|
Post by lexikon on Nov 21, 2011 0:10:54 GMT -5
It's still sexist. Your second comment sort of proves it. ...how, exactly? It's similar to how banning SSM is sexist. Essential Man marries Woman 1 and Woman 2. Woman 1 and Woman 2 want to marry each other. However, they can't, due to their gender, even though they are close. Also, Man 1 is straight and wants 2 women. Man 2 is bi and would like an opposite gender pair. A three-pair relationship can only exist if the person in the middle is the opposite gender of both.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Nov 21, 2011 0:15:37 GMT -5
It's similar to how banning SSM is sexist. Essential Man marries Woman 1 and Woman 2. Woman 1 and Woman 2 want to marry each other. However, they can't, due to their gender, even though they are close. Also, Man 1 is straight and wants 2 women. Man 2 is bi and would like an opposite gender pair. A three-pair relationship can only exist if the person in the middle is the opposite gender of both. Um...I'm kinda stuck on homophobia = sexism. Not sure I've come across that idea before.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 21, 2011 0:18:13 GMT -5
It's similar to how banning SSM is sexist. Essential Man marries Woman 1 and Woman 2. Woman 1 and Woman 2 want to marry each other. However, they can't, due to their gender, even though they are close. Also, Man 1 is straight and wants 2 women. Man 2 is bi and would like an opposite gender pair. A three-pair relationship can only exist if the person in the middle is the opposite gender of both. Um...I'm kinda stuck on homophobia = sexism. Not sure I've come across that idea before. Actually, that's really simple. Men don't have the same right to marry men that women do. And women don't have the same right to marry women that men do. It's two gender inequalities.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 21, 2011 0:22:51 GMT -5
Yup. Traditional Marriage is to sexism as Racial Realism is to racism.
|
|
|
Post by Meshakhad on Nov 21, 2011 0:48:16 GMT -5
My argument against polygamy: do you really want to create a demand for that many new lawyers?
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Nov 21, 2011 0:54:35 GMT -5
My argument against polygamy: do you really want to create a demand for that many new lawyers? I don't care... as long as WE don't have to pay the legal fees.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Nov 21, 2011 1:25:15 GMT -5
If people want to get married, that's their business. The dragon that involves taxes and benefits and everything else is a dragon we can defeat.
and just to jump ahead: Being against it because it's 'icky' or something you don't understand is the same argument for not allowing gay marriage.
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Nov 21, 2011 2:07:49 GMT -5
An interesting point was raised. Most cultural polygamist marriages are hub based. Normally a single male with his harem of wives. With this, normally, the hub figure would have ultimate say over everything, including getting a new wife, and all the other wives just have to deal with it. Now in my books although this may be a relationship between consenting adults, it does not seem equal. It would have to be a system of pure equality between all parties and all persons involved would have to give their consent to include another into their number.
My problem here is that this is very open to abuse. After all, when was the last time you heard of a group of adults who all see each other as equals asking for polygamy? It is normally some extremely misogynistic religious cult with a pretty bad track record of how they treat women and children. I cant help but feel that if polygamy was made legal with all being equal, that in most cases the women would have been coerced to discard their equal status and simply submit to the hub figure.
This can create some pretty difficult situations, if one partner does not agree to the inclusion of another partner, it can dramatically affect attitudes within the collective. As such, in order to maintain the current status most would go along with what was most popular. In binary marriage, if one partner does not wish to get married, they can go their separate ways, however when you have two people who are already married, but one wants to include another but one does not, the one who does not want the new partner cannot just leave without going through the process of divorce.
Perhaps I am just making things too complicated for myself.
Short version, I have no problems with the theory of polygamy, but I have some serious doubts about the application thereof.
|
|
|
Post by sadhuman on Nov 21, 2011 2:15:10 GMT -5
That is why I would go for a group marriage and not a hub style one, to join the marriage requires all in it to agree not just one person.
It is not like there are a lot of people out there looking to do this who make it open and loud. But I know a few people who have open relationships with a steady group of people who this would appeal to.
This would still be complicated to set up and enforce but when has that ever been a good reason to stop doing something?
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Nov 21, 2011 3:51:53 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. This more or less sums it up for me. But one thing's for sure: Gay Marriage has to come before polygamy. Well, gay marriage is already legal in Canada, so that isn't really going to be an issue in this particular scenario (not that it isn't relevant to the overall topic, just pointing this out).
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Nov 21, 2011 4:55:28 GMT -5
What's funny is that a lot of those pushing for polygomy are against s-s marriage. Personally, I don't care as long as s-s marriage is also legal AND polygomy means both sexes can choose how many partners.
I love the hypocracy that they have when it's only about multiple wives but not husbands. You know some sicko with a power trip was responsible for that.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Nov 21, 2011 10:40:44 GMT -5
I don't know about Canada, but in the USA, the Constitution does not in any way address the regulation or establishment of marriage, which by default makes it a State power. So in the USA, the Fed could not prevent polygamy (or same sex marriage) unless the Constitution was amended.
Which is exactly what the Republicans are trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 21, 2011 17:52:52 GMT -5
Although you have to admit, taken to the extreme, this could more difficult to draw than the most complex hydrocarbon.
Person A marries person B and C. Person B marries person D and E. Person D marries Person E who marries person C. yadda yadda yadda.
Person A marries person B and C. Person A shares insureance, SS, etc, with B and C. B and C share what? Or do they have to get married for it to work out completely.
SSM is easy: Make men and women equals. Trying to make rules for polygamy would take years of planning.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 21, 2011 20:01:49 GMT -5
I don't know about Canada, but in the USA, the Constitution does not in any way address the regulation or establishment of marriage, which by default makes it a State power. So in the USA, the Fed could not prevent polygamy (or same sex marriage) unless the Constitution was amended. Which is exactly what the Republicans are trying to do. Ironically, I think that the more time goes on, the more "state powers" make no damn sense.
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Nov 21, 2011 20:20:54 GMT -5
SSM is easy: Make men and women equals. Trying to make rules for polygamy would take years of planning. Then we'd all better get started now, hadn't we? ;D
|
|