I think your test missed a very important question.
It is ok to put your baby on a diet if you think he/she is fat
-Agree
-Disagree
We all know this is where society is headed, likely way before the introduction of "conscious" artifical inteligence.
It depends. The goal should not be to lose weight but to not gain weight until back in a healthy state and then gaining again at a healthy rate. Because some young kids _are_ fat.
If you just want your 18 month old to kick ass on Toddlers & Tiaras, though? Straight out the airlock with you!
What's with people not understanding how poly marriages would work in modern society when we have examples of how they work in modern society? They might not be for you (or legal), but fundamentalist Mormons make poly marriage work all the time.
Yes, it's a sub-set of poly marriage (polygamy instead of generic group marriage), but it's in modern society.
Because "people" are able to grasp the difference between polygynous marriage and "poly marriage", as well as understanding that there is a difference between whether your church believes you are married vs. whether your government believes you are married.
Fundamentalist Mormons in the US are not engaging in legally-recognized "poly marriage". They have one legal marriage and the rest are no different, in the eyes of the government, from unmarried people living together. (In fact, some fundamentalist leaders have gotten in trouble by having their "wives" represent themselves as unsupported single mothers to the government in order to get benefits.)
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
What's with people not understanding how poly marriages would work in modern society when we have examples of how they work in modern society? They might not be for you (or legal), but fundamentalist Mormons make poly marriage work all the time.
Yes, it's a sub-set of poly marriage (polygamy instead of generic group marriage), but it's in modern society.
Because "people" are able to grasp the difference between polygynous marriage and "poly marriage", as well as understanding that there is a difference between whether your church believes you are married vs. whether your government believes you are married.
Fundamentalist Mormons in the US are not engaging in legally-recognized "poly marriage". They have one legal marriage and the rest are no different, in the eyes of the government, from unmarried people living together. (In fact, some fundamentalist leaders have gotten in trouble by having their "wives" represent themselves as unsupported single mothers to the government in order to get benefits.)
No need to talk down, Hoss. It was a simple question. They (if they were so inclined) get around not being married the same way gay couples are currently forced to - by having legal documents drawn up for things like power of attorney and ensuring that stuff like insurance beneficiaries is set up properly all while being rightly pissed off that they just can't go get married.
The easy analog is to that of the modern family (or probably more appropriate) modern set of roommates. Everybody files their taxes as single and pools their money together. One of the ladies has a child and she claims that child on her taxes as a dependent.
They (if they were so inclined) get around not being married the same way gay couples are currently forced to - by having legal documents drawn up for things like power of attorney and ensuring that stuff like insurance beneficiaries is set up properly all while being rightly pissed off that they just can't go get married.
The easy analog is to that of the modern family (or probably more appropriate) modern set of roommates. Everybody files their taxes as single and pools their money together. One of the ladies has a child and she claims that child on her taxes as a dependent.
Well, make up your mind. Is the problem (as you originally said) that we do in fact have a working model for polygamous marriage right that nobody seems to notice? Or is the problem (as you are now saying) that we do have some kinda sorta legal structure that polyamorous folks can use, even if it's not marriage?
If the former, then see my prevous post. If the latter, then your argument is beside the point. Nobody is asking "How can polyamorous people cobble together some of the legal protections for their relationships that monogamous dual-person couples have?" but "how would a polygamous marriage be structured and function given that our current system is entirely built around the notion of a two-person couple?"
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
What's with people not understanding how poly marriages would work in modern society when we have examples of how they work in modern society? They might not be for you (or legal), but fundamentalist Mormons make poly marriage work all the time.
Yes, it's a sub-set of poly marriage (polygamy instead of generic group marriage), but it's in modern society.
One might argue that the anachronistic Mormon society is far from being modern and thus just an example of a poly marriage working in a backwards society.
I found an interesting number on the number of polyamorous households in this interesting article:
Researchers are just beginning to study the phenomenon, but the few who do estimate that openly polyamorous families in the United States number more than half a million, with thriving contingents in nearly every major city.
There are in comparison about seven million openly gay individuals in the US and knowing that the average household size is 2.59 we can make a vague estimate of the number of homosexual households in the US - putting the number of homosexual households at a number - roughly 2,7 million (+- 2,7 million I guess because of how varying these numbers are and stuff I've missed).
They (if they were so inclined) get around not being married the same way gay couples are currently forced to - by having legal documents drawn up for things like power of attorney and ensuring that stuff like insurance beneficiaries is set up properly all while being rightly pissed off that they just can't go get married.
The easy analog is to that of the modern family (or probably more appropriate) modern set of roommates. Everybody files their taxes as single and pools their money together. One of the ladies has a child and she claims that child on her taxes as a dependent.
Well, make up your mind. Is the problem (as you originally said) that we do in fact have a working model for polygamous marriage right that nobody seems to notice? Or is the problem (as you are now saying) that we do have some kinda sorta legal structure that polyamorous folks can use, even if it's not marriage?
If the former, then see my prevous post. If the latter, then your argument is beside the point. Nobody is asking "How can polyamorous people cobble together some of the legal protections for their relationships that monogamous dual-person couples have?" but "how would a polygamous marriage be structured and function given that our current system is entirely built around the notion of a two-person couple?"
My point was that we have a current model. I then provided an example. That model could stand to be improved if, as a society, we are interested in allowing groups of people that same rights as couples (which I don't see why we shouldn't).
As to your question, the answer is to stop treating couples as a special case. File taxes as a household (which I pretty much do now with married filing jointly). You've got 4 people bringing in income? Great, report them all on this handy form! One of you is in the hospital and somebody needs to make a decision? Make that a part of the household contract (or whatever you call it) A makes decisions for B, B makes decisions to A, and A makes decisions for C or however that group wants to divvy up the responsibilities. Somebody dies? If no will is present, his/her belongings go to the household instead of the surviving spouse.
