NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Definitions and concepts of "social contracts" are obviously changing. With an expansion of the putative "right to privacy" to include consensual sex of all types, the door is now open to virtually every combination and permutation of human sexuality. What will be the impact on society at large of the changing concepts of "family" and "marriage," and what are your thoughts about this?


Polygamy Is 'Next Civil Rights Battle,'
Activists Say (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200603/CUL20060316a.html)


By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
March 16, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Nearly three years after U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) argued that a U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas ban on sodomy would be used to legitimize other sexual practices outside traditional marriage, Santorum's prediction may be coming to pass.

Since the high court issued its 6-3 ruling in June 2003 in the Lawrence v. Texas case, national attention has focused on the issue of same-sex marriage. However, a Christian group claims the ruling guarantees that polygamy -- the union of one man with more than one woman -- is "the next civil rights battle."

Six months after the Lawrence decision, three members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sought a marriage license at the clerk's office in Salt Lake County, Utah. G. Lee Cook wrote on his application that he was already married but wanted to legally wed a second wife.

As a result, the clerks refused to issue the license and refunded the fee. The trio then sued, claiming that their constitutional rights to religious expression, privacy and intimate expression had been violated.

Brian Barnard, an attorney representing Cook, his wife and his would-be second wife, told Cybercast News Service that the basis of his legal argument to overturn Utah's anti-polygamy statute was the Lawrence v. Texas decision.

The state law prohibits a man from marrying a second wife, then states that "if a married man chooses to live with a woman to whom he's not married, he's guilty of a crime," the lawyer said.

"That's comparable to Lawrence v. Texas, where the U.S. Supreme Court said you can't outlaw a sexual relationship between consenting homosexual adults," Barnard stated.

The case, Bronson v. Swensen, is slated to be argued before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this year.

While there are presently only a handful of challenges to anti-polygamy laws, that number could increase dramatically. A number of sources estimate that about 50,000 families in the United States practice polygamy, including hundreds of Laotian Hmongs in Minnesota and members of Mormon splinter groups in Arizona and Utah.

Polygamy is also supported in principle by a wide variety of organizations, ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to the TruthBearer.org website, which represents a Christian group that claims "freely consenting, adult, non-abusive, marriage-committed polygamy is the next civil rights battle."

Founder Mark Henkel told Cybercast News Service that polygamy is found in the Bible and throughout history. The present concept of marriage, which Henkel called "marital Marxism," was produced in the Middle Ages by the Catholic Church, he said.

While Henkel opposes same-sex marriage, he readily acknowledges that Lawrence v. Texas and other recent Supreme Court decisions have established that individuals have "the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention."

In fact, he claims that many social conservatives are actually relying on liberal tactics by using the government to define marriage instead of relying on "the true institution created by God."

Polygamy was also on Santorum's mind during an interview with the Associated Press in April 2003, two months before the Lawrence ruling was issued.

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual gay sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery," Santorum said. "You have the right to anything," the A.P. quoted Santorum as saying.

"It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution," he added.

The Lawrence v. Texas decision stated that the two men arrested for having sex "are entitled to respect for their private lives."

"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," a majority of the Supreme Court justices stated.

Since then, advocates of same-sex marriage have dismissed Santorum's "slippery slope" argument regarding polygamy as a "red herring" from right-wing opponents.

Barnard added that he has a different view of that argument.

"If you start at one end of the spectrum, with one man and one woman creating children, the furthest away from that is two people of the same gender who cannot procreate," he said. "A polygamist situation is closer to the 'traditional family' because it's two parties of the opposite gender for the purpose of, with the capability of, procreation of children."

However, Rena Lindevaldsen, senior litigation counsel for the conservative Liberty Counsel told Cybercast News Service that the current battles in court and in Congress could lead to what she called "marital anarchy."

"I've been involved in marriage litigation around the country," Lindevaldsen said, and it's common for people to declare, "'OK, we're drawing the line here,' but it's a fair assessment to say that at this point, we're arbitrarily drawing lines.

"If the right of privacy is expanded so broadly that it's two people or three people who make that private decision and consent to live together, there is no rational way to draw the line at two people. It could be three or four," she said.

Lindevaldsen also noted many people fear that long-standing social traditions could be overturned by one client, one lawyer and one judge.

"One judge out in San Francisco has declared California's marriage laws unconstitutional," she said. "It was one judge who threw into question all of New York's marriage laws, even though four others were saying, 'No, no, they're constitutional.'

"Hopefully, you have appellate courts who are willing to stay the true course, but it's difficult to buck what seems like equal rights, fair rights, and to apply the law strictly as it should be applied," Lindevaldsen added.

Calls to Santorum's office seeking comment for this article were not returned by press time. However, his re-election campaign website refers to Santorum as "a leader on the issue of traditional marriage," adding that the senator "supports a constitutional amendment protecting marriage as that of a union between a man and woman."

Well, there IS that new HBO show coming out about a polygamist...Big Love. :p I guess I'll have to wait for it to come out on DVD.

At any rate, I think we should focus on "winning" the other civil rights battles that are still being fought before we start a whole new one.

Well, there IS that new HBO show coming out about a polygamist...Big Love. :p I guess I'll have to wait for it to come out on DVD.

At any rate, I think we should focus on "winning" the other civil rights battles that are still being fought before we start a whole new one.
Reading between the lines of what you say, you don't see any reason for limiting marriage to "one man, one woman?" Care to elaborate on that? :)

You'd have to be crazy to want multiple wives. They'd take turns nagging you, and would coordinate shit.

I am in favor of social contracts for group marriages (multiple males and multiple females).

It seems to me that the purpose of family is to provide for each successive generation.

A household with four (or six...or eight...:eek: ) adults in it can plan and provide for it's children far more effectively than a household with only one or two.

Plus, one could hardly argue with the fringe benefits. :D

It won't be long now before the right wing brings up the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (http://www.religioustolerance.org/flds.htm) as a big argument against legalizing polygamy.

Hey I'm all for it. Who am I to tell a grown person what they can and cannot do? If you want 6 wives, go for it. If you want 3 husbands, knock yourself out.

Anything and everything concerning marriage should be permissable provided it's between consenting adults. Period.

Reading between the lines of what you say, you don't see any reason for limiting marriage to "one man, one woman?" Care to elaborate on that? :)

If I wanted to limit marriage to "one man, one woman" then I would be against gay marriage, which I am not. I don't have an opinion about polygamy.

Hey I'm all for it. Who am I to tell a grown person what they can and cannot do? If you want 6 wives, go for it. If you want 3 husbands, knock yourself out.

Anything and everything concerning marriage should be permissable provided it's between consenting adults. Period.
I tend to agree, but I would like to hear your reasons for saying that.

Nitpick: the article uses the word polygamy incorrectly. It defines polygamy as 'the union of one man with more than one woman', which is actually polygyny. Polygamy, technically, is 'marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time'. Polyandry, by the way, is about having more than one husband.

As to the actual subject matter: whatever happens between consenting adults is fine with me.

Reading between the lines of what you say, you don't see any reason for limiting marriage to "one man, one woman?" Care to elaborate on that? :)

Well, what is wrong with polygamy? Many societies have practiced it, and it is a stable system that works, and has many benefits.

