| Author |
Topic:
Polygamy
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
5/6 11:07am
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
Eleventh_Guard,
Did you read my entire post? I clearly explained why. At least I felt it was clear. No where in that post did I mention religous beliefs or health care.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something and you could restate your questions?...
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are"  http://www.mymonavie.com/yourjuice
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
AnakinsGirl
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
5/6 11:39am
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
Without getting into a gay-marriage debate, I would argue that marriage as a LEGAL institution still has merit. Like previous posters have stated, a spouse is legally the person to make decisions when you are unable to. I personally think that the main reason why polygamy is simply an impractical legal institution is just that things would get pretty legally complicated: how do you divvy out health insurance? It is unfair and sexist to assume that all polygamist relationships involve just one man with several women, and that that man should be the sole economic provider for his females.
I think that it is simply too legally complicated to grant group marriages the same legal spousal status as traditional, one-man, one-woman marriages. I am not morally against group marriages, I would support it if someone could figure out a way to make it economically and legally viable, but I just don't think would make sense to grant spousal status to, say, five or six people.
That said, marriage as an institution still has alot of practical purposes. If we are talking about a marriage between two people--even if religiously it means nothing to you, it holds alot more water that simply getting into a new tax bracket. What if you get in a car accident and are critically ill in the hospital? One reason why homosexuals think marriage is important is so that their partner would have the legal rights to sit at their spouse's bedside in the hospital while they are dying. I'm not trying to turn this into a discussion about something irrelevant, I'm just pointing out one single aspect of marriage that *is* still practical and means a lot to people, both within and without the traditional constructs of the institution.
However, if there is a group marriage in which several people are economically dependent one one person (male or female!) what would happen to their dependents if that person died or went to prison? I think group marriages can be just as legitimate as traditional ones, but like I said: how do you resolve these complicated legal issues for which marriage serves its purpose???
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Eleventh_Guard
Registered:
Dec '05
|
Date Posted:
5/6 12:58pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
J-Rod posted:
Eleventh_Guard,
Did you read my entire post? I clearly explained why. At least I felt it was clear. No where in that post did I mention religous beliefs or health care.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something and you could restate your questions?...
Yes, I did read it.
I chose my wife. In this country we all choose our spouse. As such I have more faith and trust in her than I do in my blood family. If you don't, then you married the wrong girl.
I'd imagine that people with more than one spouse chose them, too. Trust is not a prerequisite for marriage, although I agree that it's stupid to marry someone one doesn't trust that much. So the argument of choice is not relevant because it doesn't matter how many spouses one has; they're all chosen. And trust isn't mandatory no matter how wise it is.
Using this as a given, my wife needs to be the first and last legal word on any and all things concerning me should I not be able to speak for myself. All my worldly belongings, all my legal priviledges, everything that's at all mine needs to be hers.
That's excellent, but again, that's not a prerequisite for marriage. It's perfectly legal to will some or all of one's belongings to someone else in the event of death, and name a different partial beneficiary on one's life insurance policy. Not everyone would agree that the spouse needs to be the only legal word on anything; someone with elderly and ill parents, for instance, might wish for one's parents to inherit some belongings to pay for medical care and necessities. A married person might want some of his/her assets to go to a sibling in poverty. Your situation sounds good but it's not universal.
One reason I married her was because I have the ultimate trust and faith in her judgement and her intentions. She is and will be the nucleus of my family and needs all the rights and protections of this position, ideally for the growth and protection of that family. Marriage needs to be a legal recognition of this fact.
Again, good for you. But that doesn't have anything to do with polygamy. In essence, you have set up a situation in which your wife takes on your assets and responsibilities if you should die early. Okay. Why couldn't a family have three adults, and if one should die young, the other two take on one-half of all responsibility instead of the former one-third?
A two-adult household apparently works for you, and for many people. Two being good doesn't imply that three or four is inherently worse. You're going to have to prove that or it's just a wild guess.
I'd argue that a three-adult household could have some benefits, but America's legal set-up makes this difficult to measure except indirectly. Two earners and one stay-at-home parent means better financial security and a stable source of child care. The closest common analogue in American culture that I've seen is two-working-parent households with a live-in nanny. There are some major differences, but the three-adult household, to some extent, can be seen to work and it is often preferable to putting a child in regular day care.