Overhauling tax forms would be a bear, but from the top I don't think it's really some huge insurmountable problem.
That model could stand to be improved if, as a society, we are interested in allowing groups of people that same rights as couples (which I don't see why we shouldn't).
I don't see why we shouldn't, either. The question is not whether, but how. It's not like same-sex marriage, where you keep the same structure and simply drop the gender requirement.
As to your question, the answer is to stop treating couples as a special case. File taxes as a household (which I pretty much do now with married filing jointly). You've got 4 people bringing in income? Great, report them all on this handy form! One of you is in the hospital and somebody needs to make a decision? Make that a part of the household contract (or whatever you call it) A makes decisions for B, B makes decisions to A, and A makes decisions for C or however that group wants to divvy up the responsibilities. Somebody dies? If no will is present, his/her belongings go to the household instead of the surviving spouse.
Overhauling tax forms would be a bear, but from the top I don't think it's really some huge insurmountable problem.
Then you don't understand what marriage is. I don't say that to be snarky; but you seem to be conflating the legal state of marriage with somebody saying they're married with 'living together'.
"Marriage", in the context we're talking about here, is not shacking up with somebody you truwwy wuv; marriage is a legal state with a whole passel of legal rights and obligations. (Which is why gays have been pushing for marriage, instead of quietly contenting themselves with roommate type paperwork.) Married-filing-jointly status is not 'household income'.
What's the "household"? If A marries B and B wants to marry C, does B need A's permission? If A objects can B marry C anyway, and if so, what's the relationship between B and C - and what if B then marries D? If A has a child, what's the relationship between that child and C, if any? If A then marries D and B dies, who gets B's stuff? If A, B, C and D are legally married but D lives fifty miles away, is D part of the "household"? How many people can be "household"? If A is in the hospital, not having made an advance directive, who gets to decide about A's care?
Is it insurmountable? Maybe not, but handwaving about how everybody can just sign a contract or something is not an actual plan for changing the system to permit multiple marriages.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
What's with people not understanding how poly marriages would work in modern society when we have examples of how they work in modern society? They might not be for you (or legal), but fundamentalist Mormons make poly marriage work all the time.
Yes, it's a sub-set of poly marriage (polygamy instead of generic group marriage), but it's in modern society.
The fundie LDS branches "make it work" by ostracising and abandoning hundreds of "excess" boys in their mid to late teens, so there's more women to go around for the established leading males. They also marry off girls at very young ages and physically and emotionally abuse them into compliance before they have a chance to visualise any other kind of life.
Oh, and since their adherents are isolated from mainstream culture growing up, the rejected boys have no documentation or skills to get by once they're kicked out. A very large number kill themselves as a result of their rejection, and many end up in pretty unsavoury situations due to their vulnerability.
I don't really like that definition of "making it work", but if you think its fine, well ok then. Me, I think polygamic subcultures can only persist as societal parasites. The other points made about economic costs and the welfare fraud common among poly groups support this interpretation.
It always weirds me out, the unthinking support among some men for polygamy. Its like the prospect of spare pussies completely erases the necessity of destroying other men's lives to gain access to them
Then you don't understand what marriage is. I don't say that to be snarky; but you seem to be conflating the legal state of marriage with somebody saying they're married with 'living together'.
Well, a marriage in my mind is pretty much just two people saying 'we two, are family.' It seems to me that jclast is going the same way, with his household contract idea.
I personally don't see an issue (outside of the logistics of doing it, I mean --just as an intellectual exercise) with letting people declare themselves family.
I mean, you're already doing with with couples. Why are couples particularly special? From a societal point of view, it's not like you benefit terribly from two people being really friendly with each other. You benefit from them raising children together (and if that's the case, benefits shouldn't be extended to people in a marriage contract, but to people taking care of children.) If a group of people want to spend their lives together, I'm happy to say that they're family.
It always weirds me out, the unthinking support among some men for polygamy. Its like the prospect of spare pussies completely erases the necessity of destroying other men's lives to gain access to them
I doubt that's on anyone's mind when polygamy pops up.
I'm personally a feminist and see it as a way to empower the female by giving males incentives to marry a single female together with another male
It always weirds me out, the unthinking support among some men for polygamy. Its like the prospect of spare pussies completely erases the necessity of destroying other men's lives to gain access to them
I've only met one polyamorous person, and she was a girl.
That said I'm familiar with the concept of polygamy given the fairly large mormon populations in my area. But none of them practice it.
mythago: This wasn't exactly what you were looking for but I guess it's an example of a polygamous marriage:
In Canada, Saskatchewan provincial judicial authorities have "assisted, created and sanctioned" polyandry and polygamy. Justification is based upon property distribution and the recognition that simultaneous multiple conjugal unions are specifically allowed, due to section 51 of their Family Property Act. However, there is no determination in their law that polyandry specifically is allowed, rather the statute content is non genderized.
I'm personally fine with sharing a woman with another man. The idea of being married to, supporting emotionally, and financially supporting multiple women seems like a nightmare. I frequently watch the news, and I have an idea of where the immediate future is headed. It is rather hard for people to find work, especially work that allows them to live by themselves. Jobs pay less than they did in the past (accounting for inflation) and that probably won't end any time soon. Unless something big changes many people may adopt a form of polyamory simply as a practical necessity.
I often enjoy solitude. I don't want to constantly be with another person, I always want to have time to be by myself. To be the only major source of emotional support someone has in their life doesn't seem fair to either of us. I'm not going to live forever, I think that person would like someone to comfort them when I'm gone (or not around).
There are a lot of different ways polyamory can work, I was just shocked in my original post that it seemed someone was indicating that there was no way that had been thought of that could work.
Well, a marriage in my mind is pretty much just two people saying 'we two, are family.' It seems to me that jclast is going the same way, with his household contract idea.
.
If marriage is simply two people saying 'we two are family', then why do you need contracts?
