quote:
Yes. Because they're not checking for genetic defects but rather for venereal disease and tuberculosis.
Hallelujah! You have finally made your first credible statement toward anything I have said in a long time. And actually I found that in the links I provided.
I forgot to make a retraction about that in my last post to crash and for that I pay the price now. And for this I will actually answer your questions here and see if you can start playing nice.
quote:
Why? Why not them, too? You're assuming marriage is hub-and-spoke and there is no evidence to suggest that it is.
Because the people will not be idiots trying to get married in lalaland where the contracts are between many all at once. By the nature of marriage (if we do not change it) the contracts will remain binding one on one.
All we have to do is allow people to process more than one. This would not require a change in rights responsibilities. I could throw your own incredulity back at you (like do they get more votes?) but I'm not going to act that stupid just to annoy you.
quote:
To wit, if a married woman has an affair and becomes pregnant, her husband is considered the legal father and is financially responsible for the child should they divorce, even though he is not the biological father.
I will start by pointing out that that is determined state by state. But if you want to raise that point as some sort of point you will actually have more problems with samesex marriage than polygamy.
Clearly if you have a marriage contract with a person any children with that person is yours and theirs. How would polygamy change this at all? You would not be cheating on anyone with anyone, because you have the contract.
However, many states do make statements regarding custody or parental rights based on the gender of the parent. Thus the husband (male) is considered the provider for any children in case of divorce. How will such laws work when parents are both of the same sex?
Now frankly I don't think this argument carries any weight against a person getting married. But that holds true all over the place.
quote:
But if you have more than one spouse, what happens then?
For each person their immediate family is the same as the marriage contract describes. Whoever they are married to is a spouse and their kids are their own.
If a person is married to someone who is married to someone else, they are only related like step or -inlaws. Why would there be any other situation?
quote:
I'm simply pointing out that all of the examples of relationships among more than one person that I know of personally, every single one of them considers themselves a trio.
We are talking legal, not social relationships. You would not have to change marriage laws in order to have polygamous marriage of the "hub and spoke" variety. And there is no reason that the social polygamists could not have the relationship they want, they'd just have to secure it through multiple legal contracts.
I might add that you are obviously not talking about the various legal polygamous marriages that exist around the world, or the semi-legal ones in the US. There are already working examples.
Is there a reason your friends would refuse to sign separate marriage contracts with each other? I guess if they really can't handle doing it that way, they can start asking for whatever marriage rights that might be called, and the regular polygamists can disassociate themselves from your friends.
You have never given a reason why if a hub and spoke arrangement is capable of handling the different social arrangements, and would not require changing law, and are THE REAL LIFE EXAMPLES OF POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE, people would refuse to do this.
quote:
And when the hub dies, what rights do all the spokes have?
One wonders that with the fount of knowledge you make yourself out to be, you get hung up on the simplest questions. At worst you could try and find cases of this and find out how it is handled. We are not talking theoreticals.
Unless something was set up different in the contracts themselves, then assets are evenly split.
quote:
So how do we handle something like the right to make medical decisions when the spouse is incapacitated? Suppose one spouse wants to go in one direction while another spouse disagrees? Who is the final authority? Under marriage as we currently understand it, it is simply the "spouse" that has that right. Well, now there are two people who have that title, so which one do we defer to?
This is almost a valid question. Only what you are doing is choosing tough agreeably tough situations that can arise anywhere.
Let's say you become ill and are not married, and the only relatives you have are your parents. One parents wants to do one thing and the other something else. Uh oh, guess we'll have to throw away the concept of parents!
Or what if you are divorced (twice) with children and they are your only remaining relatives and you become ill... and some want to go one way, and others want to go another?
Yeah, tough question. My guess is since all your spouses have the right, that they will come to a consensus, or like any other family in dispute hire a bunch of lawyers to make the claim they have a greater right due to compelling claims beyond purely contractual matters.
This says nothing about the marriage contract rights/responsibilities, just as your rights/responsibilities do not change to your multiple creditors.
quote:
The claim for polygamy is not the same constitutional claim as for same-sex marriage.
