Marriage Poll

[Puppycow]

Should marriage and the legal status conferred thereby be limited only to that between one man and one woman, or should gay, and/or poly marriages also be given the same legal status. Or, should there be no special legal status at all for married couples?

[Rasmus]

Any two adults should be allowed to marry, regardless of gender.

Because the state is not allowed to peek down my pants when deciding upon my rights, but it may very well count the number of people.

Also, thus far, nobody has been able to explain to me how exactly poly marriages should work. Marriage as it works now would easily work for same-sex couplings, but many changes would be required for marriages between more than two people.

[Puppycow]

Muslims have been practicing polygamy for a long time, right? Polygamy would seem to have more basis in tradition than gay marriage. How it would work in modern practice is another question, but surely a consistant set of rules could be established. Basically, rights are similar to the rights of marriage, but rights regarding children would primarily rest with biological parents in the first instance. So for example, in case of a divorce, biological parents would retain equal custody rights, unless they can be proven to be unfit parents. Just like with current divorce law.

[qayak]

Any two adults should be allowed to marry, regardless of gender.

Because the state is not allowed to peek down my pants when deciding upon my rights, but it may very well count the number of people.

Also, thus far, nobody has been able to explain to me how exactly poly marriages should work. Marriage as it works now would easily work for same-sex couplings, but many changes would be required for marriages between more than two people.

Yeah right! We can figure out how to split the atom but we can't figure out how to add another person to a marriage!!

Marriage is simply a contract and there are many multi-partnered contracts already in existence.

[Puppycow]

Yeah right! We can figure out how to split the atom but we can't figure out how to add another person to a marriage!!

Marriage is simply a contract and there are many multi-partnered contracts already in existence.

Indeed. It might behoove partners in a poly marraige to do a pre-nup, or at least understand the law, because it would presumably be new and slightly more complicated, but certainly lawyers are up to the challenge. I think a simple version could probably fit on a page or two. Like any marriage, it behooves one to think before entering, although people in love tend not to be coolly rational about it in actual practice.

[Rasmus]

Muslims have been practicing polygamy for a long time, right?

Not in a way that treats all parties to the marriage the same, though. At least, it'd be news to me that one woman could chose several husbands.

Polygamy would seem to have more basis in tradition than gay marriage. How it would work in modern practice is another question, but surely a consistant set of rules could be established.

I am not denying that a set of rules could be estasblished. But I doubt that it would neccesarily resemble what we have now. And no such thing would be needed to allow same sex marriages - all one would have to do would be to allow them.

Basically, rights are similar to the rights of marriage, but rights regarding children would primarily rest with biological parents in the first instance.

And I just don't think that basicially similar cuts it. And right here you are describing a massive difference - as of now, marriage trumps biological parentage. If a child is born in a marriage the sposes are the parents. (At least, that is what it's like here by default.)

You would have to develop a whole new approach, then, as you'd have to ensure that all marriages would be treated the same.

So for example, in case of a divorce, biological parents would retain equal custody rights, unless they can be proven to be unfit parents. Just like with current divorce law.

But current divorce law is not like that, because it doesn't even address biological parentage. It simply assumes that the married couple are the parents.

Are you proposing mandatory DNA tests?

What if it turns out that a woman cheated on her three husbands? In fact, there's your next problem right there: If one spouse cheats on the other, currently, that is a possible reason for a divorce. And all of a sudden cheating would be allowed with some partners, so long as they are also married?

As of now, marriage is something exlusive. I can marry one partner and rely on their support. How can I do that any longer when my partner also has 4 other partners? Would I have to support my wife's other husbands now as well as my wife? Must I allow all of her husbands to live in my house?

Do I get a say in who she can marry?

(I am not neccesarily saying that all these things are right for marriages as they exist now - but it is what they are.)

[Rasmus]

Yeah right! We can figure out how to split the atom but we can't figure out how to add another person to a marriage!!

I didnt say that it's impossible or that it shouldn't be done.

I said that marriage as it is now doesn't give itself away to the idea.

If anyone can come up with a working concept: More power to them. But it is a) nothing I am concerend with and b) nothing I view as a right someone has.

Marriage is simply a contract and there are many multi-partnered contracts already in existence.

But it is a very specific contract, taylored for two parties. It has to change drasticially to allow more parties. Much more than it needs to be changed to allow same-sex marriages.

[quixotecoyote]

I didnt say that it's impossible or that it shouldn't be done.

I said that marriage as it is now doesn't give itself away to the idea.

If anyone can come up with a working concept: More power to them. But it is a) nothing I am concerend with and b) nothing I view as a right someone has.



But it is a very specific contract, taylored for two parties. It has to change drasticially to allow more parties. Much more than it needs to be changed to allow same-sex marriages.

As someone following the conversation, I now do not understand what you are arguing.

[Puppycow]

Not in a way that treats all parties to the marriage the same, though. At least, it'd be news to me that one woman could chose several husbands.Granted, but with some changes it could be made gender-neutral.



I am not denying that a set of rules could be estasblished. But I doubt that it would neccesarily resemble what we have now. And no such thing would be needed to allow same sex marriages - all one would have to do would be to allow them.This may true, but all it means is that this is a little easier to get to from where we are, not that it is the ideal system in the end. Is the real reason you are against poly marraiges because you find it an inconvenient distraction from your goal of legalizing gay marriage? I find that understandable, but I think you should admit that political expediency is the real reason.



And I just don't think that basicially similar cuts it. And right here you are describing a massive difference - as of now, marriage trumps biological parentage. If a child is born in a marriage the sposes are the parents. (At least, that is what it's like here by default.)

You would have to develop a whole new approach, then, as you'd have to ensure that all marriages would be treated the same.



But current divorce law is not like that, because it doesn't even address biological parentage. It simply assumes that the married couple are the parents.

Are you proposing mandatory DNA tests?
Only in cases where custody becomes a legal question. It is already used when paternity is in doubt for legal purposes. As long as the marraige remains intact, it is not really an issue, is it? It becomes an issue only if the paternity is unknown or in dispute. But that is true now, isn't it? If a man finds out that he is not the father of a child born to his wife, and he gets a divorce, is he responsible for child support under the current system? If he is, I would say that the current system is unfair.

What if it turns out that a woman cheated on her three husbands? In fact, there's your next problem right there: If one spouse cheats on the other, currently, that is a possible reason for a divorce. And all of a sudden cheating would be allowed with some partners, so long as they are also married?

As of now, marriage is something exlusive. I can marry one partner and rely on their support. How can I do that any longer when my partner also has 4 other partners? Would I have to support my wife's other husbands now as well as my wife? Must I allow all of her husbands to live in my house?

