Gay marriage vs. pulygamy

[WinterBorn]

That's up to them. Not really any of your concern.

Sure lawmakers will waste time rewriting everything. Door will be wide open for abuse of benefits. Employers and financials institutions will have to make changes. Courts will be busy with all this silliness. The ratio of men to women may be thrown off. But hey why should I care.

Change is never easy. But the gov't must be adaptable. Employers and financial institutions will adapt or lose their customers to companies that do. They had to spend vast amounts to adapt to the common use of smartphones. The institutions that didn't lost customers.

And teh ratio of men to women will only be thrown off if you assume it will always be 1 man with multiple wives. There will also be 1 wife with multiple husbands, especially as the population ages.

History says it will be men with multiple wives.

Gov does not have to agree to this. It offers nothing of value to society. And a lot of negatives.

History also says that women are property. That changed in relatively recent years.

So we only allow things that are of value to society?? Interesting. Seems that a lot of things that offer nothing of value to society, and bring a lot of negatives, have slipped thru the cracks and been allowed to thrive.

What does divorce offer of value to society? It certainly provides a lot of negatives.
What does gay marriage offer of value to society?
What do video games offer of value to society?

You don't get a lot of gov benefits for playing video games....

We aren't discussing if multiple people can be together. That they can do all they want. But there is a lot tied to marriage and why it is between two people. Video games? Really?

So video game companies don't recieve any subsidies, tax breaks, or incentives?? Really??

What about divorce or gay marriage? What do they offer of value to society?

 

[Brain357]

Sure lawmakers will waste time rewriting everything. Door will be wide open for abuse of benefits. Employers and financials institutions will have to make changes. Courts will be busy with all this silliness. The ratio of men to women may be thrown off. But hey why should I care.

Silly excuses, the lawmakers wouldn't need to rewrite "everything." Is that what LAWmakers do, write LAWS. Our country has had to make changes since day one, this seems minor. Ratio of men to women? Really? How much do you think it would throw it off? Men marrying men could throw off the ratios, ohhhhh my!

Yes and all the abuse is silly too. Let's everyone drop everything so a few guys can get harems. Rewrite all the laws. Employers should have to support many wives. No thanks.

Your continued insistence that it will be exclusively men with multiple wives shows you do not think women capable of making their own decisions concerning who they marry or why.

Ok I am using history. What are you using?

Experience and knowledge of modern social order.

Look at the world today. Do you really think it would be only men wanting multiple wives and that women would ignore it?

Given the popularity of older women with younger men, and the fact that a woman in her prime can more than satisfy more than one man, while a middle aged man can certainly not make the same claim, I think you are ignoring the truth of our times.

In history, a woman's sexuality or even her dreams and wants were largely ignored by society. She had her place as property and as a servant. In those times, your supposition was accurate. Those times are gone.

Not only, but mostly. Men have that testosterone.

 

[Brain357]

Sure lawmakers will waste time rewriting everything. Door will be wide open for abuse of benefits. Employers and financials institutions will have to make changes. Courts will be busy with all this silliness. The ratio of men to women may be thrown off. But hey why should I care.

Change is never easy. But the gov't must be adaptable. Employers and financial institutions will adapt or lose their customers to companies that do. They had to spend vast amounts to adapt to the common use of smartphones. The institutions that didn't lost customers.

And teh ratio of men to women will only be thrown off if you assume it will always be 1 man with multiple wives. There will also be 1 wife with multiple husbands, especially as the population ages.

History says it will be men with multiple wives.

Gov does not have to agree to this. It offers nothing of value to society. And a lot of negatives.

History also says that women are property. That changed in relatively recent years.

So we only allow things that are of value to society?? Interesting. Seems that a lot of things that offer nothing of value to society, and bring a lot of negatives, have slipped thru the cracks and been allowed to thrive.

What does divorce offer of value to society? It certainly provides a lot of negatives.
What does gay marriage offer of value to society?
What do video games offer of value to society?