-----signature-----
A conversation on Dathomir:
Welk: My daughter did that... I am blameless. I'm not even armed.
Jacen: And you just let her do whatever she wants?
Welk: You're new here, aren't you?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
5/6 1:01pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
- Date Edited:
5/6 1:13pm (4 edits total)
Edited By:
J-Rod
|
I'd imagine that people with more than one spouse chose them, too. Trust is not a prerequisite for marriage, although I agree that it's stupid to marry someone one doesn't trust that much. So the argument of choice is not relevant because it doesn't matter how many spouses one has; they're all chosen. And trust isn't mandatory no matter how wise it is.
Yes, trust is manditory. Otherwise we see the devaluation of marriage that I have described. IE why in the world would I have to appoint my own wife as an executor of my estate? It should be assumed unless otherwise noted. But that isn't the case in all instances anymore.
That's excellent, but again, that's not a prerequisite for marriage. It's perfectly legal to will some or all of one's belongings to someone else in the event of death, and name a different partial beneficiary on one's life insurance policy. Not everyone would agree that the spouse needs to be the only legal word on anything; someone with elderly and ill parents, for instance, might wish for one's parents to inherit some belongings to pay for medical care and necessities. A married person might want some of his/her assets to go to a sibling in poverty. Your situation sounds good but it's not universal.
A married person can always appoint someone other than his/her spouse in a will. That's fine. But in the absence of a will there should be no question. My mother, for instance, should not be able to sue my wife for property in the even that I don't have a will.
Again, good for you. But that doesn't have anything to do with polygamy. In essence, you have set up a situation in which your wife takes on your assets and responsibilities if you should die early. Okay. Why couldn't a family have three adults, and if one should die young, the other two take on one-half of all responsibility instead of the former one-third?
OK, So how is it devided? Who gets more "rights?" The first wife? Why? Is that legally fair to the other wives? It simply isn't compatable with our culture and laws.
A two-adult household apparently works for you, and for many people. Two being good doesn't imply that three or four is inherently worse. You're going to have to prove that or it's just a wild guess.
Unless and until it is shown that more is better, the burden of proof relies on the one who wants to change the law. Also, keep in mind that I'm not saying how someone can live. Do as you please.
I just can't see the reasonning for offcial government recognization.
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are" http://www.mymonavie.com/yourjuice
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Eleventh_Guard
Registered:
Dec '05
|
Date Posted:
5/6 3:56pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
It doesn't have to be better to be allowable. It just has to fail to cause significant harm. Outlawing multiple marriages unfortunately stacks statistics in favor of those who want it outlawed, because only people who are willing to break the law will attempt it, outside of groups who obey the letter of the law but press for change.
Allowing multiple marriage does not mean that two-person marriages will not be allowed. People who want monogamous relationships would, of course, be entitled to have them. It's not like if polygamy was allowed that monogamy would be banned or that the legal privileges of it would be reduced.
It just wouldn't be a special case that is entitled to things other people can't have - because those who previously got told "No" would now get told "Yes." The people who already have the thumbs-up would still have it.
-----signature-----
A conversation on Dathomir:
Welk: My daughter did that... I am blameless. I'm not even armed.
Jacen: And you just let her do whatever she wants?
Welk: You're new here, aren't you?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
5/6 4:35pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
The question would be tho'; Why?
What would be the service of recognizing these polygamous relationships? What interest of the state would be served?
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are" http://www.mymonavie.com/yourjuice
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Eleventh_Guard
Registered:
Dec '05
|
Date Posted:
5/6 6:28pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
Because otherwise the government is favoring one-man one-woman partnerships over same-sex and/or multiple-partner partnerships with no basis other than tradition for doing so. Eliminating government involvement in marriage entirely would solve that issue, as would opening it up to anybody who wanted it for any reason.
Partnerships with 3 or more adults can, in theory, more easily weather the situation if one of the wage-earners becomes unemployed, leading to lesser chance that the family will end up on the dole. Kids, if any, are less likely to need to go to day care because one or more adults are home to take care of them.
Larger households (without increasing the total number of children) usually mean more energy efficiency. 7 people in 2 households will use more energy than 7 people in 1 household, all other things being equal.
The benefits might be small, but the benefits of marriage as opposed to a civil union are pretty small, too, yet people fight fiercely to keep it.
