"Why not polygamous marriage?"

[RandFan]

I couldn't agree more.

If a man wants to have sex with a woman, then preventing him from that is harming him. She has no right to discriminate.

Oh? How would the man be harmed by being prevented from having sex?

Yeah I was trying to parse that and thought I was missing the context. But, thing is, how can context even matter? No one is entitled to sex from another person. Ever.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I'm just using the same logic as a resident feminist, with employment, or housing, or medical care that can't be kept from her. That's just an arbitrary list with no foundation to it as in the case of Malcom who is pretty easily seen to follow the Bill of Rights.

So I don't know her full list but it is such a modest thing to add to her already lengthy one It is surprising anyone of consequence could object to it.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Speaking of getting out in the real world, care to produce some real world proof for your assertions?... You know, a real court that has accepted your 'freedom of association' defense for the crime of discrimination in firing, housing, or assaulting someone because of their race, religion, gender, et al?

No one here is defending assault. I now have two on my ignore list. [/QUOTE]

 

[tyr_13]

I'm just using the same logic as a resident feminist, with employment, or housing, or medical care that can't be kept from her. That's just an arbitrary list with no foundation to it as in the case of Malcom who is pretty easily seen to follow the Bill of Rights.

So I don't know her full list but it is such a modest thing to add to her already lengthy one It is surprising anyone of consequence could object to it.

No you aren't. You are very carefully ignoring parts of the reasoning in order to make a straw man out of it.

 

[tyr_13]

No one here is defending assault. I now have two on my ignore list.

[/QUOTE]

And that makes you feel justified in ignoring the legitimate questions raised?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

While reading publications on the Inuit cultures I remember a piece discussing how infanticide - killing the baby girls - made it so that adult women had many husbands. In Greenland.

So it was really interesting that amongst the Inuit it would be polygamy in both places but Alaska was many wives and Greenland many husbands. In Alaska it was simple economics with the whaling captains being the richest by FAR. It was the same whale oil that made English whaling captains rich. So they had a lot of wives. Wheras in Greenland it was infanticide making the girls scarce.

Polygamy spans millenia and also across the globe. We don't have to speculate about how societies deal with it.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

No you aren't. You are very carefully ignoring parts of the reasoning in order to make a straw man out of it.

What reasoning would that be? Assertions are not "reasoning". But using the same assertions to demonstrate their absurdity is reasoning. Plus, it's funny.

 

[tyr_13]

What reasoning would that be? Assertions are not "reasoning". But using the same assertions to demonstrate their absurdity is reasoning. Plus, it's funny.

That's simply all wrong. What harm is cause? What governmental function is being employed (for example, is it commerce?)?

You denying it even being reasoning doesn't bode well.

 

[RandFan]

I'm just using the same logic as a resident feminist, with employment, or housing, or medical care that can't be kept from her. That's just an arbitrary list with no foundation to it as in the case of Malcom who is pretty easily seen to follow the Bill of Rights.

So I don't know her full list but it is such a modest thing to add to her already lengthy one It is surprising anyone of consequence could object to it.

Could you stick to actual arguments and avoid the straw men?

 

[RandFan]

What reasoning would that be? Assertions are not "reasoning". But using the same assertions to demonstrate their absurdity is reasoning. Plus, it's funny.

Could you point out these assertions?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And that makes you feel justified in ignoring the legitimate questions raised?

His equation of non-violent non-consent to an employment contract with assault.

 

[tyr_13]

His equation of non-violent non-consent to an employment contract with assault.

One, no he didn't. Two, that doesn't actually answer my question. If you object to 'assault' being included on the list of things that the government has a compelling reason to know if it was motivated by a protected category, then kindly explain why and address the other points. Otherwise it very much appears to be an in-artful dodge attempt.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Could you point out these assertions?

My post followed this one:

When someone is denied employment, or housing, or medical care as a result of illegal discrimination, they have definitely been harmed

Saying it deceptively like this is important. Because "denying housing" makes it sound like not giving permission to live on my property takes the ability to live anywhere away from someone.

I'm just using the same logic though.

 

[RandFan]

My post followed this one:

Saying it deceptively like this is important. Because "denying housing" makes it sound like not giving permission to live on my property takes the ability to live anywhere away from someone.

I'm just using the same logic though.

I'm confused, who made these assertions? A straw man is an argument you make for others. Are you just making up arguments that you think others are making?

 

[epepke]

I still wonder how a designated culture would deal with the imbalance in the availability of partners if it was polygamous/polyandry unless there was a serendipitous culture next door that practiced polygamy/polygyny as well.

