Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A Goddamned Separate Thread about Poly Marriage

2456710

Posts

  • GethGeth Legion Perseus VeilRegistered User, Moderator, Penny Arcade Staff, Vanilla Staff vanilla
    Why an organic would choose this is puzzling.
    Warned @Nbsp (0 points for 1 week) for "Kicked from thread: Not welcome"

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Yeah, polygamous marriage between consenting adults has a dark side; gay marriage between consenting adults does not have a dark side

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    Shadowhope
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Goumindong wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    You guys said earlier that the connotation of the word marriage is for social acceptance, and that's obviously not going to happen for this, so why pursue that at all instead of going for these LLCs

    LLCs simply do not cover things like custody and inheritance.

    Custody no, because and LLC cannot have custody of a person. But inheritance yes. Because inherirance is simply a capital allocation problem and an LLC can hold property and can decide to divy that property up with a contract between its parties given that the LLC is dissolved for any reason[such as the death of one of the owners]

    Custody can be handled by contracts. Between the parties specifically by allocating specific rights to each party to the potential custody suit.

    Indeed, for every poly marriage these things would have to be structured specifically for the marriage and for partial dissolution etc etc etc. There is already a framework for doing those things if you wish to have that type of arrangement. [Contracts and corporations essentially]

    None of these can be achieved in a boilerplate agreement with the government. "Pick and choose" does not work for marriage rights. Third party obligations fail when the number of parties involved is no longer fixed.

    And no, just saying "well it will all work out" does not make it so.

    Disagree with the bolded.

    First, inheritance involves not just the surviving spouse(s), but children (and others as well). If there are three people in a poly marriage and they've formed an LLC, and one member dies, there is the question of that member's assets outside of the LLC as well as what to do with his portion of the LLC's assets. If the decedent owned 1/3 of the LLC, his heirs would get that 1/3rd, and they may or may not be in the LLC. Plus, probate law would likely supplant any operating agreement the LLC had.

    Second, unless that contract is actually a will, contracts cannot handle custody. Plus, wills are only made by real persons, not corporate entities.

    But I do imagine that if polygamous marriage was legal, they would almost always require a pre-nuptial agreement beforehand.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
    japan
  • MeeqeMeeqe Lord of the pants most fancy Someplace amazingRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Meeqe wrote: »
    This is a splinter thread from the SCOTUS thread for discussing various aspects, both social and legal, about polyamorous/polygamous (not necessarily the same thing here) marriages. Discussion bounced around a fair amount before settling into the following quote tree:
    "Meeqe wrote:
    Meeqe wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Meeqe wrote: »
    Spoit wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Polygamy should be illegal because it causes harm and because multi person legal unions break the intent and structure of unifying assets and simplifying legal agency and inheritance and so forth. Marriage is a set of benefits which do not function beyond 2 people

    Causes harm in some cases.

    Currently doesn't function beyond 2 people.

    These are not unsolvable problems.

    I would like polyamory to become more mainsteam acceptable though. I feel that would be a nice first step.

    What if...

    stick with me here...

    the marriage became a corporation

    This has been happening quietly for years now. I know of several poly groups that incorporated as LLCs (I think, I know they formed some manner of corporation) in order to handle communal property. Custody of children in those cases was spelled out in writing well in advance, provisions for property in case of death, etc, etc, etc. Basically they formed contracts to handle the property, much like marriage does for a couple. They were heavily tailored to the individuals involved. The legalities for this stuff can already be done, it just isn't legally called marriage.

    this whole fiasco had better not be over the ownership of a single word

    There is almost nothing unique about marriage that you can't accomplish with other legal means, in terms of property. In terms of social acceptance, that word has huge power. Look at the difference between civil unions and gay marriage. People want their unions to be recognized by society, not just the legal rights that go along with the term.

    Personally, even speaking as a polyamorous person, I am super leary of how you would do poly marriage as a universal, anyone can get it done easily and cheaply, right. Mostly due to the historic abuses done by polygamous societies in the past. "Big man" groups are super super gross to me, and while I can't speak for all poly folk, those I have talked to hate the idea of those kind of controlling, coercive relationships. If poly people ever wanted to push for marriage rights, we have a long, LONG way to go to convince the world that we are talking about consenting, unpressured relationships between adults, and aren't hidden patriarchs trying to ensure a supply of young women for personal supply.

    I'm pro gay marriage (so good on you guys for getting that), but I'm against polyamory.

    If the ratio of majority male poly-marriages to majority female poly-marriages was equal, then it would be OK. But all evidence I've seen indicates the vast majority are two (or more) wives for one husband.

    If this type of marriage is widespread, that leaves a vast underclass of low-status un-marriagable men who have no wives/girlfriends and no (or very limited) prospects of getting one.

    I can't see that ending well.

    This problem can solve itself via changing social norms (so that two wives/one husband marriages are as common as one wife/two husbands marriages), but until such happens (if it ever does), I'm not comfortable with the societal implications.

    The full spectrum of poly arrangements are beyond the scope of this thread, but I have never seen a harem style arrangement in reality, only ever heard of them from old Mormon days. The most common arrangement I have seen/been a part of is a couple (A & B), usually where one or both partner is dating, either casually or long term (person C). Person C may also be a part of a primary relationship, which may have offshoots as well.

    The Big Man (Tm) is a boogeyman that gets brought out a lot, but in the poly dating world, something predicated on the idea of options, the idea of being stuck with one person against your will is mostly a non starter. Where I am leery of poly marriage is within conservative religious groups, where that kind of social control is much easier to enforce, and I am hesitant to hand more tools of legal control to those kinds of folk.


