Polygamy

[PepperElf]

I would like to see 'civil families' of any number of adults in any configuration.

of course... that could be stretched to include relationships that are still illegal (aka relations between people too closely related to be married)


but back on topic, personally... with all the divorces and issues people are having with just a marriage to one person, i honestly think that bringing in multiple-partner marriages are just going to create even more trouble, especially if the multimarriage fails.

[Greenday]

Well, in that case, I can think of a good way to eliminate those problems. Stop recognizing them. People should get tax breaks because they are married. When it comes to important decisions, such as if you are incapacitated, you should just have a list of people, in order of who gets to make the decision, starting from the top, and working downward if the first person is unreachable. This country still has awhile to go to separate Church & State.

[Gerrinson]

I'm of the opinion that what two (or more) consenting adults want to do should be fine so long as it does not hurt others. Polygamy seems to fall under that heading, so far as I'm concerned. What I don't like is when people say you can do A, B, or C, but D is just wrong! So, a man & woman can marry, but man & man or woman & woman is immoral. Yeah, right.

However, the problem with legalizing it, in America anyway, is that democracy is majority rule. When you're in the minority, you're not going to win the vote. And while you can convince people one at a time, it takes a long time to promote an overall change in a nationwide viewpoint. Especially when your viewpoint is contrary to the teachings of the most common religion in that country.

Also, regardless of the intellectual argument, people vote in numbers. I'm a believer that when dealing with numbers greater than say...4 (possibly less!) the average IQ of the group is actually inverse to the size of the group. If you don't believe me, take 100 D&D nerds and cram them into the same room. See the insanity and stupidity reign when they try to come to a mutual decision.

And, please, I am a D&D nerd, so don't feel I'm disrespecting my peeps.

I'm nerd and I'm proud!

[Boozy]

The same arguments against polygamy can be applied to argue against the legalization of prostitution.

That is, concerns about consent and balance of power. There are certainly some empowered women out there who are interested in living in a polygamous marriage with several women married to one man. There are also empowered women who want to earn a living by providing sexual services to men. But we hear mostly about the 50 year-old man with 16 year-old wives who had no real choice in the matter. Or women forced into prostitution by unscrupulous pimps. And so we find it easiest to criminalize both practices for everyone, regardless of the circumstances.

I think that's the easy way out. I no more understand the appeal of polygamous marriages than I do the appeal of prostitution, but who am I to force my preferences on others? Prostitution would likely be safer for women, regardless of their circumstances, if made legal. I don't know if that's the case for polygamy, especially within closed religious communities, but it doesn't seem right to rob others of choices that make them happy just because others may abuse that right. It seems to me that raising the age that one can legally wed may go further to protect girls in these communities than anything else.

[Seshat]

of course... that could be stretched to include relationships that are still illegal (aka relations between people too closely related to be married)

My idea of civil families includes people who are not having a sexual relationship, but are caring for each other. Such as a child caring for an aged parent.

The benefits & responsibilities of my concept of civil families include any tax and welfare benefits for being a 'family group', and mutual responsibility for any children of the relationship.

In a relationship which doesn't include sexuality, it is unlikely there will be children, so it's a moot point.

(The issue of children of partners who are not in a civil family is one I haven't yet worked through. Perhaps the people involved would be deemed mutually responsible, and any civil family either party is in could choose to adopt the child.)

For me, it's a matter of next-of-kin rights (hospital visitation, emergency contacts), inheritance, and child responsibility.

Welfare and tax ... I'm undecided whether it's fairer to make such decisions on a per-person basis or a per-family basis. Either way, it should be consistent.

But I'd love to see the civil system acknowledge all forms of multi-adult family.

but back on topic, personally... with all the divorces and issues people are having with just a marriage to one person, i honestly think that bringing in multiple-partner marriages are just going to create even more trouble, especially if the multimarriage fails.[/color]

Is it going to be any different than the current situation, with multimarriages that currently do happen but are unacknowledged legally? I think it'll be better because these arrangements will be under the umbrella of family law.

But we hear mostly about the 50 year-old man with 16 year-old wives who had no real choice in the matter. Or women forced into prostitution by unscrupulous pimps.

Both situations should be dealt with in the criminal code, IMO.