Shanadeus, if you're going to cite a quotation as evidence, it's polite to provide the source of that quotation. As far as I can tell, it's an unsourced quote off Wikipedia, which proves exactly nothing.
From looking at the actual Saskatchewan Family Property Act, it's nothing to do with a working polygamous framework. While this is certainly not an unbiased source, the letter it quotes (from the Saskatchewan Minister of Justice) says that it's not legalized polygamy; it's meant to deal with the situation where two legally married people split up, never bother to get legally divorced and then enter into common-law marriages with somebody else.
So A and B marry and split up, and A thinks that B filed all the divorce papers. A and C live together in a common-law marriage. A dies. The Saskatchewan law addresses the relative status of B (the preceding legal spouse) and C. It doesn't say that A can marry B and then marry C.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
It always weirds me out, the unthinking support among some men for polygamy. Its like the prospect of spare pussies completely erases the necessity of destroying other men's lives to gain access to them
I doubt that's on anyone's mind when polygamy pops up.
I'm personally a feminist and see it as a way to empower the female by giving males incentives to marry a single female together with another male
Unfortunately, the way polygamy is practiced in a lot of places (Mormon sects in the US, Saudi Arabia, much of sub-Saharan Africa) it's just a way of keeping women as property. So while in theory plural marriage could be empowering and equitable for all parties, we have to be realistic that it is not always so.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Well, a marriage in my mind is pretty much just two people saying 'we two, are family.' It seems to me that jclast is going the same way, with his household contract idea.
.
If marriage is simply two people saying 'we two are family', then why do you need contracts?
Presumably because the rest of society doesn't extend you familial benefits unless you have a contract saying you're family.
It's certainly not so in a society that restricts polygamous marriage to polygyny. Which is why it gets complicated when you throw in that luxurious status of treating women as, like, people; all of a sudden, instead of the law being "Bob is married to each of his wives, is the father of their children and divides his property between them" you get complicated relationships.
Which is a way of saying that you can't really extrapolate favoring 'polygamous marriage' as a 'future-proof' idea.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I don't see why you'd need to all be fucking each other (not to mention putting a ring on it) just to share a house and some bills. Am I doing this roommate thing wrong?
t shan well good for you but your "empowerment" (now there's a widely misused concept) still screws over other men. our biology naturally leans to a rough 50/50 gender balance unless we mess with it by selective reproduction or killing people. Polygamy can only work in such an environment by creating a partner imbalance, and the only two factors that could ameliorate that imbalance would be if the practice was rare and spatially scattered among the wider population, or if the practice was temporary and largely practiced on a short-term basis.
Hipster libertine polyamory in the modern west is basically like that - rare and/or fluid and temporary, which is why it looks appealing to a certain subset of our culture. It lets people so inclined meet some emotional needs, and that's fine, but the practice made permanent and practiced en masse would be a disaster for men. And it would be mostly a disaster for men. Sorry, but polyandry isn't nearly as popular as polygyny.
Presumably because the rest of society doesn't extend you familial benefits unless you have a contract saying you're family.
Then, again, "they're married in my mind" or "they could live together" is meaningless. What we're talking about, in Modern World Terms, is the civil, legally-recognized state of being married, currently only extended to couples (and in most cases opposite-sex couples).
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Presumably because the rest of society doesn't extend you familial benefits unless you have a contract saying you're family.
Then, again, "they're married in my mind" or "they could live together" is meaningless. What we're talking about, in Modern World Terms, is the civil, legally-recognized state of being married, currently only extended to couples (and in most cases opposite-sex couples).
Yes, and, again, there's no harm in extending that state to groups larger than two, provided you actually come up with reasonable justification for the benefits extended to married couples in the first place.
As I mentioned in my first post in the thread, I support polygamy because I think it would require a re-evaluation of those benefits.
Yes, and, again, there's no harm in extending that state to groups larger than two, provided you actually come up with reasonable justification for the benefits extended to married couples in the first place.
As I mentioned in my first post in the thread, I support polygamy because I think it would require a re-evaluation of those benefits.
How do we extend that state to groups larger than two?
That's the question nobody can answer other than "argle blargh contracts something". And by 'nobody' I include people who think polygamous marriage is a fine thing and have tried to figure out how such a system would actually function.
The 'justification' argument is a smokescreen. Let's all agree that whatever benefits we should give to a couple, we should extend to the whole group when the two of them decide to marry a third. How? The current setup is built around - and assumes - two people. (And does so because, let's be blunt, it has assumed women are rightly property to be passed from father to husband, and is based around concerns about paternity and property.)
If you therefore want to abolish marriage altogether and make everybody sign contracts, well, my colleagues in the matrimonial bar thank you, but I'm not sure that's quite a solution. Though it's certainly better than handwaving.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Yes, and, again, there's no harm in extending that state to groups larger than two, provided you actually come up with reasonable justification for the benefits extended to married couples in the first place.
As I mentioned in my first post in the thread, I support polygamy because I think it would require a re-evaluation of those benefits.
How do we extend that state to groups larger than two?
That's the question nobody can answer other than "argle blargh contracts something". And by 'nobody' I include people who think polygamous marriage is a fine thing and have tried to figure out how such a system would actually function.
The 'justification' argument is a smokescreen. Let's all agree that whatever benefits we should give to a couple, we should extend to the whole group when the two of them decide to marry a third. How? The current setup is built around - and assumes - two people. (And does so because, let's be blunt, it has assumed women are rightly property to be passed from father to husband, and is based around concerns about paternity and property.)
If you therefore want to abolish marriage altogether and make everybody sign contracts, well, my colleagues in the matrimonial bar thank you, but I'm not sure that's quite a solution. Though it's certainly better than handwaving.
Perhaps I was unclear, but I mean we should re-evaluate what that state actually is.
