advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 02, 2015 10:04AM
Quote
Ted King
From the conclusion of the paper I cited earlier:

[rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org]

Quote

In closing, it is worth speculating that the spread of normative monogamy, which represents a form of egalitarianism, may have helped create the conditions for the emergence of democracy and political equality at all levels of government. Within the anthropological record, there is a statistical linkage between democratic institutions and normative monogamy. Pushing this point, these authors argue that dissipating the pool of unmarried males weakens despots, as it reduces their ability to find soldiers or henchman. Reduced crime would also weaken despots’ claims to be all that stands between ordinary citizens and chaos. Historically, we know that universal monogamous marriage preceded the emergence of democratic institutions in Europe, and the rise of notions of equality between the sexes (see our historical sketch in the electronic supplementary material). In Ancient Greece, we do not know which came first but we do know that Athens, for example, had both elements of monogamous marriage and of democracy. In the modern world, analyses of cross-national data reveal positive statistical relationships between the strength of normative monogamy with both democratic rights and civil liberties. In this sense, the peculiar institutions of monogamous marriage may help explain why democratic ideals and notions of equality and human rights first emerged in the West.

I note that the "may" in the bolded sentence is an acknowledgement of the conditionality of the statement. But if it is true that notions of democracy and egalitarianism strongly tend to take root best in societies that were deeply monogamistic, then is the converse also likely to be true? Would a breakdown of monogamy lead to a diminishment of egalitarianism and democracy?

egalitarianism between the genders most definitely did not "first emerge" in the west
When the Europeans first arrived in north america they were appalled by the authority and autonomy of indigenous women and set out to destroy that (and were successful for the most part)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Janit
Date: July 02, 2015 10:19AM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
Ted King
From the conclusion of the paper I cited earlier:

[rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org]

Quote

In closing, it is worth speculating that the spread of normative monogamy, which represents a form of egalitarianism, may have helped create the conditions for the emergence of democracy and political equality at all levels of government. Within the anthropological record, there is a statistical linkage between democratic institutions and normative monogamy. Pushing this point, these authors argue that dissipating the pool of unmarried males weakens despots, as it reduces their ability to find soldiers or henchman. Reduced crime would also weaken despots’ claims to be all that stands between ordinary citizens and chaos. Historically, we know that universal monogamous marriage preceded the emergence of democratic institutions in Europe, and the rise of notions of equality between the sexes (see our historical sketch in the electronic supplementary material). In Ancient Greece, we do not know which came first but we do know that Athens, for example, had both elements of monogamous marriage and of democracy. In the modern world, analyses of cross-national data reveal positive statistical relationships between the strength of normative monogamy with both democratic rights and civil liberties. In this sense, the peculiar institutions of monogamous marriage may help explain why democratic ideals and notions of equality and human rights first emerged in the West.

I note that the "may" in the bolded sentence is an acknowledgement of the conditionality of the statement. But if it is true that notions of democracy and egalitarianism strongly tend to take root best in societies that were deeply monogamistic, then is the converse also likely to be true? Would a breakdown of monogamy lead to a diminishment of egalitarianism and democracy?

egalitarianism between the genders most definitely did not "first emerge" in the west
When the Europeans first arrived in north america they were appalled by the authority and autonomy of indigenous women and set out to destroy that (and were successful for the most part)

Yes indeed. And these emerging western notions of equality, human rights and civil liberties generally pertained to the men of those western societies. Only recently have they been taken to apply to the women as well.

The problem with that royal society paper relates to the distinction between correlation and causality. The correlation does not mean that monogamy caused the rise of egalitarianism. It may simply mean that they both grew out the same circumstances.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Ombligo
Date: July 02, 2015 10:22AM
Just quick thanks to everyone for the interesting ideas and and views, all while not getting into any personal attacks.

I believe both sides have valid points - to wit, it is fair and it won't be easy. I don't have the answers, but I do believe their are answers and given time and thought, a solution will be decided upon (I'm not saying which way the solution will go though)



“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 02, 2015 10:28AM
Quote
Janit

Yes indeed. And these emerging western notions of equality, human rights and civil liberties generally pertained to the men of those western societies. Only recently have they been taken to apply to the women as well.

s.

generally pertained to white men...
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Janit
Date: July 02, 2015 11:00AM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
Janit

Yes indeed. And these emerging western notions of equality, human rights and civil liberties generally pertained to the men of those western societies. Only recently have they been taken to apply to the women as well.

s.

generally pertained to white men...