So why not? As with the arguments on which this case seems to be based, what is wrong with a consensual relationship between adults?

Of course, I do think it should work both (or rather all) ways, not just one husband with multiple wives, but also one wife with multiple husbands and multiple wives with multiple husbands.

I tend to agree, but I would like to hear your reasons for saying that.

Mostly because I believe in freedom of choice. I have a very difficult time telling a grown-up what they can and cannot do. I mean ... they're a grown up!

We already spend so much time telling them they can't see boobies on TV, can't smoke a little pot now and then, and can't catch a fish for dinner unless they pay a license fee. It's almost like our government wants to perpetually treat adults like children.

I'm tired of it. I can understand public safety issues. Don't drink and drive, don't fire your gun in a residential area, don't go to the grocery store naked. All fine rules. But telling people who they can and cannot marry? Please. That's going too far.

There's likely not going to be a significant amount of cases for this to ever be a serious issue. People swing anyway, and that has never been cracked down upon in the way that gay marriage has, or just being gay for that matter.

There's likely not going to be a significant amount of cases for this to ever be a serious issue. People swing anyway, and that has never been cracked down upon in the way that gay marriage has, or just being gay for that matter.

Exactly. Exactly!

What "next" battle? Gay marriage still is the "next civil rights battle" in your country.

I, as many of the previous posters, draw the line for marriage arrangements at 'consentual, of age, and equal'. This means no forced marriage, no marrying of kids, animals or inanimate objects, and no marriage where rights and duties aren't mutual. This does allow for as many spouses as they want to, of whichever gender mix they want to.

Why? Because, the same as with sex, I believe for adults to have the right to make responsible, mutually agreed choices about ther private lives and living arrangements without a government imposing morals upon them.

I do not, however, think that polygamy will be a major civil rights battle in the near future as I think we're still too preoccupied with fulfilling and ending the ones we already have, and broad support for this isn't there yet, either.

Neither do I think that this will change the "concept of family" much. First of all because I do not think that significant a percentage of people would choose this living arrangement, and secondly because I think the changes in how flexible living arrangements have become within the existing boundaries, what with divorce, non-marriage living arrangements, patchwork families, adopting etc, are a much bigger and much more decisive factor.

the fundamentalist mormon churches ARE a good example of why polygamy is banned. nasty old men marrying underaged girls on the pretext that god wants them to is disgusting.

but making polygamy illegal hasnt stopped it, now has it?

if polygamy were legalized the real mormon church would go back to polygamy. they only put it aside until the rest of the country was ready to accept it. if we accept it, they put it back into effect.

not that i care.

the only kind of polygamy that i think should be legal is group marriage (maybe someone knows a fancy latinish name for it?).

in standard polygamy, one man marries more than one woman but the women are only married to HIM, so that if he dies, they have no legal relationship to each other, the marriage is gone. and the same with one woman marrying several men. the marriage bond is with each man and the woman, not with each other

in group marriage, everyone is married to everyone in the group. everyone must agree to the addition of another spouse and that person must agree to marry everyone in the group and to bind themselves legally to everyone in the group. that way if one person dies or decides that the situation isnt for them, the marriage still exists. the peoples personal relationship to each other is their business but all children produced are the children (and thus the legal responsibility) of each and every member of the marriage.

the only kind of polygamy that i think should be legal is group marriage (maybe someone knows a fancy latinish name for it?)
Polygamy.

What you described isn't 'standard' polygamy as compared to some new concept, but the religiously twisted perversion of polygamy as practised by most current polygamists.

As I already specified earlier, in order for me to support polygamy it would have to be the unbiased kind: undefined number of people of undefined gender married in a contract that ensures equal rights and duties to all members of the contract.

We should have polygamy now! Then we'd get everyone marrying and it'd bring a whole new meaning to "six degrees of seperation". It's would end war becaused you'd be killing your family and it would be great!

We should have polygamy now! Then we'd get everyone marrying and it'd bring a whole new meaning to "six degrees of seperation". It's would end war becaused you'd be killing your family and it would be great!

Not really. Family has been killing family since the dawn of man.

Not really. Family has been killing family since the dawn of man.
oh yeah there's that... and all them in-laws... Ban it now!

in group marriage, everyone is married to everyone in the group. everyone must agree to the addition of another spouse and that person must agree to marry everyone in the group and to bind themselves legally to everyone in the group. that way if one person dies or decides that the situation isnt for them, the marriage still exists. the peoples personal relationship to each other is their business but all children produced are the children (and thus the legal responsibility) of each and every member of the marriage.
Some call that "polyamory." At one point in time, I was seriously considering it.

Some call that "polyamory." At one point in time, I was seriously considering it.
Well, that'd be the whole thing without legal marriage, only the living arrangement, no?
What made you decide against it?

Well, that'd be the whole thing without legal marriage, only the living arrangement, no?

What made you decide against it?
Yep, just an extended living arrangement, from one perspective.

You know, I'm not sure why I decided against it, other than the problems in finding the right personality mix.

What kind of masochistic wacko would want more than one wife?!?

I love my wife dearly. But she is about all I can tolerate. :D

I have the same issues with polygamy as I do with any form of marriage. As long as it is not an abusive relationship, and is entered into consensually by adults of the same species, I'm for it.

But don't invite me to your dog's wedding.

What kind of masochistic wacko would want more than one wife?!?

I love my wife dearly. But she is about all I can tolerate. :D
You could get yourself a new extra wife *and* a new extra husband who'd help you take care of, umm, that. Diversity plus no extra effort?

But don't invite me to your dog's wedding.

but the dog and the cat have been living in sin!

What kind of masochistic wacko would want more than one wife?!?

I love my wife dearly. But she is about all I can tolerate. :D
That's ok. She's about all I can tolerate too. ;)

I have the same issues with polygamy as I do with any form of marriage. As long as it is not an abusive relationship, and is entered into consensually by adults of the same species, I'm for it.

But don't invite me to your dog's wedding.
What if s/he married your dog? My dog's 7 and not abusive, you know. And I know yours wants it. /assuming you to have a dog for this post's sake.

You could get yourself a new extra wife *and* a new extra husband who'd help you take care of, umm, that. Diversity plus no extra effort?
Plus it's highly unlikely everyone will "have a headache" all at the same time! :D

What if s/he married your dog? My dog's 7 and not abusive, you know. And I know yours wants it. /assuming you to have a dog for this post's sake.
I don't have a dog. And I'm not objecting necessarily to the wedding, as long as you can somehow prove you've gotten consent. I just wouldn't show up. The wedding cake would probably be tuna flavoured. Ewww.

I would LOVE a second husband while my first husband is away at work. And I wouldn't be adverse to including a bi woman in our marriage for when I get sick of man parts.

That's ok. She's about all I can tolerate too. ;)

Oh, that was you! I found your box of condoms. I didn't know thay came in 'petite'. :)

I am in favor of social contracts for group marriages (multiple males and multiple females).

If consenting adults want to live in such an arrangement, they should certainly be allowed to contract for it - incorporation would actually probably work quite well.

The general marriage rights cannot be extended to polygamy because they simply wouldn't work in a group setting. They are specifically and completely designed for two people and too much of it simply could not be extended. Not to mention, that while you can generalize a union of two people as fitting into a fairly simple model, you cannot do so with all of the various groupings that polygamy might result in.

