Time to Allow Polyamorous Marraiges

[ponderingturtle]

How come it works for business, but wouln't for marriage?

Lawyers are an expense of doing business, but moving that expense into the personal realm will mean that many people simply can not afford the rights that marriage grants them.

Also with a business you do not have many specific and exclusive rights that marriage does have.

Assebely lines work well for building things, why don't more people take this approach to reproduction, as it works so well?

 

[Meadmaker]

Of course, we already have individualized marriage contracts. They're call prenuptual agreements.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Of course, we already have individualized marriage contracts. They're call prenuptual agreements.

Yes and no. The deal with property only not what rights someone does or does not have.

There are certainly ways to sheild assets in a marriage, for example making sure that your children inherrit your house regardless of what your second wife/husband or their children choose.

 

[INRM]

I honestly think polyamorous marriages are going too far...

 

[Lonewulf]

See, here's the thing -- relating back to "gay marriage leads to polygamy" you see at the beginning, and related to Skeptic's whole take on this thing.

The argument has always been, that if we allow gay marriage, we must allow for polygamy. Of course, this argument is based around the idea that allowing polygamy is bad/worse than gay marriage, and thus, we should not allow gay marriage. Here's my problem with the argument; I'll break it down to its base premises once more.

1) Allowing gay marriage in itself is not necessarily harmful (or else polygamy would not be brought up).

2) Polygamy in itself is necessarily harmful, and something we don't want.

3) Allowing gay marriage must necessarily allow polygamy, because if gay marriage is seen as harmless, then so would polygamy.


Does anyone spot the contradiction?

 

[Skeptic]

See, here's the thing -- relating back to "gay marriage leads to polygamy" you see at the beginning, and related to Skeptic's whole take on this thing.

My take is that if allowing gay marriage is something the PEOPLE or the STATES do, then that is not necessarily something that will lead to polygamy, but if it's something the COURTS do by inventing a "constitutional right" to gay marriage, then it will necessarily lead to polygamy.

 

[Lonewulf]

My take is that if allowing gay marriage is something the PEOPLE or the STATES do, then that is not necessarily something that will lead to polygamy, but if it's something the COURTS do by inventing a "constitutional right" to gay marriage, then it will necessarily lead to polygamy.

Um . . . .

Okay, I'm speechless. I can't even hope to use logic here, because there is none to begin with.

And why, exactly, are you comparing gay marriage to "marrying two bricks, a dog, and a Chevy", again?

 

[Skeptic]

Um . . . .

Okay, I'm speechless. I can't even hope to use logic here, because there is none to begin with.

I'm sorry you can't follow my argument, but really, claiming you don't understand it is not the same as saying there's no logic to it. I repeatedly explained myself, despite the fact that some people do not wish to understand: if it is in the hand of the legistlature to determine what marriage is, then it may accept gay marriage and not polygamy. If, however, it is a constitutional right to marry, then if it applies to gay marriage it must apply to polygamy (or incest) as well.

And why, exactly, are you comparing gay marriage to "marrying two bricks, a dog, and a Chevy", again?

For the same reason I compared gay marriage to incest in other threads. The point is not that they are morally and practically the same, but that CERTAIN ARGUMENTS of the pro-gay-marriage folks would apply to them as well.

The point, naturally, is to show the weakness of the ARGUMENT that are used to support the recognition of gay marriage, not to claim gay marriage is the same as these other arrangements in all, or for that matter in any, other respect except the one used in the argument.

To repeat both arguments: if marriage is a constitutional right, then if there is a "right" to gay marriage there is also a "right" to incestual marriage. Therefore, the claim that gay marriage is supported because it is a "right" cannot logically be advanced without agreeing that incestual marriages should be supported, too.

Similarly, if the fact that gay marriage does not lower the number of regular marriages is an argument to allow gay marriage, then the fact that someone marrying two bricks, a dog, and a chevy would also certainly not lower regular marriages (if only because virtually nobody would want to do it, except perhaps as a joke) should be a reason to legally recognize that as marriage, too.

 

[GreNME]

Similarly, if the fact that gay marriage does not lower the number of regular marriages is an argument to allow gay marriage, then the fact that someone marrying two bricks, a dog, and a chevy would also certainly not lower regular marriages (if only because virtually nobody would want to do it, except perhaps as a joke) should be a reason to legally recognize that as marriage, too.

Only if you could prove that the two bricks, the dog, and the Chevy are capable of entering into the agreement with knowledge of what they're entering and express consent to the agreement being entered (and that whole being a "person" thing). But since you're ignoring those parts I'll let you get back to your ridiculous red herrings.

 

[Lonewulf]

I have yet to see someone argue that we should allow gay marriage for the sole premise that "it doesn't hurt heterosexual marriages".

 

[Alex Libman]

Lawyers are an expense of doing business, but moving that expense into the personal realm will mean that many people simply can not afford the rights that marriage grants them.

OK, we can have a transitional step where marriage is privatized but the government still subsidizes the legal costs to the same degree it does now. This will give individuals and businesses time to figure things out, and the marketplace will eventually make common legal procedures more efficient, thus reducing costs to the point where private charity is enough to help those in need. Libertarian gradualism FTW!

Of course, we already have individualized marriage contracts. They're call prenuptual agreements.