Of course, How easy it is to be sloppy and leave that out.

I will add one anecdote from my own experience -- I lived for three months with some Sherpa families in the mountains of Nepal back in the late '70s. The Sherpas are culturally Tibetan, practiced some polyandry in the recent past, but didn't seem to be doing it by the time I was there.

I was there to trek in the mountains, not to do ethnography, but two things did stand out for me. In both the families I stayed with, the women handled the money. And it was common for women to go to expedition organizers and UN-sign-up their husbands from mountain-climbing work. They didn't like the danger involved.

A male visiter probably would have noticed the former exercise of power, but maybe not the latter one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2015 11:05AM by Janit.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: billb
Date: July 02, 2015 11:45AM

equality now




The Phorum Wall keeps us safe from illegal characters and words
The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is the knowledge of one's own ignorance. -Benjamin Franklin
BOYCOTT YOPLAIT [www.noyoplait.com]
[soundcloud.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: August West
Date: July 02, 2015 11:48AM
I find Ted's posts interesting, but I am not buying the "render contract unrecognizable" argument. Institutions do evolve, only Scalia would like to see them set in stone. As Belty states, somehow we have managed it up until now, maybe not well, but I would not like to see such a concept as the impossibility of social change due to complexity put forth.



“There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: August West
Date: July 02, 2015 11:54AM
Quote

...the women handled the money. And it was common for women to go to expedition organizers and UN-sign-up their husbands...

Since the time I've been living with women, welcome to my world. winking smiley



“There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 02, 2015 12:07PM
Quote
August West
I find Ted's posts interesting, but I am not buying the "render contract unrecognizable" argument. Institutions do evolve, only Scalia would like to see them set in stone. As Belty states, somehow we have managed it up until now, maybe not well, but I would not like to see such a concept as the impossibility of social change due to complexity put forth.

And your suggested limit to the number of partners in a group marriage is what? And why?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Ted King
Date: July 02, 2015 12:15PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
Ted King
From the conclusion of the paper I cited earlier:

[rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org]

Quote

In closing, it is worth speculating that the spread of normative monogamy, which represents a form of egalitarianism, may have helped create the conditions for the emergence of democracy and political equality at all levels of government. Within the anthropological record, there is a statistical linkage between democratic institutions and normative monogamy. Pushing this point, these authors argue that dissipating the pool of unmarried males weakens despots, as it reduces their ability to find soldiers or henchman. Reduced crime would also weaken despots’ claims to be all that stands between ordinary citizens and chaos. Historically, we know that universal monogamous marriage preceded the emergence of democratic institutions in Europe, and the rise of notions of equality between the sexes (see our historical sketch in the electronic supplementary material). In Ancient Greece, we do not know which came first but we do know that Athens, for example, had both elements of monogamous marriage and of democracy. In the modern world, analyses of cross-national data reveal positive statistical relationships between the strength of normative monogamy with both democratic rights and civil liberties. In this sense, the peculiar institutions of monogamous marriage may help explain why democratic ideals and notions of equality and human rights first emerged in the West.

I note that the "may" in the bolded sentence is an acknowledgement of the conditionality of the statement. But if it is true that notions of democracy and egalitarianism strongly tend to take root best in societies that were deeply monogamistic, then is the converse also likely to be true? Would a breakdown of monogamy lead to a diminishment of egalitarianism and democracy?

egalitarianism between the genders most definitely did not "first emerge" in the west
When the Europeans first arrived in north america they were appalled by the authority and autonomy of indigenous women and set out to destroy that (and were successful for the most part)

I don't think the authors claimed that egalitarianism between genders "first emerged" in the West.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: July 02, 2015 12:29PM
Argh. There's a reason that same-sex marriage hasn't been upheld as legal until now, you all realize, right? It's not like there haven't been attempts in the past. This political campaign has been going strong for decades, and gained incredible traction in recent years.

There is absolutely ZERO chance that the SCotUS is going to uphold a challenge to bigamy bans in the absence of a HUGE sea change in public attitudes toward polygamy. Part of Kennedy's argument was that with the emergence of greater public acceptance of gay people and their increased inclusion in the cultural fabric of America as productive, normal citizens, to deny them the right to marry would be to injure their dignity in a way that violated their rights. Absent that recognition and acceptance by the American public, no such denigration is presumed.

I feel like nobody appreciates the core of the SCotUS opinion, which has very little to do with strict logic and everything to do with modern American conditions.