Thus, if consenting adults want to pool their resources and live with each other and so on, they should be able to form contracts to that effect - but it would have to be more of a case-by-case basis than a matter of simply extending marriage laws to them.

Oh, that was you! I found your box of condoms. I didn't know thay came in 'petite'. :)
ROFLMFAO!!!!! Good one! :D

Thus, if consenting adults want to pool their resources and live with each other and so on, they should be able to form contracts to that effect - but it would have to be more of a case-by-case basis than a matter of simply extending marriage laws to them.
Ay, and there are so many issues that would cause problems...like the definition of a family, which would affect things like who could be covered under who's medical and insurance plans, it would affect taxation, it might even get you kicked out of your home if only one 'family' (consisting of two adults and children) were living there. The complications are quite literally endless. Kind of daunting.

The general marriage rights cannot be extended to polygamy because they simply wouldn't work in a group setting. They are specifically and completely designed for two people and too much of it simply could not be extended. Not to mention, that while you can generalize a union of two people as fitting into a fairly simple model, you cannot do so with all of the various groupings that polygamy might result in.
I'm not very big on marriage laws, would you take the time to elaborate on some of these laws you're referring to?

If consenting adults want to live in such an arrangement, they should certainly be allowed to contract for it - incorporation would actually probably work quite well.

The general marriage rights cannot be extended to polygamy because they simply wouldn't work in a group setting. They are specifically and completely designed for two people and too much of it simply could not be extended. Not to mention, that while you can generalize a union of two people as fitting into a fairly simple model, you cannot do so with all of the various groupings that polygamy might result in.

Thus, if consenting adults want to pool their resources and live with each other and so on, they should be able to form contracts to that effect - but it would have to be more of a case-by-case basis than a matter of simply extending marriage laws to them.
Good point.

I'm not very big on marriage laws, would you take the time to elaborate on some of these laws you're referring to?

Just to name a few:

The next-of-kin laws. Which spouse actually gets this right? If you have two and they disagree on how you should be medically treated or your funeral arrangements, which is more important, the first? The last? Now extend it to 3 or 4, or more.

Spousal immunity. This couldn't be extended to *anyone* you marry. You could possibly have entire gangs or mobs marrying so that none of them could ever be legally bound to testify against one another. How would we protect against that?

Tax laws - marriage laws specifically designed for a two person household, perhaps with children.

Property issues - is it truly communal property? If person A is married to person B and C, but persons B and C are not married, how is property and debt distributed amongst them? Now scale that up to more people.

Child custody. Do all people married get the same custody? Or just the birth parents? To whom does the child go if the arrangement is broken up? Can all adults in the house fight for custody?

Issues of convenience. For convenience of the person and the state, many things can be registered with the state under a marriage (fishing licenses and such), rather than individually. However, this would cease to be convenient if we weren't talking about 2 people, but were instead talking about 5.


When it comes right down to it, the marriage laws were designed with a certain model in mind. If you worked really, really, really hard and cut out most of what is involved, you might be able to extend them. But the better move would probably be to allow those who would enter into such an arrangement to incorporate themselves or form some other contractual arrangement.

This whole thing is bullshit.

The only people that would be seeking polygamist marriages would be ones whose religions condone and encourage polygamy. But sexual practices between consenting adults is none of the state's fucking business. Santorum can move to some deserted island in the Pacific and drown himself in a dry creek.

Just to name a few:

The next-of-kin laws. Which spouse actually gets this right? If you have two and they disagree on how you should be medically treated or your funeral arrangements, which is more important, the first? The last? Now extend it to 3 or 4, or more.
Yes, I didn't think of that conflict potential. I'd suggest either making a formula such as "first/last person the person in question married" or to make everyone choose which spouse they want to be determined as such.

Spousal immunity. This couldn't be extended to *anyone* you marry. You could possibly have entire gangs or mobs marrying so that none of them could ever be legally bound to testify against one another. How would we protect against that?
I don't think this would be a problem, as I don't think that such people would accept the whole marriage package in order for this. Quite apart from me not really supporting spousal immunity.

Tax laws - marriage laws specifically designed for a two person household, perhaps with children.
Again, I'm not very sure about tax laws, but if there are valid reasons for giving certain tax advantages to two people committed to each other and accepting responsibilities for each other, then right now I find it hard to see how there is no such valid reason for 3+ people committed to each other and sharing responsibilities to get the same.

Property issues - is it truly communal property? If person A is married to person B and C, but persons B and C are not married, how is property and debt distributed amongst them? Now scale that up to more people.
As mentioned before, all people in the contract are to have *equal* duties and rights. Meaning especially that everyone is married to everyone, including debt and property to be evenly split just like in 'regular' marriage, unless there are special marriage contracts providing otherwise.

Child custody. Do all people married get the same custody? Or just the birth parents? To whom does the child go if the arrangement is broken up? Can all adults in the house fight for custody?
The way I'd like to see it, legal parents of the child with all rights and duties should mandatorily be the birth parents *with the option* for all other spouses to join that parenthood, legally, if they wish.
The question of who the child goes to shall be determined just the way it is now, that is, with mutual agreements and court decisions if necessary. If you say a court is able to decide who of two people 'get' a child, why would that be different for four people?

Issues of convenience. For convenience of the person and the state, many things can be registered with the state under a marriage (fishing licenses and such), rather than individually. However, this would cease to be convenient if we weren't talking about 2 people, but were instead talking about 5.
How so? *honestly probably just doesn't understand what you're talking about*

When it comes right down to it, the marriage laws were designed with a certain model in mind. If you worked really, really, really hard and cut out most of what is involved, you might be able to extend them. But the better move would probably be to allow those who would enter into such an arrangement to incorporate themselves or form some other contractual arrangement.
I like the idea of 'free contracts', except for two things:

a) you place the burden of having to know what is important and what not upon the spouses. I assume most average-educated people wouldn't be able to see through all available laws, rights, and duties to make that decision responsibly.

b) you would have to principally allow all spousal rights and duties first for the couples to be able to 'pick' then. Thre's no use in saying they may draft up contracts to their pleasure when they then aren't allowed to legally fulfill them. E.g. the custody thing, you will have to allow joint custody with 3+ people in roder for a couple to draft a contract including that.

This whole thing is bullshit.

The only people that would be seeking polygamist marriages would be ones whose religions condone and encourage polygamy.
Why? You don't believe 3+ people can be in an actual all-round mutual love relationship?

Yes, I didn't think of that conflict potential. I'd suggest either making a formula such as "first/last person the person in question married" or to make everyone choose which spouse they want to be determined as such.

...which they would end up doing in forming their own contracts anyways.

I don't think this would be a problem, as I don't think that such people would accept the whole marriage package in order for this. Quite apart from me not really supporting spousal immunity.

You'd be surprised what people might do to escape prosecution.

Again, I'm not very sure about tax laws, but if there are valid reasons for giving certain tax advantages to two people committed to each other and accepting responsibilities for each other, then right now I find it hard to see how there is no such valid reason for 3+ people committed to each other and sharing responsibilities to get the same.

