|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: First Gay marriage, then Polygamy (its happening!) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
polygamy would require some more drastic rewriting of the laws No, no it wouldn't. Most case law isn't written (as in passed by legislature) anyway, but comes out of decisions. The model is the same as for a business contract. It is as if we had said regarding media companies that they were always restricted to only one other business partner (thus eliminating large networks which we find reprehensible). Then one day we said no actually lets deregulate and let them have as many contracts with as many other partners as they want. It would not require rewriting or inventing any new laws, as you'd have case law regarding multipartnership rights from other businesses outside of media. Okay so far marriage contracts have been limited to two people. Now it is more, and so we take precedent from contracts involving more than one partner outside of marriage. You will note that the article does not discuss people having to rewrite laws to get this done. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Polygamy has as much (or more) in common with straight marriage than gay marriage. Your assumptions are showing. They could be {bisexual-in-the middle\group-sexual}, just because a minimum of (one) het coupling is required doesn't mean that it is the rule. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
the fact that liberals are generally against child rights for sex or marriage, yet feel they are competent and should have sole discretion with regard to birth control and abortion. So sex and relationships no, but consequences of such things... yes. heh That's because we want them to complete a liberal education before settling down to a job by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3822 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: First of all, cause and effect does not necessarily mean that a relationship works both ways or that an effect can only have one cause. Wet streets do not necessarily cause rain. Second of all, polygamy is not legal in Utah. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/19/utah.polygamy/ This message has been edited by gene90, 10-02-2005 03:54 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: It sounds as if we are going to let the courts decide these issues in the cases where our written monogamy-base laws don't apply we run the danger of clogging the courts with a lot of litigation. But then, since we probably would not see too many people suddenly rush into polygamous relationships, this may be an unnecessary concern on my part. Certainly, when a lot of "publishing" and down-loads became popular on the internet, our courts did not collapse under the weight of new copyright issues, so you may be right. (If this is what you are saying.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6695 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
If two men and one woman, or two women and one man wish to live their lives as a social unit, why is that bad? Just one for example, in our moden society, two can work while one stays home to take care of the children. There are many other reasons and possibilities. There is no crime and there is no victim. What is the problem It seems to me that in order for polygomy to work best, say in the one man and multiple woman arrangement, you need as a minimum 4 women. If you have just 2 women, they will fight. If you have only 3 women, 2 will gang up on the other. But with 4 women to 1 man, there is little room for jealosy or fueds because of the additional dynamics that 4 female personalities bring to the union.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 476 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Hey yo, LB, welcome back. You haven't answered the question I asked you a while back.
According to you, psychological experiments have shown that it is more natural for men to not be in physical contacts with each other but it is natural for women to be close to each other. Even though you didn't say it out loud, your past comments have indicated that you thought homosexuality was unnatural and, perhaps, even wrong. If that was the case, would you, then, say that it is perfectly natural for women to be lesbians, since it is already natural for them to show compassion with one another?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
And that shows there is no logical equivalence how? Are you asking me to prove the negative? Show me the logical equivalence of two adults entering into a contract and more than two adults entering into a contract, then'll I'll take steps to disprove.
But I have to point out that marrying "minors" may be a slippery slope issue in some quarters, but not the same way as gays and polygamy and marrying animals. That's the usual line. Marriage is a legal issue. It's about contracts. You don't need a priest to get married. You do need a licence and a witness. As such, the whole gay / polygamy thing isn't really a problem. However, minors can't willingly enter into contracts. And neither can animals. Seems a pretty well defined line to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Your assumptions are showing. Perhaps, but polygamy has historically been one man, multiple women in a heterosexual relationship. As such, it's not such a huge step from normal marriage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Second of all, polygamy is not legal in Utah. Well, it was. And it's still going on there with a much higher frequency than anywhere else in the US.