That's nowhere near good enough. They can only cover a limited part of the legal spectrum, the rest is imposed by government force (i.e. "family law") and should be gradually phased out.

 

[Skeptic]

All laws are "imposed by government force". Including the ones you agree with.

 

[Lonewulf]

Sigh. This is going to turn into another Alex Libman thread, isn't it?

 

[Alex Libman]

All laws are "imposed by government force". Including the ones you agree with.

There are no government-imposed laws that I agree with. Natural law and enforcement of contracts can exist without government (read Murray Rothbard). But let's please keep this thread specific to marriage contracts, which can be phased in gradually in the present.

Sigh. This is going to turn into another Alex Libman thread, isn't it?

I've actually tried to limit my involvement in this thread because some other people are doing a pretty good job here. Carry on.

 

[Dorian Gray]

There are no government-imposed laws that I agree with.

Cool. What's your address? I'm taking your stuff.

I've actually tried to limit my involvement in this thread because some other people are doing a pretty good job here. Carry on.

Wow, dude. Seriously? Pretty good? We need AWESOME, and only you can provide that. Only you. YOU. You are the MAN! You have a debating style that can only be described as unassailable. No one can touch the exquisite type of luxurious fabric-laden arguments you provide, arguments so sound and airtight we can use them to store water in! Please don't do this to us. Don't hold back, Mr. Libman! We need a hero! You are the wind beneath my wings.

In other words, full of yourself much?

 

[Alt+F4]

Natural law and enforcement of contracts can exist without government (read Murray Rothbard).

(read John Locke) Natural rights can not be enforced without the power of government. I'm an (early) middle-aged woman, do you really think I can protect my natural right to life, liberty and property without the assistance of the government. Can children? Can senior citizens?

 

[Alt+F4]

Similarly, if the fact that gay marriage does not lower the number of regular marriages is an argument to allow gay marriage, then the fact that someone marrying two bricks, a dog, and a chevy would also certainly not lower regular marriages (if only because virtually nobody would want to do it, except perhaps as a joke) should be a reason to legally recognize that as marriage, too.

Well if gay people can be legally married and it won't hurt "regular" marriage then I should have the legal right to marry two rocks, a cat, a Toyota and President Obama's bunion (left foot only).

Of course we will all get mortgages, live in a big shoe (which I will of course also marry), then I'll marry my daughter (or my son, depending on how many gay people in the neighborhood are also marrying). Next we will all go on a trip to Atlantic City where I will see items retrived from the Titanic which of course, I can legally marry.

 

[Alex Libman]

Cool. What's your address? I'm taking your stuff.

Property is a natural negative right, enforceable without governments. (Which, BTW, are the biggest thieves in history.) And one consequence of this is the right to own firearms and other self-defense equipment, which tend to benefit the defensive party much more than the would-be offender.

And now back to another natural right, the right to contract, which is what this thread should be all about.

[...] In other words, full of yourself much?

Only when I earn it.

(read John Locke) Natural rights can not be enforced without the power of government.

I'm a big fan of John Locke in the context of his time, but his ideas have been improved upon.

I'm an (early) middle-aged woman, do you really think I can protect my natural right to life, liberty and property without the assistance of the government. Can children? Can senior citizens?

Who said you have to do it yourself? Private protection agencies can do everything that the government can, but at a market-competitive price / quality, and with direct accountability to their customers. (Please don't take this thread further off-topic. Most questions you are likely to ask have already been answered elsewhere.)

[...] I should have the legal right to marry two rocks, a cat, a Toyota [...]

Only self-owning entities (i.e. human adults) can enter into enforceable contracts. That isn't to say there should be a law to prevent you from saying that you're married to rocks / cats / cars / etc, but that claim will have no objective meaning.

 

[Skeptic]

There are no government-imposed laws that I agree with.

So if I rob your house, you won't call the police? Cool.

I've actually tried to limit my involvement in this thread because some other people are doing a pretty good job here. Carry on.

Thanks for the permission, your highness.

 

[Skeptic]

Who said you have to do it yourself? Private protection agencies can do everything that the government can, but at a market-competitive price / quality

And as for the poor who can't afford such protection... screw 'em. Why should MY tax money is going to stop some poor guy from being robbed? Heck, if he didn't want to be free game to every thief, or she didn't want to be a moving target to every rapist, why the heck did they decide to be poor in the first place?

Just throwing money down the drain, if you ask me, protecting the riff-raff from random violence with our tax money. Who cares about them, anyway? Besides, it just spoils the poor: if you protect them from being randomly robbed and assaulted, next thing you know, they'll demand free elementary education, and decent healthcare, and... and... all kind of other stuff they have no business having, out of MY tax money!

We better stop this thing before it starts.

P.S.

I'm willing to bet Mr. Libman is actually living at home and is supplied with all the necessities of life by his parents, and that the "we must be INDEPENDENT MEN" thingy is just fantasy wish-fulfilment. It is the equivalent of others in his position who often fall, at that age or situation in life, for the "capitalism is EVIL" schtick precisely because they enjoy the fruits and prosperity of capitalism without having done anything of their own to contribute to them.

This isn't ALWAYS true, but very often it is. Both communists and libertarians are, more often than not, attracted to their views not out of philosophical or economic reflection, but out of an emotional need to live out a fantasy, at least in words.