Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who didn't see this coming? Polygamy rights ..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    I would argue those problems could be solved with simple child-protection laws.
    Ah, but there's the rub. You just put the government back 'in' marriage. You will need a special part of those laws that specifies when & if children can be married, to whom & under what circumstances. All those regulations already exist under marriage laws.

    Similar issues with laws pertaining to property, child custody etc. Sure, you can do all that without the government signing off on 'marriage', but what does that achieve in practical terms? Ultimately governments are going to have a role in regulating key aspects of human relationships no matter how label it, and it is always going to make more sense to keep those laws as a distinct body of law rather than spread about other areas.
    Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by BF69 View Post
      Ah, but there's the rub. You just put the government back 'in' marriage. You will need a special part of those laws that specifies when & if children can be married, to whom & under what circumstances. All those regulations already exist under marriage laws.

      Similar issues with laws pertaining to property, child custody etc. Sure, you can do all that without the government signing off on 'marriage', but what does that achieve in practical terms? Ultimately governments are going to have a role in regulating key aspects of human relationships no matter how label it, and it is always going to make more sense to keep those laws as a distinct body of law rather than spread about other areas.
      I was speaking about laws regarding sexual abuse or kidnapping, etc., not redefining marriage.

      If marriage has no legal standing at all, then you remove one of the powers inherent in forcing people to marry. Then they can just leave whenever they want.

      But then, this also ties back into the nature of the community itself and laws regarding personal freedom. A religious sect dedicated to "marrying" children will abuse them regardless of the states involvement in marriage. If they are forcing people to remain in their sect, then that's an issue that has to be dealt with - polygamy laws aren't going to prevent that either way.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
        I was watching a documentary of the Decalogue, aka the Ten Commandments, and on the issue of adultery it said that marriage was important to the ancient Hebrews because it established an inheritor's legitimacy. Without the legitimacy conferred by one's parents' marriage, one may not be able to inherit one's parents' property. In the absence of modern technology, marriage was the device used to assign paternity.

        Today we have at hand technology that can determine paternity far more assuredly than any marriage or wedding night bedsheet inspection. When it comes to A) assigning parental responsibility for minor children, and B) determining suitability for inheritance of parents' property, the technology can totally replace marriage as a legally significant institution. As far as can be determined, marriage is little more than a quaint custom, important for its sentimental aspects only.

        And to prove the point, considering not only the massive costs of a stylish wedding -- and the legal limitations imposed by a marriage participants -- more and more people are opting to not marry in the legal sense. To a growing number of people -- male and female, gay and straight -- marriage just ain't worth it, so they ain't doing it. Instead they use other legal devices in order to effect marriage's benefits without its costs: last wills and testaments, living wills, power of attorney filings, common law relationships, etc, etc. Marriage is already obsolete. It happened while gays and Christians were squabbling like screeching ally cats over its definition. Redefining marriage now to include multiple partners is little more than a pro forma exercise. For all the hot air, it honestly effects a declining number of people.
        The meaning of marriage has changed rather a lot since the ancient Hebrews. Some Communist idea about women not being property buggered the whole thing up. Sentiment is important to people. I would argue a fundamental part of who we are. Certain definitions of marriage and its importance are becoming obsolete, but others are marching along strong as ever. It changes as people change and, like it or not, governments will continue to have a role at some level. Personally I prefer a light touch.
        Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
          I was speaking about laws regarding sexual abuse or kidnapping, etc., not redefining marriage.

          If marriage has no legal standing at all, then you remove one of the powers inherent in forcing people to marry. Then they can just leave whenever they want.

          But then, this also ties back into the nature of the community itself and laws regarding personal freedom. A religious sect dedicated to "marrying" children will abuse them regardless of the states involvement in marriage. If they are forcing people to remain in their sect, then that's an issue that has to be dealt with - polygamy laws aren't going to prevent that either way.
          Forcing people to marry? That ended in the US decades ago.
          Polygamy could mean four men marrying each other, or a union of five men with three women or twenty five people married to each other, can you imagine the nightmare of inheritance and pension distribution?
          Or divorce?
          Polygamy is nothing more then a documented orgy.
          Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
          Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
            Forcing people to marry? That ended in the US decades ago.
            Polygamy could mean four men marrying each other, or a union of five men with three women or twenty five people married to each other, can you imagine the nightmare of inheritance and pension distribution?
            Yes, because it's never difficult to handle inheritance now.

            Really, all of these issues could be handled by having a will and/or other documentation. After all, if you turn it from 25 husbands to 25 children, you still have a clust- I mean mess.

            Or divorce?
            It's already a problem with just one spouse. Why not remove the whole thing entirely if divorce already causes such issues?

            Or, you know, fix it like with inheritance - make it a simple civil contract that one choose to become part of.

            Polygamy is nothing more then a documented orgy.
            As opposed to the documented boring, bland sex that is marriage?

            Comment

            Latest Topics

            Collapse

            Working...
            X