You don't get a lot of gov benefits for playing video games....

We aren't discussing if multiple people can be together. That they can do all they want. But there is a lot tied to marriage and why it is between two people. Video games? Really?

So video game companies don't recieve any subsidies, tax breaks, or incentives?? Really??

What about divorce or gay marriage? What do they offer of value to society?

We aren't talking companies.

What does an individual get for playing video games?

 

[WinterBorn]

Change is never easy. But the gov't must be adaptable. Employers and financial institutions will adapt or lose their customers to companies that do. They had to spend vast amounts to adapt to the common use of smartphones. The institutions that didn't lost customers.

And teh ratio of men to women will only be thrown off if you assume it will always be 1 man with multiple wives. There will also be 1 wife with multiple husbands, especially as the population ages.

History says it will be men with multiple wives.

Gov does not have to agree to this. It offers nothing of value to society. And a lot of negatives.

History also says that women are property. That changed in relatively recent years.

So we only allow things that are of value to society?? Interesting. Seems that a lot of things that offer nothing of value to society, and bring a lot of negatives, have slipped thru the cracks and been allowed to thrive.

What does divorce offer of value to society? It certainly provides a lot of negatives.
What does gay marriage offer of value to society?
What do video games offer of value to society?

You don't get a lot of gov benefits for playing video games....

We aren't discussing if multiple people can be together. That they can do all they want. But there is a lot tied to marriage and why it is between two people. Video games? Really?

So video game companies don't recieve any subsidies, tax breaks, or incentives?? Really??

What about divorce or gay marriage? What do they offer of value to society?

We aren't talking companies.

What does an individual get for playing video games?

We are talking benefits to society while getting benefits from the gov't. You brought all that up.

And since 50% of standard marriages end in divorce, and divorces clog up our courts, what is the benefit to society for a divorce? Why do we allow it if there are no benefits to society and there are plenty of negatives.

 

[WinterBorn]

Silly excuses, the lawmakers wouldn't need to rewrite "everything." Is that what LAWmakers do, write LAWS. Our country has had to make changes since day one, this seems minor. Ratio of men to women? Really? How much do you think it would throw it off? Men marrying men could throw off the ratios, ohhhhh my!

Yes and all the abuse is silly too. Let's everyone drop everything so a few guys can get harems. Rewrite all the laws. Employers should have to support many wives. No thanks.

Your continued insistence that it will be exclusively men with multiple wives shows you do not think women capable of making their own decisions concerning who they marry or why.

Ok I am using history. What are you using?

Experience and knowledge of modern social order.

Look at the world today. Do you really think it would be only men wanting multiple wives and that women would ignore it?

Given the popularity of older women with younger men, and the fact that a woman in her prime can more than satisfy more than one man, while a middle aged man can certainly not make the same claim, I think you are ignoring the truth of our times.

In history, a woman's sexuality or even her dreams and wants were largely ignored by society. She had her place as property and as a servant. In those times, your supposition was accurate. Those times are gone.

Not only, but mostly. Men have that testosterone.

Younger men might, but as men get older they lose it gradually. In history, since you are using that as your basis, how many women were leaders of major companies or nations? How many women were the bread winners in marriages, historically? How many women were allowed to divorce their husbands, historically?

How many gays came out of the closet throughout the history you are using as a basis for your insistence that men will have multiple wives, but women won't have multiple husbands? And yet, haven't you argued for making gay marriage legal?

 

[Flopper]

"Consenting adults" could be brother/sister, father/daughter, etc....
Where's the line?

Consenting adults doesn't allow for several relationships, all having to with imbalances in power and potential of abuse- a doctor and a patient- a counselor and counselee- father/daughter- brother/sister would all have the potential for similar problems.

It also didn't used to allow for same sex either, but........

There were also laws that didn't allow mixed race marriages, marriages between jews and gentiles, marriages between royals and commoners, etc. Over the centuries we have managed to do away with these laws without moving on to allow marriages between brothers and sisters, humans and animals, and other such nonsense.