Do I get a say in who she can marry?

(I am not neccesarily saying that all these things are right for marriages as they exist now - but it is what they are.)So again, your only argument is that it is a smaller step to get from the status quo to gay marriage than to poly marriage. You don't want polyamorists to try to hitch their wagon to your agenda of allowing gay marriage because it would be politically inconvenient, right?

OK, I would be happy if they allowed gay marriage first as an independent question. I support it, and I realise that it is more practical to take on one issue at a time. So I support gay marriage, but I also see it as the thin end of the wedge. I don't want monogamous gays to 'pull the rope up and lock the door behind them' once they get marriage rights.

[Rasmus]

As someone following the conversation, I now do not understand what you are arguing.

My mistake, I guess.

I am pro same sex marriage. Not only would it be dead simple to implement (it would just havbe to be allowed), I also view it from a right based on the premise that rights should not be granted or denied on one's sex. (Just as with colour or religion.)

I am neutral wrt to poly-marriages. But I don't see how they should work (which is not denying that they could; I am simply ignorant) and I don't think anyone can claim a right to marry several partners.

To make me be pro poly marriage I'd need to see
how it is supposed to work precisely
how these changes affect existing marriages
how it would benefit society (something I do see with marriage as it exists now, but am ignorant about wrt to poly marriage. I see how it might benefit the spouses depending on the chosen model, but I don't think that's good enough.)Yet, all I ever get to hear is "it would be simple", "there are other contracts for several people", and "it's unfair" or at least "i don't see why not."

I am not sure if I am even arguing anything yet. Does it help to view it as stating my current position and the reasons I have for assuming it?

[qayak]

To make me be pro poly marriage I'd need to see
how it is supposed to work precisely
how these changes affect existing marriages
how it would benefit society (something I do see with marriage as it exists now, but am ignorant about wrt to poly marriage. I see how it might benefit the spouses depending on the chosen model, but I don't think that's good enough.)Yet, all I ever get to hear is "it would be simple", "there are other contracts for several people", and "it's unfair" or at least "i don't see why not."

I am not sure if I am even arguing anything yet. Does it help to view it as stating my current position and the reasons I have for assuming it?

1- you do realize that marriage laws really only apply once the marriage breaks down. So who cares how it would work, how does any marriage work?The marital assests get split equally between all parties and custody is decided through mutual agreement or the courts, just like it is with "traditional" marriage.

2- Nothing changes for any existing marriage. Why would it need to?

3- Why does there have to be a benefit to society? How would the benefit be any less for poly-marriages than it is for "traditional" marriages? You said you could see the benefit there, explain how the benefit would be different.

[Darat]

1- you do realize that marriage laws really only apply once the marriage breaks down. So who cares how it would work, how does any marriage work?The marital assests get split equally between all parties and custody is decided through mutual agreement or the courts, just like it is with "traditional" marriage.

...snip...


To try and be a devil's advocate:

That's not correct for at least the UK. Marriage laws are primarily about what happens when the marriage exists. So they are about property rights, taxation, inheritance, next of kin and so on.

To take just one example from that list - "next of kin" or in effect the power of attorney, this is a simple matter with the current legalisation - each spouse is granted this right for the other spouse. So the current legislation regarding marriage could accommodate a change to allow same-sex marriage by just de-sexing the existing legalisation. However to accommodate a poly-marriage completely new legislation would be required, and then case law to develop how it is interpreted. This makes the adoption of poly-marriage a difference of type of contract than the current marriage contract (as it is in legislation).

[Rasmus]

1- you do realize that marriage laws really only apply once the marriage breaks down.

No, I realize no such thing. Seeing how partners in a marriage have to suppoiert each other, gain rightrs and privlideges the moment they are married I don't see why anyone would claim such a thing? (Oh, and what Darat said.)

So who cares how it would work, how does any marriage work?By "it" I did not mean the personal relationships between the involved parties but the entire legal framework that exists now and would have to be adopted.

The marital assests get split equally between all parties and custody is decided through mutual agreement or the courts, just like it is with "traditional" marriage.That assumes that a poly marriage is one entity with several parties, right? It also seems to assume that a divorce would resolve the entire marriage.

There are other possibilites, though, that need to be accounted for. Again, I am not saying it's impossible to do so.

What if in a marriage of 4 people just one of the 4 wants a divorce from 2 of the others, but would be quite happy to stay married to the remaining person, e.g.?

What if there is a marriage between 3 people, and only two of them want to marry a particular fourth person?

2- Nothing changes for any existing marriage. Why would it need to?Because I was assuming there would be one type of marriage for n people, regardless of wether n would be 2, 3 or 11. I think it is very much possible that changes needed to accomodate 3 or more people would also change how things are handled between just 2 people. (Biological parentage and the required DNA testing being one possible example.)

For me to support poly marriage, i would like ot be shown that there is a proposed framework that simply accomodates these issues.

3- Why does there have to be a benefit to society?Because there is a cost to society. And because I see no intrinsic right being violated when marriages are restricted to precisely 2 spouses and to precisely one marriage per person at a time.

How would the benefit be any less for poly-marriages than it is for "traditional" marriages? You said you could see the benefit there, explain how the benefit would be different.I don't know if the benefits would be different. I want to be shown that they wouldn't. (Because, again, I think something is asked that is not a right. If it is a right, I wont ask how it benefits society.)

Society benefits, e.g., if two people agree to support each other in times of need, because society would have to step in less often.

Now, it is entirely possible that it could turn out that there's a net loss here for society under some circumstances. And I think that with marriages of 3 or more people it is possible that the dynamics (on average) are going to be very different.

One-on-one couplings do not change the dynamics of the non-married population, they introduce stability. AFAIK China has problems because more boys than girls are being born (quite artifically). What effects would poly-marriages have in that regard?

It might be a good thing - maybe China should consider it, too ... But: I don't know that it is a good thing, therfore I am not just going to support it.

[ImaginalDisc]

One day, I want to raise children. I'm not particular about those kids having my genetic information, either. But, I don't want to be put in the worrisome position of a single parent or someone in a small, temporary marriage where my death could have serious negative consqeuences for those children. I'd much prefer a line marriage where capital is accumulated over generations, and the stablity of a long-term group marraige provides more security for children than two married people can provide.

[Cain]

I am inclined to agree that polygamy should be allowed, but it's also something I would want to remain marginal and not widely practiced. It's easy to cast an anonymous vote on a meaningless Internet poll in favor of an abstract idea that will never gain public acceptance within our lifetimes.