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Ted King
Date: July 02, 2015 12:40PM
Quote
Janit

The problem with that royal society paper relates to the distinction between correlation and causality. The correlation does not mean that monogamy caused the rise of egalitarianism. It may simply mean that they both grew out the same circumstances.

The authors do acknowledge the "correlation v. causation" difficulties, but their paper is sprinkled with these kinds of statements:

Quote

While this analysis is consistent with our hypothesis, it cannot causally isolate the effect of the imposition of monogamous marriage on intra-sexua competition because many other historical processes occurred over the same time period. However, further support emerges from comparing the Im/If ratios from diverse societies [14], where the arrays of particular historical processes differ. The 1830 Mormon value of 2.4 for Im/If is similar to that observed in other polygynous societies [14], such as the Yanomano of Venezuela (2.11), Arabs in Chad (2.28), or the Dogon (2.47) in Mali. The value of 1.17 among the late-nineteenth century American Mormons falls between the 1.25 of contemporary Americans and the 0.81 of historical Finland (1745–1900). Figure 1 contrasts the amount of sexual competition in societies with normative monogamy and those without it. When Im/If .1, males face more reproductive competition than females; the larger Im/If , the fiercer is the competition. The mean values of Im/If for these two subsamples indicate that opportunities for sexual selection (mate competition) are 6.4 times greater in societies lacking normative monogamy.

This combination of longitudinal and cross-sectional evidence converges to suggest that normative monogamy does indeed reduce intrasexual competition. Next, we examine whether this competitive suppression actually results in lower crime rates.

Quote

Cross-sectional data show that unmarried men are more likely than married men to commit murder [31], robbery and rape [32, 33]. Moreover, unmarried men are more likely than married men to gamble and abuse drugs/alcohol [33]. These relationships hold controlling for socioeconomic status, age and ethnicity. Of course, these data do not prove that being unmarried causes criminal behaviour because individuals who are less likely to commit crimes, or abuse substances, might also be more marriageable or more likely to want to married.

Work using longitudinal datasets strengthens the case for a causal relationship.

Perhaps their analyses of longitudinal datasets are insufficient to establish the causal relationships they are hypothesizing. I would be interested in someone who can navigate the statistical argument giving their opinion on that matter.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Black
Date: July 02, 2015 12:52PM
The obvious answer here is to abolish any legal/governmental institutionalization of marraige. I'll be the first to sign that petition.




New forum user map 8/2015: [www.zeemaps.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: wave rider
Date: July 02, 2015 01:04PM
All this talk reminds me that I haven't been on a romantic date in ages...

:-/

=wr=
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Ted King
Date: July 02, 2015 01:04PM
Quote
Black
The obvious answer here is to abolish any legal/governmental institutionalization of marraige. I'll be the first to sign that petition.

I'm not necessarily against getting rid of government sanction of marriage, but if we are going to do that we should make sure we figure out what we are going to do about these things:

[family-law.freeadvice.com]

Quote

Marriage Rights

Marriage laws vary some among states, but the following is a list of commonly-given rights by both federal and state law: the ability to file joint federal and state tax returns; open joint bank accounts; receive a “marriage rate” or “family rate” discount on life, health, car, and/or liability insurance; the right to sue third parties for wrongful death or loss of consortium of a spouse; the right to inherit a spouses property without going through probate; the right to receive a spouses state and federal benefits, such as social security, pensions, public assistance, disability, workers compensation, and unemployment; the right to make medical decisions on behalf of a disabled spouse; joint parenting rights; and legal status with stepchildren.


Marriage Obligations

There are certain obligations that come with marriage as well. Some of these obligations may not be contracted out of. For instance, many states have statutes that require a couple who enter a marriage to provide each other obligations of mutual respect. Another commonly codified obligation is the fiduciary duty owed to a spouse. A marriage is a confidential relationship, and therefore there is a duty to act in the highest good faith and fair dealing in any transaction between the spouses. For instance, you may not perpetrate a fraud on your spouse or unduly influence them into signing a contract. These are both examples of obligations that a spouse may not opt out of.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: July 02, 2015 02:00PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
PS: the people here who know me know that the last thing I am is "a religious fundamentalist." that's one of the funniest comments I've read in a while so thanks for that though

Perhaps "marriage fundamentalist" would be a more appropriate description.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: cbelt3
Date: July 02, 2015 02:13PM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Lemon Drop
PS: the people here who know me know that the last thing I am is "a religious fundamentalist." that's one of the funniest comments I've read in a while so thanks for that though

Perhaps "marriage fundamentalist" would be a more appropriate description.

