General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Gay people can have multipartner relationships too. [View all]Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)taxes, and you say one spouse would be the tax purposes spouse. This means the other spouses are not equal spouses. That is not marriage, if one party has more rights and standing than another. It's a hierarchy right off the bat.
Second, you bring up hospital visits. I think anyone should be able to visit anyone in hospital, that the patient wishes to be there, period, no reasons needed at all. That should be the law.
But with medical decision making, that is a role that always comes down to a single decision maker in the end. Siblings dealing with an ill parent have to pick one sibling to be the decision maker, even if they make it together, obviously the legal power has to rest with one person. Single people very often name a friend or loved one to do that for them, one does not have to be partnered to have such needs. But because it is a decision making role, it is a single person who is that decider. It's not a committee. Obviously people can handle it among themselves as they wish, but in the end it is one signature that counts.
You can't have vital emergency decisions in the hands of several people, not even loving siblings in a healthy family. So like the taxes, major medical or end of life decisions are not divisible, not with the interest of the patient in mind.
A sincere community seeking rights would have actual answers for all objections. They would not pretend that polygamist history and other countries today are irrelevant to the discussion, because that's absurd. They would not wave away questions about specifics to these laws. They would have actual answers to 'what about taxes, what about pensions' instead of saying 'it might be hard but so what' they would have plans, ideas, thoughts. Specifics.
They would most certainly be ultra prepared to speak to issues involving children and custody and they would be willing to have those conversations. Gay people did not brush those concerns off, we met them head on with specifics, with examples from our own real lives, and with respect for the fact that people do have a stake in the youth of this world and that we all should try to make sure they are well cared for.
So when people ask about custody of children, anyone advocating sincerely for any sort of family rights needs to be ready to give a real response.
It's hard for me to take seriously any 'movement' that can not even cope with simple objections raised. Is it a shock to the 'poly community' that when marriage is mentioned, people ask about children and taxes and insurance and money? Why are they unable to speak about these things without becoming angry or vague?