I recall in my anthropology days hearing that there were only a half a dozen cultures in the Human Relations Area Files that commonly practiced polyandry, and that all of them had female infanticide.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So, 3 people are living together and all are in a committed relationship with each other. What if A and B start to hate each other and want to break up? Does C have to agree to a separation?

How are the children of a non-married polyandrous group taken care of?

If it can be done without marriage it can be done with marriage. Difficult for sure. But by no means impossible. If children can have relationships with both divorced parents then a third party could have relationships and marriage with two divorced spouses.

ETA: I'm leaning against the idea that polyandrous marriage isn't in the cards anytime soon. Lots and lots of problems for the state and to what end?

Why focus on polyandry and ignore polygyny?

Also just because it can be worked out does not mean that the people proposing this have.

 

[RandFan]

Why focus on polyandry and ignore polygyny?

By "polyandry" I meant "polyamory" and I probably should have simply said multiple partner marriage. And by "isn't" I meant "is".

Also just because it can be worked out does not mean that the people proposing this have.

Please to read my quote as it was intended (sorry).

ETA: I'm leaning against the idea that polyandrous [multiple partner marriage] isn't [is] in the cards anytime soon. Lots and lots of problems for the state and to what end?

Boy did I ever screw the pooch on that one.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

One, no he didn't.

Oh, yes s/he did.

...care to produce some real world proof for your assertions?...You know, a real court that has accepted your 'freedom of association' defense for the crime of discrimination in firing, housing, or assaulting someone because of their race, religion, gender, et al?

Two, that doesn't actually answer my question. If you object to 'assault' being included on the list of things that the government has a compelling reason to know if it was motivated by a protected category, then kindly explain why and address the other points.

I object to the inclusion of assault in the category of actions that I assert are protected by the principle of freedom of association.
The ACLU opposed "hate crime" enhancements of laws against assault. Assault is an observable fact. Assertions of motivation involve mind reading.

Otherwise it very much appears to be an in-artful dodge attempt.

Note the passive voice. You infer.

 

[Segnosaur]

What about divorce? What if A and B start to hate each other and want to break up... does C have to agree to the divorce (which would mean they could force them to stay together)?

So, 3 people are living together and all are in a committed relationship with each other. What if A and B start to hate each other and want to break up? Does C have to agree to a separation?

Doesn't really matter...

If you have 3 people living together (i.e. no marriage, but still in a relationship) the group can set whatever rules it wants for a breakup. Its only when you get the government involved (and start trying to set a legal recognition for marriage) that you start having to set defined rules that must be followed.

And what about things like handling death benefits? Child support?

How are the children of a non-married polyandrous group taken care of?

I have to admit, I'm not exactly sure of the rules, but I rather suspect its pretty straight forward... the mother and biological father (or the person who legally adopts them) are the ones responsible for the children. Any 'secondary partners' in the relationship probably don't factor into things.

Again, from the government's perspective, the rules are straight forward.

If it can be done without marriage it can be done with marriage. Difficult for sure. But by no means impossible.

But that's the thing... whenever anyone says "Oh if we wanted we can set up a legal framework to recognize polygamist relationships" the details always seem to get overlooked.

If children can have relationships with both divorced parents then a third party could have relationships and marriage with two divorced spouses.

There is a difference between a 'relationship' and a legal framework that covers any particular number/combination of spouses.

 

[RandFan]

Doesn't really matter...

If you have 3 people living together (i.e. no marriage, but still in a relationship) the group can set whatever rules it wants for a breakup. Its only when you get the government involved (and start trying to set a legal recognition for marriage) that you start having to set defined rules that must be followed.

Regarding this sole example of A B and C spouses I don't see any significant problem. Government recognition would not change the dynamics. What government rules do you think would be problematic in such an example? How would govt dictate that the individuals must relate to each other that they would not otherwise relate? Your answer seems to simply assert a difference and then gloss over the differences. A and B could get divorced while A and C and B and C could continue to be married. Divorce does not sever the legal rights and obligations of parent and child it need not sever the the same for A and C and B and C.

I have to admit, I'm not exactly sure of the rules, but I rather suspect its pretty straight forward... the mother and biological father (or the person who legally adopts them) are the ones responsible for the children. Any 'secondary partners' in the relationship probably don't factor into things.

Again, from the government's perspective, the rules are straight forward.

Yes, so I don't see a huge problem.

But that's the thing... whenever anyone says "Oh if we wanted we can set up a legal framework to recognize polygamist relationships" the details always seem to get overlooked.

Okay, well give me some examples of details that you think are problematic. And to be sure, I think it is problematic but I'm not sure it's as problematic as it at first seems.

There is a difference between a 'relationship' and a legal framework that covers any particular number/combination of spouses.

Sure, expand on that and give me a fore-instance. I would like to avoid simply appealing to intuition.