Polygamy - why not?

Xterminator

The whole bias against polgamy seems to be a western culture/society thing.

Those who say it cant work etc, are ignoring the fact they are seeing this from a certain perspective, as it has worked in the past for many!

One instance in the bible that comes to mind would be Abraham, having a child with his wifes maid. There were other too, as Jewish society allowed this practice. So too was it common practice in Africa, India Japan etc.

It was common practice in a different time, and i think most of the problems or arguements against, are societal in orgin e.g. Settlements of Assets, Role of each partner.

There is no reason i can see to associate it with incestious relationships, are there have been no shortage of such relationships, in enlightened modern Irish society!

X

ionapaul

Incestuous relationships have also 'worked in the past for many' - whole dynasties had such relationships at their heart for hundreds or thousands of years, on different continents in different eras.

mycroft

Xterminator wrote:

The whole bias against polgamy seems to be a western culture/society thing.

Those who say it cant work etc, are ignoring the fact they are seeing this from a certain perspective, as it has worked in the past for many!

One instance in the bible that comes to mind would be Abraham, having a child with his wifes maid. There were other too, as Jewish society allowed this practice. So too was it common practice in Africa, India Japan etc.

It was common practice in a different time, and i think most of the problems or arguements against, are societal in orgin e.g. Settlements of Assets, Role of each partner.

There is no reason i can see to associate it with incestious relationships, are there have been no shortage of such relationships, in enlightened modern Irish society!

X

Correct, but the OP is talking about legalised polgamy, so we need to look at it the framework of our current society.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

He is right and the potential confusion with multi partner relationships can be weighed on several levels.

Err... actually he’s not, he stated two points, one of which was completely wrong and the other was exaggerated.

I'm aware that these issues arrive in current divorce law, it's just if polygamy exists the potential of a premartial prenup (or lack there off) will add to confusion.

To compare polygamy to homosexuality is unjust to a safe sane sexual relationship. Polygamy is a incredibly complex issue.

How so? You only seem to say that polygamy is an incredibly complex subject then fail to explain how homosexuality is not or how if it were more complex, how this changes the basic principle of allowing consenting individuals to pursue the form of relationship they wish to have.

In fact its more dangerous the genetic imperfections that occur during incest are expotentially increased when a society justifies or ignores incest, or the potential of said occurance.

There are potential health and biological issues in all relationships, in particular what would be classified as abnormal ones. You assume that incest would be encouraged in multiple generations; which is what would be needed to generate such genetic aberrations in a large population, or that such a union would even voluntarily produce offspring in the first place.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

How so? You only seem to say that polygamy is an incredibly complex subject then fail to explain how homosexuality is not or how if it were more complex, how this changes the basic principle of allowing consenting individuals to pursue the form of relationship they wish to have.

I think I have. Homosexuality is a safe sane consenting relationship between two adults. Instants of polygamy are rarer and should be handled on a case by case basis rather then creating complex legalisation that cannot concieve of all eventualites.

As for how is homosexual relations aren't more complex. Basic maths. The problems of a relationship is exopentially increased when an additional partner is included.

There are potential health and biological issues in all relationships, in particular what would be classified as abnormal ones. You assume that incest would be encouraged in multiple generations; which is what would be needed to generate such genetic aberrations in a large population, or that such a union would even voluntarily produce offspring in the first place.

I never said voluntarily. Its the likelyhood that a potential incestous relationship could occur is increased if children are uncertain who exactly is their parents

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

I think I have. Homosexuality is a safe sane consenting relationship between two adults. Instants of polygamy are rarer and should be handled on a case by case basis rather then creating complex legalisation that cannot concieve of all eventualites.

As for how is homosexual relations aren't more complex. Basic maths. The problems of a relationship is exopentially increased when an additional partner is included.

And again how does this change the basic principle of allowing consenting individuals to pursue the form of relationship they wish to have?

I never said voluntarily. Its the likelyhood that a potential incestous relationship could occur is increased if children are uncertain who exactly is their parents

But we’re not discussing accidental incestuous unions, but consensual ones.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

And again how does this change the basic principle of allowing consenting individuals to pursue the form of relationship they wish to have?

You misunderstand me, I'm not forbidding polygamy, I'm not suggesting we outlaw it, I'm saying we shouldn't creat legalisation to enshrine it.