[mr rosewater]

I voted option three, misery loves company and all.

[Loss Leader]

Marriage is simply a contract


No, it isn't.

[ponderingturtle]

Any two adults should be allowed to marry, regardless of gender.

Because the state is not allowed to peek down my pants when deciding upon my rights, but it may very well count the number of people.

Also, thus far, nobody has been able to explain to me how exactly poly marriages should work. Marriage as it works now would easily work for same-sex couplings, but many changes would be required for marriages between more than two people.

I should point out that when working out the details I would also be surprised if you could easily find two people who could say how nonpolymarriage should work. The issue is that poly marriage requires a serious change in marriage law while homosexual marriage does not. So you get into far more issues of what marriage should legally be as opposed to what it is.

[ponderingturtle]

1- you do realize that marriage laws really only apply once the marriage breaks down. So who cares how it would work, how does any marriage work?The marital assests get split equally between all parties and custody is decided through mutual agreement or the courts, just like it is with "traditional" marriage.

This does involve a certain definition of what a poly marriage is. A group of people all members in the group the such and such marriage. If you viewed it as individual connections between the various participants so just because A is married to both B and C they are not necessarily married to each other, then it is different.

2- Nothing changes for any existing marriage. Why would it need to?

Well to an extent you are redefining marriage legally, because you are stating what you think marriage should be, not what it is and people have differing ideas on the should part.

[ImaginalDisc]

I should point out that when working out the details I would also be surprised if you could easily find two people who could say how nonpolymarriage should work. The issue is that poly marriage requires a serious change in marriage law while homosexual marriage does not. So you get into far more issues of what marriage should legally be as opposed to what it is.

I've often wondered how effectively a line marriage can be created when the marriage consists of a not-for-profit corporation the various spouses join, with "shared" property being the property of the corporation, and decisions on that property being made by vote. The financial assets of the marriage persist in perpetuity, and can support for children much more reliably across generations than inheritance.

But, running a marriage like a democracy seems like a bad idea. Plus, hospitials often have that annoying policy of only allowing "family" in to see a patient, under an archaic definition of family.

[ponderingturtle]

I've often wondered how effectively a line marriage can be created when the marriage consists of a not-for-profit corporation the various spouses join, with "shared" property being the property of the corporation, and decisions on that property being made by vote. The financial assets of the marriage persist in perpetuity, and can support for children much more reliably across generations than inheritance.

But, running a marriage like a democracy seems like a bad idea. Plus, hospitials often have that annoying policy of only allowing "family" in to see a patient, under an archaic definition of family.

Has any society really practiced line marriage?

[ImaginalDisc]

Has any society really practiced line marriage?

Not that I am aware of. Clan marriages, yes. I just find "tradiational" marriages to serve the interests of children very badly and the interests of the couple almost as badly. IMO, it's a hodge-podge of tradional practices and legal wranglings that doesn't do anyone any particular good.

[Complexity]

I've always liked some of Heinlein's ideas about marriage. It was in his The Moon is a Harsh Mistress that I first encountered line marriages.

Heinlein's idea of line marriage placed the welfare of children first.

I thought the idea was great. Still do.

[ImaginalDisc]

I've always liked some of Heinlein's ideas about marriage. It was in his The Moon is a Harsh Mistress that I first encountered line marriages.

Heinlein's idea of line marriage placed the welfare of children first.

I thought the idea was great. Still do.

Old Man Hienlein had some good ideas. Line Marriage, awesome. Time traveling to have sex with one's own mother, substantially less awesome.

[ponderingturtle]

Not that I am aware of. Clan marriages, yes. I just find "tradiational" marriages to serve the interests of children very badly and the interests of the couple almost as badly. IMO, it's a hodge-podge of tradional practices and legal wranglings that doesn't do anyone any particular good.

Why do you think that such an arrangement would work better? It really seems like a way to reintroduce the extended family.

[Puppycow]

Hmm. So far only 1 out of 38 for the status quo.

BTW, Is there any country that already allows gay marraige? IIRC it is legal now in Massachusetts, or is it? And there have been some other judges that made favorable rulings, but I don't know exacly what the laws are?

What about poly marriage? I guess that polygamy is legal in muslim countries, but I don't know about the details.

[Loss Leader]

Hmm. So far only 1 out of 38 for the status quo.

BTW, Is there any country that already allows gay marraige? IIRC it is legal now in Massachusetts, or is it? And there have been some other judges that made favorable rulings, but I don't know exacly what the laws are?

What about poly marriage? I guess that polygamy is legal in muslim countries, but I don't know about the details.



Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage. Several states have some form of domestic partnership law and several more states have laws that say that they don't have to recognize other states' domestic partnerships. In Mass., at least one (and possibly both) parties has to live in the state and you can't move to the state just to get married.

Polygamy is legal nowhere in the US.

[Complexity]

Countries in which same-sex marriage is legal:

The Netherlands (2001)
Belgium (2003)
Canada (2005)
Spain (2005)
South Africa (2005)

[ImaginalDisc]

Why do you think that such an arrangement would work better? It really seems like a way to reintroduce the extended family.

Because I didn't get to pick my extended family. I wouldn't trust any of them with a kitten, much less the welfare of a child. Screw 'em. I want my life partners and fellow parents to be people I choose, not people thrust upon me by genetic happenstance.

[ponderingturtle]

Because I didn't get to pick my extended family. I wouldn't trust any of them with a kitten, much less the welfare of a child. Screw 'em. I want my life partners and fellow parents to be people I choose, not people thrust upon me by genetic happenstance.

The problem is that it does not seem to be a type of relationship that people would choose. Churches would also seem to provide some of the benefits, and in general any local social group.

[ImaginalDisc]

The problem is that it does not seem to be a type of relationship that people would choose. Churches would also seem to provide some of the benefits, and in general any local social group.

A: How would you know people won't chose it? It isn't permitted.

B: What the hell are you talking about? Are pastors and fellow parishioners co-habiting co-parents with full parental rights and shared property with their co-wives and co-husbands? Would you trust your priests and fellow parishioners with your property and children after you died?

[ponderingturtle]

A: How would you know people won't chose it? It isn't permitted.

People choose polygamous relationships that are not legally recognized, there are several members of this board in such relationships. People do not seem to be interested in such an arrangement.

B: What the hell are you talking about? Are pastors and fellow parishioners co-habiting co-parents with full parental rights and shared property with their co-wives and co-husbands? Would you trust your priests and fellow parishioners with your property and children after you died?

This is very much changing what your requirements are, and what you are looking for.

This seems that you are looking for a specific type of commune and such relationships are generally considered cults.