It isn't really "tax advantages." When it comes right down to it, most married couples pay *more* in taxes than they would if they were both single. It is only when they have more dependents (children or older parents, etc.) that they end up getting breaks, but single people get those same tax breaks. The difference is that the tax code itself is designed to have different rates for a single person vs. a two-adult home. If you put those same tax rates on a 3-adult home, the results would not be the same. If you moved it to 5, even less so.

This is why I say that those wishing to live in a polygamous situation should incorporate their assets, each with equal shares in their corporation or with unequal shares as they saw fit. They would still end up all owning everything/owing the same debts and paying taxes together, but in a method designed for such multiples.

As mentioned before, all people in the contract are to have *equal* duties and rights.

What if that isn't what they want? What fi person A is married to person B, and wants to marry person C, but persons B and C don't want to be married? That would still be polygamy.

The way I'd like to see it, legal parents of the child with all rights and duties should mandatorily be the birth parents *with the option* for all other spouses to join that parenthood, legally, if they wish.

This would require an entirely new set of laws, as no more than two people can have equal custody of a child at this time.

The question of who the child goes to shall be determined just the way it is now, that is, with mutual agreements and court decisions if necessary. If you say a court is able to decide who of two people 'get' a child, why would that be different for four people?

It is much easier to compare two people than 4. Once you get to four (or even more), how do we determine exactly who is best for the child? Will joint custody involve the child living in 4 different places for a fourth of the year each time?

How so? *honestly probably just doesn't understand what you're talking about*

Much of the marriage laws are matters of convenience for the couple and for the way the government treats them. The more people you add into the mix, the less convenient it gets (and the more the government has to worry about losing money in the process).

I like the idea of 'free contracts', except for two things:

a) you place the burden of having to know what is important and what not upon the spouses. I assume most average-educated people wouldn't be able to see through all available laws, rights, and duties to make that decision responsibly.

Most people don't write their own contracts. They have lawyers do it. I'm sure that having this type of arrangement available would open up a whole new area in the practice of law.

b) you would have to principally allow all spousal rights and duties first for the couples to be able to 'pick' then. Thre's no use in saying they may draft up contracts to their pleasure when they then aren't allowed to legally fulfill them. E.g. the custody thing, you will have to allow joint custody with 3+ people in roder for a couple to draft a contract including that.

That's why I said that they *should* be able to do so. I'm not sure on the custody thing. I don't think it's a good idea to have 10 people with equal custody of a child, for instance. You need more culpability than that in a child's life.

Why? You don't believe 3+ people can be in an actual all-round mutual love relationship?
Because most people arn't insane.

Why are Christian marriages so weak that they cannot sustain themselves with even the threat of an alternative relationship? I mean... that is the problem, right?

This whole thing is bullshit.

The only people that would be seeking polygamist marriages would be ones whose religions condone and encourage polygamy.
I'm an atheist, so clearly I don't have a religion condoning and encouraging polygamy, and I'd be fine with it, and would possibly seek it if I met the right kind of people.

You'd be surprised what people might do to escape prosecution.

Spousal immunity only exists in some jurisdictions anyway. Haven't you watched the Sopranos?:D

Why are Christian marriages so weak that they cannot sustain themselves with even the threat of an alternative relationship? I mean... that is the problem, right?
Well, considering that much of the African continent, and the nations of Middle East practice polygamy, I'd say yes. That does seem to be part of the problem.

Spousal immunity only exists in some jurisdictions anyway. Haven't you watched the Sopranos?:D
=)

That's another thing - marriage laws vary so widely from state to state. Sometimes I think we'd be better off without a specified marriage contract and *everyone* could just make their own. LOL

I do have to add though, although I'm sure I'll get jumped on for this, that the group described in the article don't actually have a case, at least not on the basis they have claimed. Their religious rights are not being infringed upon simply by not having access to polygamous *civil* marriage. Thus, being denied a second civil marriage is not a breach of freedom of religion.

On the other hand, if they were prosecuted/punished for being *religiously* married to more than one person, while only civilly married to one, such as the judge who recently was removed from the bench in Utah, then there is a 1st Amendment case.

...which they would end up doing in forming their own contracts anyways.
That's why I said that they *should* be able to do so.
I see we're closer to each other than I thought starting out. Only that I want a polygamous (?) 'couple' (?) to be able to choose from all the rights a regular married couple can.


You'd be surprised what people might do to escape prosecution.
Probably. I grant you that's a problem that I don't yet know how to address.

It isn't really "tax advantages." When it comes right down to it, most married couples pay *more* in taxes than they would if they were both single. It is only when they have more dependents (children or older parents, etc.) that they end up getting breaks, but single people get those same tax breaks. The difference is that the tax code itself is designed to have different rates for a single person vs. a two-adult home. If you put those same tax rates on a 3-adult home, the results would not be the same. If you moved it to 5, even less so.
I must admit that I'm still none the wiser. Which has a lot to do with my ignorance on the subject of taxes.

This is why I say that those wishing to live in a polygamous situation should incorporate their assets, each with equal shares in their corporation or with unequal shares as they saw fit. They would still end up all owning everything/owing the same debts and paying taxes together, but in a method designed for such multiples.
If I understand this correctly, I might agree with it. Let's say I completely agree with the underlined part, and if this method covers it, I'm fine. Again, my ignorance on tax things is blatant.

What if that isn't what they want? What fi person A is married to person B, and wants to marry person C, but persons B and C don't want to be married? That would still be polygamy.
Well, not a kind I'd suppport to be legalized. I find it to constitute an imbalance of powers, and violate the prerequisite of all married partners to be in a mutual relationship.

This would require an entirely new set of laws, as no more than two people can have equal custody of a child at this time.
Why, yes. This is a new situation which will require new laws. Allowing polygamous marriages itself will be a change in laws, saying 'laws will have to be changed subsequently' is not an argument against any consequences, no?

It is much easier to compare two people than 4. Once you get to four (or even more), how do we determine exactly who is best for the child? Will joint custody involve the child living in 4 different places for a fourth of the year each time?
How do you determine who exactly is best for the child with two people? Once again, I don't *know*, but I guess tehre's some kind of catalogue with criteria, and whoever meets most of those criteria best, 'wins'.
Same thing.

Does joint custody of split parents involve a child splitting their life like that?
Whatever the answer to that is, I don't consider that to be a good thing, and I wouldn't endorse it for multiple spouses. I'd encourage the child living in one household with adequate visiting rights etc to ensure the other parents fulffilling their custody rights.

Most people don't write their own contracts. They have lawyers do it. I'm sure that having this type of arrangement available would open up a whole new area in the practice of law.
Hmm..when the regular couple marries, do they have a lawyer for anything? I was always under the impression most people just married and accepted the automatic 'contract' that this marriage constituted. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
What I'd resent is for our 'new couples' to *have* to do the lawyer thing and all (money issue, too), while a 'regular' couple can just marry like that without any such things involved.

I'm not sure on the custody thing. I don't think it's a good idea to have 10 people with equal custody of a child, for instance. You need more culpability than that in a child's life.
Well, I disagree.

What "next" battle? Gay marriage still is the "next civil rights battle" in your country.

That's what I was thinking? How is it that the next logical step is polygamy? If a law says that an individual can marry one other individual, there is no violation of rights as defended. Marriage in terms of the state is a civil institution. Thus they have the right to regulate it. There is no amendment that protects your right to be permitted to marry multiple people.