    The current legal landscape: Poly marriage of all stripes is illegal, and carries a hard stigma against itself, even from many in progressive communities. This stigma seems well earned, what with abuses from some Mormon polygamous communities still shining bright in the public consciousness (as well it should, coercive relationships are a Bad Thing). Contrast that with the current polyamorous ideal (enshired in books such as The Ethical Slut), ones that function heavily on feminist ideals of consent, non-ownership of partners, and the free will and expression from all partners. Those groups don't always live up to those ideals, as people can and do get jealous, petty and childish, problems that plague all relationships, regardless of number of people involved.

    The current social landscape: Highly variable, but mostly stigmatized. There are poly people all over the place, some are out but most people I have met and talked to online are generally doing their own thing quietly, both legally and socially. This is not a highly homogeneous group, relationship models (who is dating/married to who, who has say over which parts of a relationship, etc, etc) vary wildly. One thing that came up multiple times in the SCOTUS threads is the idea that men are the main drivers of this, hoarding partners to themselves (The harem model). My experience (so anecdotal, please share data if you have it) is that harems rarely exist, and the few groups that come close had a central woman at the core.

    Which leads to new material from you, loyal readers. What do you think? Should marriage be expanded further? If so, in what ways? How will those ways interact with current property laws, and can/should those laws be changed? As I have tried to indicate in the last thread, I am very uncertain of how, or if, the idea of legal multi-party marriages would work at all.

    Feminist poly ideals are not comparable with marriage rights either. The ideal that people are not tied down by relationships cannot mesh with a social institution which makes relationships semi-permanent and enforces third party obligations to treat those peoples as if they were in such a bond.

    Feminist Poly ideals suggest that the "third wheel" in a relationship is not tied to the relationship but a request for marriage rights implies that the third wheel is both tied and exclusive to that relationship in such a way as to bind society to treat them as a single unit. Well you don't get it both ways. You cannot be a single unit in multiple units.

    So i fail to see what an "ethical slut" would get out of established poly marriage. I understand what mormons would get out of it. And what "big men" would get out of it. But I don't see what the feminists get out of it.
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    You guys said earlier that the connotation of the word marriage is for social acceptance, and that's obviously not going to happen for this, so why pursue that at all instead of going for these LLCs

    LLCs simply do not cover things like custody and inheritance.

    Custody no, because and LLC cannot have custody of a person. But inheritance yes. Because inheritance is simply a capital allocation problem and an LLC can hold property and can decide to divvy that property up with a contract between its parties given that the LLC is dissolved for any reason[such as the death of one of the owners]

    Custody can be handled by contracts. Between the parties specifically by allocating specific rights to each party to the potential custody suit.

    Indeed, for every poly marriage these things would have to be structured specifically for the marriage and for partial dissolution etc etc etc. There is already a framework for doing those things if you wish to have that type of arrangement. [Contracts and corporations essentially]

    None of these can be achieved in a boilerplate agreement with the government. "Pick and choose" does not work for marriage rights. Third party obligations fail when the number of parties involved is no longer fixed.

    And no, just saying "well it will all work out" does not make it so.

    This is a completely fair post on this. Marriage does end up treating people as one unit, and you're not wrong that the current poly mindset is fairly against that ideal, in a fair number of cases. But there are wants in the modern feminist poly communities that are extremely hard to navigate, and the rights involved in being declared family are very hard to obtain via other legal means.

    Most of the demand for access to the institution comes down to 2 things to me: An easier to navigate path to certain rights that are reserved for family, and social legitimacy for their relationships. I can sympathize to both, my wife was dating someone for years, and we had talked about moving all in together. Single family zoning made that extremely difficult to work out, and their relationship ended (for other reasons) before we were able to resolve that. And its damn hard having a long term girlfriend that you have to remember who you are out to, especially when it comes to minor PDA (handholding, a light touch on the back, etc).

    I like children. Provided they go home with their parents at the end of the day.
    Incenjucarceres
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    The only dark side to poly itself is that it's a logistics nightmare.

    There is otherwise nothing about plural marriage that inherently differs from other forms of marriage.

    There is nothing uniquely bad about plural marriage. It has a shitty history, sure. And the British used to be globe-spanning Imperialist monsters.

    Edit: On the plus side, the legalization of non-hetero marriage dramatically eases the problem for some plural marriages, albeit imperfectly. An even-numbered everyone-is-equally-married-to-everyone marriage where everyone is coupled up at least assures that SOMEONE can visit in the ER, even if not everyone.

    Incenjucar on
    QuidShivahnMeeqeDoctorArchFeralPhoenix-DHakkekageRear Admiral ChocoLord_AsmodeusElldrenShadowhopeJustTeeCaptainNemoCantideCaulk Bite 6pirateluigiDizzy DAvalonGuardceres
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    You guys said earlier that the connotation of the word marriage is for social acceptance, and that's obviously not going to happen for this, so why pursue that at all instead of going for these LLCs

    LLCs simply do not cover things like custody and inheritance.

    Custody no, because and LLC cannot have custody of a person. But inheritance yes. Because inherirance is simply a capital allocation problem and an LLC can hold property and can decide to divy that property up with a contract between its parties given that the LLC is dissolved for any reason[such as the death of one of the owners]

    Custody can be handled by contracts. Between the parties specifically by allocating specific rights to each party to the potential custody suit.

    Indeed, for every poly marriage these things would have to be structured specifically for the marriage and for partial dissolution etc etc etc. There is already a framework for doing those things if you wish to have that type of arrangement. [Contracts and corporations essentially]

    None of these can be achieved in a boilerplate agreement with the government. "Pick and choose" does not work for marriage rights. Third party obligations fail when the number of parties involved is no longer fixed.

    And no, just saying "well it will all work out" does not make it so.

    Disagree with the bolded.

    First, inheritance involves not just the surviving spouse(s), but children (and others as well). If there are three people in a poly marriage and they've formed an LLC, and one member dies, there is the question of that member's assets outside of the LLC as well as what to do with his portion of the LLC's assets. If the decedent owned 1/3 of the LLC, his heirs would get that 1/3rd, and they may or may not be in the LLC. Plus, probate law would likely supplant any operating agreement the LLC had.

