|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Nov 22, 2011 4:29:30 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 Imaginary exalt!
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Nov 23, 2011 13:36:15 GMT -5
After all, when was the last time you heard of a group of adults who all see each other as equals asking for polygamy? *raises hand* Me and the three other people in my relationship. We would love to have a legally recognised relationship between the four of us, so that we can have the rights and privileges that go along with that, such as visitation rights in a hospital, being able to take care of business for someone who is at work/school, being able to be on the same insurance, and all other 1,000+ things. Yes, people would abuse a group marriage (as I just don't see a hub, chain, or cluster of individual marriages really working in a legal way, even though relationship wise those do work fine) for religious or other reasons, but they already do this with the current marriage system. This is why I do feel marriage, of all types, to only be open to adults who consent to the entirety of the marriage; whether it's one partner or many. As for the insurance angle some people take, I think that's a red herring. Quite frankly polyamoury is not common, even in cultures that encourage it (even if in just the form of polygyny or polyandry), so the number of people that would need more than one spouse covered would always be a small minority. Next is that the larger the polyamorous relation is, the more likely it is for multiple spouses to be working, thus having more sources of insurance (and how that gets handled would be the same as a household where both spouses work). There is also that there is no limit to the number of children who can be on a policy, and whist the number of possible children does increase with the number of spouses, you are really not gonna run across that many polyamourus quiverfull families subsisting on a single income, quite simply because even if they had a really high paying job (which then wouldn't care as much about how many people on on the insurance) they would have to have multiple people bringing in an income, and thus also insurance with it, in order to have a roof over their head and a minimum of ramen (or other ultra-cheap food) to eat. Of course I also feel that there should just be universal coverage that would make it a completely moot point, but that is a separate issue.
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Nov 24, 2011 0:18:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 24, 2011 0:23:40 GMT -5
And attracted a whole lot of homophobes.
Also...
What's the difference between SSM and polygamy?
Oh I don't know maybe…
1 + 1 = 2
And
1 + 1 + 1... > 2
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 24, 2011 1:39:43 GMT -5
And your point is?
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Nov 24, 2011 1:45:55 GMT -5
Not so sure he has one to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 24, 2011 1:47:04 GMT -5
SSM and polygamy aren't that comparable, so the argument that you have to accept both or none doesn't work. However, SSM and straight marriage is comparable because they involve 2 consenting people of equal status in the law.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 24, 2011 3:46:17 GMT -5
SSM and polygamy aren't that comparable, so the argument that you have to accept both or none doesn't work. However, SSM and straight marriage is comparable because they involve 2 consenting people of equal status in the law. ...
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Nov 24, 2011 3:50:07 GMT -5
Lexikon's point is: BUT IT'S ICKYYYYY!
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Nov 24, 2011 7:03:39 GMT -5
SSM and polygamy aren't that comparable, so the argument that you have to accept both or none doesn't work. However, SSM and straight marriage is comparable because they involve 2 consenting people of equal status in the law. They're similar in some regards, and differ in others.
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Nov 24, 2011 9:08:43 GMT -5
Lexikon's point is: BUT IT'S ICKYYYYY! Hardly. A legal contract—which is all marriage is (or should be, anyway) as far as the government is concerned—between two people will likely play out differently than a similar contract between three or more people.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Nov 24, 2011 16:25:57 GMT -5
Like I said, the main reason to oppose multiple people in a relationship is cause it's icky. Instead of figuring out how to make it work opponents are going 'ew ew ew no no no! How can that even work? ew'
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Nov 24, 2011 18:02:03 GMT -5
Like I said, the main reason to oppose multiple people in a relationship is cause it's icky. Instead of figuring out how to make it work opponents are going 'ew ew ew no no no! How can that even work? ew' What? I guess context can be detrimental to understanding a sentence. I can perfectly understand your post taken alone. Taken in the context of the previous posts, I am thorougly confused as to what you're trying to say, whether you're being sarcastic, strawmanning Lexikon, hypothetical, criticising, or something else.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Nov 24, 2011 19:11:27 GMT -5
It makes perfect sense to me. Would it work better if I said 'hinky' instead of 'icky'?
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Nov 24, 2011 19:15:32 GMT -5
I thought most of the arguments against Polygamy boiled down to the risk of exploitation or coercion of some of the participants
|
|