It is. Go to the links I listed on marriage, polygamy, and same-sex marriage.
quote:
Now, do this again and change it from "husband" and "wife" to "all spouses."
It would not say this, just as when you get multiple credit cards you don't sign one form that says "all creditors".
quote:
And now, consider if you need to add any new legislation to tie up any loose ends that might need to be clarified given the new arrangement.
Yeah, like the current marriages laws do not constantly get tightened up because of the many possibility of situations (loose ends) that exist?
You might see some more colorful situations in court, but I wouldn't say you'd see any more than you already have.
If you are telling me there will be no changes to laws by gay couples going through the varieties of their own experiences, then I think you are full of it.
My guess is the polygamists will spend more of their time in court discussing division of property assets, and gays regarding parental issues.
But they'll ALL end up in court for something, and change existing law, just as straights do now.
quote:
In other words, the constitutional claim for same-sex marriage is that marriage already exists and the rights and responsibilities that are conferred by that contract would not change by the substitution of "spouse" for "husband" and "wife."
Unless one of the partners in a polygamous marriage is same-sex there wouldn't even need to be a substitution. All rights and responsibilities would remain the same.
The only difference is we just don't allow people to marry more than one, until a divorce is made between one marriage and the next.
quote:
Same-sex marriage requires no change in the contract of marriage. Polygamy does.
No it doesn't. Other than accepting more than one at a time procedurally, what would be different about the contract? You have yet to show your assertion is true, despite the examples of polygamous marriage across that globe and within certain areas of the US. How are the contracts they used different?
quote:
(Same-sex marriage) does not seek to change the contract.
It does where the contracts specify that those involved are of opposite sex.
quote:
A person who wants to marry someone of the same sex, given the current marriage laws, cannot get married at all. But a person who wants to married more than one person (assuming heterosexuality), can still get married. He can't marry everyone he wants, but there is still the availability of the marriage contract as it currently exists.
My turn... BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
A gay man is robbed when the law says he can only marry one WOMAN, because he doesn't want to marry a WOMAN.
Yet a polyamorous man is not robbed when the law says he only can marry ONE woman, despite the fact that (by the definition of polygamy) he doesn't want to marry just ONE?
You are shovelling fast and furious every time you make that argument.
quote:
The argument for same-sex marriage recognizes that changing the obligation set to be "two persons" rather than "one man and one woman" does not change anything about the rights and responsibilities.
You have yet to show one case of where the rights and responsibilities as detailed by law would be changed. They may be put into new situations (where rights become shared rather than sole because of multiple obligations) but that does not change the laws, nor require changes in laws.
This happens everyday in straight marriage law, and will happen in gay marriages as well.
My guess is, as I stated before, you'll have more issues of property rights for polygamists, and more parental rights for same-sex couples.
quote:
Indeed. You have missed the whole point of what polygamy means. You seem to think that it only means something out of the Bible. Reality shows that it includes all methods of combining more than two people.
Wow what an ignorant bigot you are. You sure slammed lizardbreath when he said stuff of which he did not understand, and I'm calling you on this line of garbage.
I am a polyamorist. Not that I am into marriage, given my vast experience with marriage laws in general, but I have a clear field of view about what polygamy means. I even knew people from polygamist cultures (where it is allowed) which you continue to show you have NO knowledge of.
REALITY not only shows that people can combine in more than twos, it also shows (and all you'd have had to do is go to those links) that they do go in more than twos all the time. There is already legal precedent on how they are handled, and the hub-and-spoke legal documentation is enough to handle any multi-party marriage (it would be multi-hub) unless people are going to be real pig-headed about it and say the law must be created to clearly document every nuance of their social feelings.
I assume most US polygamists would be practical enough to not require changes in law, and if they want something extra special for a license, have their lawyers draw up unique pre-nups.
quote:
I've asked you to spell them out and you have yet to come up with a single one.
Polygamists seek the same rights with regard to their MULTIPLE SPOUSES (and children from those spouses) as gays want with regard to their SINGULAR SAME-SEX SPOUSE.
People are being deprived of their rights to be with and take care of their significant partners and have that recognized by law. The law currently says ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. One group asks to be allowed to drop "man" and "woman" while the other asks to drop the "one".
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