    Second, unless that contract is actually a will, contracts cannot handle custody. Plus, wills are only made by real persons, not corporate entities.

    But I do imagine that if polygamous marriage was legal, they would almost always require a pre-nuptial agreement beforehand.

    No. You set your LLC up just like writing a will. You 100% absolutely can determine capital allocation on dissolution or rearrangements in share structure. There is an issue with "personal property" but that is what the LLC is intended to get around, by structuring none of the property as personal.

    Inheritance law goes Spouses -> Will -> Decedents -> Relatives -> No one. In that order almost exclusively. Wills can be challenged but its rare and you've got to show that they weren't written in sound mind. Saying "well its just as complicated" because after the will decedents are considered isn't true.
    Meeqe wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Meeqe wrote: »
    This is a splinter thread from the SCOTUS thread for discussing various aspects, both social and legal, about polyamorous/polygamous (not necessarily the same thing here) marriages. Discussion bounced around a fair amount before settling into the following quote tree:
    "Meeqe wrote:
    Meeqe wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Meeqe wrote: »
    Spoit wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Polygamy should be illegal because it causes harm and because multi person legal unions break the intent and structure of unifying assets and simplifying legal agency and inheritance and so forth. Marriage is a set of benefits which do not function beyond 2 people

    Causes harm in some cases.

    Currently doesn't function beyond 2 people.

    These are not unsolvable problems.

    I would like polyamory to become more mainsteam acceptable though. I feel that would be a nice first step.

    What if...

    stick with me here...

    the marriage became a corporation

    This has been happening quietly for years now. I know of several poly groups that incorporated as LLCs (I think, I know they formed some manner of corporation) in order to handle communal property. Custody of children in those cases was spelled out in writing well in advance, provisions for property in case of death, etc, etc, etc. Basically they formed contracts to handle the property, much like marriage does for a couple. They were heavily tailored to the individuals involved. The legalities for this stuff can already be done, it just isn't legally called marriage.

    this whole fiasco had better not be over the ownership of a single word

    There is almost nothing unique about marriage that you can't accomplish with other legal means, in terms of property. In terms of social acceptance, that word has huge power. Look at the difference between civil unions and gay marriage. People want their unions to be recognized by society, not just the legal rights that go along with the term.

    Personally, even speaking as a polyamorous person, I am super leary of how you would do poly marriage as a universal, anyone can get it done easily and cheaply, right. Mostly due to the historic abuses done by polygamous societies in the past. "Big man" groups are super super gross to me, and while I can't speak for all poly folk, those I have talked to hate the idea of those kind of controlling, coercive relationships. If poly people ever wanted to push for marriage rights, we have a long, LONG way to go to convince the world that we are talking about consenting, unpressured relationships between adults, and aren't hidden patriarchs trying to ensure a supply of young women for personal supply.

    I'm pro gay marriage (so good on you guys for getting that), but I'm against polyamory.

    If the ratio of majority male poly-marriages to majority female poly-marriages was equal, then it would be OK. But all evidence I've seen indicates the vast majority are two (or more) wives for one husband.

    If this type of marriage is widespread, that leaves a vast underclass of low-status un-marriagable men who have no wives/girlfriends and no (or very limited) prospects of getting one.

    I can't see that ending well.

    This problem can solve itself via changing social norms (so that two wives/one husband marriages are as common as one wife/two husbands marriages), but until such happens (if it ever does), I'm not comfortable with the societal implications.

    The full spectrum of poly arrangements are beyond the scope of this thread, but I have never seen a harem style arrangement in reality, only ever heard of them from old Mormon days. The most common arrangement I have seen/been a part of is a couple (A & B), usually where one or both partner is dating, either casually or long term (person C). Person C may also be a part of a primary relationship, which may have offshoots as well.

    The Big Man (Tm) is a boogeyman that gets brought out a lot, but in the poly dating world, something predicated on the idea of options, the idea of being stuck with one person against your will is mostly a non starter. Where I am leery of poly marriage is within conservative religious groups, where that kind of social control is much easier to enforce, and I am hesitant to hand more tools of legal control to those kinds of folk.


    The current legal landscape: Poly marriage of all stripes is illegal, and carries a hard stigma against itself, even from many in progressive communities. This stigma seems well earned, what with abuses from some Mormon polygamous communities still shining bright in the public consciousness (as well it should, coercive relationships are a Bad Thing). Contrast that with the current polyamorous ideal (enshired in books such as The Ethical Slut), ones that function heavily on feminist ideals of consent, non-ownership of partners, and the free will and expression from all partners. Those groups don't always live up to those ideals, as people can and do get jealous, petty and childish, problems that plague all relationships, regardless of number of people involved.

    The current social landscape: Highly variable, but mostly stigmatized. There are poly people all over the place, some are out but most people I have met and talked to online are generally doing their own thing quietly, both legally and socially. This is not a highly homogeneous group, relationship models (who is dating/married to who, who has say over which parts of a relationship, etc, etc) vary wildly. One thing that came up multiple times in the SCOTUS threads is the idea that men are the main drivers of this, hoarding partners to themselves (The harem model). My experience (so anecdotal, please share data if you have it) is that harems rarely exist, and the few groups that come close had a central woman at the core.

    Which leads to new material from you, loyal readers. What do you think? Should marriage be expanded further? If so, in what ways? How will those ways interact with current property laws, and can/should those laws be changed? As I have tried to indicate in the last thread, I am very uncertain of how, or if, the idea of legal multi-party marriages would work at all.

    Feminist poly ideals are not comparable with marriage rights either. The ideal that people are not tied down by relationships cannot mesh with a social institution which makes relationships semi-permanent and enforces third party obligations to treat those peoples as if they were in such a bond.

