Printable View
The questions Lewk's thread lacks....Is Polygamy wrong?
How: Morally? Socially? Economically?
Why: Because of gods and stuff? Or it hurts people too much? Kids get bad parenting? Spouses get neglected? Too hard to sort out legal and economic liabilities?
Based on your poll choice, supporting arguments would be great. If you believe more than 1, sorry about not making it multiple choice. Choose the best and explain the rest I guess.
I voted it isn't wrong. I think a culture allowing multiple combinations of men and women to enter into marriage contract with each other is feasible on all levels.
Not wrong, I don't agree with any of the reasons you give here, and legal chaos is your own risk if you choose it. Of course it should go both ways, so not only multiple wives but also multiple husbands. I can't really imagine it going that ell (jealousy, etc.), but hey, if some people can figure it out, good for them.
Polygamy as in multiple spouses, or as in multiple significant others?
It's not all that uncommon these days to be dating someone who's also dating someone else, and that tends to work out pretty well (at least I think)... until someone wants to get "serious" or get married, and throw everything away for the one relationship that never seems to work out.
I was thinking multiple spouses in the sense of legally binding marriage contracts.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Not that I think there's anything wrong with that, but how would that work?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
You divorce your 2 wives and 3 husbands... and are legally entitled to... 1/6 of the group assets? Pay 50% income tax because your "family" has an annual income of $500,000? Get the kids 60 days a year? Our legal system and such is pretty entrenched in the idea of one man and one woman, plus kid(s) = family.
Seems like a good argument for scrapping the state-sanctioned/imposed institution of marriage altogether, and letting people fuck whomever they want to fuck and under whatever conditions they can agree to, instead of our current shit.
The problem is that the state-sacntioned institute isn't about the fucking part at all. It's more about mutual responsabilities and along which lines to dissolve it. The state is supposed to set rules for contract law, which in its essence a marriage is.
I have no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Probably. Seems right, no?Quote:
You divorce your 2 wives and 3 husbands... and are legally entitled to... 1/6 of the group assets?
File separately? I dunno... But it's not 50% - I've been in the top tax bracket for 8 years or so and my effective tax rate has been between 18 and 25%. Not exactly sure why - something to do with investments and stuff.Quote:
Pay 50% income tax because your "family" has an annual income of $500,000?
Well, there's always 2 biological parents, so I would think their desires would take precedence. You can't change that around no matter what.Quote:
Get the kids 60 days a year?
No doubt. But just b/c our legal system is entrenched doesn't make a way of life "wrong."Quote:
Our legal system and such is pretty entrenched in the idea of one man and one woman, plus kid(s) = family.
Aww, come on. Marriage isn't just about fucking - it's a contractual partnership between people with common interests and values who commit to cooperatively pursue common goals. Arguably marriage is often about not fucking, btw. Have you ever been married?Quote:
Seems like a good argument for scrapping the state-sanctioned/imposed institution of marriage altogether, and letting people fuck whomever they want to fuck and under whatever conditions they can agree to, instead of our current shit.
Hi Khan! :)
I didn't vote because they all start out saying it's "wrong". I'd say Polygamy is frowned upon because it's a combination of legal chaos and cultural confusion. We don't have many examples of Polygamy except from early Mormons, and recently their off-branch of FLDS that had Warren Jeffs "marrying" 12 year old girls within his bloodline. (That raised questions of incest and pedophilia more than polygamy, I think?)
Common Law 'marriages' can have valid legal claims and get confusing, too.
Not really. If some guy my wife is fucking tries to take a bunch of my property when he leaves her, I'm gonna end up scrubbing what's left of him off my wall with bleach.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I rather doubt that, and bet you calculate that rate by not counting forcible "contributions" as the taxes they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Leading to the bullshit you get where non-biological parents who actually do all the parenting find themselves without any legal rights because the sperm donor* changes his mind 12 years after the fact. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
*In the sense that it's some douche who's been completely uninvolved in the kid's life for years, but fathered the child through an affair, or whatever.
Not just, but in this country, and most Western countries, the fucking part is a necessary part of the contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Well, point being, marriage, like all government dictates, is a one-size-fits all clusterfuck that need not exist. How about just letting people reach a mutually satisfactory arrangement and punch that up into a contract, instead of the one-size-fits-none shit that passes for a legal marriage today?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I'm flattered, of course, and maybe a little intrigued, but I'm really not in the market for a husband or boyfriend or sugar-daddy at the moment. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Not an entirely true picture about contract or property rights, Cain. Leona Helmsley left a massive fortune to her dogs and domestic 'servants' tasked with their care. Blood/marital relatives challenging her Last Will and Testament in court lost their case. Pretty sure there's now a monument in some pet cemetery for Helmsley dogs, or maybe they're integrated into the family plot. Wasn't there a court case about that, too?
So your position is that Leona Helmsley was married to her dogs? Good job.