But we’re not discussing accidental incestuous unions, but consensual ones.

You were, I wasn't.

Gurgle

mycroft wrote:

You misunderstand me, I'm not forbidding polygamy, I'm not suggesting we outlaw it, I'm saying we shouldn't creat legalisation to enshrine it.

Without the legislation, it is outlawed.
Everybody is banging on about relationships, escaping the original point.

The state has no say on relationships between consenting adults. I'm sure incest is probably still illegal but how often do the gardai show up in your house to make sure you're not sleeping with your sister ?

The state can only legislate for the legal union known as marriage.

The point is the state should allow unions of any type and size between consenting adults. Its taken as read that all the legal issues between any couple could and would be legislated for.

Homosexuality comes into it on two points:
- Homosexual couples will probably soon be allowed marry all over the wertern world.
- At least two of any three people will be of the same gender

Incest has absolutely nothing to do with polygamy.
Bigamy has absolutely nothing to do with polygamy.

Xterminator wrote:

The whole bias against polgamy seems to be a western culture/society thing.

Exactly, and so to outlaw it is to discriminate (without good cause - for the terminally pedantic) against other cultures and societies.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

You misunderstand me, I'm not forbidding polygamy, I'm not suggesting we outlaw it, I'm saying we shouldn't creat legalisation to enshrine it.

So if a polygamous relationship wants to be recognised as a legal union, you would deny this because you consider it too complicated? I’d love to hear what gay rights groups would say if you tried pulling that one on them?

And what of incestuous unions - I'm sure you'll agree that inheritance issues would proably be more straightforward in there?

You were, I wasn't.

Really? Where?

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

So if a polygamous relationship wants to be recognised as a legal union, you would deny this because you consider it too complicated? I’d love to hear what gay rights groups would say if you tried pulling that one on them?

But I'm not saying gay marriage is wrong. Nor am I saying polgymist relationships are wrong. Don't misrepresent me. I'm suggesting that any legalisation could not possible be flexible enough to cope with every variantion and crisis and situation. I'd suggest that the complications should be handled on a case by case basis.

And what of incestuous unions - I'm sure you'll agree that inheritance issues would proably be more straightforward in there?

And I never condoned incestuous unions. Quit mispresenting my point of view.

Really? Where?

In fact its more dangerous the genetic imperfections that occur during incest are expotentially increased when a society justifies or ignores incest, or the potential of said occurance.

The potential being accidental incest.

Without the legislation, it is outlawed.

Thats a profound ignorance of the law. You have to legislate something to make it illegal for example I design a new pyschotropic drug in my back yard, made from commonly available and legally aquired drugs. It is not a controlled substance until they legalise aganist it. Polygamist relationships exist across the world and in this country, they're not illegal, theres just no legalisation governing them.

The state can only legislate for the legal union known as marriage.

Um common law partnership? We're getting that.

Exactly, and so to outlaw it is to discriminate (without good cause - for the terminally pedantic) against other cultures and societies.

But it's not outlaw. Theres just no legalisation governing it.

Gurgle

mycroft wrote:

The potential being accidental incest.

If anything, allowing polygamy would reduce the chances. If you're Dad's bit on the side married your parents and lived in the same house, you would know your half-siblings pretty well.

mycroft wrote:

Um common law partnership? We're getting that.

And thats got what to do with polygamy ?

mycroft wrote:

But it's not outlaw. Theres just no legalisation governing it.

Marriage is a legal contract. If theres no legislation governing it then it can't be done.

mycroft

Gurgle wrote:

If anything, allowing polygamy would reduce the chances. If you're Dad's bit on the side married your parents and lived in the same house, you would know your half-siblings pretty well.

And if the relationship fell apart and you never knew which one was your dad? The potential for confusion over parentage increases, and this can lead to confusion. Furthermore the chances of a polygamist relationship lasting longer than a traditional marriage are naturally smaller.

And thats got what to do with polygamy ?

This gem of yours;

Gurgle wrote:

The state can only legislate for the legal union known as marriage.

The state can legalisate for relationships outside of marriage.

Marriage is a legal contract. If theres no legislation governing it then it can't be done.

It is being done. It does occur. Its just rare.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

But I'm not saying gay marriage is wrong. Nor am I saying polgymist relationships are wrong. Don't misrepresent me. I'm suggesting that any legalisation could not possible be flexible enough to cope with every variantion and crisis and situation. I'd suggest that the complications should be handled on a case by case basis.

