2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

\
Yes, your inconsistent posting is a bit confusing. But, nothing new there.

Yes, it is very confusing to be in favor of gay marriage while at the same time think that pluralism isn't going to fly. It's so out of the mainstream of current thought.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I can see the contour of the argument. "Is love by definition exclusive"? That is going to be a really, really interesting debate.

It's actually been going on in the back pages of poly musings for a generation or more, but it's never broken out into mainstream consciousnesses. Anything different begins with a snicker, moves to a scolding, becomes An Existential Threat!, and finally dissolves into Life's Rich Pageant.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Has Scooby ever stated that he disagrees morally with plural marriage?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I can see the contour of the argument. "Is love by definition exclusive"? That is going to be a really, really interesting debate.

Sure, but love has nothing to do with a contract issued by the State. That's the problem with these folks flying off the deep end about the definition of marriage. The definition didn't change. If you're a Catholic, Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, whatever you have your own definition of the term and no matter what the Supreme Court decided that hasn't changed.

The question was whether or not a gay person should be able to enter a contract where someone can pull the life support, someone can have children with them, someone can get them health benefits, etc. etc.

In those questions there is no discrimination against pluralists.

Has Scooby ever stated that he disagrees morally with plural marriage?

No, he hasn't and he doesn't.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Yes, it is very confusing to be in favor of gay marriage while at the same time think that pluralism isn't going to fly. It's so out of the mainstream of current thought.

Which isn't what I was commenting on, but don't let that distract you.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Has Scooby ever stated that he disagrees morally with plural marriage?

If I am reading Bob's argument correctly, he is saying that if you feel something is not prohibited then you must push for it, otherwise you are applying an inconsistent standard of civil rights. The implied reasoning is in the domain of rights, one must either (1) consider something not a right and therefore 100% oppose it or (2) consider something a right and therefore 100% support it. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Where I'm getting balled up is why one can't be unsure about the status of a right. Is poly marriage a right? I just don't know -- to me, since partner choice doesn't matter (within the scope of informed consent), the only thing it comes down to is whether marriage is by definition 2 people rather than more than 2.

My initial foray was to consider whether love is inherently exclusive, but Scooby rightly showed that love and marrage, though they may go together like a horse and carriage, actually have nothing to do with one another in statute. So we're back to "must a marriage be by definition 2 people." The historical argument is out, as we've seen in the gay rights fight. I've never really been comfortable with the idea that the state has a compelling interest in preventing the "harm" caused by any sort of marriage -- in the first place, "harm" sounds like a transparent importation of a particular viewpoint, and in the second place my marriage is quite frankly way more important than the state and in choosing between the two the state can go fck itself.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I feel like from a legal perspective multiple wives could potentially become really complicated.

Agreed. Should I get married to two women, are those two women then also considered to be married to each other by default? Would they require a separate ceremony if they're not then married by default? What happens should I die and actually leave an estate that's worth something? How does that all get parsed out between my grieving widows? Who takes control of all of this if I've not written a will? I think that the polygamist Mormons have the wife first married to the man handle such things, but that might be because none of the other wives are actually wives in the eyes of the state. Estate planners would have a field day with this situation and should lobby for it simply from a business point of view. Boon times!

 

[joecct]

I think your mixing civil rights with something else. Civil rights doesn't mean you get to do whatever the hell you want.

Yes it does when it becomes acceptable.

 

[joecct]

Agreed. Should I get married to two women, are those two women then also considered to be married to each other by default? Would they require a separate ceremony if they're not then married by default? What happens should I die and actually leave an estate that's worth something? How does that all get parsed out between my grieving widows? Who takes control of all of this if I've not written a will? I think that the polygamist Mormons have the wife first married to the man handle such things, but that might be because none of the other wives are actually wives in the eyes of the state. Estate planners would have a field day with this situation and should lobby for it simply from a business point of view. Boon times!

A legal contract or contracts makes it all possible.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Yes it does when it becomes acceptable.

Glad to see some folks understand this.

 

[unofan]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Altering a marriage license for gay marriage just requires changing "husband" and "wife" to "spouse A" and "spouse B." The underlying law regarding marriage, including all privileges, duties, and responsibilities contained therein, remains unchanged.

Polygamous marriage would require significantly more changes to the underlying law. What happens if one person wants a divorce from one spouse but not the other, but the other doesn't want to separate at all? How would inheritance laws be affected?

