17 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Dace AceBecause the civil privileges in question (the right to jointly own property, the
If homosexual marrage is approved is some states, why is polygamy no being approved as well?
ability to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacity spouse, the power
of attorney, to file taxes jointly and so forth) are greatly complicated in a plural
union. You can't simply take the dual union contract and apply it to a plural
one.
I listed some such problems in another thread. For example, if four people
are married, and three of the four want to marry a fifth, but the fourth one
refuses, what do we do? The current contract doesn't address this. If one
person is incapacitated, and two want to take one course of action and the
other one wants another course of action, what do we do? If persons A
and B have a child, and B divorces A, C and D, what rights do C and D have
to see the children? If gang members all marry each other, are they protected
from testifying against their fifty other spouses? Can a marriage bond
keep expanding in an effort to avoid paying any estate tax?
These some of what I expect are many issues that have to be weighed and
resolved before we can consider plural union contracts. None of these
issues exist in dual union contracts, regardless of the genders of the
actors in the contract.
Nemesio
17 Nov 08
Originally posted by NemesioIs that really the reason? Is there a vocal lobby calling for the restitution of polygamy?
Because the civil privileges in question (the right to jointly own property, the
ability to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacity spouse, the power
of attorney, to file taxes jointly and so forth) are greatly complicated in a plural
union. You can't simply take the dual union contract and apply it to a plural
one.
In terms of tradition, polygamy has a greater claim to legitimacy than gay marriage. Polygamy was done away with by Justinian in the 6th century; I'm not sure that gay marriage was ever recognised.
17 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't know. Dace Ace seems to be interested in it, so I gave my assessment
Is that really the reason? Is there a vocal lobby calling for the restitution of polygamy?
on the issue. He wants there to be a correlation between same-sex unions
and plural ones. I was trying to show him how such thinking is flawed. (Not
that I expect Dace Ace will actually contemplate what I've written...)
I have no personal interest in same-sex unions. I'm straight and married
with no homoerotic inclinations. The only homosexual I know well is an older
gentleman who has no interest in some-sex unions much less a same-sex one.
That is, my appeal here is not because anyone I know stands to benefit
from equal protection under the law, but because I think that the concept
of equal protection under the law is one worth championing, and that
supporting legislation by majority opinion in a danger to anyone with rights.
Nemesio
17 Nov 08
Originally posted by NemesioI figured it was something you'd made up. But as you say there's no logical connection between same-sex couples marrying and polygamy. Although same-sex marriage could open the door for same-sex polygamy!
I don't know. Dace Ace seems to be interested in it, so I gave my assessment
on the issue. He wants there to be a correlation between same-sex unions
and plural ones. I was trying to show him how such thinking is flawed. (Not
that I expect Dace Ace will actually contemplate what I've written...)
I have no personal interest in same-sex unions. I'm ...[text shortened]... hat
supporting legislation by majority opinion in a danger to anyone with rights.
Nemesio
It seems the pro-polygamy people are fundamentalist Mormons.
http://principlevoices.org/
17 Nov 08
Originally posted by Nemesio....but the fourth one refuses, what do we do?....course of action, what do we do?
Because the civil privileges in question (the right to jointly own property, the
ability to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacity spouse, the power
of attorney, to file taxes jointly and so forth) are greatly complicated in a plural
union. You can't simply take the dual union contract and apply it to a plural
one.
I listed some such probl ...[text shortened]... in dual union contracts, regardless of the genders of the
actors in the contract.
Nemesio
"We" should not do anything, "We" should mind our own damn business.
If persons A and B have a child, and B divorces A, C and D, what rights do C and D have
to see the children? If gang members all marry each other, are they protected
from testifying against their fifty other spouses? Can a marriage bond
keep expanding in an effort to avoid paying any estate tax?
All these points raised here are symptoms, symptoms of a disease called guvamintbusybodyinterferonia. Take away special married couples tax breaks/tax punishments. The god botherers think they have some claim on the word "marriage".
All these points raised are conditions of contract and those that enter into them should make the necessary preparations, there are immensly more complicated contracts made everyday. "We" don't need to ban them because they are complex.
The god botherers think they have some claim on the word "marriage".
They don't.
Want to have a certified non-gay non-polygamist marriage? Get married in a church and get a piece of paper saying so. Just leave the rest of us to live our own lives.
17 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaThat's why I didn't use the word 'marriage' which I take to be a sacred institution.
"We" should not do anything, "We" should mind our own damn business.
...
Just leave the rest of us to live our own lives.
Since I don't believe in restricting people's expression of religion, I think that
any church that wants to recognize a plural marriage should feel free to do
so without the State's obstruction.
I used the word union because the State does recognize unique civil
privileges for those who are 'unioned,' but only those couples who are of the
opposite sex. The question is: Should the State offer benefits to plural
unions as they do to (some) dual unions?
The answer is: I'm not sure. Plural unions are far more complicated and
there are things that one can do to subvert the intent of the contract in
an effort to avoid things the State does have an interest in (such as
testimony or estate tax).
Dace's question is: if we offer same-sex couples the same privileges that
opposite sex couples get, why don't we have to do so with plural unions?
That was the question I was answering: the contract that plural unions
would get are very different than those that dual unions would get, which
makes the question irrelevant.
You see, the State does do something, but only for one subset of
the group called 'dual unions.' That's the issue here.
Nemesio
17 Nov 08
Originally posted by WajomaI fully agree.
My answer is: No.
There should be no benefits for any unions of any description.
But given that there are opposite-sex benefits that are simply not going to
go away, there remains no reason to deny the same benefits to same-sex
couples who desire them. This does not necessarily hold true for plural unions.
That was all I was saying.
Nemesio
17 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioNone of those issues are unsolvable dilemmas if polygamy is legalized. The fact that it would supposedly "greatly complicate" certain legal matters isn't a persuasive rationale for continuing to bar the practice, even to the point of putting people in jail for it.
Because the civil privileges in question (the right to jointly own property, the
ability to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacity spouse, the power
of attorney, to file taxes jointly and so forth) are greatly complicated in a plural
union. You can't simply take the dual union contract and apply it to a plural
one.
I listed some such probl in dual union contracts, regardless of the genders of the
actors in the contract.
Nemesio
17 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI didn't say they were unsolvable. But before we can talk about granting
None of those issues are unsolvable dilemmas if polygamy is legalized. The fact that it would supposedly "greatly complicate" certain legal matters isn't a persuasive rationale for continuing to bar the practice, even to the point of putting people in jail for it.
civil privileges to plural unions, someone has to solve them, particularly
the ones that would be of interest to the State. By contrast, there is nothing
to solve with same-sex unions. The privileges of the contract would be
identical. The only change is the stipulations of who can enter that contract.
I am, of course, opposed to putting people in jail for the number of people
with whom they have consensual sexual contact, as you well know.
The issue here isn't whether polygamy should or should not be legalized, but
whether there's a linear progression from same-sex unions, to plural unions,
to incest, to bestiality. There is not.
Nemesio