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy based on the assumption that each new situation will not be evaluated anew and decided on its merits .

My only major beef with polygamy is that we have no laws for it. In gay marraige, all the straight marriage rules apply. In polygamy.......we just don't have answers to the legal questions it provides, don't have the laws, don't have the case law.

I certainly agree with that. The legal issues, particular with taxes, divorce, and inheritance would be a nightmare. However, I have another problem with polygamy. It is basically bad for women because, polygamous households foster jealousy and conflict among co-wives. Monogamous marriages are partnerships in modern society. Polygamous marriages are dictatorships in which the husband makes the decisions.

 

[Montrovant]

"Consenting adults" could be brother/sister, father/daughter, etc....
Where's the line?

Consenting adults doesn't allow for several relationships, all having to with imbalances in power and potential of abuse- a doctor and a patient- a counselor and counselee- father/daughter- brother/sister would all have the potential for similar problems.

It also didn't used to allow for same sex either, but........

There were also laws that didn't allow mixed race marriages, marriages between jews and gentiles, marriages between royals and commoners, etc. Over the centuries we have managed to do away with these laws without moving on to allow marriages between brothers and sisters, humans and animals, and other such nonsense.

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy based on the assumption that each new situation will not be evaluated anew and decided on its merits .

My only major beef with polygamy is that we have no laws for it. In gay marraige, all the straight marriage rules apply. In polygamy.......we just don't have answers to the legal questions it provides, don't have the laws, don't have the case law.

I certainly agree with that. The legal issues, particular with taxes, divorce, and inheritance would be a nightmare. However, I have another problem with polygamy. It is basically bad for women because, polygamous households foster jealousy and conflict among co-wives. Monogamous marriages are partnerships in modern society. Polygamous marriages are dictatorships in which the husband makes the decisions.

As Winterborn has said, that assumes the polygamous relationship is one in which there is a single husband with multiple wives.

 

[Papageorgio]

Change is never easy. But the gov't must be adaptable. Employers and financial institutions will adapt or lose their customers to companies that do. They had to spend vast amounts to adapt to the common use of smartphones. The institutions that didn't lost customers.

And teh ratio of men to women will only be thrown off if you assume it will always be 1 man with multiple wives. There will also be 1 wife with multiple husbands, especially as the population ages.

History says it will be men with multiple wives.

Gov does not have to agree to this. It offers nothing of value to society. And a lot of negatives.

History also says that women are property. That changed in relatively recent years.

So we only allow things that are of value to society?? Interesting. Seems that a lot of things that offer nothing of value to society, and bring a lot of negatives, have slipped thru the cracks and been allowed to thrive.

What does divorce offer of value to society? It certainly provides a lot of negatives.
What does gay marriage offer of value to society?
What do video games offer of value to society?

You don't get a lot of gov benefits for playing video games....

We aren't discussing if multiple people can be together. That they can do all they want. But there is a lot tied to marriage and why it is between two people. Video games? Really?

So video game companies don't recieve any subsidies, tax breaks, or incentives?? Really??

What about divorce or gay marriage? What do they offer of value to society?

We aren't talking companies.

What does an individual get for playing video games?

At least Flopper has a good reason, all you have are silly low level thinking excuses.

Laws? lol! We are a nation of laws. We have people panic because of gridlock.

You don't want polygamy because you won't get a women, lol!

You have nothing, now be quiet and learn from Flopper.

 

[Papageorgio]

"Consenting adults" could be brother/sister, father/daughter, etc....
Where's the line?

Consenting adults doesn't allow for several relationships, all having to with imbalances in power and potential of abuse- a doctor and a patient- a counselor and counselee- father/daughter- brother/sister would all have the potential for similar problems.

It also didn't used to allow for same sex either, but........

There were also laws that didn't allow mixed race marriages, marriages between jews and gentiles, marriages between royals and commoners, etc. Over the centuries we have managed to do away with these laws without moving on to allow marriages between brothers and sisters, humans and animals, and other such nonsense.

