Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So really when all is said and done, marriage is about legal protection. So why then would that protection be undermined by legalizing multiple partners.
Or from another angle, why can't those who "consider themselves married to more than one person" be protected by the same law which protects couples?
I mean, if you were in support of same sex marriage, was it just because it did not threaten the law which protects couples? And thus, you see no reason to support the idea of multiple partners being protected (against discrimination etc) by the law?
Is it about the law and protecting the law more than about human beings and their choices?
I mean, you made the statement that multiple partner choices would undermine what we 'ALL' enjoy - but are you forgetting that being protected by the law by being recognized as legitimate helps curb discrimination?
Do you think those who want to be in multiple partnerships enjoy not being recognized as legal?
Because if you do, then why do you thin homosexuals and lesbians seemed less than joyful before their unions were recognized legal? Why do you think the rainbow flags are all flying as if joyfully?
Or is it simply that our present social structures and systems are geared to a certain agenda, and the only reason same sex couples got a foot in the door was because they are couples and thus essentially wont undermine that agenda?
There must be an agenda otherwise there would be nothing to 'mess' with right?
My thinking is that certain benefits and protections will cease to exist. For example, the preferential treatment of IRAs inherited from one's spouse as opposed to inherited from anyone else. Circumventing estate taxes when property passes from one spouse to another. Drawing SS benefits on a spouse's SS earnings record. Not being compelled to testify against one's spouse in a court of law.
If every legal advantage to marriage can be had in any situation via some strategic polygamy, then elimination of those advantages is the only logical outcome, in my opinion. I would not like to see that happen.
I don't see this as discriminatory, since every adult is entitled to one legal marriage to the person of their choice.
If, in theory, the law could be adjusted to make poly-whatever workable, I agree. I'm just very skeptical that it can be done without, at the very least, introducing inherent complexity in social structures that will cost society way more than is worth it given that near as i can tell hardly any of its members really want such arrangements.
And I strongly intuit that there are inherent problems with such arrangements, not just challenging legal complexities. Jealousy, complexity, undertows and cross currents of all kinds. Frankly in my view being in an intimate relationship with just one other human being is plenty challenging enough. I don't know why otherwise sane people would want even more baroque arrangements. But yes ... if the legal environment can be reworked in ways that won't make 2-person marriages less viable, and that won't make society itself less viable ... in theory ... sure. But put me down as an extreme skeptic about such an enterprise.
So really it isn't about equality and non discrimination but it is about the risk anything presents to the way society tentatively keeps a hold on things?
Same sex marriages present no real risk to that establishment, therefore
My thinking is that certain benefits and protections will cease to exist. For example, the preferential treatment of IRAs inherited from one's spouse as opposed to inherited from anyone else. Circumventing estate taxes when property passes from one spouse to another. Drawing SS benefits on a spouse's SS earnings record. Not being compelled to testify against one's spouse in a court of law.
Laws of possession. Change the laws as the people change their behaviors.
Slaves to the law or using the law to serve humanity...how many laws have been made in order to protect the interests and philosophical ideals of those who make the laws?
Change it so that preferential treatment is not part of the deal. Preferential treatment is a symptom of discrimination.
Quote:
If every legal advantage to marriage can be had in any situation via some strategic polygamy, then elimination of those advantages is the only logical outcome, in my opinion. I would not like to see that happen.
You would not like to see the end of discriminating law?
Quote:
I don't see this as discriminatory, since every adult is entitled to one legal marriage to the person of their choice.
Which serves the social structures of a particular class and mind-set enabling such systems.
Being 'entitled' to be married to one other person? Having a law which allows such 'entitlement'?
Whatever, if the argument is that the couples are advantaged due to the structure of the particular social mind-set and others will just have to accept that the lawful discrimination (which it is) is justifiable (at least to those who get the advantage,) then marriage is a sham.
Not only that, but the gay freedom movement is also because it has brought into that sham and accepted the advantage of being recognized as 'couples'.