Erm.. I think Lemon Drop has some desires and expectations and desire for protections for women. Fundamentalist implies a negative religious slant, which she does not espouse. She has merely been pointing out quite clearly and strongly that many of the elements of 2 people being married have significant inherent protections for those people, and that the complexities of a polygamous marriage risk those protections.

Any structural change to basic legal relationships will require a huge change throughout those social contracts and legal protections.Putting the 'bell' on that particular herd of cats is much more complex than the 1+1 marriage concept.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: August West
Date: July 02, 2015 02:13PM
Quote

And your suggested limit to the number of partners in a group marriage is what? And why?

I happily admit it is a complex problem, and only a fool would think it could be solved in the space of an internet forum thread. However, that is a much different proposition than one which implies it is so complex it is irresolvable.



“There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: July 02, 2015 02:33PM
Quote
cbelt3
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Lemon Drop
PS: the people here who know me know that the last thing I am is "a religious fundamentalist." that's one of the funniest comments I've read in a while so thanks for that though

Perhaps "marriage fundamentalist" would be a more appropriate description.

Erm.. I think Lemon Drop has some desires and expectations and desire for protections for women. Fundamentalist implies a negative religious slant, which she does not espouse. She has merely been pointing out quite clearly and strongly that many of the elements of 2 people being married have significant inherent protections for those people, and that the complexities of a polygamous marriage risk those protections.

My intention was to remove and contradict the "religious" connotation.

Here is the sense of fundamentalism which I'd hoped to convey:

“The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs, but fundamentalism has come to be applied to a broad tendency among certain groups, mainly, although not exclusively, in religion. This tendency is most often characterized by a markedly strict literalism as applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions, leading to an emphasis on purity and the desire to return to a previous ideal from which it is believed that members have begun to stray. Rejection of diversity of opinion as applied to these established "fundamentals" and their accepted interpretation within the group is often the result of this tendency.”

Quote
cbelt3
Any structural change to basic legal relationships will require a huge change throughout those social contracts and legal protections.Putting the 'bell' on that particular herd of cats is much more complex than the 1+1 marriage concept.

Some of us do not find "it would be really hard to do" to be as persuasive a point as its proponents do.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: bruceko
Date: July 02, 2015 02:49PM
Give it a few years. Group marriage will be legal.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 02, 2015 02:57PM
Quote
August West
Quote

And your suggested limit to the number of partners in a group marriage is what? And why?

I happily admit it is a complex problem, and only a fool would think it could be solved in the space of an internet forum thread. However, that is a much different proposition than one which implies it is so complex it is irresolvable.

I disagree. The inability of anyone to even put forward a number limit tells the story. This is the problem and it's not fixable. If you apply a limit, then the limit is instantly discriminatory. No limit is untenable chaos.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: cbelt3
Date: July 02, 2015 03:17PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
No limit is untenable chaos.
There is a difference between philosophical and practical. We're being more philosophical, you're being practical. It's cool. I think we get that.

Silly response follows:
Rev Moon seemed to 'handle' it pretty well... Yeah, I know. man + woman in that case, the only poly was ester, and, well, Moonies.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: davester
Date: July 02, 2015 03:40PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
August West
Quote

And your suggested limit to the number of partners in a group marriage is what? And why?

I happily admit it is a complex problem, and only a fool would think it could be solved in the space of an internet forum thread. However, that is a much different proposition than one which implies it is so complex it is irresolvable.

I disagree. The inability of anyone to even put forward a number limit tells the story. This is the problem and it's not fixable. If you apply a limit, then the limit is instantly discriminatory. No limit is untenable chaos.

Horsepuckey! The fact that nobody wants to pursue your straw man does not indicate that it is an unfixable problem. Putting limits on rights is quite a normal part of the legal landscape and not "instantly discriminatory" just as having no limit is not necessarily "untenable chaos". You are making all kinds of absolutist statements that betray your very emotional repulsion to this concept but which are not backed up by careful logic. I especially think that your equating of polygamous marriage solely with a desire for men to "bang" multiple women borders on hysteria and is a wholly uncalled for reaction. You have no idea what all the reasons are that people may want such an arrangement.