[ImaginalDisc]

People choose polygamous relationships that are not legally recognized, there are several members of this board in such relationships. People do not seem to be interested in such an arrangement.


Do I no constitute a person?


This is very much changing what your requirements are, and what you are looking for.

I did not such thing.

To quote myself.

One day, I want to raise children. I'm not particular about those kids having my genetic information, either. But, I don't want to be put in the worrisome position of a single parent or someone in a small, temporary marriage where my death could have serious negative consqeuences for those children. I'd much prefer a line marriage where capital is accumulated over generations, and the stablity of a long-term group marraige provides more security for children than two married people can provide.



This seems that you are looking for a specific type of commune and such relationships are generally considered cults.

I have no interest in forming a bond with other people based on religious ideology, I have no interest in sharing all my property, doing mindlessly what others say, or any of the touchstones of a cult. Now, if you're done waving pejoratives around, can we go on?

[Beth]

I chose two adults, any gender, because I think the legal and societal issues that are likely to result from polygamous marriage are more than our culture can handle at the moment. I think polygamous marriages in reality are not as stable as Heinleins fictional ones (be nice if they were, but the people I've known of that attempted polygamous relationships haven't had long term success) and there are a lot of potential problems that are not going to be easily or quickly resolved.

[ponderingturtle]

Do I no constitute a person?


Ah but I said people, that is a plural, so you would need massive scifi cloning technology for a line marriage with yourself as its primary constituent.

Now that would be creepy.

The point stands that I can point to poly marriages in effect actualy existing, where is your example of people who tried a line marriage?


I have no interest in forming a bond with other people based on religious ideology, I have no interest in sharing all my property, doing mindlessly what others say, or any of the touchstones of a cult. Now, if you're done waving pejoratives around, can we go on?

I am not trying to be pejorative, I am trying to find any real world example of your fictional marriage. If we are using fiction for our marriage choice why is Heinlein any better than the Gor books?

[Cuddles]

I think the answer depends on if you mean what marriage should be ideally, or what it should be at present or in the near future. Ideally, I think people should be allowed to marry whoever they feel like. However, that just isn't possible right now, because of two main problems with polygamous marriage. Firstly, most people don't like the sound of it. Public opinion on gay marriage has changed quite a bit recently, and I think that apart from fundamentalist religious types, no-one really has a problem with it. Polygamy is seen very differently, and any attempt to have polygamy legalised will fail, guaranteed. While this isn't necessarily an arguement against polygamy, since the same was true of gay marriage until recently, it is an argument against pushing for it now, since it would likely create a backlash against gays as well.

The other problem, as mentioned already, is that the mechanics of multiple marriages would have to be different from current marriage. An obvious problem with this is that most people don't like change. Simply changing "husband and wife" to "husband and husband" isn't a problem, but try to alter the whole marriage system and people will complain. In addition, the changes really aren't as simple as some people seem to be arguing. The rights afforded each partner, parenting issues, responsibilities and so on can no longer simply be split 50:50. What if one person wants to leave but the others don't? I'm sure all these problems can be worked out, but it is nowhere near as simple as simply altering the gender of a few words.

In addition, there is also the problem of what exacly is considered a polygamous marriage. Is it a group of people all together? Is it A and B both married to C, but not to each other? Is it a close relationship similar to a married couple, or is it a looser one similar to many current polygamous realationships? Can the group change as people enter of leave, or is it fixed at the time of marriage? If you choose just one definition then you will be excluding many other polygamous people, but trying to make a general enough version of marriage to encompass them all will require huge changes, and may not be possible at all if some definitions are mutually exclusive.

Incidentally, I assumed the question was more about what marriage should be in the near future, rather than ideally, so I voted for the second option.

[Darth Rotor]

Polygamy is a feature of any number of societies on this planet. One of the advantages of a this institution is that it leaves a sizeable number of young males at loose ends. What to do with these lads? Form an army. Find someone who needs conquering, or a place with a high wench to man ratio, or with gold in them thar hills, or a nicer view than you. Invade, and kick arses by harnessing the repressed libido. These at loose ends young men bring back war brides. They breed. This enriches the genetic pool for the victorious, though it rather dilutes it for the losers. No problem, it is a good species level survival strategy, and the losers get to meet Mr Darwin via the survival of the fittest rubric. Even the globalists would like this, in its form of creative destruction.

Where is the downside to polygamy, again?

DR

[ImaginalDisc]

I am not trying to be pejorative, I am trying to find any real world example of your fictional marriage. If we are using fiction for our marriage choice why is Heinlein any better than the Gor books?

Firstly, Heinlien proposed line marriages, so there's been precious little time for it to be enacted. Secondly, are you seriously equating a line marriage to Gor-like involuntary slavery? Thirdly, a line marriage preuspposes legal recognition (or common law recognition.) The point of a line marriage is to retain custody of the children and joint property through the line. Neither of those can be accomplished on the legal fringe.

[ponderingturtle]

Firstly, Heinlien proposed line marriages, so there's been precious little time for it to be enacted.

Nope, plenty of time. If it was so attractive I would have expected communes in the 60's and such to start such a thing. And if it worked they would be around today.

Secondly, are you seriously equating a line marriage to Gor-like involuntary slavery?

Not at all. There is much more evidence for the Gor type and how that actually exists and works. There are still parts of the world where many marriages start off with a kidnapping.

Thirdly, a line marriage preuspposes legal recognition (or common law recognition.) The point of a line marriage is to retain custody of the children and joint property through the line. Neither of those can be accomplished on the legal fringe.

Yes they can, not as effectively or as certainly, but it could be done if you got a group who wanted it.

[ImaginalDisc]

Not at all. There is much more evidence for the Gor type and how that actually exists and works. There are still parts of the world where many marriages start off with a kidnapping.

Works?

You are a frightening individual.

[ponderingturtle]

Works?

You are a frightening individual.

Sure, it has existed for centuries, just like all kinds of slavery, that means it works. Why should looking at the dynamics of a system be a moral judgement?

You are a strange individual who seems to enjoy denying many unpleasant aspects of the world.

[ImaginalDisc]

Sure, it has existed for centuries, just like all kinds of slavery, that means it works. Why should looking at the dynamics of a system be a moral judgement?

You are a strange individual who seems to enjoy denying many unpleasant aspects of the world.

I'm frankly insulted that while I'm contemplating a type of marriage intended to secure the future of children, you're comparing it to kidnapping and rape.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm frankly insulted that while I'm contemplating a type of marriage intended to secure the future of children, you're comparing it to kidnapping and rape.