Hoo rah!
So it has never really been about discrimination (for that obviously is part of the advantage) but it has been about being recognized as not being a threat to that advantage.
Laws of possession. Change the laws as the people change their behaviors.
I don't doubt that will happen, as I have already said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
Slaves to the law or using the law to serve humanity...how many laws have been made in order to protect the interests and philosophical ideals of those who make the laws?
Change it so that preferential treatment is not part of the deal. Preferential treatment is a symptom of discrimination.
You want to end the preferential treatment of marriage? What a slap in the face for all those who have only recently won the right to marry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
You would not like to see the end of discriminating law?
Your question is very vague. If you mean the preferential treatment of marriage regarding certain laws and benefits, I have already stated quite clearly that I would not like to see that end. If you mean something else, please clarify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
Which serves the social structures of a particular class and mind-set enabling such systems.
Being 'entitled' to be married to one other person? Having a law which allows such 'entitlement'?
Not sure how/why this is a question? Isn't it rather obvious that the laws in this country allow each adult to be married to one other adult, if they so choose?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
Whatever, if the argument is that the couples are advantaged due to the structure of the particular social mind-set and others will just have to accept that the lawful discrimination (which it is) is justifiable (at least to those who get the advantage,) then marriage is a sham.
How so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
Not only that, but the gay freedom movement is also because it has brought into that sham and accepted the advantage of being recognized as 'couples'.
If marriage is a sham, then yes. Otherwise, no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
Hoo rah!
So it has never really been about discrimination (for that obviously is part of the advantage) but it has been about being recognized as not being a threat to that advantage.
Yah! Rainbows all 'round! Bully for us!
Of course same sex marriage is not a threat to the advantages of marriage. This thread is about polygamy. My statements are about polygamy. Specifically, whether or not people should be allowed to be legally married to more than one spouse at a time.
Of course same sex marriage is not a threat to the advantages of marriage. This thread is about polygamy. My statements are about polygamy. Specifically, whether or not people should be allowed to be legally married to more than one spouse at a time.
Yes I know that. But isn't your argument that including Polygamy would threaten the advantage couples enjoy under the law?
Quote:
If marriage is a sham, then yes. Otherwise, no.
Marriage is a sham if it is all about the law and advantage. It is an institution of human law rather than nature, and advantages some while disadvantaging others and 'if you want the advantage coupling offers under the institution of law, then you will have to 'choose' to be a couple.
Otherwise stop complaining about being disadvantaged by the discrimination...
And yes! It does mean that the recent changes rainbow flags are celebrating is something of a sham.I did wonder why same sex partnerships were wanting to get married in the first place, but couldn't put my finger on why this niggled me. I understand it more clearly now. It is not about anti discrimination but about buying into the well established system of discrimination afforded to coupledom.
Yes I know that. But isn't your argument that including Polygamy would threaten the advantage couples enjoy under the law?
Yes. Same sex couples are couples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
Marriage is a sham if it is all about the law and advantage. It is an institution of human law rather than nature, and advantages some while disadvantaging others and 'if you want the advantage coupling offers under the institution of law, then you will have to 'choose' to be a couple.
That is a matter of opinion. I don't at all agree that bestowing advantages on married couples makes marriage a sham.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
Otherwise stop complaining about being disadvantaged by the discrimination...
I wasn't aware I was complaining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
And yes! It does mean that the recent changes rainbow flags are celebrating is something of a sham.I did wonder why same sex partnerships were wanting to get married in the first place, but couldn't put my finger on why this niggled me. I understand it more clearly now. It is not about anti discrimination but about buying into the well established system of discrimination afforded to coupledom.
It seems to me that whether or not to marry is a personal decision.
Yes I know that. But isn't your argument that including Polygamy would threaten the advantage couples enjoy under the law?