-----signature-----
A conversation on Dathomir:
Welk: My daughter did that... I am blameless. I'm not even armed.
Jacen: And you just let her do whatever she wants?
Welk: You're new here, aren't you?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
5/6 8:27pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
- Date Edited:
5/6 8:28pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
J-Rod
|
I dunno. It seems to me that the science supporting your arguement is pretty scarce. Understand that studies show that the best environment for raising a child is in a married house hold...married being defined as one man and one woman.
This is why it is a more valuable relationship as compared to others and why it is in the state's interest to recognize it. Just because it may not be true in each and every individual case makes no difference.
Besides, have you seen the societies that allow for polygamy? I don't wanna live like that. If someone else does they can. It just isn't recognized by the state.
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are" http://www.mymonavie.com/yourjuice
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Eleventh_Guard
Registered:
Dec '05
|
Date Posted:
5/6 10:42pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
- Date Edited:
5/6 10:44pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Eleventh_Guard
|
Do you have any studies that have compared a one-man, one-woman household to other types of households with two or more adults and found that 1M/1F is superior, while controlling outside variables as much as possible (no significant differences in socioeconomic class, religion, etc. between the groups surveyed)? I'm genuinely curious. It makes perfect sense that this would generally be preferable to a one-parent household, for reasons that are obvious, IMHO: one person can't be two places at once, working to support the family and watching the kids. Unless s/he works from home (and even then hir attention is split) or is extremely wealthy from inheritance or something, and those cases are rare.
But "a traditional marriage is usually better for the kids than a single-parent household" doesn't say anything about other arrangements that have more than one adult.
"X > Y, therefore X > Z" is not logically sound on its own.
You may be right, but the only studies I've ever seen have compared traditional marriage to single-parent families, and that comparison is not useful for discussing polygamy. In fact, it's very slightly in favor of it, since if 2 is better than 1, 3 may just be better than 2 (but we don't really know one way or the other).
-----signature-----
A conversation on Dathomir:
Welk: My daughter did that... I am blameless. I'm not even armed.
Jacen: And you just let her do whatever she wants?
Welk: You're new here, aren't you?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
5/7 6:02am
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
You may be right, but the only studies I've ever seen have compared traditional marriage to single-parent families, and that comparison is not useful for discussing polygamy. In fact, it's very slightly in favor of it, since if 2 is better than 1, 3 may just be better than 2 (but we don't really know one way or the other).
This makes two assumptions;
1) That it is the numbers of parents that matters.
2) That the burdon of proof is on me, not you.
That said, it is the martital relationship of the parents that appears to be the important thing. That thay are married and raising the child in a stable home.
So what about numbers? Well, we can see in many step parent situations that more does not equal better. (My own situation excluded.  )
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are" http://www.mymonavie.com/yourjuice
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
dizfactor
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
5/7 1:39pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
None of those studies are valid for proving your point, because all of them share the same basic methodological flaw: none of them control for economic status.
Obviously, kids growing up in poor households have worse outcomes than than kids growing up in affluent households. Also, there is a correlation between low economic status and unmarried status (as well as health problems, abuse rates, education, etc etc etc).
If you want to prove that marital status in and of itself is an important factor in determining childhood outcomes, you have to compare families of the same economic status. If there's a married couple and an unmarried couple under comparable economic circumstances (equally poor, equally rich, whatever), does the married couple have better outcomes? Does that piece of paper matter?
What your studies claim, without evidence, is that the relationship between low economic status and marriage rates is causal in the direction of marriage rates -> economic status. The evidence suggests otherwise.
-----signature-----
"Play is going to be for the 21st century what steam was to the 19th century."
Julian Dibbell
"You gotta love an elite killing force that you can fool by putting on a hat."
Gryph
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
king_alvarez
Registered:
May '07
|
Date Posted:
5/7 2:24pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
J-Rod posted:
It seems to me that the science supporting your arguement is pretty scarce. Understand that studies show that the best environment for raising a child is in a married house hold...married being defined as one man and one woman.
Even if this were a verifiable fact, should the government have a role in this?
-----signature-----
Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?"
Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Eleventh_Guard
Registered:
Dec '05
|
Date Posted:
5/7 3:05pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
Besides, children aren't the only point of marriage. Sharing assets and having certain legal rights - essentially forming a new family - are included as well. Marriage is basically a shortcut that allows a person to do the equivalent of several different legal procedures all at once, or with fewer steps, and makes the head of household able to claim the other person/people as dependents to get a bigger tax refund.
