but polygyny isn't is either a wingnut bigot or too stupid to breathe.

Polyamory isn't ritual cannibalism, you know.

Polyamory is perfectly legal. It's perfectly legal to have consenting sexual intercourse with as many people as possible.

But our legal system is oriented around 1-1 marriages, not harems.

Which countries are more civilized and respectful of equality--the ones in blue or the ones in black?

too long ago. About a week, actually.

But that got fixed.

Dinosaurs die, things change.

underlying institution or legal system.

Change a few forms and presto done.

Legalizing multiple marriages would require blowing up family, property, inheritance law and rebuilding them from scratch.

We're not going to do that to indulge people who can't make up their mind.

Also, multiple marriage is inherently anti-equality. There's a reason it's illegal in Sweden but legal in Saudi Arabia.

Glad to know you're the arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable sexual identity.

"Cant make up your mind" bit is staggering.

Wait, they all look white? And not a woman in the past couple hundred years? Northern Idaho, home of many violent skinheads, is more diverse than that. A little reading looks like they don't much care for several groups over there. Doesn't sound like a model of equality to follow?

Two smart women can't figure out what they want to do without your approval?

Or is there just not enough hate in your world?

Take it somewhere else.

even anywhere near as bad on gender equality as Saudi fucking Arabia.

I am confident you did not mean to suggest that Saudi Arabia is anywhere near Sweden in that regard, or with regard to any other enlightened cultural norm.

Sweden is one of the most left-leaning, diverse countries in Europe. Immigrants from the Middle East and Africa are flooding to that nation. Note the red line in this graph? That's how fast Sweden's diversity has grown:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Invandrare_utvandrare_Sverige_1850-2007.svg

And apparently, you really have done very "little reading", because it's only fringe groups who lean to the right. What we consider lefties would be considered centrists in Sweden.

It's been that way for a LONG time. Politically, sexually, Sweden has been far ahead of other countries. They had no issue with live-in relationships, clear back in the days when we Americans would talk about "Stockholm marriages" in hushed, shocked tones.

Besides, nothing is wrong with people being white. Most whites are vehemently against racism, and the ones who aren't are regarded as inbred hillbillies...by other white people.

And speaking of national leaders, we never had a black leader until 2009. And no female leader, ever.

tl;dr - Don't judge a country you know nothing about.

But I can sure see how you would rather I judge you.

". Most whites are vehemently against racism, " < But they don't seem to be against locking up large numbers of black kids, even harvesting them from schools, charging their parents more interest because of their skin color, letting men of color live with the tragedy of a 35% unemployment rate, paying bank$ter/donors big money while shutting off hiring at the federal level, one of the few color blind opportunities, and pretending we are in a recovery.

Maybe answering questions on a fucking survey and actually living as if one respects and appreciates others is often two different things, eh?

btw - ". Your Sweden ignorance is showing" < The slip of your grammar is showing. But I get the drift, and I have no doubt you've an excuse.

However - the last time I heard "nothing is wrong with people being white", it was some clown with a microphone working out of the back of his car, recruiting for a local white supremacy group. Racists, people with confederate flags on their garage, and hood wearers often invoke that so they can minimize white privilege.

Since you choose to walk with them, use their arguments, I am leaving this conversation now. To take a shower.

You can go play that with someone else, and we no longer need to talk.

You may want to read this: 5 Reasons White People Don’t Have to Hate People of Color to Be Racist -

See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/5-reasons-white-people-dont-hate-people-color-racist-hesaid/#sthash.FS2Vrn6U.dpuf

relevant to the question of whether it has a superior record on gender equality to that of Saudi Arabia or Somalia?

And yes, you are playing the race card. Pointing your finger at Sweden and yelling "whitey whitey pale face" in a discussion about gender inequality. Classic case of someone race-baiting when they have nothing to say about the merits of an argument. The level of skin pigmentation in Sweden and Norway has nothing to do with their record on gender equality.

Your bizarro insinuation that people with pale skin must be bad on gender inequality is the second dumbest argument i've seen this week.

Dumbest argument is your challenging the fact that Sweden has a better record on gender equality than does Saudi Arabia.

I don't care what your argument is. Government should not be in the business of legislating or regulating marriage except when it concerns sub-legal-adults. If two or more adults want to marry, they should be allowed to do so.

