|
Post by Shane for Wax on Nov 24, 2011 19:58:47 GMT -5
I thought most of the arguments against Polygamy boiled down to the risk of exploitation or coercion of some of the participants That happens in two person marriages too... In many different ways. So it can't be an argument specifically for polyamorous/polygamous marriages.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 24, 2011 20:51:58 GMT -5
Well, with polygamy it's worse.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Nov 24, 2011 21:04:05 GMT -5
How do you figure?
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Nov 24, 2011 22:22:30 GMT -5
More participants, I guess?
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 25, 2011 7:10:52 GMT -5
Pretty much. It'll create more drama, and more people are needed to try to fix things. Overall we should take Ratty's advice if we want things to work.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Nov 25, 2011 7:23:53 GMT -5
It might help to fix dual-person marriages first. What with the fact that there are still arranged marriages, forced marriages, mail order marriages, etc.,
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Nov 25, 2011 7:32:55 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. That doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try. Surely it's possible to set something up while still preventing the whole child-bride situation? Pretty much. It'll create more drama, and more people are needed to try to fix things. 1. I don't see it necessarily creating any more drama than a bad two-person marriage. My own parents' marriage was pretty much drama-free, so it's certainly possible for a poly marriage to be as well. 2. There are polyamorous people on these very boards who currently live together and share finances and seem to not deal with any more drama than any couple. Considering that most marital issues are a side-effect of living together and sharing finances, I don't see that allowing such groups--who, again, already live under one roof anyway--to make their commitment "official" via group marriage in any way creates new drama. 3. More people needed to fix things? Well, it's a good thing there are already more people around to begin with, then. After all, if conflict arises between Spouse A and Spouse B, Spouse C could be able to calm them down and get them to talk things over like rational human beings.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Nov 25, 2011 20:22:05 GMT -5
Could Poly groups registrar as corporations?
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Nov 25, 2011 21:57:00 GMT -5
Could Poly groups registrar as corporations? I've been pondering that very thing. Hell, this country has such a hard-on for corporations, I bet we could put 20 of the sharpest corporate-lawyer minds together and get this worked out in less than a year.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 26, 2011 0:03:48 GMT -5
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. That doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try. Surely it's possible to set something up while still preventing the whole child-bride situation? Pretty much. It'll create more drama, and more people are needed to try to fix things. 1. I don't see it necessarily creating any more drama than a bad two-person marriage. My own parents' marriage was pretty much drama-free, so it's certainly possible for a poly marriage to be as well. 2. There are polyamorous people on these very boards who currently live together and share finances and seem to not deal with any more drama than any couple. Considering that most marital issues are a side-effect of living together and sharing finances, I don't see that allowing such groups--who, again, already live under one roof anyway--to make their commitment "official" via group marriage in any way creates new drama. 3. More people needed to fix things? Well, it's a good thing there are already more people around to begin with, then. After all, if conflict arises between Spouse A and Spouse B, Spouse C could be able to calm them down and get them to talk things over like rational human beings. 1. Ban Child marriage, regardless of parental consent. 2. False analogy; we're not looking at good relationships. A better example would be my parents' marriage which was hectic. I'm glad they're seperated, and I think a 3rd spouse might have caused more problems that. 3. Other factors would need to be taken into consideration, like # of people, relationships before marriage, etc. 4. More counselor, lawyers, ect. And Rat's new plan won't work, but it's more specific than what he proposed ;D
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Nov 26, 2011 0:06:57 GMT -5
The fuck does you first point have to do with L's first point?
Ironbite-it's not even tangentially related
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 26, 2011 0:12:34 GMT -5
Look above her second response.
ps. your first point
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Nov 26, 2011 0:17:18 GMT -5
..................................................ok. Let me try again. I have a headache so I may be missing something.
L said
Then you said
Now I might be in a fuck ton on pain but...there's nothing in her post to even think she supports Child Marriage. Like...at all.
Ironbite-so please, point this out to me. I need a laugh.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 26, 2011 0:29:31 GMT -5
..................................................ok. Let me try again. I have a headache so I may be missing something. L said Then you said Now I might be in a fuck ton on pain but...there's nothing in her post to even think she supports Child Marriage. Like...at all. Ironbite-so please, point this out to me. I need a laugh. Le sigh 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. That doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try. Surely it's possible to set something up while still preventing the whole child-bride situation? She was against child marriage, and I offered a solution.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Nov 26, 2011 0:33:37 GMT -5
That still has nothing to do with what she posted in the post you quoted. Also she's against child marriage you blockhead.
Ironbite-are you this dense....SKYFIRE IS THAT YOU!?
|
|