Like, why do two folks who are married deserve societal benefits over two individuals who are otherwise in the exact same situation? They already save money by sharing expenses. What do they provide for society over two individual people?
Children are what change things. And so it seems to me that marriage benefits (the only reasonable objection against polygamy) should really just be child benefits (exceptions obviously given to things that don't cost society anything, like being able to see your loved one in a hospital emergency.) I think it's cool that people really love each other, but I don't really see why that should give them an edge up over anyone else in society.
Like, why do two folks who are married deserve societal benefits over two individuals who are otherwise in the exact same situation?
Well, that's easy: because those other individuals are not otherwise in the exact same situation. They're not married. Which is to say, they have not voluntarily placed themselves into a legal status, relative to each other, that comes with benefits and obligations.
I know a fellow who has been monogamously living with his partner for over 20 years. Why aren't they legally married? Because he is thoroughly opposed to the notion that if he or his partner says "That's it, I'm out of here," that they need the goverment's permission to break up.
They may not save money, by the way, depending on their tax structure and their expenses. If my roommate falls down a flight of stairs, I'm not responsible for her medical bills, but if my spouse does....
Children, are what change things. And so it seems to me that marriage benefits (the only reasonable objection against polygamy) should really just be child benefits (exceptions obviously given to things that don't cost society anything, like being able to see your loved one in a hospital emergency.) I think it's cool that people really love each other, but I don't really see why that should give them an edge up over anyone else in society.
Being in love is not a requirement for marriage. Neither (anymore) are children.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Well, that's easy: because those other individuals are not otherwise in the exact same situation. They're not married. Which is to say, they have not voluntarily placed themselves into a legal status, relative to each other, that comes with benefits and obligations.
This is a tautological argument.
Being in love is not a requirement for marriage. Neither (anymore) are children.
And that's a great reason to reevaluate the benefits of marriage.
Well, that's easy: because those other individuals are not otherwise in the exact same situation. They're not married. Which is to say, they have not voluntarily placed themselves into a legal status, relative to each other, that comes with benefits and obligations.
This is a tautological argument.
How so? You're saying that we have two couples in the exact same situation, except that we've agreed to give one benefits. That's flat-out wrong. The married couple has assumed obligations that the unmarried couple has not. Why do you keep skipping over the fact that marriage is not simply about benefits?
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Because obligations aren't a hindrance to society being able to handle polygamy, just benefits. Benefits mean you run into the problem where 12 people marry each other and, sharing benefits, are too heavy a burden to realistically support nation wide.
Your argument was tautological because I asked why two people who were married deserved the benefits of marriage and you said 'Because they're married', by the way.
Because obligations aren't a hindrance to society being able to handle polygamy, just benefits.
Of course they're a hindrance. Who has the obligations, and to whom to they flow? If A marries B and B marries C, is A obligated to C in any way? What if A objected to the marriage to C? Do we treat A as married to C as well, or do we treat it as two separate marriages linked to B? If B has a baby who is (are) the other parent(s) legally? What if A does, and who owes whom child support when they all divorce? Is A allowed to encumber the house they share?
Whether we should have marriage at all, which is what you're arguing, is one thing. But that is a different argument than "how do we change the existing model to allow multiple marriages".
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Because obligations aren't a hindrance to society being able to handle polygamy, just benefits.
Of course they're a hindrance. Who has the obligations, and to whom to they flow? If A marries B and B marries C, is A obligated to C in any way? What if A objected to the marriage to C? Do we treat A as married to C as well, or do we treat it as two separate marriages linked to B? If B has a baby who is (are) the other parent(s) legally? What if A does, and who owes whom child support when they all divorce? Is A allowed to encumber the house they share?
Whether we should have marriage at all, which is what you're arguing, is one thing. But that is a different argument than "how do we change the existing model to allow multiple marriages".
If five people have obligations to four other people, those obligations are borne by and for those party to the contract, not society as a whol
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have marriage. I'm arguing that a surge in favour of polygamy invites a welcome reassessment of why we provide benefits, and what those benefits are, for married couples.
What's with people not understanding how poly marriages would work in modern society when we have examples of how they work in modern society? They might not be for you (or legal), but fundamentalist Mormons make poly marriage work all the time.
Yes, it's a sub-set of poly marriage (polygamy instead of generic group marriage), but it's in modern society.
The fundie LDS branches "make it work" by ostracising and abandoning hundreds of "excess" boys in their mid to late teens, so there's more women to go around for the established leading males. They also marry off girls at very young ages and physically and emotionally abuse them into compliance before they have a chance to visualise any other kind of life.
Oh, and since their adherents are isolated from mainstream culture growing up, the rejected boys have no documentation or skills to get by once they're kicked out. A very large number kill themselves as a result of their rejection, and many end up in pretty unsavoury situations due to their vulnerability.
I don't really like that definition of "making it work", but if you think its fine, well ok then. Me, I think polygamic subcultures can only persist as societal parasites. The other points made about economic costs and the welfare fraud common among poly groups support this interpretation.
It always weirds me out, the unthinking support among some men for polygamy. Its like the prospect of spare pussies completely erases the necessity of destroying other men's lives to gain access to them
Wait, did someone say spare pussies?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
If five people have obligations to four other people, those obligations are borne by and for those party to the contract, not society as a whol
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have marriage. I'm arguing that a surge in favour of polygamy invites a welcome reassessment of why we provide benefits, and what those benefits are, for married couples.
And the obligations? Oh, right. We're not going to talk about those, I keep forgetting.
Who is the party to the contract? A marries B. B marries C, who then marries D and E. What's "the contract"? Is there only one, or more? Who are the parties? How do we reconcile conflicting obligations?
I think it's fine to discuss what marriage should look like. I think that "well let's not talk about that until we figure out why married people think they're so special" is a distraction tactic.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Honestly, I think lots of people getting married to one another is the easy part. The catch is when all those people decide to start getting divorces.