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy based on the assumption that each new situation will not be evaluated anew and decided on its merits .

My only major beef with polygamy is that we have no laws for it. In gay marraige, all the straight marriage rules apply. In polygamy.......we just don't have answers to the legal questions it provides, don't have the laws, don't have the case law.

I certainly agree with that. The legal issues, particular with taxes, divorce, and inheritance would be a nightmare. However, I have another problem with polygamy. It is basically bad for women because, polygamous households foster jealousy and conflict among co-wives. Monogamous marriages are partnerships in modern society. Polygamous marriages are dictatorships in which the husband makes the decisions.

I tend to agree with you, but I can't imagine how a guy could be a dictator with more than one wife. I have one wife telling me what to do, I can't imagine more than that.

 

[Brain357]

History says it will be men with multiple wives.

Gov does not have to agree to this. It offers nothing of value to society. And a lot of negatives.

History also says that women are property. That changed in relatively recent years.

So we only allow things that are of value to society?? Interesting. Seems that a lot of things that offer nothing of value to society, and bring a lot of negatives, have slipped thru the cracks and been allowed to thrive.

What does divorce offer of value to society? It certainly provides a lot of negatives.
What does gay marriage offer of value to society?
What do video games offer of value to society?

You don't get a lot of gov benefits for playing video games....

We aren't discussing if multiple people can be together. That they can do all they want. But there is a lot tied to marriage and why it is between two people. Video games? Really?

So video game companies don't recieve any subsidies, tax breaks, or incentives?? Really??

What about divorce or gay marriage? What do they offer of value to society?

We aren't talking companies.

What does an individual get for playing video games?

We are talking benefits to society while getting benefits from the gov't. You brought all that up.

And since 50% of standard marriages end in divorce, and divorces clog up our courts, what is the benefit to society for a divorce? Why do we allow it if there are no benefits to society and there are plenty of negatives.

Divorce keeps people from killing each other.

 

[Flopper]

History says it will be men with multiple wives.

Gov does not have to agree to this. It offers nothing of value to society. And a lot of negatives.

History also says that women are property. That changed in relatively recent years.

So we only allow things that are of value to society?? Interesting. Seems that a lot of things that offer nothing of value to society, and bring a lot of negatives, have slipped thru the cracks and been allowed to thrive.

What does divorce offer of value to society? It certainly provides a lot of negatives.
What does gay marriage offer of value to society?
What do video games offer of value to society?

You don't get a lot of gov benefits for playing video games....

We aren't discussing if multiple people can be together. That they can do all they want. But there is a lot tied to marriage and why it is between two people. Video games? Really?

So video game companies don't recieve any subsidies, tax breaks, or incentives?? Really??

What about divorce or gay marriage? What do they offer of value to society?

We aren't talking companies.

What does an individual get for playing video games?

We are talking benefits to society while getting benefits from the gov't. You brought all that up.

And since 50% of standard marriages end in divorce, and divorces clog up our courts, what is the benefit to society for a divorce? Why do we allow it if there are no benefits to society and there are plenty of negatives.

Divorce is bad for society and terrible for most kids. Children of divorced parents are 60% more likely to divorce, 12 times more likely to serve time in prison, and half as likely to attend college, than non-divorced parents. For couples without kids, no fault divorce is fine but not for couples with kids.

95% of all divorces are settle out of court. What eats up court time is the restraining orders, child and spousal abuse, non-payment of child support, and a dozens other disputes that surround troubled families.

 

[Brain357]

And how about immigration?

 

[Brain357]

Isn't adding more people making the marriage unequal? If you have 3 wives, the marriage is no longer a 50/50 split. While the wives are dependent on you as only husband, you can lose one and still have two. I don't de how this doesn't lead to inequality in the relationship.

 

[Montrovant]

Isn't adding more people making the marriage unequal? If you have 3 wives, the marriage is no longer a 50/50 split. While the wives are dependent on you as only husband, you can lose one and still have two. I don't de how this doesn't lead to inequality in the relationship.