There's also a higher risk of power imbalance, in so much as 2 could gang up on the third. That's one reason even in states where cousins can marry, we still disallow parents from marrying children.

States can restrict marriage, they just need valid reasons to do so (depending on the standard, either a rational one, a legitimate one, or a compelling one). There is no rational reason to prohibit gay marriages. There may be reasons to prohibit polygamist ones. But as kepler said, let the polygamists argue that one.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Glad to see some folks understand this.

OMG, Bob. They'll be anarchy. Dogs and cats will live together. Mass hysteria.

 

[burd]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Agreed. Should I get married to two women, are those two women then also considered to be married to each other by default? Would they require a separate ceremony if they're not then married by default? What happens should I die and actually leave an estate that's worth something? How does that all get parsed out between my grieving widows? Who takes control of all of this if I've not written a will? I think that the polygamist Mormons have the wife first married to the man handle such things, but that might be because none of the other wives are actually wives in the eyes of the state. Estate planners would have a field day with this situation and should lobby for it simply from a business point of view. Boon times!

If polygamy became legal, each state would modify the intestate succession (no will) provision in its probate code to include situations when there are multiple surviving wives. Not a complicated feat, which is not to say legislatures could not spawn litigation with sloppy drafting or daft ideas.

 

[joecct]

Altering a marriage license for gay marriage just requires changing "husband" and "wife" to "spouse A" and "spouse B." The underlying law regarding marriage, including all privileges, duties, and responsibilities contained therein, remains unchanged.

Polygamous marriage would require significantly more changes to the underlying law. What happens if one person wants a divorce from one spouse but not the other, but the other doesn't want to separate at all? How would inheritance laws be affected?

There's also a higher risk of power imbalance, in so much as 2 could gang up on the third. That's one reason even in states where cousins can marry, we still disallow parents from marrying children.

States can restrict marriage, they just need valid reasons to do so (depending on the standard, either a rational one, a legitimate one, or a compelling one). There is no rational reason to prohibit gay marriages. There may be reasons to prohibit polygamist ones. But as kepler said, let the polygamists argue that one.

A good lawyer can make it happen. The marriage becomes a corporation with buy-in and opt out clauses.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Altering a marriage license for gay marriage just requires changing "husband" and "wife" to "spouse A" and "spouse B." The underlying law regarding marriage, including all privileges, duties, and responsibilities contained therein, remains unchanged.

Polygamous marriage would require significantly more changes to the underlying law. What happens if one person wants a divorce from one spouse but not the other, but the other doesn't want to separate at all? How would inheritance laws be affected?

There's also a higher risk of power imbalance, in so much as 2 could gang up on the third. That's one reason even in states where cousins can marry, we still disallow parents from marrying children.

States can restrict marriage, they just need valid reasons to do so (depending on the standard, either a rational one, a legitimate one, or a compelling one). There is no rational reason to prohibit gay marriages. There may be reasons to prohibit polygamist ones. But as kepler said, let the polygamists argue that one.

Exactly. It's not hypocritical to support and campaign for something that's actually feasible vs something that would be incredibly convoluted.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Clearly, we should just go back to a simpler time when all marriages were arranged/approved by heads of household (who always had good Christian intentions at heart), and the only way to get a divorce was to petition/bribe the Pope for an annulment.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Clearly, we should just go back to a simpler time when all marriages were arranged/approved by heads of household (who always had good Christian intentions at heart), and the only way to get a divorce was to petition the Pope for an annulment.

This holds especially true for those God fearing Shintoists.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Clearly, we should just go back to a simpler time when all marriages were arranged/approved by heads of household

As the parent of a 23-year old, I am totally down with this.

I'm thinking of holding an auction.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

OMG, Bob. They'll be anarchy. Dogs and cats will live together. Mass hysteria.

But will the dogs and cats be allowed to marry? And don't forget the human sacrifice, 40 years of darkness, etc.

 

[burd]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Yes it does when it becomes acceptable.

Glad to see some folks understand this.

OMG, Bob. They'll be anarchy. Dogs and cats will live together. Mass hysteria.

But will the dogs and cats be allowed to marry? And don't forget the human sacrifice, 40 years of darkness, etc.

The real canary in the cave is the relationship between Sioux and Gopher fans. When they start to hold hands you will know that the centre cannot hold and mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.