The fact is that there are many societies in the past and present that have embraced polygamous marriage. Given our present day senses of right and wrong we may not agree with the societal structures in place in those societies, but nevertheless, stable societies have incorporated polygamous marriage successfully. No doubt many of the legal questions you ask about (they are questions, not insurmountable problems as you make them out to be) have come up and been dealt with in those societies. Most of the questions you ask would need to be pondered and perhaps laws developed to deal with them. However, none of them indicate any fundamental flaw with the idea of polygamous marriage.



"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2015 03:41PM by davester.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: August West
Date: July 02, 2015 04:31PM
Quote

The inability of anyone to even put forward a number limit tells the story.

Clearly, if you say so. RollingEyesSmiley5



“There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Speedy
Date: July 02, 2015 05:19PM
Sen. Clinton is all for polygamy and has been for years.

[spectator.org]



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Onamuji
Date: July 02, 2015 05:40PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Adding more than two parties would require such complex changes to those benefits that the current contract would be rendered unrecognizable. This is an argument that proponents of same sex marriage have been making all along.

You keep saying that, but you have yet to provide a single realistic example of those "complex changes."

That BS line you handed us about insurance has been debunked. What else have you got?



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 02, 2015 05:44PM
Quote
Onamuji
Quote
Lemon Drop
Adding more than two parties would require such complex changes to those benefits that the current contract would be rendered unrecognizable. This is an argument that proponents of same sex marriage have been making all along.

You keep saying that, but you have yet to provide a single realistic example of those "complex changes."

That BS line you handed us about insurance has been debunked. What else have you got?

um no, nobody has "debunked" the issue of group insurance and whether employers would allow all the dependents of (so far) limitless group marriages. I see no way that such a requirement makes any sense on any level.

Still waiting for that group spouse limit number, nobody even after their pontifications is willing to put a number out there. Very telling.

as for the additional complex changes, I see no need to repeat myself. Try to address even one of the serious issues I've already mentioned. so far, you can't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2015 05:46PM by Lemon Drop.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 02, 2015 05:47PM
Quote
davester
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
August West
Quote

And your suggested limit to the number of partners in a group marriage is what? And why?

I happily admit it is a complex problem, and only a fool would think it could be solved in the space of an internet forum thread. However, that is a much different proposition than one which implies it is so complex it is irresolvable.

I disagree. The inability of anyone to even put forward a number limit tells the story. This is the problem and it's not fixable. If you apply a limit, then the limit is instantly discriminatory. No limit is untenable chaos.

Horsepuckey! The fact that nobody wants to pursue your straw man does not indicate that it is an unfixable problem. Putting limits on rights is quite a normal part of the legal landscape and not "instantly discriminatory" just as having no limit is not necessarily "untenable chaos". You are making all kinds of absolutist statements that betray your very emotional repulsion to this concept but which are not backed up by careful logic. I especially think that your equating of polygamous marriage solely with a desire for men to "bang" multiple women borders on hysteria and is a wholly uncalled for reaction. You have no idea what all the reasons are that people may want such an arrangement.

The fact is that there are many societies in the past and present that have embraced polygamous marriage. Given our present day senses of right and wrong we may not agree with the societal structures in place in those societies, but nevertheless, stable societies have incorporated polygamous marriage successfully. No doubt many of the legal questions you ask about (they are questions, not insurmountable problems as you make them out to be) have come up and been dealt with in those societies. Most of the questions you ask would need to be pondered and perhaps laws developed to deal with them. However, none of them indicate any fundamental flaw with the idea of polygamous marriage.

Gosh don't hurt yourself.

And the limit for number of spouse in group marriage is ???

(crickets)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Onamuji
Date: July 02, 2015 05:55PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
um no, nobody has "debunked" the issue of group insurance and whether employers would allow all the dependents of (so far) limitless group marriages. I see no way that such a requirement makes any sense on any level.

...And how do you differentiate that from a situation where a single couple has a dozen kids?

Quote
Lemon Drop
Still waiting for that group spouse limit number, nobody even after their pontifications is willing to put a number out there. Very telling.

Yes. Very telling. Because we all know that there's no practical need for any such limit and you haven't produced anything to indicate otherwise.

Quote
Lemon Drop
as for the additional complex changes, I see no need to repeat myself.

No need to repeat yourself because you've never provided an example.

Just provide an example of this amazingly complex legal tapestry that can't be unraveled.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: davester
Date: July 02, 2015 06:01PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Gosh don't hurt yourself.

What kind of nonsensical and disrespectful response is that? I gave a logical response to why your stated issues are not a death knell for the concept of polygamous marriage and all you can do is throw out a flip insult?