It is just that the latter is what has any actual real world examples to cite.

[ImaginalDisc]

It is just that the latter is what has any actual real world examples to cite.

And mentioning it is in no way relevant to the discussion of whether a line marriage could work. Lack of precedent isn't a convincing argument for why it cannot.

[ponderingturtle]

And mentioning it is in no way relevant to the discussion of whether a line marriage could work. Lack of precedent isn't a convincing argument for why it cannot.

But the apparent lack of anyone wanting it unlike other forms of poly marriage does.

[ImaginalDisc]

But the apparent lack of anyone wanting it unlike other forms of poly marriage does.

Lack of precedent is not an arguement with regards to whether or not it can work. You're just trying to tarnish the idea by comparing it to kidnapping and rape.

[ponderingturtle]

Lack of precedent is not an arguement with regards to whether or not it can work. You're just trying to tarnish the idea by comparing it to kidnapping and rape.

It is not a lack of precident, it is a lack of a desire to bring about such a system.

You are advocating a system that you can not demonstrate anyone other than you wants.

[ImaginalDisc]

It is not a lack of precident, it is a lack of a desire to bring about such a system.

You are advocating a system that you can not demonstrate anyone other than you wants.

Plenty of people practice group marriages, and group marriages vary wildly in description. Now, I'll have to post more later, as the work server blocks search terms like "polygamy" and "group marriage."

[ponderingturtle]

Plenty of people practice group marriages, and group marriages vary wildly in description. Now, I'll have to post more later, as the work server blocks search terms like "polygamy" and "group marriage."

And what of those are organized in the line model?

I have readily admitted that people practice group marriage, in spite of it not being legally recognized. That was an argument I used to demonstrate that there is no desire for a line marriage, as it would be being actively practiced if people wanted it.

[ImaginalDisc]

And what of those are organized in the line model?

I have readily admitted that people practice group marriage, in spite of it not being legally recognized. That was an argument I used to demonstrate that there is no desire for a line marriage, as it would be being actively practiced if people wanted it.

And I retorted that a line marriage requires legal recognition first because it involves group property, and group custody of children, and cannot exist on the fringe.

[ponderingturtle]

And I retorted that a line marriage requires legal recognition first because it involves group property, and group custody of children, and cannot exist on the fringe.

Then show the desire. You now claim current polyamourus groups might well practice line marriage. Fine show me such relationships.

ID basically put up or shut up, show that there is are groups of people that would form line marriages if legally able to, or admit that you can not find anyone other than you who advocates such an arrangement.

You realize you consecutively claim this Plenty of people practice group marriages, and group marriages vary wildly in description. Now, I'll have to post more later, as the work server blocks search terms like "polygamy" and "group marriage."

and that you need legal recognition for any line marriage to happen? You are flailing about with contradictory claims.

[ImaginalDisc]

Then show the desire. You now claim current polyamourus groups might well practice line marriage. Fine show me such relationships.

ID basically put up or shut up, show that there is are groups of people that would form line marriages if legally able to, or admit that you can not find anyone other than you who advocates such an arrangement.

You realize you consecutively claim this

and that you need legal recognition for any line marriage to happen? You are flailing about with contradictory claims.

What, now that you've satisfied yourself by comparing a consensual realtionship between adults to kidnapping and rape, you insist on putting the cart before the horse and are asking me to demonstrate that line marriages exist when the legal climate cannot permit them?

I'm going to repeat myself for the benefit of your limited literacy.

Line marriages, in principle, differ from other polygamous marriages by being perpetual with the intention of accumulating captial and providing the welfare of the children. Without a legal climate to recognize precisely that sort of marriage, they wouldn't exist.

[ponderingturtle]

What, now that you've satisfied yourself by comparing a consensual realtionship between adults to kidnapping and rape, you insist on putting the cart before the horse and are asking me to demonstrate that line marriages exist when the legal climate cannot permit them?

Kidnapping and rape are a traditional basis for marriage. There is far more evidence about how they work when implemented, than line marriage.

I'm going to repeat myself for the benefit of your limited literacy.

Line marriages, in principle, differ from other polygamous marriages by being perpetual with the intention of accumulating captial and providing the welfare of the children. Without a legal climate to recognize precisely that sort of marriage, they wouldn't exist.

Put up or shut up, show that there is any interest in such a social organization? Your only support is FICTION. So why are you thinking that fiction should have any merit? I see no more reason to believe what Heinlein presents as marriage than the bible or the Gor books. Fiction is fiction.

You are once again mixing claims. Sure there are many people engaging in polyamourus relationships, please show which of them fit the line marriage concept. If you can't then that is an entirely irrelevant point and you are derailing your own argument.

As you initially pointed out, you could well legally set up a corporation that would fulfill the central tenants of a line marriage so there is not the massive legal obstacles that you seem to think there are. If people wanted this they would be living in such a relationship, so clearly no one wants it, at least no real group of people.

[ImaginalDisc]

Kidnapping and rape are a traditional basis for marriage. There is far more evidence about how they work when implemented, than line marriage.



On what planet do rape and kidnapping "work" in a marriage? What sick and demented planet are you from?

Perhaps you are unaware that line marriages ARE A PROPOSED IDEA!

Why are you asking for evidence that line marriages currently exist when I speculated on whether they might work?

[bigbossmatt]

I voted that "any number of adults should be allowed to marry, regardless of gender" even though I personally would want to be in a monogymist relationship with a woman (and I am a male).

I want to be satisfied by one loving partner, and to have them reciprocate my love to me alone; not any one else. I can however imagine possible places and people who would choose a consensual polygamist lifestyle. I can't see any theoretical reasons for polygamy being immoral, wrong, or in any way evil.

Regarding hetero/homosexuality. Neither is evil, or wrong, I am for it all. Homosexual love if real and they should be allowed to practice whatever unions that they desire.

The law should not dictate what people should and should not feel. If the urges are real (whether for love from one other, many others, of the same or different sex), then these urges should not (by proxy) been condemned by the law as being 'wrong' because a particular law has yet to be refined to the point of being -what I would say is sufficiently- liberal.

[ImaginalDisc]

Ok, I'll have to look up materials this weekend. I've too much to finish up this week.

Pondering, you want me to find evidence that people are presently in line marriages, for some unfathomable reason, and you contend that kidnapping and rape "work" as a basis for marriage, why? What does either point have to do with speculation about how a line marriage might work?

[ponderingturtle]

On what planet do rape and kidnapping "work" in a marriage? What sick and demented planet are you from?

Perhaps you are unaware that line marriages ARE A PROPOSED IDEA!