I’m not misrepresenting you. I asked if you not whether you thought it right or wrong but whether you would deny polygamous (or other abnormal unions) the legal recognition of marriage on the basis that it’s too complicated to legislate for - and apparently the answer is yes.

And I never condoned incestuous unions. Quit mispresenting my point of view.

I never implied you did. Quite the opposite - I implied that you condoned one and not the other, which would be inconsistent because it would apply the principle of allowing consenting individuals to pursue the form of relationship they wish to have in one case and not the other.

The potential being accidental incest.

Where did you make that jump in logic? The biological probability of inbreeding occurring is related to the initial and subsequent unions. In a large population exogamy would automatically exist, decreasing he chances of inbreeding in a consensual incestuous union, while smaller communities would have an existing degree of endogamy (where genetic diversity would be lower due to inter-‘clan’ marriage), resulting in a greater probability of inbreeding. Put simply, if a consensual incestuous couple come from a city they have a much smaller chance of inbreeding than if they came from a remote village. And even then inbreeding often takes multiple generations to take place.

As you can see accidental incest was not mentioned.

Gurgle

mycroft wrote:

And if the relationship fell apart and you never knew which one was your dad?

Not the point. Not relevant. Nothing to do with how many people were in your parents marriage.

mycroft wrote:

The potential for confusion over parentage increases, and this can lead to confusion.

How?

mycroft wrote:

Furthermore the chances of a polygamist relationship lasting longer than a traditional marriage are naturally smaller.

Why?
A large proportion of marriages fail due to infidelity. If a husband got laid at home twice as often, surely he's much less likely to cheat ?

mycroft wrote:

The state can legalisate for relationships outside of marriage.

I honestly don't know what you mean by this. Can you please give an example ?

mycroft wrote:

It is being done. It does occur. Its just rare.

No it isn't and no it doesn't.

I'm sure there are plenty of 3 people relationships, even some where all 3 live together in a marriage-like arrangement but they are not married.

They don't have the property/inheritance/tax rights that are the legal side of marriage.

mycroft

Gurgle wrote:

Not the point. Not relevant. Nothing to do with how many people were in your parents marriage.

Yes it does if a woman is having regular sex with two men, how are you going to know for sure which is the dad? Seen any jerry springer lately?

How?

See above

Why?
A large proportion of marriages fail due to infidelity. If a husband got laid at home twice as often, surely he's much less likely to cheat ?

I'm not sure what to do. I'm pretty sure, I need to pick my jaw off the floor and burst into hysterics laughing.

Infidelity is not the only cause of a relationship to fall apart.

Have you ever been in a long term relationship?

What if the third party or how did you put it "the bit on the side" longs to have their own meaniful relationship where they are not the bit of side fluff. The chance of a polygamist relationship falling apart are exopentially greater than a ordinary relationship.

I honestly don't know what you mean by this. Can you please give an example ?

You said the state can only legalise for the legal union of marriage, I pointed out that the state (in the uk at least) is legally enshrining the rights of a partnership that have lived together for over five years with legal rights. an example of the state legalislating for a relationship outside marriage

No it isn't and no it doesn't.
I'm sure there are plenty of 3 people relationships, even some where all 3 live together in a marriage-like arrangement but they are not married.

They don't have the property/inheritance/tax rights that are the legal side of marriage

And as I pointed out the legalislation for such a complex issue does not make sense when there is such a small demand, and the legalisation could not cover every concievable variant and issue.

Show me a polygamist rights march, and we'll start talking.

Until then if three people choose to embark on such an unusual relationship then it is beholden on them to draw up the necessary legal documentation to arrange rights of each party, and for each to draw up specific wills.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

Yes it does if a woman is having regular sex with two men, how are you going to know for sure which is the dad? Seen any springer lately?

Ignoring for a moment that there are medical tests to determine this, you will find that in those few societies that have practiced polygamy (in Polynesia) the identity of parenthood became shared. After all, even in monogamous relationships biological parenthood is not a prerequisite to actually be a parent.

And as I pointed out the legalisation for such a complex issue does not make sense when there is no demand, and the legalisation could not cover every concievable variant and issue.

Popular demand is hardly necessary for legislation a lot of the time - most of the most complex laws are actually remarkably boring and of little interest to the vast majority of the population.