Quote
Lemon Drop
And the limit for number of spouse in group marriage is ???

(crickets)

This is your straw man argument. Nobody is willing to give an answer because there it is a pointless question. Until a practical societal need arose to provide a limit, no legal limit would be necessary.



"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 02, 2015 06:06PM
Quote
davester
Quote
Lemon Drop
Gosh don't hurt yourself.

What kind of nonsensical and disrespectful response is that? I gave a logical response to why your stated issues are not a death knell for the concept of polygamous marriage and all you can do is throw out a flip insult?

Quote
Lemon Drop
And the limit for number of spouse in group marriage is ???

(crickets)

This is your straw man argument. Nobody is willing to give an answer because there it is a pointless question. Until a practical societal need arose to provide a limit, no legal limit would be necessary.[[/b]/quote]

go back and read what you wrote, if you're surprised by the resulting response

as for your second point, therefore my example of marrying my 20 neighbors must be OK with you. I plan to add them all and their kids to my small organization's health insurance, which will likely put them out of business.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 02, 2015 06:15PM
Quote
Onamuji
Quote
Lemon Drop
um no, nobody has "debunked" the issue of group insurance and whether employers would allow all the dependents of (so far) limitless group marriages. I see no way that such a requirement makes any sense on any level.

...And how do you differentiate that from a situation where a single couple has a dozen kids?

Quote
Lemon Drop
Still waiting for that group spouse limit number, nobody even after their pontifications is willing to put a number out there. Very telling.

Yes. Very telling. Because we all know that there's no practical need for any such limit and you haven't produced anything to indicate otherwise.

Quote
Lemon Drop
as for the additional complex changes, I see no need to repeat myself.

No need to repeat yourself because you've never provided an example.

Just provide an example of this amazingly complex legal tapestry that can't be unraveled.

lots of kids in one family with a married couple as parents?

That's marriage of a couple. As in, two married people. As in, what we have now.

If you're not willing to back into the thread to all the examples I've already provided of the legal, social and financial complexities, well, game over.

Mostly I think you're playing games to provoke a response, because nobody is this nonsensical or thick, even here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2015 06:16PM by Lemon Drop.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Ombligo
Date: July 02, 2015 06:17PM
Not everyone will agree (obviously) but the best rationale I have heard why this is not a constitutional question is rather simple --

You don't choose to be homosexual
You choose to be in a polygamous relationship



“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: davester
Date: July 02, 2015 06:25PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
go back and read what you wrote, if you're surprised by the resulting response

That doesn't help. Are you deliberately trying to be cryptic?

Quote
Lemon Drop
as for your second point, therefore my example of marrying my 20 neighbors must be OK with you. I plan to add them all and their kids to my small organization's health insurance, which will likely put them out of business.

I already provided an answer to this ("Until a practical societal need arose to provide a limit, ") which you chose to ignore, choosing instead to bold the other part of the sentence. Actually, a limit might not even be the answer to your posed scenario. There could no doubt be a number of legal ways to respond to the issue of providing healthcare to multiple spouses without bankrupting small companies. The issue is not currently addressed by healthcare regulations because this possibility was not foreseen. That is a mere technicality that might arise if the legal landscape changed to accommodate polygamists.



"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2015 06:27PM by davester.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: davester
Date: July 02, 2015 06:26PM
Quote
Ombligo
Not everyone will agree (obviously) but the best rationale I have heard why this is not a constitutional question is rather simple --

You don't choose to be homosexual
You choose to be in a polygamous relationship

I don't think that flies. You also choose to be in an interracial relationship.



"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 02, 2015 06:38PM
Quote
davester
("Until a practical societal need arose to provide a limit, ") which you chose to ignore, choosing instead to bold the other part of the sentence. Actually, a limit might not even be the answer to your posed scenario. There could no doubt be a number of legal ways to respond to the issue of providing healthcare to multiple spouses without bankrupting small companies. The issue is not currently addressed by healthcare regulations because this possibility was not foreseen. That is a mere technicality that might arise if the legal landscape changed to accommodate polygamists.

dave you were "disrespectful" to me in your comment and then you're offended that I didn't like it? Tough.

No, I'm not ignoring the question at all because you say there should be a limit but won't say what that limit should be.
It's the number of people that creates the legal and financial complexities. That's the problem to solve. So what's the answer? You didn't like my 20 so that must be too high. 18? 13? 7?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Onamuji
Date: July 02, 2015 06:49PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
Onamuji
Quote
Lemon Drop
um no, nobody has "debunked" the issue of group insurance and whether employers would allow all the dependents of (so far) limitless group marriages. I see no way that such a requirement makes any sense on any level.