Why are you asking for evidence that line marriages currently exist when I speculated on whether they might work?

And the point is that you seem to be unable to show that anyone other than you wants such a thing.

There would need to be many laws rewritten to satisfy one person who could not even take advantage of the law anyway as it is a group endeavor.

[ponderingturtle]

Ok, I'll have to look up materials this weekend. I've too much to finish up this week.

Pondering, you want me to find evidence that people are presently in line marriages, for some unfathomable reason, and you contend that kidnapping and rape "work" as a basis for marriage, why? What does either point have to do with speculation about how a line marriage might work?

I said that we know how they work. It is sort of like saying that we know how slavery works from historic records and modern examples. It does not mean it is moral or perferable.

I think if you are argueing in favor of a change in laws you should be able to demonstrate that someone would actual take up a line marriage.

[ImaginalDisc]

I said that we know how they work. It is sort of like saying that we know how slavery works from historic records and modern examples. It does not mean it is moral or perferable.

I think if you are argueing in favor of a change in laws you should be able to demonstrate that someone would actual take up a line marriage.

I'm sorry, you must not have read my second post in this thread.

I've often wondered how effectively a line marriage can be created when the marriage consists of a not-for-profit corporation the various spouses join, with "shared" property being the property of the corporation, and decisions on that property being made by vote. The financial assets of the marriage persist in perpetuity, and can support for children much more reliably across generations than inheritance.

But, running a marriage like a democracy seems like a bad idea. Plus, hospitials often have that annoying policy of only allowing "family" in to see a patient, under an archaic definition of family.

Nothing about that proposal requires changing the laws. It's a way to gain most of the benefits of the line marriage idea, shared property between more than tow people, capital accumulated in perpetuity, without changing present laws.

[Amapola]

A couple of people have mentioned they don't see any problem with polygamy as long as the laws could be worked out...... I lived among polygamists in UT years ago and at present, there is a problem with the system. The problem is, these many women married to the single man are all on welfare. That single man does not make enough money at his job to support all the households and children. We had one neighbor that had 15 kids.... imagine paying for anything for 15 kids! So at the present, polygamists are a real drain on society as the system is not self-supporting.

Of course there are other people on welfare too...... but in a polygamist society it is the norm for one of the wives to be the listed "legal" wife, and for all the rest to be on welfare. This is not the norm in a marriage between two people.

There may be some way to solve this issue with laws, but at present, that's how polygamy works in the USA. (And in Canada, too, from what I was told.)

Therefore, option #2 gets my vote.

[Rasmus]

A couple of people have mentioned they don't see any problem with polygamy as long as the laws could be worked out...... I lived among polygamists in UT years ago and at present, there is a problem with the system. The problem is, these many women married to the single man are all on welfare. That single man does not make enough money at his job to support all the households and children. We had one neighbor that had 15 kids.... imagine paying for anything for 15 kids! So at the present, polygamists are a real drain on society as the system is not self-supporting.

Isn't part of the problem here, though, that they cannot legally live in a polygamous relatiuonship? If it was legal I doubt there would be that many households, right?

Were the women not working? If they were all living in the same household I'd expect it would be easier to have at least some jobs for them, with others taking care of the children.

[ponderingturtle]

A couple of people have mentioned they don't see any problem with polygamy as long as the laws could be worked out...... I lived among polygamists in UT years ago and at present, there is a problem with the system. The problem is, these many women married to the single man are all on welfare. That single man does not make enough money at his job to support all the households and children. We had one neighbor that had 15 kids.... imagine paying for anything for 15 kids! So at the present, polygamists are a real drain on society as the system is not self-supporting.

Of course there are other people on welfare too...... but in a polygamist society it is the norm for one of the wives to be the listed "legal" wife, and for all the rest to be on welfare. This is not the norm in a marriage between two people.

There may be some way to solve this issue with laws, but at present, that's how polygamy works in the USA. (And in Canada, too, from what I was told.)

Therefore, option #2 gets my vote.

I don't think anyone here thinks that the FLDS church's polygamy is an example of a ethical form of marriage, any more than kidnapping your future bride is, as that is practiced in some areas today as well.

[Amapola]

Isn't part of the problem here, though, that they cannot legally live in a polygamous relatiuonship? If it was legal I doubt there would be that many households, right?

Were the women not working? If they were all living in the same household I'd expect it would be easier to have at least some jobs for them, with others taking care of the children.

From what I was told..... so sorry, no links or anything although you could read "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer, which talks about the polygamist lifestyle from several different groups. Anyway, in the case of my neighbors, no - the women did not work. If the husband deemed it wise to have one work the others would watch her children, but most of the time they stayed home and did things like bake pies or can (which they would sometimes try to sell - lots of little home industries). There were about 30 head of households, or families, in my neighborhood and the norm among them was they were on welfare. Since that time I have heard this is true in other groups.

From what I observed of my neighbors, the women were not excited about sharing households so each had her own. Sometimes two women would share the same household. Although most of them believed fervently that they were being commanded by god to live this way, in practice they did not all get along as one big happy family - and I think that is the main reason each woman generally had her own house, although it was not 100%.

However I admit it could have been the law that caused the seperate households (although my observations were that it would be tough to get multiple wives in one house to work) because I know they were also trying to hide their polygamy from the Mormon church. The mainstream church does not believe in polygamy anymore, and these offshoot groups don't want the mainstream Mormon church to excommunicate them for polygamy. But from what I've read of groups that have established themselves somewhere that no one cares about them being polygamists (like Canada), they still use welfare and still have seperate households.

This is simply my opinion, so take it for that, but from my observations over the years I concluded that polygamy is tough to practice in the way that might seem ideal - 5 wives, say, all living in the same house, watching each other's children, some of them working, some staying home and doing housework and caring for all the kids. It might sound wonderful but in practice people don't get along well enough for this to occur. I'm sure that under a slave-type system you could do it, but that presents its own problems.

[Amapola]

I don't think anyone here thinks that the FLDS church's polygamy is an example of a ethical form of marriage, any more than kidnapping your future bride is, as that is practiced in some areas today as well.

Well that's a relief! :D

I've read diaries of women who were in that lifestyle and they were truly horrifying (to me).

[ponderingturtle]

From what I was told..... so sorry, no links or anything although you could read "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer, which talks about the polygamist lifestyle from several different groups. Anyway, in the case of my neighbors, no - the women did not work. If the husband deemed it wise to have one work the others would watch her children, but most of the time they stayed home and did things like bake pies or can (which they would sometimes try to sell - lots of little home industries). There were about 30 head of households, or families, in my neighborhood and the norm among them was they were on welfare. Since that time I have heard this is true in other groups.