There is, however, an amendment that has been interpreted to make marriage an idividual right and that we cannot limit that right based on protected classes. The lack of gay marriage violates that decision.

I do have to add though, although I'm sure I'll get jumped on for this, that the group described in the article don't actually have a case, at least not on the basis they have claimed. Their religious rights are not being infringed upon simply by not having access to polygamous *civil* marriage. Thus, being denied a second civil marriage is not a breach of freedom of religion.

On the other hand, if they were prosecuted/punished for being *religiously* married to more than one person, while only civilly married to one, such as the judge who recently was removed from the bench in Utah, then there is a 1st Amendment case.

*jumps on you as sign of intense approval*

Because most people arn't insane.
I resent your equalling such a relationship with insanity. And dismiss that comment as foolish and unsupported, if you don't mind.

=)

That's another thing - marriage laws vary so widely from state to state. Sometimes I think we'd be better off without a specified marriage contract and *everyone* could just make their own. LOL

I do have to add though, although I'm sure I'll get jumped on for this, that the group described in the article don't actually have a case, at least not on the basis they have claimed. Their religious rights are not being infringed upon simply by not having access to polygamous *civil* marriage. Thus, being denied a second civil marriage is not a breach of freedom of religion.

On the other hand, if they were prosecuted/punished for being *religiously* married to more than one person, while only civilly married to one, such as the judge who recently was removed from the bench in Utah, then there is a 1st Amendment case.

Exactly. Civil marriage is not a private action. It's intended for recognition by the state. It is, however, a right and an individual right. That is useful in some arguments but not in an argument for polygamy. While I don't care if people engage, they have no grounds.

Once more, the dsitinction must be made between a civil union, and a marriage, the latter entailing religious connotations signally absent from the former. However, in relation to polygamy, the concept is somewhat different to that of homosexual unions, or, more regressedly, second marriages, in that it entails an inherently different arrangement, and the divorce and probate intyricacies would be problematic. It is, however, entirely feasible to encorporate a consensual polygamous marraige within an entirely secular union.

I see we're closer to each other than I thought starting out. Only that I want a polygamous (?) 'couple' (?) to be able to choose from all the rights a regular married couple can.

For the most part, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to - in so much as said rights actually can be applied to multiples. Some of them are designed for a two-person union, and cannot simply be extended to multiples. Hence the reason I think we need a separate legal description, rather than trying to half-ass apply the laws for couples.

If I understand this correctly, I might agree with it. Let's say I completely agree with the underlined part, and if this method covers it, I'm fine. Again, my ignorance on tax things is blatant.

I'm not completely up to date on tax laws, but from my understanding, incorporation of a group's assets would pretty well cover the financial needs of a polygamous group. There would still be the issue of contracting what to do when one person leaves the group, or if the group as a whole immediately divorced, and so forth, but there are issues there even with couples.

Why, yes. This is a new situation which will require new laws.

And that is my point. We can't simply say, "OK, marriage for groups now!" It wouldn't work. We would need a new code of law to provide protections for such arrangements. And since each arrangement would be different, it might be best to do it on more of a case-by-case basis.

How do you determine who exactly is best for the child with two people?

It isn't easy. It isn't simply a list of things, but a look at the child's general welfare, which parent is closer, etc. Generally, joint custody is considered the best situation, unless there is a reason to keep one parent out of the loop.

Does joint custody of split parents involve a child splitting their life like that?

Often, yes. It isn't always equal. Sometimes it is more like 60/40. Sometimes the child spends most of the school year in one place, and the summer in another. Holidays are usually split. And so on.

Whatever the answer to that is, I don't consider that to be a good thing, and I wouldn't endorse it for multiple spouses. I'd encourage the child living in one household with adequate visiting rights etc to ensure the other parents fulffilling their custody rights.

Visiting will never be the same as actually living with the child. You would actually remove the parent from the child's life much more this way.

Hmm..when the regular couple marries, do they have a lawyer for anything? I was always under the impression most people just married and accepted the automatic 'contract' that this marriage constituted. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

Some do, some don't. It depends upon their specific situation and how complicated it is. Most do take the automatic contract and only deal with any lawyer as a last check.

But again, having an automatic contract designed for one specific arrangement can work. Trying to write an automatic contract designed for lots of different possible types of groups would ensure that people got screwed, because every situation would be so different.

What I'd resent is for our 'new couples' to *have* to do the lawyer thing and all (money issue, too), while a 'regular' couple can just marry like that without any such things involved.

*shrug* Their situation would be more complicated, and would thus need a more complicated solution. If a couple has a complicated situation or wants to specify more than the general marriage contract (as you have already shown that a polygamous marriage would have to do), they also have to hire a lawyer as well.

As for the costs that go to the governemnt, I'm not sure but I don't think a simple incorporation would cost much more (if at all) than a marriage license and all the paperwork associated with that.

Well, I disagree.

The more people you bring into a responsibility, the less personal responsibility each has.

I think one thing is clear. That polygamy without all involved parties being aware of it is fraud. I just wanted to put that out there before someone starts arguing that it will open the door to dozens of legal secret marriages.

Once more, the dsitinction must be made between a civil union, and a marriage, the latter entailing religious connotations signally absent from the former. However, in relation to polygamy, the concept is somewhat different to that of homosexual unions, or, more regressedly, second marriages, in that it entails an inherently different arrangement, and the divorce and probate intyricacies would be problematic. It is, however, entirely feasible to encorporate a consensual polygamous marraige within an entirely secular union.
A marriage is a legal, civil issue. We are not arguing what any church is or is not to accept in their rituals.
You cannot argue with any "connotations" in a legal context. With the seperation of state and church, we have seperated civil marriage from the religious ceremony in every way. Just because most people choose to do the religious ceremony doesn't mean the religious thing has any effect at all on the legal, civil insitution.

A marriage is a legal, civil issue. We are not arguing what any church is or is not to accept in their rituals.
You cannot argue with any "connotations" in a legal context. With the seperation of state and church, we have seperated civil marriage from the religious ceremony in every way. Just because most people choose to do the religious ceremony doesn't mean the religious thing has any effect at all on the legal, civil insitution.

Precisely my point, a civil union is an entirely legal affair, therefore if all the signatories are of proven and consenting mind, it is somewhat difficult to justifiably interdict.

I'm for polygamy because my fiances best friend would marry us if it were legal plus if it were legal then the Mormons who practice it still wouldnt have to hide anymore and more light could be shed on abusive relationships potentially.

And that is my point. We can't simply say, "OK, marriage for groups now!" It wouldn't work. We would need a new code of law to provide protections for such arrangements. And since each arrangement would be different, it might be best to do it on more of a case-by-case basis.
Okay, I think we agree then. I'm not to insist on these regulations to be dragged over word-by-word for all the coplications you mentioned, but I insist on the underlying rights, however they may have to be re-formulated and adapted for the new situation, to be carried over.
Basically, I want to ensure there'd be no such fiasco as some of these 'civil unions' we see for homosexual couples, where they drafted up new contracts saying it'd be the same only adapted, but in fact these lack to provide for the same rights in all its extent.