...And how do you differentiate that from a situation where a single couple has a dozen kids?

lots of kids in one family with a married couple as parents?

That's marriage of a couple. As in, two married people. As in, what we have now.

Exactly. And for the purposes of providing health insurance, how would you differentiate that from a family with 4 parents and 10 kids? Or 2 parents with a dozen kids from other marriages? Or any of the other combinations?

Quote
Lemon Drop
If you're not willing to back into the thread to all the examples I've already provided of the legal, social and financial complexities, well, game over.

Actually, I did go back and look at your other posts. You wrote:

1. That there were "rights and responsibilities";
2. A "contract" that "does not apply or work for groups...";
3. "The contract would required significant changes to include three or more people."; and
4. "Adding more than two people essentially nullifies "marriage" as we legally understand it."

Which -- as I pointed out in the other thread -- is total BS. Semantically of little or no meaning and on its face completely contrary to both history and modern law. Not a single one of your statements stands as an example of even a difficult -- let alone insurmountable -- reason to prevent people from entering into a group-marriage.

...Oh! And there's one more thing that you mention: "modern sensibilities."

Like fear of homosexuals, "sensibilities" are little more than trends and fads. If that's all you've got, you're shooting blanks.

Put up or shut up. Tell us in what manner matrimonial laws are so complicated that they can't be revised.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2015 06:50PM by Onamuji.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 02, 2015 07:07PM
Why don't you put up and explain all the tax, inheritance, parenting, divorce, and other financial and legal complexities of a marriage of 20 people. (I'll pick a number since nobody else will.)

Let us know how that will be worked out simply, as you claim, and what it will cost, but still resemble something with the 1,200 federal legal benefits that accompany marriage for couples.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Onamuji
Date: July 02, 2015 07:17PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Why don't you put up and explain all the tax, inheritance, parenting, divorce, and other financial and legal complexities of a marriage of 20 people. (I'll pick a number since nobody else will.)

Let us know how that will be worked out simply, as you claim, and what it will cost, but still resemble something with the 1,200 federal legal benefits that accompany marriage for couples.

Seriously? That's all you've got?

Take the paperwork for 2 people, change it to 20 and add 18 more signature lines.

The government benefits from any one spouse get divided 19 ways. Same as when a divorced wife or two stake claims and a widow has to split with them. Just imagine that the guy left 18 widows and 1 surviving spouse.

How do you form a company with 20 share-holders? Oh no! That many shareholders would make it IMPOSSIBLY complicated!!

(Really? Your only argument against polygamy is the paperwork? Ever tried to resolve an ERISA case? 15,000 pages of supplemental material. Polygamist divorces are a cakewalk in comparison.)









Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2015 07:24PM by Onamuji.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: July 02, 2015 07:40PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
If you apply a limit, then the limit is instantly discriminatory.

Say what? You mean like the number two? Are you getting it now?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 02, 2015 10:05PM
Quote
Onamuji
Quote
Lemon Drop
Why don't you put up and explain all the tax, inheritance, parenting, divorce, and other financial and legal complexities of a marriage of 20 people. (I'll pick a number since nobody else will.)

Let us know how that will be worked out simply, as you claim, and what it will cost, but still resemble something with the 1,200 federal legal benefits that accompany marriage for couples.

Seriously? That's all you've got?

Take the paperwork for 2 people, change it to 20 and add 18 more signature lines.

The government benefits from any one spouse get divided 19 ways. Same as when a divorced wife or two stake claims and a widow has to split with them. Just imagine that the guy left 18 widows and 1 surviving spouse.

How do you form a company with 20 share-holders? Oh no! That many shareholders would make it IMPOSSIBLY complicated!!

(Really? Your only argument against polygamy is the paperwork? Ever tried to resolve an ERISA case? 15,000 pages of supplemental material. Polygamist divorces are a cakewalk in comparison.)


right back where you started - a group of people can enter a contractual arrangement of their choosing NOW

but it's not marriage.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 02, 2015 10:06PM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Lemon Drop
If you apply a limit, then the limit is instantly discriminatory.

Say what? You mean like the number two? Are you getting it now?

you want legalized polygamy. A marriage of two is not polygamy. Are you getting it now?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: July 02, 2015 10:34PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Lemon Drop
If you apply a limit, then the limit is instantly discriminatory.