You have any idea how much hassle it is to divvy up possessions when two people are separating, and you have to figure out who gets what, often with legal counsel involved because people don't want to give things up, and then you get to figure out child custody and whatnot? Okay, now assume that this thing happens every few years amongst half a dozen people.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
If five people have obligations to four other people, those obligations are borne by and for those party to the contract, not society as a whol
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have marriage. I'm arguing that a surge in favour of polygamy invites a welcome reassessment of why we provide benefits, and what those benefits are, for married couples.
And the obligations? Oh, right. We're not going to talk about those, I keep forgetting.
First of all, if you look at it objectively you should be able to see that the wealth transferred within a group that has contractually agreed to transfer wealth under x circumstance will always, in the net measure, be equal. Secondly, the same contractual obligations and payments are as inherent in a marriage of two as of three. You're arguing against yourself, here.
Who is the party to the contract? A marries B. B marries C, who then marries D and E. What's "the contract"? Is there only one, or more? Who are the parties? How do we reconcile conflicting obligations?
Obviously you'd have to come up with a legal system for polygamous marriage just as one is already required for marriage between two parties. This is just a red herring. Offhand though, it seems pretty straightforward that a preestablished marriage bringing others into the arrangement would simply be an extension of the contract for another person. But again, I stress, this is just a red herring.
I think it's fine to discuss what marriage should look like. I think that "well let's not talk about that until we figure out why married people think they're so special" is a distraction tactic.
Uh, you're trying to dismiss suggested ways (alteration of the benefits granted from marriage) that could pave the road to polygamy. That's not a distraction tactic, but it seems like an attempt to dismiss honest debate.
Like I said, if we reevaluate what benefits we provide and why we provide them to married couples, polygamy doesn't seem insurmountable.
Honestly, I think lots of people getting married to one another is the easy part. The catch is when all those people decide to start getting divorces.
You have any idea how much hassle it is to divvy up possessions when two people are separating, and you have to figure out who gets what, often with legal counsel involved because people don't want to give things up, and then you get to figure out child custody and whatnot? Okay, now assume that this thing happens every few years amongst half a dozen people.
Why couldn't you just determine child support through genetic origin the way it is now?
If five people have obligations to four other people, those obligations are borne by and for those party to the contract, not society as a whol
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have marriage. I'm arguing that a surge in favour of polygamy invites a welcome reassessment of why we provide benefits, and what those benefits are, for married couples.
And the obligations? Oh, right. We're not going to talk about those, I keep forgetting.
Who is the party to the contract? A marries B. B marries C, who then marries D and E. What's "the contract"? Is there only one, or more? Who are the parties? How do we reconcile conflicting obligations?
.
Regarding this:
For B to marry C they'd also have to request the consent from A before going through with it - so A and B would together marry C and so on.
If A and B cannot agree on marrying together then can always divorce, find another partner to marry C with or just marry C alone.
First of all, if you look at it objectively you should be able to see that the wealth transferred within a group that has contractually agreed to transfer wealth under x circumstance will always, in the net measure, be equal.
I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to say here.
If A, B and C agree to a contract, they could easily decide that A and B get a quarter of the proceeds and C gets half. Or that A and B share and C gets nothing. Of course, that's a contract. You have a little more trouble doing that in a marriage, where the government sets the terms and your flexibility is limited.
Obviously you'd have to come up with a legal system for polygamous marriage just as one is already required for marriage between two parties. This is just a red herring. Offhand though, it seems pretty straightforward that a preestablished marriage bringing others into the arrangement would simply be an extension of the contract for another person. But again, I stress, this is just a red herring.
Why is it a red herring? Because it's difficult so you don't want to talk about it, you just want to talk about how unfair it is that married people get all these goodies? That's your business, but the part of your quote I bolded above is what I'm talking about - and "oh, just extend it to the new guy" does. not. work.
And I assume all you want to talk about is 'stop giving goodies to the married people' because you only talk about benefits, never obligations, and really don't seem to understand that marriage is more than splitting profits.
Are the barriers insurmountable? Nope. But as somebody who's in favor of poly marriage, who's had these talks with others equally in favor of poly marriage, if you know anything about what marriage is beyond "you love each other and the government lets you pay less taxes", it is very complicated to try to come up with a workable system.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
For B to marry C they'd also have to request the consent from A before going through with it - so A and B would together marry C and so on.
If A and B cannot agree on marrying together then can always divorce, find another partner to marry C with or just marry C alone.
OK, so we're foreseeing a group marriage, where everybody in the group must be married to every other member of the group; we don't permit A to say "B, you can marry C, but that's between you two; I don't want to marry C."
So now our happy A-B-C triad has D come along. A and B want to marry D; C doesn't. A, B and C sorrowfully agree to part. Do A and B divorce C separately? Does the whole group break up and A and B have to marry D together?
I'm not asking this to be silly; I'm entirely serious. I'm not even getting into the complications of property division. But our current system is not set up for more than couples, and to revamp it we need to do a hell of a lot of thinking about how to get it right. "Oh, just let everybody marry everybody and share stuff" is about as intelligent a solution as "Oh, is there a bug? Just write some more code."
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I'm saying that there would be no difference. Except you seem to be missing that any other lifeform on the planet would murder us given the ability. Intelligent bacteria wouldn't hate us as they consumed us for food any more than we hate cows or wheat. But we'd be dead all the same. There's no life form on earth, except maybe bonobos and dogs that wouldn't consume us and end our civilization if they had unlimited power. And even then, I'm not so sure about the bonobos and dogs.
-.-
Even one of the most daring, solitary predatory land species on the planet - cats - don't wantonly kill anything that would be powerless to stop them. I crossed the path of big cats so often in Africa that they disappeared from my radar screen; it would've been no trouble at all for a lioness to take my head off, yet they respected my space as much as I respected theirs.
