then you don't have even the slightest clue about what the argument here really is. Granted I haven't fully described in this thread how polygamy destabilizes society (although I have in previous threads on the topic), but those mechanisms don't apply to gay marriage at all, and obviously so when you know what the argument is. I can go into more detail if you really care, or you can look up those other threads, but this criticism is just way, way, way off base.
 
Ziggurat said:
Polygamy should not be legalized. It is socially destabilizing and harmful to women's rights. The consequences extend far beyond the people who choose to engage in it. It may not be popular now even if legalized, but legalization would likely expand it's popularity over time.
Click to expand...

You are making a major and very sexist assumption here.
 
PhantomWolf said:
You are making a major and very sexist assumption here.
Click to expand...

There's no assumption involved. This is a conclusion based upon examination of evidence. The fact that you consider it sexist is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not it's correct. And you have offered nothing to suggest it isn't. You haven't even attempted that task.
 
Polygamy as the means to give people security might not be stupid idea, provided that it is gender neutral and allows for easy divorce by all parties.
 
Ziggurat said:
There's no assumption involved. This is a conclusion based upon examination of evidence. The fact that you consider it sexist is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not it's correct. And you have offered nothing to suggest it isn't. You haven't even attempted that task.
Click to expand...

Yes there is an assumption. You are assuming that polygamous relationships are based on a husband with multiple wives.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Polygamy as the means to give people security might not be stupid idea, provided that it is gender neutral and allows for easy divorce by all parties.
Click to expand...

It will never be gender neutral in practice, even if you make it gender neutral in letter. There is an asymmetry in sexual relationships that will always drive polygyny to be more prevalent than polyandry, even if they have equal legal footing.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Yes there is an assumption. You are assuming that polygamous relationships are based on a husband with multiple wives.
Click to expand...

That's not an assumption, it's an observation. That's overwhelmingly the direction it goes, for reasons which should be obvious to anyone actually familiar with humans.
 
PhantomWolf said:
I'm splitting this off from the Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack thread because I suspect it would be a sizable derail...



For me, I'm against any marriages that are forced, Full stop. This includes monogamous ones in other religions, in which young girls can still be forced into marriage with older men, with the girls having no choice in the matter. I'd note that we haven't banned marriage as a total because of this.

At the end of the day in sticking with my beliefs, I'd argue that it should not be polygamy that is outlawed, but rather the forcing of marriage onto someone without a choice, be it to a single spouse or in a case where there are multiple spouses.
Click to expand...

Question: how do you distinguish a "forced" marriage from an "arranged" marriage? Arranged marriages are still common in some parts of the world, particularly Islamic countries, but I know people from Japan and India who were or have been in an arranged marriage. They were not uncommon in the Western world not too long ago.

IMHO there really is no difference and therefore cannot be banned, even within the context of Christian marriage.

As far as polygamy, it will become legal in the near future because of the growing Muslim populations in the west. We can't build an inclusive and multicultural society while continuing to demand that people give up their customs and adopt ours when they come and live in our countries. Polygamy is legal in Islamic countries, as are arranged marriages. It's only a matter of time before it comes to our countries. It might take a series of small steps before it's accepted as normal, like legalizing avunculate marriage has been. Or it might change practically overnight like gay marriage did. But polygamous marriage is coming.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
As far as polygamy, it will become legal in the near future because of the growing Muslim populations in the west.
Click to expand...

I am afraid you might be correct, but the consequences will be devastating.

We can't build an inclusive and multicultural society while continuing to demand that people give up their customs and adopt ours when they come and live in our countries.
Click to expand...

You have that backwards. That's the only way we can be inclusive. Assimilation is required, or society will fracture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom