Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dutchling]

you have a strongly committed pair, who have a one or more others who are recognized to have not as much significance.

Sounds like a regular monogamous marriage to me.

[Nadaka]

you have a strongly committed pair, who have a one or more others who are recognized to have not as much significance.

Sounds like a regular monogamous marriage to me.

Close to it. But one where sexual and romantic boundaries are looser and more honest.

[Owlbread]

-snip, asked a big philosophical question that isn't quite as related to american politics as it needs to be -

[Nadaka]

-snip, asked a big philosophical question that isn't quite as related to american politics as it needs to be -

yea, think we are getting kinda off topic again.

So... how bout them inaugurations?

[Willfor]

In theory, polygamy is all about love.

In practice, it has most often been a tool for systematic patriarchal oppression of women and men. And until it can be completely separated from that aspect, it deserves to remain illegal. This means setting up a systematic framework that makes absolutely sure all parties are being equally treated.

[Sheb]

Yeah, that's an issue with polygamy like with the legalization of prostitution for exemple: it sounds great in practice, but there is a lot of abuse potential.

Now, I was wondering, is there anything preventing polygamous relationships now? They're not legally recognized, but could a muslim take a second "wife"?

[misko27]

Yeah, that's an issue with polygamy like with the legalization of prostitution for exemple: it sounds great in practice, but there is a lot of abuse potential.

Now, I was wondering, is there anything preventing polygamous relationships now? They're not legally recognized, but could a muslim take a second "wife"?

Yes.
 

Just because something maybe isn't the best idea and could possibly cause all kinds of emotional stress isn't really solid grounds for making it illegal though. We allow people to make all kinds of worse decisions than polygamy.

The fact that it is less stupid then having a flame-thrower strapped to your wrist is not a valid argument. There ARE valid arguments, that is not one.
 
Anyway, Inaugerations. They seem very boring.

[Leafsnail]

In theory, polygamy is all about love.

In practice, it has most often been a tool for systematic patriarchal oppression of women and men. And until it can be completely separated from that aspect, it deserves to remain illegal. This means setting up a systematic framework that makes absolutely sure all parties are being equally treated.

Yeah.  There's also the fundamental issue that there are around the same number of men and women in our society, so it really doesn't make sense to have multiple women tied to one man via marriage (polygamous Mormon societies tend to have to drive young men out for this reason).

[Sheb]

Which is a problem that doesn't happen if you also have polyandrous and poly-everyone-we-don't-care-who's-on-top relationships.

So, it might be a slight derail but let us say we Bay12 had been granted the power by Congress to devise a new marriage code. What would be the ideal one?

[misko27]

Personally? Sign the contract in human blood.
 

[Nadaka]

Not really sure.

But I would start with full equality in every respect for same sex couples.

And by removing all the laws making extramarital relations a crime.

I would also allow any number of people to be recognized as a member of a household, and file jointly for tax purposes. That is not just for poly relationships, but for room mates, or extended families living together.

[mainiac]

What would be the ideal one?

None, we don't live in an agrarian or hunter-gatherer society.  The idea is ludicrously outdated.  The ideal marriage code would be no marriage at all coupled with government support for child raising.  There would be nothing to stop people from having a traditional ceremonious marriage or enter into a shared finance situation but marriage as a legal entity is far past it's time.

[SalmonGod]

What would be the ideal one?

None, we don't live in an agrarian or hunter-gatherer society.  The idea is ludicrously outdated.  The ideal marriage code would be no marriage at all coupled with government support for child raising.  There would be nothing to stop people from having a traditional ceremonious marriage or enter into a shared finance situation but marriage as a legal entity is far past it's time.

I agree with this.  I haven't even been talking about polygamy in a marriage sense.  I've been talking about things in the context of cultural attitudes towards any kind of relationship where physical or romantic intimacy isn't exclusively reserved.

[Sheb]

Well, some rights have to be doled out (child raising, visit right in hospitals, that kind of things.) So just removing what e have now as marriage without implementing something else would be a problem.

[FearfulJesuit]

There's also the problem of things like insurance benefits. There's no reason not to extend filing jointly, but you don't want five people marrying someone for the health insurance.

(This of course is a problem with the health system we have, not with polyamorous marriages. But I can't think of another example off the top of my head.)