You really are trying to pass the buck on this one.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

I’m not misrepresenting you. I asked if you not whether you thought it right or wrong but whether you would deny polygamous (or other abnormal unions) the legal recognition of marriage on the basis that it’s too complicated to legislate for - and apparently the answer is yes.

It's too complicated and there is scant demand

I never implied you did. Quite the opposite - I implied that you condoned one and not the other, which would be inconsistent because it would apply the principle of allowing consenting individuals to pursue the form of relationship they wish to have in one case and not the other.

And I'm not stopping them. I'm suggesting that if they want to engage in this kind of relationship, they could draw up a legally binding contract.

Where did you make that jump in logic? The biological probability of inbreeding occurring is related to the initial and subsequent unions. In a large population exogamy would automatically exist, decreasing he chances of inbreeding in a consensual incestuous union, while smaller communities would have an existing degree of endogamy (where genetic diversity would be lower due to inter-‘clan’ marriage), resulting in a greater probability of inbreeding. Put simply, if a consensual incestuous couple come from a city they have a much smaller chance of inbreeding than if they came from a remote village. And even then inbreeding often takes multiple generations to take place.

But you admit the possibility. Theres a psychological issue here as well many people would be uncomfortable marrying someone they're related to. Several states in the US still have blood tests before marriage for this and other reasons.

As you can see accidental incest was not mentioned.

Thats what I was refering to. Sorry if you were confused.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

Show me a polygamist rights march, and we'll start talking.

I'd love to see this question asked in relation to homosexuality in 1905.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

Ignoring for a moment that there are medical tests to determine this, you will find that in those few societies that have practiced polygamy (in Polynesia) the identity of parenthood became shared. After all, even in monogamous relationships biological parenthood is not a prerequisite to actually be a parent.

We're not in polynesia anymore toto. And I'm pretty sure if a polynesian relationship feel apart there wasn't court ordered child support.

Popular demand is hardly necessary for legislation a lot of the time - most of the most complex laws are actually remarkably boring and of little interest to the vast majority of the population.

You really are trying to pass the buck on this one.

Nope I'm sorry there are different kinds of legislation. One has to only look at the turn out and close tie the divorce referendum to see marriage is an emotive issue. Comparing legalised polygamy to some obscure bill is once again twisting my point.

I'd love to see this question asked in relation to homosexuality in 1905.

Care to show me a polygamist subculture in 1905? The rights march comment was a glib turn of phrase about the lack of demand.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

It's too complicated and there is scant demand

So we should ignore it. Sounds like lesbianism a century ago.

And I'm not stopping them. I'm suggesting that if they want to engage in this kind of relationship, they could draw up a legally binding contract.

Then why should consensual homosexual unions be blessed will a legal recognition of this contract (i.e. marriage) and polygamous or incestuous unions not? Apparently the reasons you’ve given are medical, lack of demand and complexity; all of which are highly superficial.

But you admit the possibility.

Of course there are possibilities, as there are possibilities of medical problems with homosexual, heterosexual, monogamous or polygamous couples.

Theres a psychological issue here as well many people would be uncomfortable marrying someone they're related to.

You’ll find that most people would be uncomfortable marrying someone of the same gender too. Your point?

Several states in the US still have blood tests before marriage for this and other reasons.

Several states in the US criminalize homosexuality too. Your point?

Thats what I was refering to. Sorry if you were confused.

I wasn’t confused, it was that you didn’t know what I was talking about and assumed that I was referring to accidental incest in small populations, which I was not.

We're not in polynesia anymore toto. And I'm pretty sure if a polynesian relationship feel apart there wasn't court ordered child support.

I suspect that a tribe that practices monogamy is not great on child support either – so what is your point?

Nope I'm sorry there are different kinds of legislation. One has to only look at the turn out and close tie the divorce referendum to see marriage is an emotive issue. Comparing legalised polygamy to some obscure bill is once again twisting my point.

How is it twisting your point? You’ve repeatedly said that it was too complicated to legislate for, I’ve pointed out that it’s not and now you’re trying tow squirm out of it by saying that it lack popular support.

The rights march comment was a glib turn of phrase about the lack of demand.