    Feminist Poly ideals suggest that the "third wheel" in a relationship is not tied to the relationship but a request for marriage rights implies that the third wheel is both tied and exclusive to that relationship in such a way as to bind society to treat them as a single unit. Well you don't get it both ways. You cannot be a single unit in multiple units.

    So i fail to see what an "ethical slut" would get out of established poly marriage. I understand what mormons would get out of it. And what "big men" would get out of it. But I don't see what the feminists get out of it.
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    You guys said earlier that the connotation of the word marriage is for social acceptance, and that's obviously not going to happen for this, so why pursue that at all instead of going for these LLCs

    LLCs simply do not cover things like custody and inheritance.

    Custody no, because and LLC cannot have custody of a person. But inheritance yes. Because inheritance is simply a capital allocation problem and an LLC can hold property and can decide to divvy that property up with a contract between its parties given that the LLC is dissolved for any reason[such as the death of one of the owners]

    Custody can be handled by contracts. Between the parties specifically by allocating specific rights to each party to the potential custody suit.

    Indeed, for every poly marriage these things would have to be structured specifically for the marriage and for partial dissolution etc etc etc. There is already a framework for doing those things if you wish to have that type of arrangement. [Contracts and corporations essentially]

    None of these can be achieved in a boilerplate agreement with the government. "Pick and choose" does not work for marriage rights. Third party obligations fail when the number of parties involved is no longer fixed.

    And no, just saying "well it will all work out" does not make it so.

    This is a completely fair post on this. Marriage does end up treating people as one unit, and you're not wrong that the current poly mindset is fairly against that ideal, in a fair number of cases. But there are wants in the modern feminist poly communities that are extremely hard to navigate, and the rights involved in being declared family are very hard to obtain via other legal means.

    Most of the demand for access to the institution comes down to 2 things to me: An easier to navigate path to certain rights that are reserved for family, and social legitimacy for their relationships. I can sympathize to both, my wife was dating someone for years, and we had talked about moving all in together. Single family zoning made that extremely difficult to work out, and their relationship ended (for other reasons) before we were able to resolve that. And its damn hard having a long term girlfriend that you have to remember who you are out to, especially when it comes to minor PDA (handholding, a light touch on the back, etc).


    Sure, there are lots of privileges everyone would like. But that doesn't impress upon the state an obligation to give them those privileges when enacting those privileges is significantly hard and burdensome both to the state and to third parties.

    I don't understand your last statement. Marriage rights would do nothing for the acceptance of your poly relationship.

    wbBv3fj.png
    shryke
  • MeeqeMeeqe Lord of the pants most fancy Someplace amazingRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    There is a non zero amount of people who whom if something is illegal, it is wrong for no other reason it is illegal. Being able to legally do something vs not is a non-trivial factor in feeling that society has your back.

    Edit: I have no expectation of the state granting plural marriage within my lifetime, we are a small minority of people and given the moral outrage poly folk get from just about every side of the political spectrum I don't expect to see popular support, ever.

    Meeqe on
    I like children. Provided they go home with their parents at the end of the day.
    IncenjucarShivahnFeralRear Admiral ChocoLord_AsmodeusElldrenCantideDizzy Dceres
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Marriage rights would do nothing for the acceptance of your poly relationship.

    Marriage rights would legitimize poly relationships which would help squash preconceived ideas against them which would stop single family zoning … whatever that is.

    Feralshryke
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    @Goumindong, since there does not appear to be a rash of married couples setting up LLCs today for the advantages you are claiming makes me think that the system you are advocating for is not the system we have today.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • LoisLaneLoisLane Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Honestly I really don't want poly marriage to be legal. My father's life in Nigeria has made me allergic to poly marriage in a way that nothing the super christian atmosphere over there could do to me about gay marriage.

    If poly people really want to get married then they should be prepared to counter years of confirmed bad history around the issue. I also want to know whether or not we're going to have a limit to the amount of people who can be in these unions?

    EDIT: I also don't think poly marriage is going to be okay till many people know others who are in poly relationships a la gay marriage. So barring a social revolution, I doubt this will ever even appear before the court.

    LoisLane on
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Meeqe wrote: »
    There is a non zero amount of people who whom if something is illegal, it is wrong for no other reason it is illegal. Being able to legally do something vs not is a non-trivial factor in feeling that society has your back.

    Edit: I have no expectation of the state granting plural marriage within my lifetime, we are a small minority of people and given the moral outrage poly folk get from just about every side of the political spectrum I don't expect to see popular support, ever.

    Polyamory itself isn't generally illegal, though I think some states still have adultery laws that prevent you from being married and engaging in it.

    IncenjucarJuliusKanaLord_AsmodeuszagdrobShadowhope
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Honestly I really don't want poly marriage to be legal. My father's life in Nigeria has made me allergic to poly marriage in a way that nothing the super christian atmosphere over there could do to me about gay marriage.

    If poly people really want to get married then they should be prepared to counter years of confirmed bad history around the issue. I also want to know whether or not we're going to have a limit to the amount of people who can be in these unions?

    I hope you understand how terrible an argument this is. Nothing happens in poly relationships that doesn't happen in monogamous relationships. They're just much more complex.

    FeralShivahnKamarLord_AsmodeusElldrenShadowhopeCantideCaulk Bite 6ceres
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    I don't quite see much social benefit to poly marriages.

    Marriage of any sort isn't exactly a right. Like, there is no good argument in support of "the government has a moral obligation to let people marry." The government has a moral obligation to not discriminate in who can marry, which is why the argument for gay marriage is persuasive. But if the government tomorrow stopped recognizing all marriage, nobody's rights would be infringed.

    The government recognizes marriage because a) it recognizes marriage as a social good, and b) because so many people want to do it that it makes sense to just organize all the fringe benefits into a single package. It's like a combination pizza - so many people like that collection of toppings together that you may as well roll them together and give it a name.