There's also the case of Tim Treadwell. The crazed fellow lived for over a decade mingling with the Grizzlies in Alaska, breaking every single sane rule of conduct that the park authorities had in place. He walked right up to the animals, camped in the most foolish of places, kept no bear mace or firearms with him, etc. Any of the bears could've killed him at any point in time, with zero risk of being harmed. But they didn't.
Instead, Treadwell (and a girlfriend he brought with him, most unfortunately) was mauled and eaten in his tent by a starving bear that was desperate for food.
If you happen to be borderline psychotic and visit cruelty on the small and/or powerless tahat you come across, that's your problem, not a global one.
Posts
It is ok to put your baby on a diet if you think he/she is fat
-Agree
-Disagree
We all know this is where society is headed, likely way before the introduction of "conscious" artifical inteligence.
It depends. The goal should not be to lose weight but to not gain weight until back in a healthy state and then gaining again at a healthy rate. Because some young kids _are_ fat.
If you just want your 18 month old to kick ass on Toddlers & Tiaras, though? Straight out the airlock with you!
Because "people" are able to grasp the difference between polygynous marriage and "poly marriage", as well as understanding that there is a difference between whether your church believes you are married vs. whether your government believes you are married.
Fundamentalist Mormons in the US are not engaging in legally-recognized "poly marriage". They have one legal marriage and the rest are no different, in the eyes of the government, from unmarried people living together. (In fact, some fundamentalist leaders have gotten in trouble by having their "wives" represent themselves as unsupported single mothers to the government in order to get benefits.)
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
No need to talk down, Hoss. It was a simple question. They (if they were so inclined) get around not being married the same way gay couples are currently forced to - by having legal documents drawn up for things like power of attorney and ensuring that stuff like insurance beneficiaries is set up properly all while being rightly pissed off that they just can't go get married.
The easy analog is to that of the modern family (or probably more appropriate) modern set of roommates. Everybody files their taxes as single and pools their money together. One of the ladies has a child and she claims that child on her taxes as a dependent.
No, it really wasn't. "What's with people not understanding...." is talking down.
Well, make up your mind. Is the problem (as you originally said) that we do in fact have a working model for polygamous marriage right that nobody seems to notice? Or is the problem (as you are now saying) that we do have some kinda sorta legal structure that polyamorous folks can use, even if it's not marriage?
If the former, then see my prevous post. If the latter, then your argument is beside the point. Nobody is asking "How can polyamorous people cobble together some of the legal protections for their relationships that monogamous dual-person couples have?" but "how would a polygamous marriage be structured and function given that our current system is entirely built around the notion of a two-person couple?"
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
One might argue that the anachronistic Mormon society is far from being modern and thus just an example of a poly marriage working in a backwards society.
I found an interesting number on the number of polyamorous households in this interesting article:
There are in comparison about seven million openly gay individuals in the US and knowing that the average household size is 2.59 we can make a vague estimate of the number of homosexual households in the US - putting the number of homosexual households at a number - roughly 2,7 million (+- 2,7 million I guess because of how varying these numbers are and stuff I've missed).
My point was that we have a current model. I then provided an example. That model could stand to be improved if, as a society, we are interested in allowing groups of people that same rights as couples (which I don't see why we shouldn't).
As to your question, the answer is to stop treating couples as a special case. File taxes as a household (which I pretty much do now with married filing jointly). You've got 4 people bringing in income? Great, report them all on this handy form! One of you is in the hospital and somebody needs to make a decision? Make that a part of the household contract (or whatever you call it) A makes decisions for B, B makes decisions to A, and A makes decisions for C or however that group wants to divvy up the responsibilities. Somebody dies? If no will is present, his/her belongings go to the household instead of the surviving spouse.
Overhauling tax forms would be a bear, but from the top I don't think it's really some huge insurmountable problem.
You have not provided an example of polygamous marriage. The fundamentalist Mormon groups in the US are not legally married.
Since the question is how to make polygamous marriage function in a modern Western democracy, can you provide an example of such a marriage?
I don't see why we shouldn't, either. The question is not whether, but how. It's not like same-sex marriage, where you keep the same structure and simply drop the gender requirement.
Then you don't understand what marriage is. I don't say that to be snarky; but you seem to be conflating the legal state of marriage with somebody saying they're married with 'living together'.
"Marriage", in the context we're talking about here, is not shacking up with somebody you truwwy wuv; marriage is a legal state with a whole passel of legal rights and obligations. (Which is why gays have been pushing for marriage, instead of quietly contenting themselves with roommate type paperwork.) Married-filing-jointly status is not 'household income'.
What's the "household"? If A marries B and B wants to marry C, does B need A's permission? If A objects can B marry C anyway, and if so, what's the relationship between B and C - and what if B then marries D? If A has a child, what's the relationship between that child and C, if any? If A then marries D and B dies, who gets B's stuff? If A, B, C and D are legally married but D lives fifty miles away, is D part of the "household"? How many people can be "household"? If A is in the hospital, not having made an advance directive, who gets to decide about A's care?
Is it insurmountable? Maybe not, but handwaving about how everybody can just sign a contract or something is not an actual plan for changing the system to permit multiple marriages.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
The fundie LDS branches "make it work" by ostracising and abandoning hundreds of "excess" boys in their mid to late teens, so there's more women to go around for the established leading males. They also marry off girls at very young ages and physically and emotionally abuse them into compliance before they have a chance to visualise any other kind of life.
Oh, and since their adherents are isolated from mainstream culture growing up, the rejected boys have no documentation or skills to get by once they're kicked out. A very large number kill themselves as a result of their rejection, and many end up in pretty unsavoury situations due to their vulnerability.
I don't really like that definition of "making it work", but if you think its fine, well ok then. Me, I think polygamic subcultures can only persist as societal parasites. The other points made about economic costs and the welfare fraud common among poly groups support this interpretation.