First of all, cause and effect does not necessarily mean that a relationship works both ways or that an effect can only have one cause. Ummm, okay. But my question was how does gay marriage cause polygamy? Polygamy exists in places where gay marriage does not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
It sounds as if we are going to let the courts decide these issues in the cases where our written monogamy-base laws don't apply we run the danger of clogging the courts with a lot of litigation. More so than having the multiple marriage-divorces and the resulting ex spouse and children from different marriage rights issues? Also, I still do not see how more than one partner is ever going to naturally increase the number of cases anyway. Unless polygamous people will get married and then divorced all at once, yet demand different procedures for each partner? That's about the only way you'd see an increase. Otherwise it would just be a single judge in a single case dealing with more than one partner, as might be seen in a business dispute. Net result is no change in filings.
But then, since we probably would not see too many people suddenly rush into polygamous relationships, this may be an unnecessary concern on my part. Certainly, when a lot of "publishing" and down-loads became popular on the internet, our courts did not collapse under the weight of new copyright issues, so you may be right. And this of course are the two other issues. Even if we take an "increase" in filings just because there are more partners, these next two points come into play. In order to start clogging up our courts polygamy would have to become pretty damn popular, and then if it is popular so who would be complaining if we need a court to handle the cases? New things (as you point out) come into being all the time and so create new case law. Only in moral issues do people argue creating more chances for litigation means we must outlaw something. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
you need as a minimum 4 women. Heheheh... that's something to shoot for! But you forgot to say what happens when a polygamist only has 1 wife. (Side Note: You disappeared from the Kat thread. I will note that Bush and Co have since admitted in large part to the errors that I was pointing out, and did many of the things I had suggested could have been done, when Rita appeared. Do you admit now that I was right? Also, being part of the military, I would be interested in your take on the internet posting of war dead and injured by US soldiers, it is in my Coffee House thread titled "US War crimes as free speech issue". I am looking for diverse points of view on the subject and a soldier's view in particular would be handy.) holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Show me the logical equivalence of two adults entering into a contract and more than two adults entering into a contract, then'll I'll take steps to disprove. Perhaps you missed the OP. I just showed that more than two adults entering a contract is the same as two adults entering a contract. This is not to mention that we have many examples of this outside of marriage, for example a business can have many partners or just two, or you can have contracts with many credit card companies, or just one. Disprove.
However, minors can't willingly enter into contracts. I don't know what to say. I give you evidence of a polygamous union being the equal of a monogamous one, and you insist I still need to prove they can be the same. And I explain to you that minors can and do get married all over the place (including the US) and you repeat your original assertion that minors can't willingly enter into contracts without ever dealing with my explanation. If willful ignorance is your thing, then I guess I simply won't bother replying to you. If you want me to have an interest in your posts, deal with what is being shown to you. You have the article on the marriage above and can find more info if you search for it. On minors getting married, do you need a breakdown of the various ages of marriage throughout the US and the world? Within the US the lowest age (IIRC) is 13 which is clearly a minor, and it is not uncommon to see them below 18, which is usually considered minor. Within the world the lowest age of marriage (IIRC) is 9, and I trust we agree that that is a minor? What they cannot do is get married without consent of the parents. That is different than animals which simply cannot give legal consent at all, regardless of whether their owner or parent agrees. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4110 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Polygamy happens in other countries still, I read that many arab countries still practice it, now they only are able to do it if they can take care of the wives they have. as we live in america, I would wonder if anyone would want more than one considering the prices for things
if the husband can't take care of his wives he loses the right to it, just my thoughs at 3am
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
But my question was how does gay marriage cause polygamy? Again, no one ever said it did. The point is that if gay marriage is allowed, legal reasons for preventing polygamy are undercut and it would have to be allowed as well. If polygamists were in larger number and had a viable national movement to get them marriage rights, and gays were the equivalent of the polygamous community right now, then the reverse argument would be used by conservatives. They'd say if we allowed polygamy then soon gays would be have to be accepted too. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024