It isn't easy. It isn't simply a list of things, but a look at the child's general welfare, which parent is closer, etc. Generally, joint custody is considered the best situation, unless there is a reason to keep one parent out of the loop.
..
Often, yes. It isn't always equal. Sometimes it is more like 60/40. Sometimes the child spends most of the school year in one place, and the summer in another. Holidays are usually split. And so on.
..
Visiting will never be the same as actually living with the child. You would actually remove the parent from the child's life much more this way.
No, it isn't easy. Not today, and of course not with polygamous marriages.
But try to see the other side. A kid grows up in a family with 4 adults, who split up, and only two have been legal parents and then proceed to somehow split custody for the kid, leaving the other 2 totally out of the loop and without any legal tools to change that. They have been just as much a part of the kid's life so far, do you think this to be a better solution?


Some do, some don't. It depends upon their specific situation and how complicated it is. Most do take the automatic contract and only deal with any lawyer as a last check.

But again, having an automatic contract designed for one specific arrangement can work. Trying to write an automatic contract designed for lots of different possible types of groups would ensure that people got screwed, because every situation would be so different.

*shrug* Their situation would be more complicated, and would thus need a more complicated solution. If a couple has a complicated situation or wants to specify more than the general marriage contract (as you have already shown that a polygamous marriage would have to do), they also have to hire a lawyer as well.
Probably. Still, today's couples use their contract/lawyer to *modify* the existing vast body of contract that marriage is, no? That is existencially different from asking polygamous couples to draft the whole thing from, well, nothing. That is why I ask for a standard body of regulations, the way today's marriage is, that will then be modified to suit the couple's needs. An assured basis, so to speak. As, of course, and as it is today too, also with specifications as to what you *can't* have in a marriage contract.

The more people you bring into a responsibility, the less personal responsibility each has.
I don't think so. When I have joint custody with 3 other people on my kid, and number 2 executes a decision regarding the child that harms it, I am just as responsible for the damage as I didn't prevent it. With today's 2-parent-custody, a mothe risn't free of guilt(not of responsibility if the father abuses it, right? Shared custody is not splitting responsibilty, but each carrying the whole load.

I'm for polygamy because my fiances best friend would marry us if it were legal Is she going to live with you, or would you all insist on having your relationship legalised first? I would definately consider just moving in with someone (or having them move in with us) if we met someone we were both in love with. I wouldn't necessarily care about the legal definition of being married...since I'm not married to my spouse anyway.

Is she going to live with you, or would you all insist on having your relationship legalised first? I would definately consider just moving in with someone (or having them move in with us) if we met someone we were both in love with. I wouldn't necessarily care about the legal definition of being married...since I'm not married to my spouse anyway.

Actually, we would be able to marry her and her husband :D

She isnt going to move in with us because her hubby is in Iraq and she just had a second kid and her mom is helping to take care of things, plus they plan on moving to Hawaii.

I really dont care about the legal marriage definition either.

I'm for polygamy because my fiances best friend would marry us if it were legal plus if it were legal then the Mormons who practice it still wouldnt have to hide anymore and more light could be shed on abusive relationships potentially.
Agreed on the Mormons part. My beef with their practise is the habit of only one man having multiple wives, but not a truly mutual contract, which I too find to be a dangerous zone of possible power abuse and discriminatory practises.

As for the "not caring for the legal part" : Well, the biggest portion of marriage contracts aren't made to matter all that much during the sunshine days, but you might find yourself caring very much once the rainy days set in and you'll need your rights backed up legally. With child custody being one of the first and foremost things to spring to mind, as well as probable financial claims.

As for the "not caring for the legal part" : Well, the biggest portion of marriage contracts aren't made to matter all that much during the sunshine days, but you might find yourself caring very much once the rainy days set in and you'll need your rights backed up legally. With child custody being one of the first and foremost things to spring to mind, as well as probable financial claims.
Yes, this is true. Nonetheless, I feel adequately protected as we are involuntarily bound as common-law partners anyway.

Yes, this is true. Nonetheless, I feel adequately protected as we are involuntarily bound as common-law partners anyway.

Plus, what kind of idiot would willingly leave you? I'm surprised the guy manages to actually leave the hous.

Plus, what kind of idiot would willingly leave you? I'm surprised the guy manages to actually leave the hous.
Ah, many people seem more desireable when you don't have them. People are weird that way.

Yes, this is true. Nonetheless, I feel adequately protected as we are involuntarily bound as common-law partners anyway.
Apart from what Jocabia said..huh? What's "involuntarily bound as common-law partners"?

Apart from what Jocabia said..huh? What's "involuntarily bound as common-law partners"?
First you have to explain to me how, when you quote me, it says Zitat, then in quotes...zitat von Sinuhue. That has always baffled me!

Involuntarily bound as common-law partners. Well, legally in Canada, once you live with someone for six months, you are considered to be common-law partners, almost equal to married spouses. I'm not sure yet if that extends to gay couples. You can be just room-mates, or claim to be just room-mates and not be considered common-law at that point. We avoided it for years that way. HOWEVER, once you have a child together, regardless of the amount of time you've lived together, you are considered common-law. If we split, we would have to legally decide about property and child custody, just like married couples. There are some rights that apparently don't apply...but I am unsure as to what they are. We didn't have a choice to declare ourselves common-law once we had our first child. We were automatically 'married'. We would have to separate in order to not be common-law.

Does this work?

I guess not.

Agreed on the Mormons part. My beef with their practise is the habit of only one man having multiple wives, but not a truly mutual contract, which I too find to be a dangerous zone of possible power abuse and discriminatory practises.

As for the "not caring for the legal part" : Well, the biggest portion of marriage contracts aren't made to matter all that much during the sunshine days, but you might find yourself caring very much once the rainy days set in and you'll need your rights backed up legally. With child custody being one of the first and foremost things to spring to mind, as well as probable financial claims.


Well if I did have kids and we split up I would want her to take the kids anyway, but I certainly hope kids never come into the picture.

Financially I can see potential problems - oh well I am actually getting married so I guess I need not worry about what might happen.

First you have to explain to me how, when you quote me, it says Zitat, then in quotes...zitat von Sinuhue. That has always baffled me!
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473296&page=2
Post #47 and following. Blame Fass, not me. Because I say so, and because he's not online and can't say anything against it.

Involuntarily bound as common-law partners. Well, legally in Canada, once you live with someone for six months, you are considered to be common-law partners, almost equal to married spouses. I'm not sure yet if that extends to gay couples. You can be just room-mates, or claim to be just room-mates and not be considered common-law at that point. We avoided it for years that way. HOWEVER, once you have a child together, regardless of the amount of time you've lived together, you are considered common-law. If we split, we would have to legally decide about property and child custody, just like married couples. There are some rights that apparently don't apply...but I am unsure as to what they are. We didn't have a choice to declare ourselves common-law once we had our first child. We were automatically 'married'. We would have to separate in order to not be common-law.
That sounds very interesting and, I must admit, really appealing. You know, not being able to wriggle out of responsibilities and such.
Does this work?

Loser! Ahaahaha! It's only us superior Germans who get to do that. (Zitat=quote)

That sounds very interesting and, I must admit, really appealing. You know, not being able to wriggle out of responsibilities and such. I agree. There are a few drawbacks, like having to declare both your incomes and that making you ineligible for all sorts of financial assistance, but in the long-run, it is best.