Yet it betrays your feelings as a fashionable liberal - you are ready to support one civil rights issue on the basis of personal freedoms, yet when the same criteria are applied to an unpopular cause you go to pains to explain how it’s somehow ‘different’.

bonkey

mycroft wrote:

Care to show me a polygamist subculture in 1905?

Mormons?

(Although, IIRC, they limited themselves to polygyny).

jc

Gurgle

mycroft wrote:

And I'm not stopping them. I'm suggesting that if they want to engage in this kind of relationship, they could draw up a legally binding contract.

They can 'draw up' a contract that over-rides the state's property, inheritance and tax laws ?

Talliesin

The Corinthian wrote:

I'd love to see this question asked in relation to homosexuality in 1905.

Then you should check out the works of Magnus Hirschfeld and the Scientific Humanitarian Committee, particularly with regard to campaigning for the repeal of Paragraph 175 of the German penal code. Karl-Heinrich Ulrichs' work would also be worth checking out, though he died in 1895 his work heavily influenced Gay Rights campaigns of the period you mention.

(It didn't all start with the Battle of Christopher Street).

mycroft

See I was going to respond to you but then I saw this;

Yet it betrays your feelings as a fashionable liberal

And it reminded me whom I was speaking with.

I'll clarify my position. I don't object to polygamist relationships. I don't think the situation exists that makes it necessary to legalise such a union in marriage.

Now I'm not a huge proponent of gay marriage. I don't see what the fuss is about once a union is legally binding. But then I'm the same about the concept of marriage.

I'm of the opinion that a polygamist relationship may not be the healthiest, and nurturing for children. This is based on my own background. I’ve read about healthy polygamist relationships, but many of them don’t work. But I am open to allowing people to engage in this.

However I don't think legalising polygamy is a natural progression from legalising gay marriage. I think this is an important milestone in the minds of some gay activists. I don't see that polygamists have been oppressed over the last centuries. I don't see or hear that polygamists are driven underground in fear and oppression. I welcome any examples (aside from mormons) from current western societies.

I have stated that creating specific legalisation to govern polygamist relationships is to my mind pointless. The dearth of combinations of relationships that could form, would make such a legalisation a convoluted mess. And I don't see why lawmakers such be tied up drawing such complex legislation when such legislation would most likely be inadequate, and there doesn't seem to be a need. And no one has demonstrated to me that such a lobby exists. When in the case of the gay marriage lobby there is a vocal group asking for it.

Furthermore the original poster has yet to explain why this concept is a progression from gay marriage. Also his telling comments about a husband his wife and a "bit on the side" are telling. Aside from tropical paradises like Polynesia, most "civilised" cultures who practiced polygamy held women in an inferior position to men (as implied by the OP with the Wife and "bit on the side" ala concubine). I think most polygamist relationships that work today because the people involved are more tolerant and open minded that most. There's no suggestion that these people are seeking legalisation. And the OP hasn't provided any.

Hiss arguments consist of

t would even have some advantages, there could be two earning money and a home-maker, more people to share housework, fewer turns as designated driver.

Designated drivers? One servant? Theres not a coherant reason that three human beings would share their lives with another. "love lets say I get a "bit on the side" "oh what you playing at" "well on the plus for you, after we're done shagging, she can help with the housework" "oh all right then". This is not a compelling argument for polygamy.

You Corinthian are more interested in twisting my opinion and how I express myself to betray some personal hypocrisy, for your own satisfaction.

I don't condemn polygamy, I don't condemn homosexual marriage. There's a campaigning group of people who want to legalise homosexual union. There isn't a significant one for polygamy.

It is not hyprocritical for someone of a "liberal" background to condemn one grow asking for "their" rights to be respected (an oppressed minority) and to attack another group who claim they are just supporters of their ethic group (ala BNP/KKK members).

But thats off topic. You've tried to drag this thread off topic in a personal vendetta.

While I support equal rights for gay couples, no one has presented a complying argument that there is a polygamus relationships lobby who demand this legalisation.

Your suggestion

Popular demand is hardly necessary for legislation a lot of the time

Implies that a government should legalise all potential relationships between two consenting adults, and to take it to it's logical conclusion, bestiality should be legalised, or to go further, child abuse by parents, or all drug taking, is asking a government to legislate for anarchy. So either you're a member of the Michigan militia or an anarcho capitalist to move your pov of view to a logical progression. But that’s out of the remit of the debate. But the suggest that a government should legalise all forms of adult/guardian relationship, which is what you are suggesting, opens a legal minefield.

