|
Post by nightangel1282 on Nov 20, 2011 22:09:12 GMT -5
ca.news.yahoo.com/b-c-court-rule-whether-polygamy-constitutional-appeal-194416631.htmlA group of Fundamentalist Christians who live in British Columbia are fighting for the right to have as many spouses as they want. Their beliefs state that if they have more spouses, they will enter a higher level of heaven. Personally, if they wanna marry more than one person, as long as they are all consenting adults, then why should the government have a right to interevene?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 20, 2011 22:15:26 GMT -5
The problem comes from the legal nightmare that will deal with ownership and the event of a divorce and stuff like that.
Not that this should stop anything. In fact, it is a hurdle that is meant to be overcome, not given up on.
While I do worry about the women in the relationship (due to the fundamentalist Christian nature), as long as everyone is consenting, I have no inherent objections to it.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 20, 2011 22:17:10 GMT -5
I agree, but I think their reasons are completely retarded. Which is irrelevent unless you consider the fact that they're probably going to argue on "freedom of religion," & this reasoning has been turned down before. Consenting adults is a much better argument, & even that hasn't accomplished much yet.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Nov 20, 2011 22:21:37 GMT -5
The question in my mind is, when more than two people are involved in a marriage, what financial/tax/work benefits are they all entitled to? I don't care a bit if three or four or more people want to live together or have their relationship publicly recognized. The specifics of the law would take some effort to work out, to make sure it didn't become a burden, for example on businesses being required to provide health insurance to 5 spouses and 20 kids.
If they can get that stuff figured out, why not? No idea whether it's constitutional though.
|
|
|
Post by sadhuman on Nov 20, 2011 22:29:19 GMT -5
As long as all the adults are consenting I see no problem with multiple partners/spouses. Sure there will be issues with divorce and the like...but divorce lawyers always need more work. Of course this will be called the ruin of marriage and the like by the same group that hates homosexual marriage. I am not all too sure on the community in question it seems they are suspected of some serious other crimes, trafficking children and marrying young kids. Neither of those are cool with me at all.
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Nov 20, 2011 22:32:08 GMT -5
As long as all the adults are consenting I see no problem with multiple partners/spouses. Sure there will be issues with divorce and the like...but divorce lawyers always need more work. Of course this will be called the ruin of marriage and the like by the same group that hates homosexual marriage. I am not all too sure on the community in question it seems they are suspected of some serious other crimes, trafficking children and marrying young kids. Neither of those are cool with me at all. Yeah, that kinda sickens me too. I mean, a lot of those people think that if a girl is old enough to get her period, then she should be considered a woman and get married... which is really fucking sick if you stop to consider that some girls can start their periods when they're only NINE years old... Edit: WOO HOO!!! I... AM... A GOD!!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Nov 20, 2011 22:35:53 GMT -5
Does this group believe they require government recognition of their marriage to get into heaven?
The legal issues may be enough reason for a ban on state-recognized polygamy. But I see no reason for them to prevent religiously-recognized polygamy. This is, of course, assuming that the abuse issues that have historically plagued religious polygamy are removed, and if there can be a truly equitable relationship among all parties and that said parties all are consenting adults. Of course, then you do have to wonder how equitable the relationship can truly be if there is one legal marriage in the whole relationship; that would be a hornets’ nest of jealousy issues, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Nov 20, 2011 23:10:45 GMT -5
A lot of anti-gay assholes like to bring up the "Slippery Slope" argument that once we legalize gay marriage, it'll lead to polygamy, incest, or bestiality.
Except for the fact that polygamy and incest aren't necessarily bad things if all the parties consent. Although the more spouses one accumulates (in the case of polygamy), the harder it will be to find more spouses, because some are bound to disagree with adding another member to the family.
For the record, no, I am not a supporter of wincest. But if two consenting adults love each other and wish to marry then it doesn't really matter if they're related by blood or not.
(Bestiality is bad because animals can't consent.)
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 20, 2011 23:13:15 GMT -5
A lot of anti-gay assholes like to bring up the "Slippery Slope" argument that once we legalize gay marriage, it'll lead to polygamy, incest, or bestiality. It's funny because there's far more states that allow you to marry your first cousin than states that allow gay marriage, and of these states, only one has both.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 20, 2011 23:50:58 GMT -5
I'm a bit torn on this. Polygamy will cause a lot of legal issues, abuse of the system, and just be plain complicated.
On the other hand, people are responsible enough to take care fo themselves. At least most people. Personally I feel that I won't be able to sustain a 1 on 1 relationship.
So I think the maximum number of people for marriage should be 3... 4 tops. I don't know many people who would do this, but I don't think we need more comlications than we have now.
But one thing's for sure: Gay Marriage has to come before polygamy. Otherwise, it'll just be sexist.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Nov 20, 2011 23:56:33 GMT -5
...you do realize polygamy isn't automatically polygyny/polyandry?
I'm mostly curious as to what would happen if someone wants to marry one partner but not the other(s).
|
|
|
Post by sadhuman on Nov 21, 2011 0:02:09 GMT -5
...you do realize polygamy isn't automatically polygyny/polyandry? I'm mostly curious as to what would happen if someone wants to marry one partner but not the other(s). I think that would be up to people involved. But it comes down to how you implement the whole thing, is it just a group marriage and everyone is married to everyone (guys married to guys and girls to girls) or some sort of hub system where they are married to certain people and not others? I would go with the group one and if someone didn't want to join the whole marriage then it would be up for the person they love to leave the group marriage or deal with the person in another way. Complicated this is and greater minds then mine would need to work it out.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 21, 2011 0:05:38 GMT -5
...you do realize polygamy isn't automatically polygyny/polyandry? I'm mostly curious as to what would happen if someone wants to marry one partner but not the other(s). It's still sexist. Your second comment sort of proves it.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Nov 21, 2011 0:06:18 GMT -5
...you do realize polygamy isn't automatically polygyny/polyandry? I'm mostly curious as to what would happen if someone wants to marry one partner but not the other(s). It's still sexist. Your second comment sort of proves it. ...how, exactly?
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 21, 2011 0:10:38 GMT -5
"Maybe the marriages themselves are married to each other. Like a legal loophole."
|
|