1) the dishonest claim that same-sex marriage has anything to do with polygamy;

2). Your reaction to the legalization of same-sex marriage is to call for the state to get out of marriages entirely

3) trying to argue that legalizing same-sex marriage implies the destruction of the institution of marriage.

I repeat my initial post in this thread. And add that there will never be the votes in any civilized country to return to polygyny.

I sometimes feel like I have stumbled on to the wrong board.

Last edited Thu Jul 2, 2015, 12:27 AM - Edit history (1)

if it's legal to marry multiple partners, what's the legal precedent for demanding they live in the same city, state, or in the same home? there would be 1st amendment issues in demanding that the spouses even be made aware of each other. And you're right, there's no guarantee the marriage would be free of exploitation.

Think about how divorce would work in terms of marital assets.

Complete non-starter.

(Warning: This post is not labeled as sarcasm for the humor impaired)

that all a judge has to do is divide by 2.

Definitely a process that needs to be more protracted, messier, more chaotic, and more intensively litigated.

The Mormons managed to build their Utah empire on just such a foundation over 125 years ago. They only renounced polygamy when the SCOTUS ruled that church property seizures by the Feds were constitutionally permitted.

it does get simpler ...

Really, if we want to talk about "traditional marriage" it certainly includes the idea of women as property, and polygamy, too.

Look, I'm perfectly fine with having a relationship with one, and only one woman, but who am I to say that other people NEED to do what I do? If gender is an artificial construct for marriage, then the requirement that it only would involve "two" seems to be so, as well. Especially given the fact that polygamy has a history that same-gender marriage clearly does not.

Mark my words, when the test case comes in front of the SCOTUS, it will not be some Mormon-offshoot 1880's wannabe with his Gibson Girl hairdo'd slave wives in prairie dresses. It will be a fully educated, totally free woman who wants two husbands, also equally free to make their own rational choices.

What will the SCOTUS do, having already found that opposite gender marriage is just an anachronism?

Not a close call. They're not going to invidates every marriage-related law in the country and redefine marriage based on such trivial concerns as people who want a harem.

Lifestyle choices are generally not enough to trigger that kind of action. We're not talking about discrimination against people on the basis of immutable traits.

is not an immutable trait? Seems to be a pattern through history.

characteristic.

It's a preference, a personality trait, and opinion.

Not immutable and not a condition one is born with, not a class at all let alone a protected one.

Has also been said about gay people.

Very revealing. Shows your true agenda.

Last word is yours.

PS Moreover, those things are actually true of poly marriage. It's a choice/cultural belief, not an immutable trait with which people are born.

This is the problem with your position, in a nutshell.

The quoted section above is not true. I was born this way. It's in my genes, a simple mutation that results in changes to the D4 dopamine receptor. Certainly, I can resist that predisposition...but why should I resist my inborn biology to conform to your social expectations and morality?

Just multiple experiences.

Open marriages are perfectly legal. So is swinging.

Dopamine receptors don't compel legal arrangements.

Maybe if you become emperor you can legally define marriage for everyone else so that it suits you. Until then, the world does not revolve around you any more it revolves around country clerks whose religion compels them to oppose same sex marriage.

but the cognitive dissonance of it is making me irate.

marriages because such arrangements are none of its business.

Regarding respect for 'equality', I suggest you take a look at this interesting list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Before you continue railing against 'less civilised' and 'primitive' practices.

that Muslim countries in Africa and the Middle East are 'less civilised' and 'primitive'?

record on gender equality.

I hear Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan are oases of progressivism.

I prefer the matrilineal concept where females are the head of the family and their brethren take care of the kids who may or may not have different fathers.

There is no reason to assume that polygamy must be restricted to the model: one male - several females. It works just the same the other way round.

society of which you speak?

Polygamy has a long and horrible history. It is antithetical to gender equality. It always has been.

http://news.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monogamy-reduces-major-social-problems-of-polygamist-cultures/

It is a primitive practice that has no place in modern society.

So what about if its a case where they are not coerced? I mean 100% consenting adults.

States could choose to allow people to marry more than one person, or their lawnmower, or their parents, or their adult children.

But they don't.

just a contract?

in a way ordinary contracts don't.

