Legalize polygamy and create a familymaking process, but don't cover polygamy under marriage.
Burr Send a noteboard - 20/10/2012 10:14:58 PM
Marriage is a more specialized union that could work in conjunction with a familymaking union, but which should be distinct from it. There needs to be a way to define a /singular/ person who, when representing the other party of the marriage, has precedence over all others in a family.
A group who wish to practice polygamory but don't wish to define such precedent could choose not to split into married pairs. It is important to preserve the option to do so, however.
Also, the familymaking process should not assume romantic relationships between any of the parties. It would essentially be an overhaul of the legal side of our adoption system.
A group who wish to practice polygamory but don't wish to define such precedent could choose not to split into married pairs. It is important to preserve the option to do so, however.
Also, the familymaking process should not assume romantic relationships between any of the parties. It would essentially be an overhaul of the legal side of our adoption system.
||||||||||*MySmiley*
Only so evil.
Only so evil.
This message last edited by Burr on 20/10/2012 at 10:41:18 PM
For all you supporters of Gay Marriage: What about polygamy?
- 20/10/2012 12:02:06 AM
1577 Views
Legal rights.
- 20/10/2012 12:14:10 AM
981 Views
should be legal, would be nice for poly people. should include polygyny and polyandry. *NM*
- 20/10/2012 03:29:05 AM
474 Views
Government needs to stop legislating morality. So yes *NM*
- 20/10/2012 03:36:37 AM
456 Views
That's a huge chunk of what government does.
- 20/10/2012 04:35:45 PM
924 Views
That's not what I'm saying
- 21/10/2012 03:21:08 AM
920 Views
So you're opposed to abortion and gun control then? Welcome aboard!
- 21/10/2012 06:14:14 AM
883 Views
Why do you keep talking about gay marriage and polygamy in the same sentence..
- 20/10/2012 03:58:26 AM
936 Views
Get a grip. Your response is just what I tried to avoid.
- 20/10/2012 04:33:40 AM
858 Views
The more fool you.
- 21/10/2012 05:55:30 AM
946 Views
This, and legal recognition of it, is precisely why marriage has become an Equal Protection issue.
- 22/10/2012 03:40:01 PM
923 Views
*NM*
Because they are both violations of the paradigm of genuine marriage. Like it or not.
- 21/10/2012 05:49:32 AM
837 Views
I have no problem with polygamy being legal, but marriage is a privilege and can be limited to two.
- 20/10/2012 04:16:08 AM
963 Views
The only problem with that is that it was established with a heterosexist assumption
- 21/10/2012 06:33:32 AM
945 Views
From a legal perspective, all of your arguments are irrelevant
- 21/10/2012 03:12:39 PM
1052 Views
This really is blatantly obvious, but still it might bear repeating...
- 21/10/2012 04:43:13 PM
910 Views
Yes, but only if its equal. Multi-people relationships should be more acceptable by society.
- 20/10/2012 05:15:24 AM
953 Views
*NM*
"Polygamy" is the all-inclusive term; whether or not he meant it, he said it.
- 22/10/2012 04:31:09 PM
874 Views
I support autogamy in addition to various forms of exogenic relationships
- 20/10/2012 05:49:07 AM
876 Views
Have you seen the Glee episode where Sue Sylvester conducts a marriage of herself to herself? *NM*
- 20/10/2012 09:50:32 AM
469 Views
I am fine with it if all existing parties to the marriage consent to each addition.
- 20/10/2012 10:10:19 AM
1001 Views
The case for polygamy has really weakened rather than strenghtened, you might say.
- 20/10/2012 03:53:34 PM
1086 Views
I have no problem with it, but as Amy says, it's not really relevant. *NM*
- 20/10/2012 05:40:50 PM
486 Views
Legalize polygamy and create a familymaking process, but don't cover polygamy under marriage.
- 20/10/2012 10:14:58 PM
887 Views
The state shouldn't even recognize marriage beyond name changes anyway
- 21/10/2012 03:52:40 AM
939 Views
Indeed
- 21/10/2012 06:04:41 AM
990 Views
I don't give a damn what you call it. That's your business.
- 21/10/2012 06:17:40 AM
1290 Views
And so?
- 21/10/2012 07:05:08 AM
908 Views
Re: And so?
- 21/10/2012 04:10:19 PM
1097 Views
So can we call it garriage, give the same legal effect and call it good? *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:28:33 AM
461 Views
According to your argument we could afford gay couples the same legal privileges...
- 22/10/2012 03:20:17 AM
840 Views
"...separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
- 22/10/2012 04:45:31 PM
899 Views
That may well be the ideal solution. And also the most ironically amusing in how it would fail.
- 22/10/2012 07:35:05 PM
871 Views
We already went there and did that in '04, and yes, it was funny as f--k.
- 22/10/2012 09:51:49 PM
820 Views
Agreed in principle, but custody/cohabitation/assets go well beyond name change.
- 22/10/2012 04:37:09 PM
877 Views
This is the sort of thing that *needs* to be about principle
- 23/10/2012 04:54:10 AM
811 Views
Parental, property and other rights need government protection, and thus government involvement.
- 23/10/2012 05:14:37 AM
838 Views
Legal contracts must be open to all consenting adults, or none.
- 22/10/2012 03:11:55 PM
967 Views
You are correct, yet your reasoning is flawed.
- 23/10/2012 03:20:25 PM
878 Views
Again, the Equal Protection Clause has far less force on private entities than on government.
- 23/10/2012 03:52:06 PM
803 Views
Much less force, yes.
- 23/10/2012 04:15:03 PM
807 Views
The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business."
- 23/10/2012 04:43:25 PM
905 Views
Re: The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business."
- 23/10/2012 07:15:17 PM
819 Views
Like you said: By referring to "all invididuals" (or, better, "persons" or "citizens.")
- 24/10/2012 04:14:55 PM
829 Views
But we know very well that it doesn't have dire commercial consequences.
- 25/10/2012 07:17:55 PM
891 Views
I have several friends who practice polyamory, if they wanted to marry I would support it. *NM*
- 24/10/2012 06:47:58 PM
451 Views