    Poly marriage fails on a few fronts. First, it's not the same thing as marriage, even if it bears some similarities. That doesn't, in itself, make it bad, but it does mean that you can't draw analogies to gay or interracial marriage to demonstrate a violation of rights.

    Second, it's not clear what the social benefit of poly marriages are. "Making a few people happy" is not sufficient; all manner of laws or arrangements can make a few people happy. Legalizing jaywalking would make a few people happy, too. It would also get a fair number of people run over. And there is ample evidence that poly marriage can get folks run over.

    Lastly, poly marriage fails at being a compelling set of benefits that should be rolled together into a single package. There seems to be ample argument about what a poly marriage should even look like, and folks in here are talking about how it could be a buffet of sorts, where you pick and choose what kind of poly arrangement works for you. But... what's the point of having the government offer a bundle of a common set of contractual arrangements when that bundle isn't actually fixed?

    So basically, poly marriage doesn't make much sense as an official government-endorsed institution any way you slice it. It makes much more sense for individual poly groups to set up ad hoc legal constructs that are tailored for their specific needs.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    LoisLanePreacherFeraljoshofalltradesJuliusHakkekagespacekungfumanRear Admiral ChocoTehSpectreEtiowsashrykezagdrobDarkewolfeelectricitylikesmegjaustinDisruptedCapitalistjmcdonaldJustTeeDraygo
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    It's denying a social good to a set of people for daring to be in the minority. Edit: Standard "fuck you, got mine" scenario.

    Incenjucar on
    Kamar
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Marriage rights would do nothing for the acceptance of your poly relationship.

    Marriage rights would legitimize poly relationships which would help squash preconceived ideas against them which would stop single family zoning … whatever that is.

    No. I don't think there would be.

    Keep in mind that there isn't anything illegal about poly relationships as it is. There simply isn't state support for them. And i know what you're saying "but what about the gays" and the answer is that relationships between two consenting adults are very easily placed into the current structure without appreciable burden, since there is nothing which relies on the male/female pairing but there are many aspects of the rights granted which rely on the fact that its a pair.
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Goumindong, since there does not appear to be a rash of married couples setting up LLCs today for the advantages you are claiming makes me think that the system you are advocating for is not the system we have today.

    Married couples don't need LLC's to deal with their community property issues because they only have one spouse.

    Edit: But many wealthy couples do essentially do that(or create trusts) in order to assure their assets are handled in the way that they want.
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Meeqe wrote: »
    There is a non zero amount of people who whom if something is illegal, it is wrong for no other reason it is illegal. Being able to legally do something vs not is a non-trivial factor in feeling that society has your back.

    Edit: I have no expectation of the state granting plural marriage within my lifetime, we are a small minority of people and given the moral outrage poly folk get from just about every side of the political spectrum I don't expect to see popular support, ever.

    Polyamory itself isn't generally illegal, though I think some states still have adultery laws that prevent you from being married and engaging in it.

    Adultery laws generally just mean that such an action is considered cause for divorce. So if you're poly this has no bearing on you, either you're creating an LLC or a prenup that covers the fact that you've got more than 1 partner [I.E. you're either creating a special legal structure to deal with your unique issues, or you're agreeing to the boilerplate structure while waiving rights relating to certain aspects of that contract.

    That or you don't have an agreement and you're playing it like any other social arrangement which has not progressed to the point of becoming family.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
    shryke
  • LoisLaneLoisLane Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Honestly I really don't want poly marriage to be legal. My father's life in Nigeria has made me allergic to poly marriage in a way that nothing the super christian atmosphere over there could do to me about gay marriage.

    If poly people really want to get married then they should be prepared to counter years of confirmed bad history around the issue. I also want to know whether or not we're going to have a limit to the amount of people who can be in these unions?

    I hope you understand how terrible an argument this is. Nothing happens in poly relationships that doesn't happen in monogamous relationships. They're just much more complex.
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    It's denying a social good to a set of people for daring to be in the minority. Edit: Standard "fuck you, got mine" scenario.

    Like what benefit could be given to poly groups that they aren't getting through LLC's already set up? Also can you point to a system in any country where having poly marriage has been a net positive or even a net neutral? I can't think of one and seeing how fucked up the US is I doubt we'll be the first.

    EDIT: I just can't see a world where we legalize this and don't immediately get beset by really terrible problems that normal marriage doesn't even approach at the moment.

    LoisLane on
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    It's denying a social good to a set of people for daring to be in the minority. Edit: Standard "fuck you, got mine" scenario.

    It is not anything like that at all

    wbBv3fj.png
    LoisLanejoshofalltradesJuliusApothe0sisCaptain MarcusKanashrykezagdrobDarkewolfeelectricitylikesmeKing Riptor
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Like what benefit could be given to poly groups that they aren't getting through LLC's already set up?

    That's not really a very good argument. Gay people could set up corporate structures and contracts, too. And after a significant amount of time, effort, and laywer's fees, they could achieve something approximating (but still not exactly like) the privileges and responsibilities that straight people can get after a single afternoon in a courthouse.

    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.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    IncenjucarBloodySlothSo It Goes
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Lastly, poly marriage fails at being a compelling set of benefits that should be rolled together into a single package. There seems to be ample argument about what a poly marriage should even look like, and folks in here are talking about how it could be a buffet of sorts, where you pick and choose what kind of poly arrangement works for you. But... what's the point of having the government offer a bundle of a common set of contractual arrangements when that bundle isn't actually fixed?

    I think the point would be giving people a contractual bundle that is easy to acquire and has opportunities for those rights which an actual contract cannot have.

    I actually think it'd be a good idea for us to offer that to everyone, as I think we kind of vaguely as a society understand what we mean by marriage, but since it's so important, people should be aware of everything it entails (and maybe be allowed to pick what best suits them)

    I don't necessarily think we should make poly marriage a thing (and in fact, actively think we shouldn't), but I don't think this particular argument against it is super strong.