Both involve people proposing a merger and they both eventually end up discussing the terms, sometimes the merger works and sometimes its a failure just like a marriage.

Five!

LOL

Not to mention tax, employee benefits, medical visitation, division on non-liquid property

Plus recognizing poly marriage would completely destroy the core concept of marriage in the US--people committing to each other, and only each other, foregoing all others.

If you're keeping a second or third or fourth option, you're not really making much of a commitment.

Oh, I have no fucks given either way FYI-

Fun conversation to watch though

They are among those who allow polygamy (actually just polygyny).

And even a cursory review of the practice today by dissident Mormans suggests that is still the case.

It is not comparable to same-sex marriage, where both partners are essentially on an equal footing.

Why is TWO the magic number?

that is the only number that our legal system (property, inheritance, family, medical) is set up to accommodate.

Countries that legalize polygyny are generally the least civilized and most misogynistic ones on the planet.

Been there, done that with plural marriage. Primitive practice that has no place in modern society.

Particularly the folks who don't know the difference between polyamory and "orgies"/"harems."

eom

that can be entered legally into by only two parties?

I say I hope it goes to Supreme Court. I don't think we should be against adults wanting to marry however or how many they want. This is good for equality.

Should there be additional tax benefits for the additional partners in the marriage?

If so, why? If not, why not?

What would be equitable to society?

There are advantages to having more than two parents to look after you.

I think it can work. Taxes may have to be thought out. Inheritance should dictate what happens in the will. SS isn't given to surviving spouse anymore so that won't be an issue. The thing won't be easy but it is doable.

Social Security is available to surviving spouse. And, if exes meet certain criteria, there can be more than one person receiving benefits as surviving spouse.

Same with spousal benefits if the primary social security recipient is still alive. The spouse, and possibly some exes can also receive Social Security payments.

The inheritance issue for people who die without a will needs to be hammered out, but fair distributions can be legislated (or decided by courts).

Not when spouse does. For example if man marries 2 wives aged 30 and 35 and he is 40. He dies at 42. The women are eligible for SS at age 62 with his earning as well as theirs if they work. It used to be that they would get SS upon death of spouse.

... it's confusing enough for oldsters like me and Mrs Bozo.

But I'd be surprised if a woman can get SS based on "his earnings as well as hers". Usually, you can only get the amount based on one person, eg either survivor benefits OR your individual benefits, but not both.

Between Social Security and Medicare, my head is spinning.

Especially under 50. Whether they should or not is besides the point. They don't.

If something is determined to be a basic right then why do you have to involve the government by purchasing a license to excercise that right ?

I could just imagine some replies to a bunch of things where later they were accepted. Of course a lot of it was not written down due to not having the Internet. I'm just saying that at first many issues were not openly accepted but over time they were and unfortunately the replies will be available for all to see on this topic. Just saying.

country that takes gender equity seriously.

Society already gave it a shot and found it to be per se toxic and harmful.

How is that anything but equal?

I can see how it can complicate things like legal issues and taxes, but assuming we can figure that out, why is it so bad? It seems a like a personal choice, and so long as all parties are willingly partaking in it, then I don't see why I should be upset by it.

isn't discriminatory in nature.

Last edited Thu Jul 2, 2015, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)

I read through this thread after my original post, and I saw mentions of Saudi Arabia.

Our culture isn't exactly the same as that of Saudi Arabia, and I don't see how allowing multiple people to marry each other would have us suddenly turn in to Saudi Arabia. I do not think that if polygamy was banned in Saudi Arabia that suddenly Saudi Arabia would become bastion of gender equality.

I think I understand where you're coming from with the "it's not discriminatory" statement. Do you mean that no one is born with the desire to be married to several people once? If so, then I agree.

But other than the logistical problems of completely changing how marriage is handled legally, I find it difficult to come up with reasons as to why people shouldn't be able to marry multiple people. Of course this could be due to my ignorance on polygamy and negative side-effects it causes on people other than those willingly participating. Say such as on children. Although I'm not sure I like that line of thought, as divorce has been harmful for some children too.

I'm not trying to make any points here or prove anyone wrong. I'm just throwing out my thoughts on this as they come.

Anyone who can't see why same sex marriage is wrong is just plain ignorant. Most everyone agreed with that vacuous argument.

