Polygamy that involves child abuse - Holmes, Randman, CS?

Perhaps I can. I don't know if the institution of marriage there attracts privileges and rights from the state but it does so in Ireland. If you added the name marriage to to polymory then you would also add the rights associated with the name.That is to say: the reason to not simply add the title is that it is not simply a title. Not in Ireland at any rate.

Nope. My point was to remind you that there is more to marriage than mere title. Because of that, there exists reasons to consider whether or not to extend the rights associated with marriage to polyamorous relationships. Good or bad doesn't come into it. Not extending the benefits would have an effect on both 'good' and 'evil' relationships. For example, neither good nor evil parties (in Ireland) would enjoy inheritance tax breaks. An example of there being something more to marriage than mere title.My point was a narrow one, made to deal with the question you posed in isolation. Not in response to the issue of preventing 'evil' occurring.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You say your a relativist. Yet you seem to draw lines in the sand in places - as would an absolutist. For example, you frequently invoke "consent" as a line in the sand not to be crossed.Don't get me wrong, I think you display the courage of your convictions more than most (however abominable those convictions might be to whomever). Yet in this you seem to fall at some last fence or other...Could you enlighten me?

Leaving aside the fact that the foundations weren't laid by God but by mere people-who-held-a-view, what's the essential difference between the moral compass you fight for (involving consent) and the moral compass your opposite, the moral absolutist - of whatever hue?Other than in the details, I mean.Edited by iano, : No reason given.