It always weirds me out, the unthinking support among some men for polygamy. Its like the prospect of spare pussies completely erases the necessity of destroying other men's lives to gain access to them
Well, a marriage in my mind is pretty much just two people saying 'we two, are family.' It seems to me that jclast is going the same way, with his household contract idea.
I personally don't see an issue (outside of the logistics of doing it, I mean --just as an intellectual exercise) with letting people declare themselves family.
I mean, you're already doing with with couples. Why are couples particularly special? From a societal point of view, it's not like you benefit terribly from two people being really friendly with each other. You benefit from them raising children together (and if that's the case, benefits shouldn't be extended to people in a marriage contract, but to people taking care of children.) If a group of people want to spend their lives together, I'm happy to say that they're family.
I doubt that's on anyone's mind when polygamy pops up.
I'm personally a feminist and see it as a way to empower the female by giving males incentives to marry a single female together with another male
I've only met one polyamorous person, and she was a girl.
That said I'm familiar with the concept of polygamy given the fairly large mormon populations in my area. But none of them practice it.
I often enjoy solitude. I don't want to constantly be with another person, I always want to have time to be by myself. To be the only major source of emotional support someone has in their life doesn't seem fair to either of us. I'm not going to live forever, I think that person would like someone to comfort them when I'm gone (or not around).
There are a lot of different ways polyamory can work, I was just shocked in my original post that it seemed someone was indicating that there was no way that had been thought of that could work.
If marriage is simply two people saying 'we two are family', then why do you need contracts?
Shanadeus, if you're going to cite a quotation as evidence, it's polite to provide the source of that quotation. As far as I can tell, it's an unsourced quote off Wikipedia, which proves exactly nothing.
From looking at the actual Saskatchewan Family Property Act, it's nothing to do with a working polygamous framework. While this is certainly not an unbiased source, the letter it quotes (from the Saskatchewan Minister of Justice) says that it's not legalized polygamy; it's meant to deal with the situation where two legally married people split up, never bother to get legally divorced and then enter into common-law marriages with somebody else.
So A and B marry and split up, and A thinks that B filed all the divorce papers. A and C live together in a common-law marriage. A dies. The Saskatchewan law addresses the relative status of B (the preceding legal spouse) and C. It doesn't say that A can marry B and then marry C.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
1) Move to the big city. You'll meet lots.
2) Polyamory != fundamentalist polygamy. For one thing, polyamory includes polyandry and same-sex relationships. Try THAT out at Yearning for Zion.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Unfortunately, the way polygamy is practiced in a lot of places (Mormon sects in the US, Saudi Arabia, much of sub-Saharan Africa) it's just a way of keeping women as property. So while in theory plural marriage could be empowering and equitable for all parties, we have to be realistic that it is not always so.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Presumably because the rest of society doesn't extend you familial benefits unless you have a contract saying you're family.
Which is a way of saying that you can't really extrapolate favoring 'polygamous marriage' as a 'future-proof' idea.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
t shan well good for you but your "empowerment" (now there's a widely misused concept) still screws over other men. our biology naturally leans to a rough 50/50 gender balance unless we mess with it by selective reproduction or killing people. Polygamy can only work in such an environment by creating a partner imbalance, and the only two factors that could ameliorate that imbalance would be if the practice was rare and spatially scattered among the wider population, or if the practice was temporary and largely practiced on a short-term basis.
Hipster libertine polyamory in the modern west is basically like that - rare and/or fluid and temporary, which is why it looks appealing to a certain subset of our culture. It lets people so inclined meet some emotional needs, and that's fine, but the practice made permanent and practiced en masse would be a disaster for men. And it would be mostly a disaster for men. Sorry, but polyandry isn't nearly as popular as polygyny.
Then, again, "they're married in my mind" or "they could live together" is meaningless. What we're talking about, in Modern World Terms, is the civil, legally-recognized state of being married, currently only extended to couples (and in most cases opposite-sex couples).
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Yes, and, again, there's no harm in extending that state to groups larger than two, provided you actually come up with reasonable justification for the benefits extended to married couples in the first place.
As I mentioned in my first post in the thread, I support polygamy because I think it would require a re-evaluation of those benefits.
How do we extend that state to groups larger than two?
That's the question nobody can answer other than "argle blargh contracts something". And by 'nobody' I include people who think polygamous marriage is a fine thing and have tried to figure out how such a system would actually function.
The 'justification' argument is a smokescreen. Let's all agree that whatever benefits we should give to a couple, we should extend to the whole group when the two of them decide to marry a third. How? The current setup is built around - and assumes - two people. (And does so because, let's be blunt, it has assumed women are rightly property to be passed from father to husband, and is based around concerns about paternity and property.)
If you therefore want to abolish marriage altogether and make everybody sign contracts, well, my colleagues in the matrimonial bar thank you, but I'm not sure that's quite a solution. Though it's certainly better than handwaving.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Perhaps I was unclear, but I mean we should re-evaluate what that state actually is.
Like, why do two folks who are married deserve societal benefits over two individuals who are otherwise in the exact same situation? They already save money by sharing expenses. What do they provide for society over two individual people?
Children are what change things. And so it seems to me that marriage benefits (the only reasonable objection against polygamy) should really just be child benefits (exceptions obviously given to things that don't cost society anything, like being able to see your loved one in a hospital emergency.) I think it's cool that people really love each other, but I don't really see why that should give them an edge up over anyone else in society.
Well, that's easy: because those other individuals are not otherwise in the exact same situation. They're not married. Which is to say, they have not voluntarily placed themselves into a legal status, relative to each other, that comes with benefits and obligations.
I know a fellow who has been monogamously living with his partner for over 20 years. Why aren't they legally married? Because he is thoroughly opposed to the notion that if he or his partner says "That's it, I'm out of here," that they need the goverment's permission to break up.