Same-sex marriage was not allowed because of overt societal discrimination against gays and lesbians. It has been rooted in the same discriminatory animus as bans on sodomy, housing discrimination, etc.

Same-sex marriage is a constitutional right because there's no rational basis for denying same-sex couples the same legal benefits that heterosexual couples get.

The shamelessly stupid "if you legalize this, it leads to legalizing polygamy" argument is a favorite of the rightwing bigots in their attempts to trivialize the GLBT civil rights movement.

it's also the same pile of horseshit they said about interracial marriage.

That argument we're reading here is coming straight out of Dildo's mouth!!!

Lifestyle choices ain't gonna cut it.

Aren't we confusing gender, the right to marry a partner if there's consent, and the number of people we marry?

Nobody's born married; and nobody's born needing to marry. People are born with the genes and sets of epigenetic markers they have, along with whatever developmental idiosyncrasies they may as a result of environment. An inborn need to be married isn't, as far as I know, one of them. That would make "marriage as a right" something more than it is now: "Your honor, I have a right to be married like I have a right to an education. Just as the state must provide me with an education it also has an obligation to provide me with a consenting partner." Nah, it doesn't work that way, although, to be sure, I've known men who wish it did.

People are deemed to be born with rights provided (and in some cases guaranteed) by the state, and rights that are merely the ability to take advantage of certain opportunities when available and possible. One of those latter kinds of rights is the right to marry. But the right to marry one person used to be what was at issue; then it became the right to marry more than one person, as long as it's sequential and you had the proper paperwork; if adultery isn't a criminal offense, then, it seems, we have the right to marry more than one person sequentially while bedding others ad libitum, if we want to put up with the personal fall-out.

I personally don't know why polygamy has been outlawed, and I'm just a normal person.

it is in terms of crime, gender equality, and the raising of children.

doesn't strike me that we would hold that their 2nd & 3rd marriages are annulled at the border. Saudi Arabia isn't the only place allowing polygamy.

The NOLO website has the following:

"U.S. immigration law frowns on being married to more than one person at the same time, and prohibits both bigamists and polygamists from becoming naturalized citizens. Practicing polygamy as a legal permanent resident is also grounds for deportation. A criminal conviction for bigamy can result in deportation as well."

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/will-you-be-denied-us-citizenship-based-polygamy-bigamy-multiple-marriages.html

"Frowns on" doesn't sound that strict/severe. There may be a "real" policy that is practiced behind the scenes of the official one.

What one does on a vacation doesn't really matter, I suppose. So long as they turn around and go home at the end of the day, I'll wager we turn a blind-ish eye. ...

Love it or leave it.

Go fetch me another beer.

If they even go down that road, perhaps they ought to try out polyandry first, and see how that rolls.

every law or policy related to marriage, but philosophically I think it should be fine. I like the idea that we as society should find a way to recognize the whole gamut of intimate associations that consulting adults want to form. (Whether that's possible in any under our current notions of marriage is a question maybe best left for science fiction, however...)

At that point it loses all of its "special" status in law I think.

What consenting adults do, as long as it is ALL consensual, is fine by me. However, our legal system is not designed for more than two in a marriage. It seems to me that merger law may be the way to go.

I can't imagine the legal mess it would be to dissolve all or part of a plural marriage. Nope, not gonna happen.

avoid a range of problem so really the legal just fine I would think.

wife #1 has a child with polygamous husband. Wife #2 has two children with polygamous husband. Wife #3 has two children with polygamous husband.

Wife #1 decided to work outside the home while wife #2 and 3 stayed home to raise the kids.

When wife #1 wants a divorce she wants 100% child custody of her child. Wives #2 and 3 fight stipulating they raised that child.

Or wife #2 wants a divorce and wants full custody of wife #1's child since she's been the child's primary caretaker.

If you thought custody battles were disastrous with a two parent household, I guarantee you that will be NOTHING in comparison to multiple spouse families.

The damage will land squarely on the children. Bank on it.

even without a pre nup our legal will be just fine.
Might take adjustment but it will work out in the end.

someone else thats their right and I wish them well.
Instead of focusing so much energy on divorce I would suggest more on focusing on finding ways to make peoples marriages actually work, that way there might not be nearly as many divorces.

pontificating about marriage, divorce and custody laws.



Carry on...