    LoisLaneIncenjucar
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Like what benefit could be given to poly groups that they aren't getting through LLC's already set up?

    That's not really a very good argument. Gay people could set up corporate structures and contracts, too. And after a significant amount of time, effort, and laywer's fees, they could achieve something approximating (but still not exactly like) the privileges and responsibilities that straight people can get after a single afternoon in a courthouse.

    No they could not. Because they could not force third parties to see them as a single unit (so insurance, medical decisions, etc).

    And its true that poly people may want this type of structure but that doesn't make it reasonable to give them that type of structure because the structure does not extend well past a pair.

    Additionally there is no burden placed on the state or third parties by extending marriage from "male/female pair" to "any pair" whereas extending the definition creates multiple problems with taxes, gifts, power of attorney, dissolution, partial dissolution[something that can't even exist in a pair marriage!], etc etc etc.

    wbBv3fj.png
    LoisLane
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Honestly I really don't want poly marriage to be legal. My father's life in Nigeria has made me allergic to poly marriage in a way that nothing the super christian atmosphere over there could do to me about gay marriage.

    If poly people really want to get married then they should be prepared to counter years of confirmed bad history around the issue. I also want to know whether or not we're going to have a limit to the amount of people who can be in these unions?

    I hope you understand how terrible an argument this is. Nothing happens in poly relationships that doesn't happen in monogamous relationships. They're just much more complex.
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    It's denying a social good to a set of people for daring to be in the minority. Edit: Standard "fuck you, got mine" scenario.

    Like what benefit could be given to poly groups that they aren't getting through LLC's already set up? Also can you point to a system in any country where having poly marriage has been a net positive or even a net neutral? I can't think of one and seeing how fucked up the US is I doubt we'll be the first.

    EDIT: I just can't see a world where we legalize this and don't immediately get beset by really terrible problems that normal marriage doesn't even approach at the moment.

    As far as benefits are concerned? Tons. LLCs don't get you insurance, tax exemptions, government benefits, etc. But it also creates an entirely different set of problems in how those benefits should work.

    FeralIncenjucarKamarshrykeLord_AsmodeusElldren
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Shivahn wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Lastly, poly marriage fails at being a compelling set of benefits that should be rolled together into a single package. There seems to be ample argument about what a poly marriage should even look like, and folks in here are talking about how it could be a buffet of sorts, where you pick and choose what kind of poly arrangement works for you. But... what's the point of having the government offer a bundle of a common set of contractual arrangements when that bundle isn't actually fixed?

    I think the point would be giving people a contractual bundle that is easy to acquire and has opportunities for those rights which an actual contract cannot have.

    If it worked.

    But it doesn't.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Lastly, poly marriage fails at being a compelling set of benefits that should be rolled together into a single package. There seems to be ample argument about what a poly marriage should even look like, and folks in here are talking about how it could be a buffet of sorts, where you pick and choose what kind of poly arrangement works for you. But... what's the point of having the government offer a bundle of a common set of contractual arrangements when that bundle isn't actually fixed?

    I think the point would be giving people a contractual bundle that is easy to acquire and has opportunities for those rights which an actual contract cannot have.

    If it worked.

    But it doesn't.

    It doesn't work because laws are currently not set up for it?

    Which I think is the discussion we're having? Whether or not it's plausible that we could?

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Like what benefit could be given to poly groups that they aren't getting through LLC's already set up?

    That's not really a very good argument. Gay people could set up corporate structures and contracts, too. And after a significant amount of time, effort, and laywer's fees, they could achieve something approximating (but still not exactly like) the privileges and responsibilities that straight people can get after a single afternoon in a courthouse.

    No they could not. Because they could not force third parties to see them as a single unit (so insurance, medical decisions, etc).

    I think you may have misread my post because I'm talking about exactly the strategies you describe here:
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Custody no, because and LLC cannot have custody of a person. But inheritance yes. Because inheritance is simply a capital allocation problem and an LLC can hold property and can decide to divvy that property up with a contract between its parties given that the LLC is dissolved for any reason[such as the death of one of the owners]

    Custody can be handled by contracts. Between the parties specifically by allocating specific rights to each party to the potential custody suit.

    Indeed, for every poly marriage these things would have to be structured specifically for the marriage and for partial dissolution etc etc etc. There is already a framework for doing those things if you wish to have that type of arrangement. [Contracts and corporations essentially]

    None of these can be achieved in a boilerplate agreement with the government. "Pick and choose" does not work for marriage rights. Third party obligations fail when the number of parties involved is no longer fixed.

    And no, just saying "well it will all work out" does not make it so.

    And you and I fundamentally agree on the ultimate conclusion:
    Goumindong wrote: »
    And its true that poly people may want this type of structure but that doesn't make it reasonable to give them that type of structure because the structure does not extend well past a pair.

    Additionally there is no burden placed on the state or third parties by extending marriage from "male/female pair" to "any pair" whereas extending the definition creates multiple problems with taxes, gifts, power of attorney, dissolution, partial dissolution[something that can't even exist in a pair marriage!], etc etc etc.
    Feral wrote: »
    Neither of these structures are a logistic/bureaucratic slam dunk the way gay marriage is (or should be, if it weren't for the social & religious resistance to it). Literally the only thing that needs to change in the law to legalize gay marriage is you metaphorically CTRL+F and do a find a replace for "husband" and "wife" to "spouse." Literally everything else - child custody, divorce, property inheritance, power of attorney, etc. - work exactly the same way.

    Plural marriage structures, regardless of which one you choose, run into some pretty big logistic and bureaucratic problems.

    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.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Marriage rights would do nothing for the acceptance of your poly relationship.

    Marriage rights would legitimize poly relationships which would help squash preconceived ideas against them which would stop single family zoning … whatever that is.