The OP has yet to present a case for why this legalisation is necessary or a logical progression from gay marriage.

They can 'draw up' a contract that over-rides the state's property, inheritance and tax laws?

Married couples can't override the laws. I'm suggesting that they should campaign for common law partnerships, and then draw up the documents according to their own specific situation.

Talliesin

mycroft wrote:

I don't object to polygamist relationships. I don't think the suitation exists that makes it necessary to legalise such a union in marriage.

It's not polygamist unless they get married. Without such a marriage it's polyamourous.

mycroft

Talliesin wrote:

It's not polygamist unless they get married. Without such a marriage it's polyamourous.

Pedant......

Esel

Check this out

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/special_reports/polygamy/index.html

or Google polygamy arizona

Maybe not mainstream Mormons, but.....

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

I'm of the opinion that a polygamist relationship may not be the healthiest, and nurturing for children. This is based on my own background. I’ve read about healthy polygamist relationships, but many of them don’t work. But I am open to allowing people to engage in this.

Fair enough. You’d be lynched by the PC brigade if you said the same thing about homosexuals, but fair enough nonetheless.

However I don't think legalising polygamy is a natural progression from legalising gay marriage. I think this is an important milestone in the minds of some gay activists. I don't see that polygamists have been oppressed over the last centuries. I don't see or hear that polygamists are driven underground in fear and oppression. I welcome any examples (aside from mormons) from current western societies.

Am I hearing this right? Homosexual marriages are more justifiable to you on the basis of past oppression of homosexuals? The only oppression that is relevant to the argument is denying a group the same rights as other groups.

I have stated that creating specific legalisation to govern polygamist relationships is to my mind pointless. The dearth of combinations of relationships that could form, would make such a legalisation a convoluted mess. And I don't see why lawmakers such be tied up drawing such complex legislation when such legislation would most likely be inadequate, and there doesn't seem to be a need.

Family law in general is a convoluted mess, that does not mean that it should not be legislated for simply because it is considered too complicated, which in essence is what you’re saying. The argument also does not apply to the area of incestuous marriage - which you have conveniently decided to forget about.

And no one has demonstrated to me that such a lobby exists. When in the case of the gay marriage lobby there is a vocal group asking for it.

Other than the fact that the same argument could well have been made about lesbians a century ago. Nonetheless, such groups do exist, as they do for incestuous relationships (remember the other example you keep on dropping from the discussion?), and can be readily found with a quick Google search.

Furthermore the original poster has yet to explain why this concept is a progression from gay marriage.

If you read back I did that citing another example on an abnormal relationship type.

Also his telling comments about a husband his wife and a "bit on the side" are telling.

We’re not discussing the original poster. Are you suggesting that he is both a polygamist and representative of polygamists?

You Corinthian are more interested in twisting my opinion and how I express myself to betray some personal hypocrisy, for your own satisfaction.

I hardly need to twist anything, I stated my arguments pages ago before you even posted. In fact the example of incestuous marriage was one that I brought up. You on the other hand have been the one cherry picking what you want to respond to and the fact that the entire sub-topic of consensual incestuous unions has been entirely ignored by you (again) in your response is an example of this.

It is not hyprocritical for someone of a "liberal" background to condemn one grow asking for "their" rights to be respected (an oppressed minority) and to attack another group who claim they are just supporters of their ethic group (ala BNP/KKK members).

But polygamists and, in particular, a consenting incestuous couple are not the BNP or KKK. Yet you have decided either to ignore or discriminate against them on the basis that they are not oppressed, demand is too low or the legislation would be too complicated or too much trouble. It’s an impressive list of excuses.

But thats off topic. You've tried to drag this thread off topic in a personal vendetta.

Get off the cross - someone needs the wood. My arguments preceded your first post to this thread, so that’s not very likely. You’re not that important.

So either you're a member of the Michigan militia or an anarcho capitalist to move your pov of view to a logical progression. But that’s out of the remit of the debate.

It’s also a personal attack. But then again, it reminds me of who I’m responding to.

But the suggest that a government should legalise all forms of adult/guardian relationship, which is what you are suggesting, opens a legal minefield.

And where did you get your law degree? I was actually discussing this with a barrister this evening and she would disagree.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

Fair enough. You’d be lynched by the PC brigade if you said the same thing about homosexuals, but fair enough nonetheless.