They may not save money, by the way, depending on their tax structure and their expenses. If my roommate falls down a flight of stairs, I'm not responsible for her medical bills, but if my spouse does....
Being in love is not a requirement for marriage. Neither (anymore) are children.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
This is a tautological argument.
And that's a great reason to reevaluate the benefits of marriage.
How so? You're saying that we have two couples in the exact same situation, except that we've agreed to give one benefits. That's flat-out wrong. The married couple has assumed obligations that the unmarried couple has not. Why do you keep skipping over the fact that marriage is not simply about benefits?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Your argument was tautological because I asked why two people who were married deserved the benefits of marriage and you said 'Because they're married', by the way.
Of course they're a hindrance. Who has the obligations, and to whom to they flow? If A marries B and B marries C, is A obligated to C in any way? What if A objected to the marriage to C? Do we treat A as married to C as well, or do we treat it as two separate marriages linked to B? If B has a baby who is (are) the other parent(s) legally? What if A does, and who owes whom child support when they all divorce? Is A allowed to encumber the house they share?
Whether we should have marriage at all, which is what you're arguing, is one thing. But that is a different argument than "how do we change the existing model to allow multiple marriages".
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
If five people have obligations to four other people, those obligations are borne by and for those party to the contract, not society as a whol
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have marriage. I'm arguing that a surge in favour of polygamy invites a welcome reassessment of why we provide benefits, and what those benefits are, for married couples.
Wait, did someone say spare pussies?
And the obligations? Oh, right. We're not going to talk about those, I keep forgetting.
Who is the party to the contract? A marries B. B marries C, who then marries D and E. What's "the contract"? Is there only one, or more? Who are the parties? How do we reconcile conflicting obligations?
I think it's fine to discuss what marriage should look like. I think that "well let's not talk about that until we figure out why married people think they're so special" is a distraction tactic.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
You have any idea how much hassle it is to divvy up possessions when two people are separating, and you have to figure out who gets what, often with legal counsel involved because people don't want to give things up, and then you get to figure out child custody and whatnot? Okay, now assume that this thing happens every few years amongst half a dozen people.
First of all, if you look at it objectively you should be able to see that the wealth transferred within a group that has contractually agreed to transfer wealth under x circumstance will always, in the net measure, be equal. Secondly, the same contractual obligations and payments are as inherent in a marriage of two as of three. You're arguing against yourself, here.
Obviously you'd have to come up with a legal system for polygamous marriage just as one is already required for marriage between two parties. This is just a red herring. Offhand though, it seems pretty straightforward that a preestablished marriage bringing others into the arrangement would simply be an extension of the contract for another person. But again, I stress, this is just a red herring.
Uh, you're trying to dismiss suggested ways (alteration of the benefits granted from marriage) that could pave the road to polygamy. That's not a distraction tactic, but it seems like an attempt to dismiss honest debate.
Like I said, if we reevaluate what benefits we provide and why we provide them to married couples, polygamy doesn't seem insurmountable.
Why couldn't you just determine child support through genetic origin the way it is now?
Regarding this:
For B to marry C they'd also have to request the consent from A before going through with it - so A and B would together marry C and so on.
If A and B cannot agree on marrying together then can always divorce, find another partner to marry C with or just marry C alone.
I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to say here.
If A, B and C agree to a contract, they could easily decide that A and B get a quarter of the proceeds and C gets half. Or that A and B share and C gets nothing. Of course, that's a contract. You have a little more trouble doing that in a marriage, where the government sets the terms and your flexibility is limited.
Again: huh? They're not. It's a lot more complicated than simply shuffling assets around. Where do you get this notion?
Why is it a red herring? Because it's difficult so you don't want to talk about it, you just want to talk about how unfair it is that married people get all these goodies? That's your business, but the part of your quote I bolded above is what I'm talking about - and "oh, just extend it to the new guy" does. not. work.
And I assume all you want to talk about is 'stop giving goodies to the married people' because you only talk about benefits, never obligations, and really don't seem to understand that marriage is more than splitting profits.
Are the barriers insurmountable? Nope. But as somebody who's in favor of poly marriage, who's had these talks with others equally in favor of poly marriage, if you know anything about what marriage is beyond "you love each other and the government lets you pay less taxes", it is very complicated to try to come up with a workable system.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
OK, so we're foreseeing a group marriage, where everybody in the group must be married to every other member of the group; we don't permit A to say "B, you can marry C, but that's between you two; I don't want to marry C."
So now our happy A-B-C triad has D come along. A and B want to marry D; C doesn't. A, B and C sorrowfully agree to part. Do A and B divorce C separately? Does the whole group break up and A and B have to marry D together?
I'm not asking this to be silly; I'm entirely serious. I'm not even getting into the complications of property division. But our current system is not set up for more than couples, and to revamp it we need to do a hell of a lot of thinking about how to get it right. "Oh, just let everybody marry everybody and share stuff" is about as intelligent a solution as "Oh, is there a bug? Just write some more code."
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
-.-
Even one of the most daring, solitary predatory land species on the planet - cats - don't wantonly kill anything that would be powerless to stop them. I crossed the path of big cats so often in Africa that they disappeared from my radar screen; it would've been no trouble at all for a lioness to take my head off, yet they respected my space as much as I respected theirs.
There's also the case of Tim Treadwell. The crazed fellow lived for over a decade mingling with the Grizzlies in Alaska, breaking every single sane rule of conduct that the park authorities had in place. He walked right up to the animals, camped in the most foolish of places, kept no bear mace or firearms with him, etc. Any of the bears could've killed him at any point in time, with zero risk of being harmed. But they didn't.
Instead, Treadwell (and a girlfriend he brought with him, most unfortunately) was mauled and eaten in his tent by a starving bear that was desperate for food.
If you happen to be borderline psychotic and visit cruelty on the small and/or powerless tahat you come across, that's your problem, not a global one.