If it was all about kids, then there would be no reason to allow infertile people to marry, nor elderly women, nor people who simply choose to be childfree.
The state has certain responsibilities when it comes to child welfare. Providing education up to high school level. Outlawing clear, serious abuse and neglect. But the state is not responsible for choosing a style of household that is proven superior to only one other style, with no comparisons to others, and setting up legal roadblocks to make living in the unproven styles difficult and with no legal benefits.
This may come down to a difference in basic beliefs, though. I believe that the government should allow anything unless they have a compelling reason to ban it, and it appears that you believe that they should allow only what they have a compelling reason to allow. Am I reading that correctly?
If that's the case then we'll have to agree to disagree, because I don't think there's much evidence that polygamy is significantly harmful OR helpful at this point. We don't have enough non-crazy examples in the West to make a solid comparison, and I'm going to err on the side of allowing things unless they're proven bad.
-----signature-----
A conversation on Dathomir:
Welk: My daughter did that... I am blameless. I'm not even armed.
Jacen: And you just let her do whatever she wants?
Welk: You're new here, aren't you?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
5/8 5:56am
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
- Date Edited:
5/8 5:59am (2 edits total)
Edited By:
J-Rod
|
Diz, I'm not sure that it is at all possible to seperate family status and economics. Poor areas have a higher rate of divorce, yet divorce also leaves people in poverty. In effect, poor family status seems to be both a cause and an effect of poverty.
That said I had noted that there are no studies as to the effect of polygamy on families. These are just the closest thing I could find. The only other thing we can do is look at societies that allow for polygamy. They seem to suck, all things considered. 
Guard said...Besides, children aren't the only point of marriage. Sharing assets and having certain legal rights - essentially forming a new family - are included as well. Marriage is basically a shortcut that allows a person to do the equivalent of several different legal procedures all at once, or with fewer steps, and makes the head of household able to claim the other person/people as dependents to get a bigger tax refund.
You point out the reasons that an individual would get married. Yet you fail to point out what the state would get out of recognizing these relationships. When the government does something, it must have a reason.
If it was all about kids, then there would be no reason to allow infertile people to marry, nor elderly women, nor people who simply choose to be childfree.
Understand, while it is constitutional to set limits on marriage, it isn't lawful to tell someone that they can't marry at all. (Unless you are already married and I guess the next step is to say that that is discrimination based on marrital status.) All of us are allowed to marry. We just have to follow a uniform set of standards.
The state has certain responsibilities when it comes to child welfare. Providing education up to high school level. Outlawing clear, serious abuse and neglect. But the state is not responsible for choosing a style of household that is proven superior to only one other style, with no comparisons to others, and setting up legal roadblocks to make living in the unproven styles difficult and with no legal benefits.
There are no road blocks to living how you want to live. Recognized or not you are not stopped from giving legal rights to whoever you want and set up your household in any manner you want.
It gets a little tiring to hear people talk as if the government is telling them who they can live with and how to raise their children. That isn't the case. Do what you want. Knock yourself out!
This may come down to a difference in basic beliefs, though. I believe that the government should allow anything unless they have a compelling reason to ban it, and it appears that you believe that they should allow only what they have a compelling reason to allow. Am I reading that correctly?
As I explained, the government does allow for whatever you want to do. They won't stop you. But I think that there should be a compelling reason for the government to involve itself in your relationship.
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are" http://www.mymonavie.com/yourjuice
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Eleventh_Guard
Registered:
Dec '05
|
Date Posted:
5/8 3:21pm
Subject:
RE: Polygamy
|
What is the compelling reason that it has for involvement in yours, then? (BTW, I am not in any sort of polyamorous relationship. Or any relationships at all beyond purely platonic friendships.)
Beyond the fact that M/F relationships are more common and therefore more people are going to vote for candidates who will support them?
After all, it's not like you and your wife would be forbidden to live together in the absence of support of M/F marriage. You could live exactly like you do now - you might just have to fill out a little more additional paperwork in the beginning to give each other certain legal rights.
-----signature-----
A conversation on Dathomir:
Welk: My daughter did that... I am blameless. I'm not even armed.
Jacen: And you just let her do whatever she wants?
Welk: You're new here, aren't you?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