But I'm not saying that about homosexuals, you create a thread about homosexuals and we'll see.

Am I hearing this right? Homosexual marriages are more justifiable to you on the basis of past oppression of homosexuals? The only oppression that is relevant to the argument is denying a group the same rights as other groups.

But I'm not. I.m merely expressing one of the reasons of the homosexual marriage campaign.

Family law in general is a convoluted mess, that does not mean that it should not be legislated for simply because it is considered too complicated, which in essence is what you’re saying. The argument also does not apply to the area of incestuous marriage - which you have conveniently decided to forget about.

But I'm not defending incestous marriage . Or attacking it. And worsening family law, by creating a more complex subsection is making a bad situation worse.

Other than the fact that the same argument could well have been made about lesbians a century ago. Nonetheless, such groups do exist, as they do for incestuous relationships (remember the other example you keep on dropping from the discussion?), and can be readily found with a quick Google search.

waving me in the direction of google is not a respond.

If you read back I did that citing another example on an abnormal relationship type.

Like? That twice you've asked me to do your research for you.

We’re not discussing the original poster. Are you suggesting that he is both a polygamist and representative of polygamists?

Where do say that? In fact I suggest that he's not been in a long term relationship. First you ask me to do your research for you (twice) and konw you misquote me.

I hardly need to twist anything, I stated my arguments pages ago before you even posted. In fact the example of incestuous marriage was one that I brought up. You on the other hand have been the one cherry picking what you want to respond to and the fact that the entire sub-topic of consensual incestuous unions has been entirely ignored by you (again) in your response is an example of this.

I ignored your consenusal incestous relationship subpoint becausse it semed like a another expample of your nitpciking for pointless point scoring on another poster.

But polygamists and, in particular, a consenting incestuous couple are not the BNP or KKK. Yet you have decided either to ignore or discriminate against them on the basis that they are not oppressed, demand is too low or the legislation would be too complicated or too much trouble. It’s an impressive list of excuses.

Not really you or any other person has yet to provide me with justification that such an accurance is worth legislating for. Its like regiciede. No one has provided me with evidence that such a crime is worth creating seperate legislation governing this beyond standard homcidde laws.

Get off the cross - someone needs the wood. My arguments preceded your first post to this thread, so that’s not very likely. You’re not that important.

Your words, they're like a knife. I stand over my point.

It’s also a personal attack. But then again, it reminds me of who I’m responding to.

You think this a personal attack, report it.

And where did you get your law degree? I was actually discussing this with a barrister this evening and she would disagree.

I can claim a law degree from the same night spot anyone claim they met a "barrister" at. You've yet to create a serious counterattack.

Gurgle

mycroft wrote:

Furthermore the original poster has yet to explain why this concept is a progression from gay marriage.

Read my posts.

mycroft wrote:

Also his telling comments about a husband his wife and a "bit on the side" are telling.

Yes, I used a colloquilism for a mistress. I'm sure you can read anything you want into it.

mycroft wrote:

I think most polygamist relationships that work today because the people involved are more tolerant and open minded that most.

Have you any idea how many times you've contradicted yourself on this thread ?

mycroft wrote:

There's no suggestion that these people are seeking legalisation. And the OP hasn't provided any.

Never said they were.
Abstract discussion.

mycroft wrote:

Designated drivers? One servant?

Home-maker = servant?
mycroft = mysoginist!

mycroft wrote:

Theres not a coherant reason that three human beings would share their lives with another.

The question was; if 3 people all wanted to be married to each other, why shouldn't they be allowed?

mycroft wrote:

Implies that a government should legalise all potential relationships between two consenting adults, and to take it to it's logical conclusion, bestiality should be legalised, or to go further, child abuse by parents, or all drug taking,

Animals and children are not consenting adults.
This is not about legalising relationships.

mycroft wrote:

Married couples can't override the laws. I'm suggesting that they should campaign for common law partnerships, and then draw up the documents according to their own specific situation.

One more time, just for you:
Marriage is a legal contract between two people of opposite gender which allows them many advantages in terms of property ownership, tax allowances and inheritance.
Thats what this discussion is about - not drugs, child abuse, bestiality, the BNP, or even the KKK. Its not even about allowing relationships. I think you'll find very few people who care if you approve of their relationships.