Loser! Ahaahaha! It's only us superior Germans who get to do that. (Zitat=quote)
Yeah, I figured out the meaning of zitat. I'm smart like that:p Now...I wonder if there is a Spanish setting?

Awww. There isn't. Just ugly old English and German.

Yeah, I figured out the meaning of zitat. I'm smart like that:p Now...I wonder if there is a Spanish setting?
I know, because I don't like dumb women.
And no, there isn't. Only English and teh superior German.

Okay, I think we agree then. I'm not to insist on these regulations to be dragged over word-by-word for all the coplications you mentioned, but I insist on the underlying rights, however they may have to be re-formulated and adapted for the new situation, to be carried over.
Basically, I want to ensure there'd be no such fiasco as some of these 'civil unions' we see for homosexual couples, where they drafted up new contracts saying it'd be the same only adapted, but in fact these lack to provide for the same rights in all its extent.

I can certainly agree here. The only thing I would add is that some of the rights would, of necessity, be somewhat different, just based on the nature of the arrangement. But as long as the difference was because of that, and not, "We don't like no stinkin' polygamists!" I wouldn't see an issue.

No, it isn't easy. Not today, and of course not with polygamous marriages.
But try to see the other side. A kid grows up in a family with 4 adults, who split up, and only two have been legal parents and then proceed to somehow split custody for the kid, leaving the other 2 totally out of the loop and without any legal tools to change that. They have been just as much a part of the kid's life so far, do you think this to be a better solution?

No, of course not. I don't think any parent should spitefully cut any adult who has been a large part of the child's life out. The child's welfare and feelings must be put before those of the adults, so that even if they can't stand each other, they should think of their children's feelings. I'm just worried about the difficulty in legalities that would ensue.

Probably. Still, today's couples use their contract/lawyer to *modify* the existing vast body of contract that marriage is, no? That is existencially different from asking polygamous couples to draft the whole thing from, well, nothing. That is why I ask for a standard body of regulations, the way today's marriage is, that will then be modified to suit the couple's needs. An assured basis, so to speak. As, of course, and as it is today too, also with specifications as to what you *can't* have in a marriage contract.

In the end, it wouldn't really be drafting from nothing. But I don't think a bunch of politicians who have never been in polygamous relationships should just guess at it either. The first legal polygamous relationships would probably end up having to draft from scratch, as it were, and certain generalities might be drawn from there. But the generalities drawn would encompass less than those of a marriage, simply because the situations from group to group would be so different. We might get a few basic things, but there would always be certain things that would be group-specific.

Now, if they started from incorporation, which I really think would work, then there is already a body of law for that. It is things like the next-of-kinship and how child custody would be shared that would have to be added in.

I don't think so. When I have joint custody with 3 other people on my kid, and number 2 executes a decision regarding the child that harms it, I am just as responsible for the damage as I didn't prevent it. With today's 2-parent-custody, a mothe risn't free of guilt(not of responsibility if the father abuses it, right? Shared custody is not splitting responsibilty, but each carrying the whole load.

You aren't thinking broadly enough. It isn't just a matter of direct harm. It is a matter of who is responsible for the child's healthcare, schooling, and so on. With 10 people around, they could point fingers for years as to who screwed up in a given situation or who they had decided had a particular duty to the child.

If 10 people are responsible for one particular task, who do you blame when it doesn't get done/gets done wrong? How do you know which person actually did it wrong?

I know, because I don't like dumb women.
And no, there isn't. Only English and teh superior German.

Aha. I 'ave figured out ze trick.

Frankly, if people want to do it, I'm all for it. I'd NEVER be a polygamist myself, but it's up to them. The idea of the nuclear family is a mostly false construct anyway: throughout history you almost never saw it. Up till approximately 1920 it was still common practice to wed your cousin or another relative. Fact is, what a person does in their own home is their own damned business, so rather than restraining marriage in the way it has been, we should open it up.

That is not to say we should open it up to anything that might even resemble paedophilia. Anyone who thinks I am suggesting that needs to smack themselves in the head.

I can certainly agree here. The only thing I would add is that some of the rights would, of necessity, be somewhat different, just based on the nature of the arrangement. But as long as the difference was because of that, and not, "We don't like no stinkin' polygamists!" I wouldn't see an issue.
Better put than me.

No, of course not. I don't think any parent should spitefully cut any adult who has been a large part of the child's life out. The child's welfare and feelings must be put before those of the adults, so that even if they can't stand each other, they should think of their children's feelings. I'm just worried about the difficulty in legalities that would ensue.
Yes. Of course things don't get easier with more people involved, but can we exclude people from something that we'd otherwisely see to be their right because it'd make things difficult?
I share your worries, I don't claim to have a recipe, and I'm definitely pro legalizing this only after there have been made adequate provisions to make things like this clear *before* somebody receives injustice from an only half-way decent thought out thing.

In the end, it wouldn't really be drafting from nothing. But I don't think a bunch of politicians who have never been in polygamous relationships should just guess at it either. The first legal polygamous relationships would probably end up having to draft from scratch, as it were, and certain generalities might be drawn from there.
I absolutely disagree. I cannot endorse people, and possibly children, enter an undefined contract and call it a legalized marriage. The state has the responsibilty to make sure that anything it sticks the 'marriage' label or any other legal approval to to be within set boundaries that it defined. It's okay and most likely probable to set a minimum of provisions, start it as a project, and extend it to what is someday to be the body of laws we want for a polygamous marriage with co-work form those relationships who participated, but you cannot start from scratch undefinedly and call that marriage.
But the generalities drawn would encompass less than those of a marriage, simply because the situations from group to group would be so different. We might get a few basic things, but there would always be certain things that would be group-specific.
Yes. But those things, that core, will have to be there first before you make that a legalized marriage contract. Not only polygamous people can draft sensible legislation for polygamous relationship laws, just as there rarely ever is an instance where the people who actually are affected make their own legislation.

Now, if they started from incorporation, which I really think would work, then there is already a body of law for that. It is things like the next-of-kinship and how child custody would be shared that would have to be added in.
That's quite good a body of laws for taxes, but I think that all the other fields need some substance to work from as weel. basic, yes, to be detailed by the group, yes, but not completely without.


You aren't thinking broadly enough. It isn't just a matter of direct harm. It is a matter of who is responsible for the child's healthcare, schooling, and so on. With 10 people around, they could point fingers for years as to who screwed up in a given situation or who they had decided had a particular duty to the child.

If 10 people are responsible for one particular task, who do you blame when it doesn't get done/gets done wrong? How do you know which person actually did it wrong?
But this problem is there with 2 people as well as with 3+! And it will have to be solved the same as it is with 2 people.
Of course it is, on average, more difficult to find an agreement with 10 than with 2 people. But any decision, healthcare, schooling etc is a matter of a compromise/decision with 2 parents as well if they differ in their opinions. And just like they'll have to find a way on how to reach decisions, so will the 3+ group.

As for the 'blame' when something went wrong, I can only repeat myself: A shared responsibilty means everyone's responsibility. There is the afoementioned agreement on how things are decided, and everyone is responsible for to have made sure this agreement is suitable to turn out the best decisions for the child, and then to make sure every decision is reached through this process.

