Discussion in 'Civil Rights' started by modernpaladin, Nov 11, 2019.
How about a broader context of Group Marriage.
Divorce Lawyer's Wet Dream.
None of the other restrictions were based on an individual's traits. They were based on the similarity or difference in traits of those whom they wished to be married to. Same sex. Different race. Same family. Different number.
Polygamy is group marriage.
I'm going to disagree insofar as how it works as a legal institution. Once married to one, legally speaking, you already have the legal benefits. You are not denied anything legally, and especially not on the basis of any the protected classes. Sad to say, numbers are not a protected class. And given that the benefits of social marriage cannot be denied by a lack of legal marriage (although there can be argument as to what benefits slot to which type of marriage.), denying the additional legal benefits is not a violation of rights.
Don't get me wrong. I would love to be able to legally marry my other two spouses, but the arguments against why it should not be illegal are nowhere near that of interracial, same sex or incestous.
I couldn't stand one woman at a time how could they deal with more than one at a time?
Protected classes are nonsense. Historical marriage discrimination was based on white monogamous heterosexuals being a protected class. The only people who should be considered a "protected" class are minors and those who cannot legally consent. Poly marriage is the same as those other things because if for example you are in love with a legally married couple, you are denied from getting married to either one of them, much less both.
You picked the wrong woman.
Maybe they act different when they have limited resources and the need to outperform the other for attention from the man?
Why so limiting? You do realize that polygamy includes not just polygyny, but also polyandry and marriages where there are two or more of both genders, yes?
Allow me to correct this, as one in a poly marriage. We are denied the legal recognition of that marriage beyond the first spouse, and any legal benefits thereof. Keep in mind that as far as legal marriage is concerned, love, sex and children are neither required nor expected, as far as how the law is written. Right now, by law, you and I could get married legally. Why would we? Maybe we're good enough friends and currently have no long term relationship plans. So we cohabitate for financial reasons and use the legal marriage for even more financial and legal advantage. That's just one possibility.
Sounds like you're looking for a sub, regardless of being mono or poly.
You appear to be making the exact same dubious argument here that was used by opponents of same sex (and probably also against interracial) unions. "They don't need to have their marriage legally recognized because they can cohabitate and make legal contracts that sort of but not exactly simulate legal marriage rights and benefits."
I have no idea what point you're trying make with the example of people who are just good friends and have no long term relationship plans.
Not trying to make those arguments, so apologies if that is what comes across.
Interracial and same sex marriage bans are definitively in contradiction with the 14th amendment. Arguments can be made for and against incestous marriage whether we can consider heritage as covered by the 14 the. However there is nothing unconstitutional about limiting the number of participants in the legal institution.
That legal marriage has nothing to do with love, sex or children, as far as any kind of criteria for obtaining one. Thus any mention of those three in the context of getting a legal marriage is a red herring.
When you consider that individuals are in fact being discriminated from entering into the institution (an example being at least one member of a throuple), how can you say it’s not an equal protection issue? I have yet to see an argument against it that doesn’t align with the already debunked arguments against interracial and same sex marriages.
Consider this example. Person A wants to legally marry person B, but B is already married to C. All parties involved agree and consent to this union moving forward. Person A is not seeking to marry more than one person, but they are denied from entering into the institution of marriage with the person of their choice. Likewise, if it is mandated that Person B divorce person C before marrying A, then person C’s due process and equal protection are being violated.
OK, I think you misunderstood me there. I wasn’t implying that it was prerequisite for marriage. Mutual consent certainly is though, and when marriage is being used to apply for certain benefits (such as immigration status adjustment) they do check to see if the relationship is legit. I was also using it as an example of a bona fide relationship to cut off any spurious arguments that it would lead to people abusing the system (like one of the commonly made arguments against legalizing gay marriage).
How far down the discrimination rabbit hole do you want to go? Why not call discrimination on age? Or species? We have a certain set of criteria that we say cannot be the basis of discrimination. Numbers simply are not part of that.
Well I wouldn't say their due process, because ultimately it's B making the decision, not the government. The government is only saying one or the other, and since numbers is not currently included as criteria among our rights, there is no loss of rights for due process to be an issue. Equal protection...maybe but again equal to what.?
I'll agree that legalizing polygamy won't generate any significant increase in the abuse of the system. More variety in the abuse maybe, but not the actual abuse.
The problem with contracts, and this applies to both marriage and debt, is that at the end of the day, it's going to be the government's job to enforce it.
Thus I think the government should get to have some sort of say on what sort of legally-binding contracts one may enter into.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you have two children and two wives that means there's three adults to look after children two of them could work and one of them could be a full-time parent that would be more independent.
I think the reason why we made polygamy illegal is because number one tradition, but there's a practical reason. I don't think anybody cares if a man has two or three wives or woman has two or three husbands or if there's two husbands and two wives whatever. I think the problem is when there's a man that has 36 wives. That can lead to a lot of inbreeding. If you think about it 36 wives three children each, and those children grow up to have 36 wives of Their own insider three children with each of them there's going to be some brother and sister marriages, there's really no way to avoid it.
But I think that's the only practical legal argument against polygamy.
I disagree. When you have the government enforcing economic contracts between more than two people, things can get messy.
Suppose for example there are three people in one of these "marriages" and one person wants another person out of the house, but the other partner doesn't.
The government believes two-person marriages are beneficial, three-person marriages can be problematic.
(The only reason they ever gave marriage options to gay couples were the belief in "equal rights")
I know I might have asked you this before, but out of curiosity do you ever have problems with jealousy?
It's messy with two people. I don't see consideration for use of legal disputes as a practical argument. Law students have to go through years of school they can figure that out that's what they get paid for.
Besides having these laws in the first place the only thing that really complicates the issue.
Yes it is. And it gets exponentially more messy with three people.
Two people have one relationship between them. When you're talking about three people there are three relationships!
yeah people just opt out of marriage if they don't want to deal with it.
generally speaking divorce lawyers for handling dozens of divorces at a time you can handle two.
I would call that an appeal to extremism fallacy (I think I got the one I'm thinking of). Even the FLDS don't have marriages that large. Most of the world tend to be monogamous, even when they have open marriages (open being about sex and not LTR). There would have to be more evidence toward this as even a probability before it could be considered a legitimate legal concern.
You lose on critical thinking.
Anything can get messy the more people you involve. But we already deal with economic contracts between more than two people. Corporations aside, there are multiowner
businesses out there.
Let's carry that over to our business example. Three partner's partners in a business. A wants B out, but C doesn't want A or B out. Now what? Do we need to ban business partnerships with more than two people?
Separate names with a comma.