From what I observed of my neighbors, the women were not excited about sharing households so each had her own. Sometimes two women would share the same household. Although most of them believed fervently that they were being commanded by god to live this way, in practice they did not all get along as one big happy family - and I think that is the main reason each woman generally had her own house, although it was not 100%.

However I admit it could have been the law that caused the seperate households (although my observations were that it would be tough to get multiple wives in one house to work) because I know they were also trying to hide their polygamy from the Mormon church. The mainstream church does not believe in polygamy anymore, and these offshoot groups don't want the mainstream Mormon church to excommunicate them for polygamy. But from what I've read of groups that have established themselves somewhere that no one cares about them being polygamists (like Canada), they still use welfare and still have seperate households.

This is simply my opinion, so take it for that, but from my observations over the years I concluded that polygamy is tough to practice in the way that might seem ideal - 5 wives, say, all living in the same house, watching each other's children, some of them working, some staying home and doing housework and caring for all the kids. It might sound wonderful but in practice people don't get along well enough for this to occur. I'm sure that under a slave-type system you could do it, but that presents its own problems.

It is also possible that it made it easier to apply for welfare if they had their own house, to address you discussions of multiple houses. They maintain a legal fiction of being unwed mothers with no job, living with a family might well make this fiction harder to accomplish.

It would be interesting to look at the economics of this and see if in higher earning households if they are more likely to live in one house. But I am not sure how many professionally well paid individuals are polygamous.

HBO did a couple of documentaries on this with the return of their show Big Love, looking at real polygamous groups.

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't think anyone here thinks that the FLDS church's polygamy is an example of a ethical form of marriage, any more than kidnapping your future bride is, as that is practiced in some areas today as well.

Funny, you keep saying that it "works."

[ponderingturtle]

Funny, you keep saying that it "works."

So only ethical things work? The roman empire failed because of the unethical nature of its slave based ecconomy?

The south must have been about 5 seconds away from total colapse because of the unethical nature of their ecconomy.

[Amapola]

It is also possible that it made it easier to apply for welfare if they had their own house, to address you discussions of multiple houses. They maintain a legal fiction of being unwed mothers with no job, living with a family might well make this fiction harder to accomplish.

It would be interesting to look at the economics of this and see if in higher earning households if they are more likely to live in one house. But I am not sure how many professionally well paid individuals are polygamous.

HBO did a couple of documentaries on this with the return of their show Big Love, looking at real polygamous groups.

I'd like to see that show. I got interested in polygamists since I had them for neighbors for so long and have read books and diaries and anything I can find. To *me* it is a horrifying thing. Some of them anyway had no problem with it outwardly (although some fled, some just were miserable), it was when you heard about daily lives that you had to wonder about them. They accepted it though.

Some of our neighbors were quite well-to-do, but the wives still were on welfare! One family I remember quite well had a ranch in southern UT. I just can not see how one man can earn enough money to properly care for 15 kids. Even with both parents working, if you have a large family it can be really tough to care properly for many children.

I also have a hard time imagining getting along with, say, 7 other adults and all the kids. It is hard enough for me to get along on a day-to-day basis with ONE other person living in my house. It may be a kind of ideal but it is impossible for me to see it working in real life.

[ImaginalDisc]

So only ethical things work? The roman empire failed because of the unethical nature of its slave based ecconomy?

The south must have been about 5 seconds away from total colapse because of the unethical nature of their ecconomy.

Actually, yes. The Antebellum South was not in strong economic shape. The neigh-on Feudalistic, agrarian economy was unable to keep up with advancements in the rest of the world. The South was a backwater. Its economic weakness was the strongest contributing factor in its defeat.

Now, please explain how kidnapping and rape "work" in a marriage.

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, yes. The Antebellum South was not in strong economic shape. The neigh-on Feudalistic, agrarian economy was unable to keep up with advancements in the rest of the world. The South was a backwater. Its economic weakness was the strongest contributing factor in its defeat.

Now, please explain how kidnapping and rape "work" in a marriage.

Go to Kyrgyzstan.

Again you seem to have a very weird definition of work, that requires it to be ethical and not just the looking at the way it functions.

[ImaginalDisc]

Go to Kyrgyzstan.

Again you seem to have a very weird definition of work, that requires it to be ethical and not just the looking at the way it functions.

You seem to be unable to tell the different between a proposition and a description of current activities.

[ponderingturtle]

You seem to be unable to tell the different between a proposition and a description of current activities.

The thing is, that you are proposing something no one wants. If this was something people wanted, there would be people in relationships organized around this principle.

Now sure you could build it right, but cults are the only examples of real world institutions that even approach what you are looking for.

[ImaginalDisc]

The thing is, that you are proposing something no one wants. If this was something people wanted, there would be people in relationships organized around this principle.

Once again, I am a person.

Now sure you could build it right, but cults are the only examples of real world institutions that even approach what you are looking for.

If the best arguments you can field are argumentum ad populum and an a pejorative term, you have nothing meaningful to say.

[ponderingturtle]

Once again, I am a person.

Then form your line marriage. Show me that people want it. I predict that you will not find very many takers



If the best arguments you can field are argumentum ad populum and an a pejorative term, you have nothing meaningful to say.

Fine closed religious comunity.

But then I don't think you have had anything meaningful to say for quite a while.

[ImaginalDisc]

Then form your line marriage. Show me that people want it. I predict that you will not find very many takers




Fine closed religious comunity.

But then I don't think you have had anything meaningful to say for quite a while.

Please, come up with some argument against the idea. Try avoiding tired rhetoric. Also, avoid claiming kidnapping and rape form a marriage that "works." Say something convincing and pertinent.

[thaiboxerken]

There should be no legal status other than standard contractual type of laws. The government should not be in the business of marriage.

[ImaginalDisc]

There should be no legal status other than standard contractual type of laws. The government should not be in the business of marriage.

I'm not expert on the subject of marriage laws, but I think the standard justification for government involvement is to ensure the welfare of any children involved.

[Terry]

I'm not expert on the subject of marriage laws, but I think the standard justification for government involvement is to ensure the welfare of any children involved.

If that were really true, then the benefits should attach to the children. But you often find the same people who make these arguments fulminating against unmarried mothers.

[ponderingturtle]

Please, come up with some argument against the idea. Try avoiding tired rhetoric. Also, avoid claiming kidnapping and rape form a marriage that "works." Say something convincing and pertinent.

The argument is that people do not want it. People are do not organize their personal lives in this fashion, and legalizing something that you can not even find one such marriage that it would cover is beyond ridiculous.