A group who cannot see how to reach sensible decisions this way shouldn't have children, same way as two parents who are so fundamentally diametrically opposite to each other in their stands on education etc that they wouldn't be able to reach an agreement on how the kid should be raised.

Aha. I 'ave figured out ze trick.
ooooh, Jocabia is posing as a German!! ;)

Btw, Dempublicents, isn't it rather amusing how we argue about the details of future polygamy contracts when the thread seems to just have intended a discussion on whether this could ever be a possibility in our society? I find it funny, after all.

Same as I find it curious that except for TPH, there doesn't seem to have been much opposition to this, no? I'd have expected for this to turn into a feast for some of our, umm, traditionalists and such.

For the last couple of years I have said that once the homosexuals have made it through, the next fight will be for the polyamorous.

You have no idea how much ignorance and intolerance that is out there about polyamory. I hope that someday everyone will come to understand and tolerate different points of view. So many people are polyphobic. I meet many people who are vehemently opposed to the very idea. Why such hostility? Are you really that threatened that 3 people can love and care for each other?

I see this as very similar to the intolerance shown to the homosexual community.

You may be fiercely monogamous, that is your choice and I will support you in that 100%, all I ask is that you respect that I feel differently. Nobody is forcing you to be poly, only asking you to recognize that not everyone feels the same way you do.

I recognize that I can be in love with more than one person at any given moment. I do not believe that I could, or even should, shut off all feelings for someone just because I start to fall for someone else. What is wrong with that?

Perhaps you met the one you love and have never even thought about anyone else. Congratulations. But please don’t tell me who I can love and who I can’t.

If your religion mandates that you cannot marry more than one person, then feel free to abide by your religious convictions but do not force them on me and mine.

The civil contract that is marriage could just as easily accommodate more than 2 people. When you take it down to basics, what you have is a merger of property, and power of attorney over the other. Why can this not accommodate 3 or 4 people instead of just 2?

Same as I find it curious that except for TPH, there doesn't seem to have been much opposition to this, no? I'd have expected for this to turn into a feast for some of our, umm, traditionalists and such.
Greenlander hasn't been around for a while...that might be why it's so quiet.

Greenlander hasn't been around for a while...that might be why it's so quiet.

GL got DEATed.

I think that polygamy is where my civil libertarianism ends. There ought to be some fair distribution of marriage in a society.

Also, as a feminist I think polygamy could be way too easily used as a cover for enslaving women. Just look at history.

GL got DEATed.
Why? I don't think I ever agreed with him, but he wasn't exactly a troll.

Polygamy will always remain a mystery to me. I will never understand why any man would want multiple wives. You'd think one wife is more than enough. :p

Why? I don't think I ever agreed with him, but he wasn't exactly a troll.

Not entirely sure, but I saw him get warned about half a dozen times for flaming or flamebaiting. He got mad a lot.

I didn't dislike him, but he hated me, and I think he hated TCT even more. He used to rant about he hated that TCT posted so much support. Whatever, it doesn't matter. Either way, he's gone. Maybe he's got another nation by now, or maybe not. Who knows.

Not entirely sure, but I saw him get warned about half a dozen times for flaming or flamebaiting. He got mad a lot.

I didn't dislike him, but he hated me, and I think he hated TCT even more.
For all the hatred you lacked for him, I hope I filled the void. :D

Anything and everything concerning marriage should be permissable provided it's between consenting adults. Period.

Well stated. Even if it makes you feel all squeamish, if it's not interfering with your life it's not your concern.

You'd have to be crazy to want multiple wives. They'd take turns nagging you, and would coordinate shit.

And I bet they would team up on you during arguments too!!:eek:

COMMENTARY: Definitions and concepts of "social contracts" are obviously changing. With an expansion of the putative "right to privacy" to include consensual sex of all types, the door is now open to virtually every combination and permutation of human sexuality. What will be the impact on society at large of the changing concepts of "family" and "marriage," and what are your thoughts about this?

I say the precendent exists to get the gov further out of consenting sexuality and marriage than it ever has been before. Decisions like Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas affirm that there is a Constitutional right to privacy, and with that anything is possible.

I fully support this move btw. Polygamy hurts no one. Niether does Gay Marriage, nor Sodomy nor sex before marriage. As such the government has no right to act. As the law is moving closer in line with this truth, I'm quite supportive of it.

Yes. Of course things don't get easier with more people involved, but can we exclude people from something that we'd otherwisely see to be their right because it'd make things difficult?

Only if that difficulty actually poses a problem for the welfare of the child. I'm certainly not arguing that such things should never be allowed - I am just not sure how it would work in the first place.

I absolutely disagree. I cannot endorse people, and possibly children, enter an undefined contract and call it a legalized marriage.

It might not actually be called marriage at all. However the government looks at polygamy, it is a different construct than what is currently called a marriage and would need a new body of laws. Thus, it would most likely go by a different name.

But the contract certainly wouldn't be "undefined" and would be based, as much as possible, on marriage.

Yes. But those things, that core, will have to be there first before you make that a legalized marriage contract. Not only polygamous people can draft sensible legislation for polygamous relationship laws, just as there rarely ever is an instance where the people who actually are affected make their own legislation.

How much of the legislation you see do you think is actually sensible? Now take it into your area of expertise. How much of that is actually sensible?

I don't trust politicians as far as I can throw them, and I know for a fact that they consistently try and legislate about things that they have no background in at all. I certainly wouldn't trust them to create a workable core for this before some people have tried it, especially when you consider that many of them would probably be opposed to the very idea.

But this problem is there with 2 people as well as with 3+! And it will have to be solved the same as it is with 2 people.

It can't be. The more people you add, the less culpability each has. That's just the way responsibility works. It's like a workplace. I work in a lab and we have recently detailed certain jobs that used to be, "Do it when it needs to get done," to specific people. The reason for this is that now there is one person you can look to when you need a certain reagent or the trash wasn't properly taken care of and so forth... When it was everyone's responsibility, it was actually no one's responsibility. None of us *had* to do it, so it often never got done.

A group who cannot see how to reach sensible decisions this way shouldn't have children, same way as two parents who are so fundamentally diametrically opposite to each other in their stands on education etc that they wouldn't be able to reach an agreement on how the kid should be raised.

I agree with this. Unfortunately, people don't do what they *should* do, and there are many, many irresponsible people who have children.

Btw, Dempublicents, isn't it rather amusing how we argue about the details of future polygamy contracts when the thread seems to just have intended a discussion on whether this could ever be a possibility in our society? I find it funny, after all.

I think one has to discuss the details in order to see if it is possible. And I wouldn't really call it "arguing". I would see it more as a discussion. We're basically talking about uncharted ground here - at least within modern governments. =)

I fully support this move btw. Polygamy hurts no one. Niether does Gay Marriage, nor Sodomy nor sex before marriage. As such the government has no right to act. As the law is moving closer in line with this truth, I'm quite supportive of it.

Mutual and consentual polygamy hurts no one. The degenerate, chauvinistic kinds of polygamy as practiced by The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (a cult splinter offshoot of the Mormons) serves to do little more than establish an abusive and domineering control over females.