Marriage is a sham if it is all about the law and advantage. It is an institution of human law rather than nature, and advantages some while disadvantaging others and 'if you want the advantage coupling offers under the institution of law, then you will have to 'choose' to be a couple.
Otherwise stop complaining about being disadvantaged by the discrimination...
And yes! It does mean that the recent changes rainbow flags are celebrating is something of a sham.I did wonder why same sex partnerships were wanting to get married in the first place, but couldn't put my finger on why this niggled me. I understand it more clearly now. It is not about anti discrimination but about buying into the well established system of discrimination afforded to coupledom.
You seem to be right, every single gay person wanted to get married so they could bully those who are single.
All laws are non natural, how natural is it to stop for a red light, register ownership of a home or to pay taxes?
If you think marriages are a sham don't get married. I did not get married to put anyone at a disadvantage and see no reason why you would claim that two women getting married would either. There are a lot of legality to work out before one can make an informed opinion on polygamy. If you can only look at things superficially and at a glance you might well misinterprete what others are saying.
A married partner has so many more rights for their partner's stake if that partner is incapacitated and cannot give consent. Who is disadvantaged or discriminated against if my wife of 40 years is in a car accident and a decision must be made on when to pull the plug. Do you want to make those decisions for strangers so that their spouse does not have an advantage over you?
For American gays and their supports this week was good news. Why the attempts to try to find as many ways to spoil it for them as possible? Polygamy existed for a long time and is a totally separate issue from SSM, might as well try to tie ISIS or unemployment to the recent ruling and demand the gays fix that too.
Yes exactly. Advantage to couples in relation to thread topic.
Quote:
That is a matter of opinion. I don't at all agree that bestowing advantages on married couples makes marriage a sham.
Well yes. I can understand your position here. Remember it was you who said that arranging law so that it advantages everyone, rather than discriminating some, would cause upset to the status quo therefore you would rather things didn't change that dramatically because of the threat to those presently advantaged.
Okay, so you didn;t of course use those words because you obviously like the advantage offered to couples, but nonetheless that is what is being said and that isn't merely a matter of 'opinion'.
Sweetening the sound of something does not mean that the something is sweet. Admitting that it is an advantage you want to protect only say's that you are satisfied with the sweetness gained from the advantage.
Quote:
I wasn't aware I was complaining.
Yes sorry - my bad. I was using the word 'you' in the general sense.
Either assume the mind-set of coupledom or else don't complain that your own world view (in relation to the thread topic) is seen as a threat to the established way things are 'normally' done (nor why they are done.
Accept the fact that you are discriminated against by these laws.
Quote:
It seems to me that whether or not to marry is a personal decision.
I agree wholeheartedly. And the personal element has to be seen for what it is. Why the big fuss and bother then in relation to same sex couples not being recognized as legitimate couples and why play the 'discrimination card' along with the - very vocal protests' about what is really after all a matter of 'personal decision'?
Surely you can sense the hypocrisy in this 'outrage'. How many same sex couples will take a stand for those who want to be more than 'couples' and be legally recognized and help change those laws which prohibit and disadvantage and discriminate against 'people who are not couples'?
Would they be like "oh no sorry, it isn't about discrimination really but about having the right to the advantage of the law same as the hetro folks, and we don't want to rock that particular boat and place our snugly coupleness in jeopardy! Ya'll understand right?"
But yeah. Discrimination aside for a minute, it is a personal decision. Why spend all those buck$ on weddings and such when we can just be a couple, or a group without all that silliness?
Maybe put the buck$ into having a big party and inviting your friends to celebrate your ability to love each other without the official stamping of approval and unconcerned about the advantage you might get, if you are simply a couple anyhoo...tell the feds to stick their 'marriage' stuff up their proverbial jacksies and don't buy into it..why.?. . . Because the minute has passed and the fact of discrimination doesn't ever go away just because you are married, same sexed or not...
That's why...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am glad I used the word which signifies what I was meaning in relation to the thread topic.