    A number of places have "No more than X non related people in a single place" zoning. If X is, say, 3 and you have a four person group..

    FeralElldren
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    I guess I'd like to know which specific benefits granted by marriage that people don't want to be made available to people in a plural marriage.

    If Sally, Jessie, and Raph fall in love and want to get married, what do you not want one of them to be allowed to have?

    --

    Edit: The costs to the state are definitely a legitimate issue. Money issues, however, are kind of easy to deal with by, you know, spending money.

    Incenjucar on
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    It doesn't work because laws cannot be set up easily to facilitate that kind of structure. Saying "oh it totally works" isn't an answer to how it works.

    There are additional social issues on top of it (see Mormonism) and the fact that marriage as a structure does not mesh with(so far) the only equality based argument in favor of it.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Lastly, poly marriage fails at being a compelling set of benefits that should be rolled together into a single package. There seems to be ample argument about what a poly marriage should even look like, and folks in here are talking about how it could be a buffet of sorts, where you pick and choose what kind of poly arrangement works for you. But... what's the point of having the government offer a bundle of a common set of contractual arrangements when that bundle isn't actually fixed?

    I think the point would be giving people a contractual bundle that is easy to acquire and has opportunities for those rights which an actual contract cannot have.

    If it worked.

    But it doesn't.

    It doesn't work because laws are currently not set up for it?

    Which I think is the discussion we're having? Whether or not it's plausible that we could?

    It couldn't be handled with thorough prenuptials? "Jack shares 25% of my estate, Sophie shares 25% of my estate, if I'm in a coma, I trust Sophie to make decisions for my care, etc."

    Incenjucar
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    There are actually plenty of countries with functioning polyamory already and the Mormons didn't explode, so aside from "It's expensive" which also applies to building monuments to political figures, it's not really a good argument.

    mcdermott
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Lastly, poly marriage fails at being a compelling set of benefits that should be rolled together into a single package. There seems to be ample argument about what a poly marriage should even look like, and folks in here are talking about how it could be a buffet of sorts, where you pick and choose what kind of poly arrangement works for you. But... what's the point of having the government offer a bundle of a common set of contractual arrangements when that bundle isn't actually fixed?

    I think the point would be giving people a contractual bundle that is easy to acquire and has opportunities for those rights which an actual contract cannot have.

    If it worked.

    But it doesn't.

    It doesn't work because laws are currently not set up for it?

    Which I think is the discussion we're having? Whether or not it's plausible that we could?

    It couldn't be handled with thorough prenuptials? "Jack shares 25% of my estate, Sophie shares 25% of my estate, if I'm in a coma, I trust Sophie to make decisions for my care, etc."

    These sorts of things aren't required / can be invalid so the law has to have a fallback. (and even then the fallback can get messy, see kids fighting over if the last parent continues in care or not)

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I guess I'd like to know which specific benefits granted by marriage that people don't want to be made available to people in a plural marriage.

    If Sally, Jessie, and Raph fall in love and want to get married, what do you not want one of them to be allowed to have?

    Spousal privilege, for one. That's probably the least surmountable one.

    Courts are not in the business (nor should they be) of determining if people are really in love before they get married, and extending immunity from testimony and discovery in court cases to an arbitrarily large assemblage of persons would be introducing an enormous loophole.

    Other privileges are a problem either because the entities we're expecting privileges from would resist them (I don't think my employer would want to cover health care for an arbitrary number of people) or because there isn't a common script from which we can build out a model (child custody).

    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.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    QuidLoisLaneJuliusHakkekageJihadJesusDarkewolfeNijaElldrengjaustinjmcdonaldAngelHedgie
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Lastly, poly marriage fails at being a compelling set of benefits that should be rolled together into a single package. There seems to be ample argument about what a poly marriage should even look like, and folks in here are talking about how it could be a buffet of sorts, where you pick and choose what kind of poly arrangement works for you. But... what's the point of having the government offer a bundle of a common set of contractual arrangements when that bundle isn't actually fixed?

    I think the point would be giving people a contractual bundle that is easy to acquire and has opportunities for those rights which an actual contract cannot have.

    If it worked.

    But it doesn't.

    It doesn't work because laws are currently not set up for it?

    Which I think is the discussion we're having? Whether or not it's plausible that we could?

    It couldn't be handled with thorough prenuptials? "Jack shares 25% of my estate, Sophie shares 25% of my estate, if I'm in a coma, I trust Sophie to make decisions for my care, etc."

    It's still a nightmare. What if you allow one spouse to make medical decisions for you, but not the other? That kind of thing breeds distrust and resentment. If you don't think so, imagine telling your monogamous spouse that you drew up paperwork allowing your best guy friend to make your medical decisions but specifically excluded her.

    And if you allow more than one person to make medical decisions for you, what if they disagree? Who takes priority, then?

    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Lastly, poly marriage fails at being a compelling set of benefits that should be rolled together into a single package. There seems to be ample argument about what a poly marriage should even look like, and folks in here are talking about how it could be a buffet of sorts, where you pick and choose what kind of poly arrangement works for you. But... what's the point of having the government offer a bundle of a common set of contractual arrangements when that bundle isn't actually fixed?

    I think the point would be giving people a contractual bundle that is easy to acquire and has opportunities for those rights which an actual contract cannot have.

    If it worked.

    But it doesn't.

    It doesn't work because laws are currently not set up for it?

    Which I think is the discussion we're having? Whether or not it's plausible that we could?

    It couldn't be handled with thorough prenuptials? "Jack shares 25% of my estate, Sophie shares 25% of my estate, if I'm in a coma, I trust Sophie to make decisions for my care, etc."

    These sorts of things aren't required / can be invalid so the law has to have a fallback. (and even then the fallback can get messy, see kids fighting over if the last parent continues in care or not)

    Make them required.

    Also for every other set of people getting married because actually asking someone for a prenup is dangerous.