You want laws written to cover no one.

[ponderingturtle]

There should be no legal status other than standard contractual type of laws. The government should not be in the business of marriage.

I do not agree. It would raise the ecconomic bar substantialy, you would need to pay much higher lawyers fees to draw up such contracts. This would be an effective block for those of low incomes to get the benifits that they could from a married status.

This is just a massive boon to lawyers.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not expert on the subject of marriage laws, but I think the standard justification for government involvement is to ensure the welfare of any children involved.

Not really. They do such a poor job at that, because very few of the conditions of marriage actualy apply to children. And children are not a requirement for any of the spoucal effects of marriage.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm not expert on the subject of marriage laws, but I think the standard justification for government involvement is to ensure the welfare of any children involved.

I highly doubt that this is a primary motivation for the marriage laws. It's my opinion that marriage laws came about because of a perception that a strong "nuclear" family will lead to a strong nation.

[thaiboxerken]

I do not agree. It would raise the ecconomic bar substantialy, you would need to pay much higher lawyers fees to draw up such contracts. This would be an effective block for those of low incomes to get the benifits that they could from a married status.

And your point is? Marriage is not a life requirement.


This is just a massive boon to lawyers.

Maybe. I don't think marriage is necessary for most people though. Could there not be standard contracts as well?

[Rasmus]

There should be no legal status other than standard contractual type of laws. The government should not be in the business of marriage.

You cannot have a private contract that puts you in the same situation a marriage does.

The state has to consent to granting you some of the privilideges that are currently connected to being married. Wether those are granted through the act of marriage or something else, you can't get rid of the state being involved - at least not unless you were to drasticially change other existing laws.

[thaiboxerken]

You cannot have a private contract that puts you in the same situation a marriage does.

But you should. The state should have no business in marriage other than ensuring contracts are fulfilled.

[ImaginalDisc]

The argument is that people do not want it. People are do not organize their personal lives in this fashion, and legalizing something that you can not even find one such marriage that it would cover is beyond ridiculous.

You want laws written to cover no one.

Argumentum ad populum, if only you could say something.

[ImaginalDisc]

If that were really true, then the benefits should attach to the children. But you often find the same people who make these arguments fulminating against unmarried mothers.

Touche. I just wonder what a situation in which marriages are simply contacts between individuals would do to the welfare of children, improve it, or harm it?

[ponderingturtle]

And your point is? Marriage is not a life requirement.

My point is that you are hurting those who might benefit from the various status's the are included in a marriage, but could not afford the lawyers fees.

This is a solution only for those that have enough cash.



Maybe. I don't think marriage is necessary for most people though. Could there not be standard contracts as well?

You are so right, the poor need to have it severely limited who has standing to sue for wrongful death. And they don't have enough property for those concerns to matter.

[ponderingturtle]

But you should. The state should have no business in marriage other than ensuring contracts are fulfilled.

So only the middle class and above deserve the status's that accompany marriage.

[ponderingturtle]

Argumentum ad populum, if only you could say something.

How many people have you found for the group marriage you want to enter into? The law seems to be the only thing holding you back.

And this is not a logical proposition. If people don't want it, it is very stupid to go through a lot of effort and chaos writing laws to satisfy people who do not exists desire to form line marriages. It is kind of like the electric car, showing that people really do not want a car with a 200 mile range is really all you need to do to show why they are not available.

[thaiboxerken]

So only the middle class and above deserve the status's that accompany marriage.

So poor people aren't intelligent enough to write contracts? The state doesn't fund divorces either, so do you think only people middle class and above get divorced?

[ponderingturtle]

So poor people aren't intelligent enough to write contracts?

So you don't think having lawyers writing such specific documents is important?

The state doesn't fund divorces either, so do you think only people middle class and above get divorced?

Ah but divorce is more expensive in your system too as the contract will be individualized, so you need more time for the court to familiarize itself with your specific contracts and not marriage in general. Remember the Canadian company that lost millions on a contract with one comma out of place?

[thaiboxerken]

So you don't think having lawyers writing such specific documents is important?

Not if such documents were standardized. I'm sure there are some companies out there that could mass market such marriage contracts.


Ah but divorce is more expensive in your system too as the contract will be individualized, so you need more time for the court to familiarize itself with your specific contracts and not marriage in general. Remember the Canadian company that lost millions on a contract with one comma out of place?

That's irrelevant, the point is that if your argument is that such contracts would cost money and thus inaccessible to the poor, then why do you ignore the exact same problem with divorce as it is now?

[ponderingturtle]

Not if such documents were standardized. I'm sure there are some companies out there that could mass market such marriage contracts.

Seems unlikely. Lawyers don't like to have their money taken away. YOu would think buying or selling a house would also be very simple but it still costs hundreds of dollars to lawyers.



That's irrelevant, the point is that if your argument is that such contracts would cost money and thus inaccessible to the poor, then why do you ignore the exact same problem with divorce as it is now?

Because there is no good alternative for divorce, and this will also make divorce much more expensive as well.

This seems to be a good way to make lots more work for lawyers.

[thaiboxerken]

Seems unlikely. Lawyers don't like to have their money taken away. YOu would think buying or selling a house would also be very simple but it still costs hundreds of dollars to lawyers.

There are standard sales contracts for houses, one only need to look for them. Marriage isn't a necessity to life, I see no reason why it should be controlled by the government. The risks and benefits should be the sole responsibility of the parties involved and their lawyers.


Because there is no good alternative for divorce, and this will also make divorce much more expensive as well.

Sure there is, there is the option of not divorcing.


This seems to be a good way to make lots more work for lawyers.

Perhaps, but so what?

[Rasmus]

But you should. The state should have no business in marriage other than ensuring contracts are fulfilled.

But that wouldn't work.

The state enforces marriages against 3rd parties.

You simply could not have a private contract between you and your partner that would do that.

Others have to recognize your marriage, but you cannot have a simple contract with whomever you chose and force me to recognize the terms of that contract.

You could, but then the state would have to get involved in a way not quite unlike the waqy it is now...

[thaiboxerken]

The state enforces marriages against 3rd parties.


For what purpose?

Others have to recognize your marriage, but you cannot have a simple contract with whomever you chose and force me to recognize the terms of that contract.

Why do they have to?

[Fnord]

Marriage is the single most common cause in all divorces.

When you divorce, half of all "Common Property" goes to each party.

And in most cases, divorce judges automatically decide that the man pays for child support, while the woman keeps the kids. How would this work in same-gender marriages? It takes the question "Who gets to be the man?" to new frontiers...