The issue of civil families is one for the civil code, and concerns such matters as next-of-kin rights, inheritance, and responsibility for offspring. Optionally, it can also concern welfare and tax.

The criminal code should be handling coercion: though I'd be strongly in favour of the civil code requiring judicial oversight of situations where coercion is likely: such as a high age discrepancy between civil family members.
Many of those cases will be fine, but some of those cases will be 16 year olds forced into marriage unwilling. Catching them early will save those kids a lot of trouble.

[Slytovhand]

Especially when your viewpoint is contrary to the teachings of the most common religion in that country.

I didn't think JC had any sort of issue (or even comment) on the subject... other than 'love your neighbour'.... did he elaborate on that??

[anriana]

I didn't think JC had any sort of issue (or even comment) on the subject... other than 'love your neighbour'.... did he elaborate on that??

Jesus said that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

[AFPheonix]

Care quoting which passage? The only one I recall him mentioning marriage in any depth was in Matthew 19, and that was more of a case against frivolous divorce than gender of the people getting married.

[Flyndaran]

Huh, strangely, as a born atheist, I don't care what some specific hypothetical religion founder may have said.

If one can't defend a governmental limitation of freedom in non-religious terms and has real beneficial effects on the public at large, then it has no business in law.

[Boozy]

I'm pretty sure Anriana was not saying that the Bible should be considered when creating laws. It doesn't sound like something she'd say. I think she just had some information that answered Slyt's question.

So let's not get too side-tracked with this line of debate.

[anriana]

Care quoting which passage? The only one I recall him mentioning marriage in any depth was in Matthew 19, and that was more of a case against frivolous divorce than gender of the people getting married.

I was referring to Matthew 19: 4-6 where he quotes the Genesis description of man and woman leaving home and mutating into one person. I've always read it as very specifically gendered and limited to two people.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...-6&version=50;


And I only care about this because xtians care about it, not because I think it's important. If you're going to debate people who insist on bringing their religion into everything you have to debate on their terms if you want to have any effect.

[Sylvia727]

Excessively religious people generally want the USA's laws to be founded on Judeo-Christian traditions. When confronted with "separation of church and state", they claim that they don't want religion in the law, they just want morality in the law. There are people out there who honestly can't tell the difference between outlawing homosexuality or polygamy and outlawing child molestion or rape. As if they're based on the same foundation. With these people, one has to prove that they are not on the same grounds, that they are fundamentally different. One involves consenting adults and the other does not, which I personally would think is glaringly obvious but apparently isn't to some folk.

[Flyndaran]

...
And I only care about this because xtians care about it, not because I think it's important. If you're going to debate people who insist on bringing their religion into everything you have to debate on their terms if you want to have any affect.

That is lowering yourself to their level and trying to win playing their own game. I may laugh at super religious people that know less than casual reader atheist I do. But I don't let myself get caught in their web of self-delusion. I argue my non-religious points.

[Slytovhand]

That is lowering yourself to their level and trying to win playing their own game. I may laugh at super religious people that know less than casual reader atheist I do. But I don't let myself get caught in their web of self-delusion. I argue my non-religious points.

While that's all well and good for a straight debate with people willing to listen, and perhaps even admit they may be wrong, not going to happen when it comes to religion.

I agree with Anriana - if you want to debate religion (or really anything), best starting point is something the other person can agree with.. then lead them to the conclusion you want. It's not getting caught in their self-delusion, but trying to find the chink in the wall to let the light in on them..

[AFPheonix]

I was referring to Matthew 19: 4-6 where he quotes the Genesis description of man and woman leaving home and mutating into one person. I've always read it as very specifically gendered and limited to two people.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...-6&version=50;


And I only care about this because xtians care about it, not because I think it's important. If you're going to debate people who insist on bringing their religion into everything you have to debate on their terms if you want to have any affect.

I always considered that to be less that Jesus was mandating specific genders for marriage and more that if you're gonna marry somebody, it's going to be a bond that should not be sundered. He says man and woman because, well, there really wasn't sanctioned same sex relationships in that part of the world (with the exception of ancient Greece, but they were pretty much over their heyday by then).
I can see how someone could twist that into saying that Jesus said marriage is only between a man and a woman, but when they do that they've lost sight of what the whole passage is about, which is about a far greater threat to the idea of matrimony than same sex marriage.