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    It doesn't work because laws cannot be set up easily to facilitate that kind of structure. Saying "oh it totally works" isn't an answer to how it works.

    There are additional social issues on top of it (see Mormonism) and the fact that marriage as a structure does not mesh with(so far) the only equality based argument in favor of it.

    The legal equality argument doesn't work the same way, no. (though really a first amendment challenge might given the reasons behind the laws..)

    Do we get to point to really abusive single marriages to ban that? Maybe how it used to essentially be slavery?

    Poly marriage is just part of the fucked up dynamic in those cultures.

    IncenjucarmcdermottKamarLord_AsmodeusCaptainNemo
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Lastly, poly marriage fails at being a compelling set of benefits that should be rolled together into a single package. There seems to be ample argument about what a poly marriage should even look like, and folks in here are talking about how it could be a buffet of sorts, where you pick and choose what kind of poly arrangement works for you. But... what's the point of having the government offer a bundle of a common set of contractual arrangements when that bundle isn't actually fixed?

    I think the point would be giving people a contractual bundle that is easy to acquire and has opportunities for those rights which an actual contract cannot have.

    If it worked.

    But it doesn't.

    It doesn't work because laws are currently not set up for it?

    Which I think is the discussion we're having? Whether or not it's plausible that we could?

    It couldn't be handled with thorough prenuptials? "Jack shares 25% of my estate, Sophie shares 25% of my estate, if I'm in a coma, I trust Sophie to make decisions for my care, etc."

    It's still a nightmare. What if you allow one spouse to make medical decisions for you, but not the other? That kind of thing breeds distrust and resentment. If you don't think so, imagine telling your monogamous spouse that you drew up paperwork allowing your best guy friend to make your medical decisions but specifically excluded her.

    And if you allow more than one person to make medical decisions for you, what if they disagree? Who takes priority, then?

    This already happens to poly groups as it is.

    If Sally, Jessie and Raph cannot all get married together, then at least two of them can get married to try and get the benefits, but this creates a huge potential strain in the relationship and the resultant benefits to society.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Lastly, poly marriage fails at being a compelling set of benefits that should be rolled together into a single package. There seems to be ample argument about what a poly marriage should even look like, and folks in here are talking about how it could be a buffet of sorts, where you pick and choose what kind of poly arrangement works for you. But... what's the point of having the government offer a bundle of a common set of contractual arrangements when that bundle isn't actually fixed?

    I think the point would be giving people a contractual bundle that is easy to acquire and has opportunities for those rights which an actual contract cannot have.

    If it worked.

    But it doesn't.

    It doesn't work because laws are currently not set up for it?

    Which I think is the discussion we're having? Whether or not it's plausible that we could?

    It couldn't be handled with thorough prenuptials? "Jack shares 25% of my estate, Sophie shares 25% of my estate, if I'm in a coma, I trust Sophie to make decisions for my care, etc."

    The point of marriage as a government institution is to provide a default set of rights and responsibilities that works the majority of the time for the majority of the adherents.

    (There is a good argument that it doesn't work in reality in that regard, but that argument would undermine both plural-marriage and couple-marriage.)

    It isn't enough to say, "Hey, with additional legal documentation, people could work out that problem." That's true no matter what model of marriage we use. We'd need to establish that the system works pretty well most of the time without such extra work.

    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.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    jmcdonald
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I guess I'd like to know which specific benefits granted by marriage that people don't want to be made available to people in a plural marriage.

    If Sally, Jessie, and Raph fall in love and want to get married, what do you not want one of them to be allowed to have?

    Spousal privilege, for one. That's probably the least surmountable one.

    Courts are not in the business (nor should they be) of determining if people are really in love before they get married, and extending immunity from testimony and discovery in court cases to an arbitrarily large assemblage of persons would be introducing an enormous loophole.

    Other privileges are a problem either because the entities we're expecting privileges from would resist them (I don't think my employer would want to cover health care for an arbitrary number of people) or because there isn't a common script from which we can build out a model (child custody).

    Some things, like medical benefits, should be a defined monetary benefit anyway. Single/family coverage dichotomy always seemed funky to me. Give me a dollar amount, and negotiate a rate per human, and I pay the difference. Bob shouldn't effectively get more money because he has more kids (or wives!).

    Privileged is probably, I agree, the least surmountable and most easily abused.

    IncenjucarFeral
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    How do they handle decisions made by an individual's parents, when they have two parents?

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    How do they handle decisions made by an individual's parents, when they have two parents?

    Most people have two parents, just by default. Poly marriage is not directly comparable because it's not a situation that most people naturally fall into from birth.

    That said, that's not necessarily an argument against poly marriage either. People enter into legal arrangements that add complexity all the time.

    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    It doesn't work because laws cannot be set up easily to facilitate that kind of structure. Saying "oh it totally works" isn't an answer to how it works.

    There are additional social issues on top of it (see Mormonism) and the fact that marriage as a structure does not mesh with(so far) the only equality based argument in favor of it.

    The legal equality argument doesn't work the same way, no. (though really a first amendment challenge might given the reasons behind the laws..)

    Do we get to point to really abusive single marriages to ban that? Maybe how it used to essentially be slavery?

    Poly marriage is just part of the fucked up dynamic in those cultures.

    I dunno

    Monogamous marriage used to be really fucked up, and while I personally think the way we treat marriage is still kinda fucked up, most people wouldn't agree with me, and it isn't commonly super abused.

    I am not convinced we live in a society where the legalization of plural marriages would result in something that isn't super fucked up most of the time. There are a lot of poly people who are totally rad, but the people interested in marrying multiple people seem* to be the ones most steeped in old traditions. The current of polyamory I tend to see practiced which I think is really healthy also tends to have a whole lot of streaks associated with not really wanting to be married.

    *god I wish this were studied more, because I could be totally wrong

    LoisLane
Sign In or Register to comment.