Say what? You mean like the number two? Are you getting it now?

you want legalized polygamy. A marriage of two is not polygamy. Are you getting it now?

Speaking for myself, and perhaps others, I don't "want" anything here in this discussion. I'm just stating that in light of this most recent ruling, polygamy would seem to present many of the same issues as gay marriage did, and I'm not seeing persuasive, substantive arguments that it doesn't. Just opinions that it wouldn't work, which is not the same thing.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Ted King
Date: July 03, 2015 12:12AM
Many marriages end in divorces. Divorces commonly come about because the married people have some emotional conflict. A lot of family law is crafted to deal "fairly" with the possibility of conflict between the divorcing parties. I don't think it is enough reason to not have a right to polygamous marriage, but dealing with three way conflicts is going to be more complicated than two way conflicts. Laws and policies can be adjusted, but I am somewhat concerned about the children. When multiple parties are disputing the status of children in/from a family that is breaking up, is the default that any children will be shared equally amongst multiple parents that are/were equal partners in a marriage? I'd feel a lot better if there was an established plan for adaptation of laws and policies - especially as it relates to the welfare of the children.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Onamuji
Date: July 03, 2015 03:21AM
Quote
Ted King
Many marriages end in divorces... Laws and policies can be adjusted, but I am somewhat concerned about the children.

Ever heard of a divorce proceeding where the grandparents got involved and tried to get custody?

Figuring out what's best for the kids when there are multiple parties involved is nothing new for the courts.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Onamuji
Date: July 03, 2015 03:23AM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
Onamuji
Quote
Lemon Drop
Why don't you put up and explain all the tax, inheritance, parenting, divorce, and other financial and legal complexities of a marriage of 20 people. (I'll pick a number since nobody else will.)

Let us know how that will be worked out simply, as you claim, and what it will cost, but still resemble something with the 1,200 federal legal benefits that accompany marriage for couples.

Seriously? That's all you've got?

Take the paperwork for 2 people, change it to 20 and add 18 more signature lines.

The government benefits from any one spouse get divided 19 ways. Same as when a divorced wife or two stake claims and a widow has to split with them. Just imagine that the guy left 18 widows and 1 surviving spouse.

How do you form a company with 20 share-holders? Oh no! That many shareholders would make it IMPOSSIBLY complicated!!

(Really? Your only argument against polygamy is the paperwork? Ever tried to resolve an ERISA case? 15,000 pages of supplemental material. Polygamist divorces are a cakewalk in comparison.)


right back where you started - a group of people can enter a contractual arrangement of their choosing NOW

but it's not marriage.

Wrong. Legal agreements of multiple parties in any form that resembles marriage is outlawed in the United States.

If it were allowed under the law, then it would be "marriage."



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Ombligo
Date: July 03, 2015 05:19AM
With the advent of the extended family (biological parents, step-parents, grandparents, etc), the courts will likely deal with custody issues as happens now. A polygamous relationship is really not that different in that regard than multiple marriages.

In regards to health insurance - many companies only offer subsidies to employees. If you want to insure a qualifying non-employee, then you pay the full amount for the additional insured. That model should hold up in some manner whether it is a threesome or 20-some. Further, Insurance could also be addressed by changes to the ACA. A single payer plan would completely eliminate the issue (and no, I don't see it happening anytime soon, but I also don't expect laws regarding poly-marraige to change any sooner).



“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Speedy
Date: July 03, 2015 06:44AM
In my state we have to declare a spouse's work supplied health insurance to the Luther spouse's work supplied health insurance company for co-insurance benefits (shared liability.) I imagine this could be expanded easily enough to 20 spouses. Unless one assumes that the spouses will only be women wearing long dresses and staying home to tend the fields and the children.

And woe be unto the child if one of the spouses is of a different race. Oh, wait… The law can deal with complex dissolutions and children because it is done right now given the plethora of divorces and remarriages.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: July 03, 2015 08:32AM
Who here is going to lead the charge to expand civil rights for aspiring polygamists? Because absent that, you're all just pissing into the wind. Which is fine - I'm standing upwind.

smiley12



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Slip sliding away... Polygamous trio applies for wedding license
Posted by: Speedy
Date: July 03, 2015 08:38AM
Quote
rjmacs
Who here is going to lead the charge to expand civil rights for aspiring polygamists?

[sigh] I wish I were still up to the task.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 44
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020