Isn't that dependent on the nature of the relationship?

You seem to be making assumptions about how a polygamous marriage must function that don't make sense to me. Why must it be one husband and multiple wives? Why must the wives be dependent on the husband? Why can't the husband and other wives be dependent on one wife? Why can't it be multiple husbands and one wife, or multiples of each?

I will agree that polygamous marriages would require a whole lot of changes and additions to current marriage law. I can also agree that it would lead to many problems as people either fail to anticipate certain situations or assume that the rules for all situations are already settled. The fact that it would be a complex issue doesn't automatically make it one to ignore, however.

 

[Brain357]

Isn't adding more people making the marriage unequal? If you have 3 wives, the marriage is no longer a 50/50 split. While the wives are dependent on you as only husband, you can lose one and still have two. I don't de how this doesn't lead to inequality in the relationship.

Isn't that dependent on the nature of the relationship?

You seem to be making assumptions about how a polygamous marriage must function that don't make sense to me. Why must it be one husband and multiple wives? Why must the wives be dependent on the husband? Why can't the husband and other wives be dependent on one wife? Why can't it be multiple husbands and one wife, or multiples of each?

I will agree that polygamous marriages would require a whole lot of changes and additions to current marriage law. I can also agree that it would lead to many problems as people either fail to anticipate certain situations or assume that the rules for all situations are already settled. The fact that it would be a complex issue doesn't automatically make it one to ignore, however.

The example could have been one wife and 3 husbands. My point remains the same.

 

[Brain357]

What are examples of societies that allow polygamy where women are considered equal?

 

[WinterBorn]

Isn't adding more people making the marriage unequal? If you have 3 wives, the marriage is no longer a 50/50 split. While the wives are dependent on you as only husband, you can lose one and still have two. I don't de how this doesn't lead to inequality in the relationship.

Isn't that dependent on the nature of the relationship?

You seem to be making assumptions about how a polygamous marriage must function that don't make sense to me. Why must it be one husband and multiple wives? Why must the wives be dependent on the husband? Why can't the husband and other wives be dependent on one wife? Why can't it be multiple husbands and one wife, or multiples of each?

I will agree that polygamous marriages would require a whole lot of changes and additions to current marriage law. I can also agree that it would lead to many problems as people either fail to anticipate certain situations or assume that the rules for all situations are already settled. The fact that it would be a complex issue doesn't automatically make it one to ignore, however.

The example could have been one wife and 3 husbands. My point remains the same.

And in that case, the decisions are discussed, as we do in a standard marriage, and a consensus is reached.

 

[WinterBorn]

What are examples of societies that allow polygamy where women are considered equal?

It has not been tried in a society where women are equal. Which has been my point.

 

[Brain357]

What are examples of societies that allow polygamy where women are considered equal?

It has not been tried in a society where women are equal. Which has been my point.

I think that is because it is inherently not equal.

 

[Brain357]

Isn't adding more people making the marriage unequal? If you have 3 wives, the marriage is no longer a 50/50 split. While the wives are dependent on you as only husband, you can lose one and still have two. I don't de how this doesn't lead to inequality in the relationship.

Isn't that dependent on the nature of the relationship?

You seem to be making assumptions about how a polygamous marriage must function that don't make sense to me. Why must it be one husband and multiple wives? Why must the wives be dependent on the husband? Why can't the husband and other wives be dependent on one wife? Why can't it be multiple husbands and one wife, or multiples of each?

I will agree that polygamous marriages would require a whole lot of changes and additions to current marriage law. I can also agree that it would lead to many problems as people either fail to anticipate certain situations or assume that the rules for all situations are already settled. The fact that it would be a complex issue doesn't automatically make it one to ignore, however.

The example could have been one wife and 3 husbands. My point remains the same.

And in that case, the decisions are discussed, as we do in a standard marriage, and a consensus is reached.

I don't see how that responds to my point. It won't be an equal relationship.