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.
Again, who is allowed to be married to more than one person at a time? For this man to be treated unequally, he must be denied something that someone else is allowed.
Personally, I think polygamy is a very bad idea. If rights and protections allowed by marriage can be had with multiple people at once, we all run the risk of losing those rights and protections. What do I mean by this? Here is an example:
When we die, we may leave our IRA to whomever we please. A spouse may treat the inherited IRA as their own. Everyone else inherits under less advantageous rules and must begin immediately taking distributions. If I am allowed to have multiple marriage partners, I can simply marry my son-in-law, so that my daughter can indirectly inherit my IRA under the more advantageous rules. Plenty of people will figure this out. In effect, the rules which apply to everyone but a spouse can be circumvented completely by a little strategic polygamy. So then what? Well, it would be likely that treating your late spouse's inherited IRA as your own would no longer be allowed for anyone.
In fact, marrying one's children's spouses is a great way to circumvent estate taxes altogether. When this becomes the norm, government will react by changing laws.
On the other hand, we would no longer need the Witness Protection Program. No one could ever be compelled to testify against anyone in a court of law. The witness and defendant simply get married. That will work fine, at least until the law decides people can be compelled to testify against their spouse.
The entire reason special privileges and rules are allowed for spouses is because marriage is a unique relationship.
What you say here underlines why marriage is really a matter of state, and relates to how people choose to behave together and the rule of engagement they choose to follow (as a matter of desire to do so) and in relation to being compelled to testifying for or against spouse, this would be a good thing but would require lawyers for the defense to find motives for said spouses to lie against each other.
What is really active altogether is the problem in that children quickly become adults but the adults they become are still pretty much childish.
The state is sum total of the outpouring of childish reaction empowered by the authority of the adult who now can do so now will do. Childish mentality in adult bodies. As natural as that is, it is so easily mismanaged and remains largely dysfunctional in process and purpose.
Last edited by Rotagivan; 07-07-2015 at 04:06 PM..
What you say here underlines why marriage is really a matter of state, and relates to how people choose to behave together and the rule of engagement they choose to follow (as a matter of desire to do so) and in relation to being compelled to testifying for or against spouse, this would be a good thing but would require lawyers for the defense to find motives for said spouses to lie against each other.
What is really active altogether is the problem in that children quickly become adults but the adults they become are still pretty much childish.
The state is sum total of the outpouring of childish reaction empowered by the authority of the adult who now can do so now will do. Childish mentality in adult bodies. As natural as that it, it is so easily mismanaged and remains largely dysfunctional in process and purpose.
Of course marriage is a matter of state.
What do you propose we do about adults who behave childishly?
Polyamory / polygamy run afoul on the shoals of jealousy. The vast majority of people aren't even interested because of their desire for romantic intimacy / exclusivity; from what I have read of polyamory, a majority of those who are attracted to the idea find it unworkable in practice, not mostly because it's a minority position that society doesn't understand / embrace, but because relationships consistently blow up over jealousy issues. Well duh.
I think this is rather a good point.
It leads me to understand that people shouldn't even get into relationships at all, especially where the risk of having children is high.
However, there is no stopping nature except perhaps the nature of the thing itself inevitably leading to lowering entropy in relation to that specie and its behavior.
However, ideally any type of relationship could work fine (including polygamy) if those issues could be sorted within the individual and thus shift away from relationship having to be endorsed by any authoritative institution.
Quote:
As for polygamy, the only modern examples in the US that we have come from offshoots of Mormonism, and it seems to devolve into gnarly old men collecting young girls to keep themselves warm at night ... and the pushing out of young men who can't effectively compete with them financially or influentially. This may be more a problem with how these sects structure their polygamy, than with polygamy itself, and yet it seems to me that this would tend to be a problem. Polygamy is never one woman with many men, always the other way around, and so seems inherently exploitive / patriarchal / likely misogynist -- and even if the practice were inverted it would be subject to the same criticisms (exploitive / matriarchal / likely misandrist).
Polygamy is not gender specific.
It is inclusive of women having many spouses.
Indeed, it could be argued that one does not need to even have a spouse of the same sex in a polygamous relationship. Everyone is 'married' to everyone else in that.
there is no real reason why the whole human population could not treat each other as all being 'married' but of course the whole concept of jealousy and property and ownership would have to be done away with, for such a thing to be.
But potentially one could write a convincing fictional story on how such a world would be...what it would be like to live in such a world.
Quote:
I see family units based on multiple sex partners as only working at all in cultures very different from most western cultures, and probably not working very well even then. I daresay that exclusive pair-bonding produces more enduring and civil societies, and better security and mentoring for children.
From what is evidenced, these too do not last the distance and crumble under the strain of those things you have mentioned. They might take a little longer to manifest those symptoms and may not even be recognized as the source of the dysfunction.
The couples system still teach their offspring the value of possessions and what have you. All those thing which together eventual become the demise of civilizations.
Quote:
I don't know that incest necessarily has more issues than polyandry / polygamy. It has the inbreeding concerns, and informed consent concerns. In theory I have no issue with certain configurations of incest such as two siblings of similar age (and not minors) who don't want to have children together going this route, though it eludes me why they would, or why it would even be likely to happen in a healthy family dynamic.
Actually I am puzzled as to why that eludes you. Perhaps not wanting to have children is more a sign of a healthy understanding of the prolific problems you have already mentioned - that bringing more children into these selfish systems is a form of child abuse from the go get, and is missed for that because primarily it is children (or childish adults) who are bringing children into the world.
Last edited by Rotagivan; 07-07-2015 at 04:10 PM..
He wants marriage restricted to what he thinks the Bible says and only what he thinks the Bible says a marriage can be. I think he feels wronged by not being able to deny you civil rights or the rights that people who are heterosexual have. He must want the right to discriminate based on his Bible even though many others who follow the same book have no problem with the change in defintion of the word marriage.
As long as you don't try to marry the woman I am married to I believe you have the right to marry a woman.
But could they be arrested and tired as criminals if the state chose to do so?
In some states yes, but that law is not enforced pretty much everywhere. It's kind of like the law in my state that says that it is illegal to eat an ice cream cone on the sidewalk on Sunday. The law is on the books, but is never enforced.
In some states yes, but that law is not enforced pretty much everywhere. It's kind of like the law in my state that says that it is illegal to eat an ice cream cone on the sidewalk on Sunday. The law is on the books, but is never enforced.
Then any law which is no longer being enforced should be removed from the books.
While it remains 'hanging over the head' it still has the potential to cause harm - it can still be used in argument against those who speak for it - and can still be something which keeps people from coming out.
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.
