Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:07 am

I'm not sure exactly how valid this argument is, but I'd like to mention it anyway:

It's unlikely that polygamy/polyandry will be balanced, as in, there will be about as many polygamy unions as polyandry unions. (On the surface it seems as if polygamy would be the norm in the west, but I'm not really sure about that.) This would then lead to many people not being able to find a spouse (as they're all "taken"), which could concievably lead to unrest in society. (Some people have theorized that this is already happening in muslim countries - but I've seen nothing but speculation about it.) A counter-argument would be that there are several other factors that could create such "surplus" people - one-child policy of china combined with a lower regard for girls has already created a not insignificant surplus of chinese males, and you see similar trends in India. You also have a lot of people in the west who fail at finding spouses, and they haven't done much beyond raging on the internet - but then they'd mostly blame themselves for failing to attract a wife, instead of blaming others for stealing all the women.

This is all speculation really, but it brings me to my point: Gay marriage is undoubtedly a stabilizing factor on society. "Defense of marriage"-people love to talk about how many benefits there are for married people, they just fail to bring any valid arguments for why this applies to heterosexual couples and not homosexual couples. So the evidence seems to indicate that allowing more people to marry is a net benefit to society. Polygamy/polyandry matches may bring similar benefits, but it also may bring its share of problems.
Paxen
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:43 am

One thing polygamy (is polyandry the version where one woman has more than one husband?) would do in the world of today - give more time and less stress to households that took advantage of the possibility.

Legally, of course, there is nothing prebventing multiple adult households - its a perception issue (and then there is the "can only marry one of them, so can't marry any"/"secondary wife/husband" issues that stems from the lack of legal union) - for instance if my finacee and I wanted another man or woman in our houshold, there is nothing legally stopping us form doing so - and in regards to custody it would, in the case of 2+ women, always be the borth mother and the father of record that has custody - which could create issues of course. In regards to custody in a multiple man situation, thats a bit more tircky, though it could be decided by the involved parties by declaration, though shared custody would be better for the children involved.

As to the divorce issues. Dividing up ownership would be relatively easy under normal rules with a bit of common sense - if 1 person wants to exit the union, they quite simply get 1 share of any commonly owned property (including land, house and chattel). Custody would be a bit trickyer if the exiting spouse was a birthparent, as it then becomes a birthparents rights versus the good of the child (which could be one and the same, but could also be in opposition) - though that can still be the case today, as unless both birthparents are exiting, the union would sitll have 1 birth parent in it.

In reality, I think the biggest hurdle to a functioning polygamic legal union, would be opposition from the same groups that generally oppose gay unions, on the same grounds - either based in religion or personal philosophy, that its "unnatural" or some other reason.

Looking at the knowledge we have from the animal kingdom - humans developed as polygamous originally, with males having more than 1 female (males are generally larger than females) - in the animal kingdom that is usually a very distict sign that the larger gender is dominantly polygamous.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:54 am

Passionario wrote:
fuzzygeek wrote:Legalize polygamy. Discuss.


From a purely legal viewpoint, legalizing polygamy, polyandry or any other kind of marriage with more than two partners has one major problem that legalizing gay marriage doesn't have: namely, divorce. With gay marriage, deciding who gets to keep which property and who gets the custody of the children is just as simple (if painful) as with straight marriage. With polygamy, you'd need to rewrite the entire procedure from scratch, and it would be far more complicated.

I don't think that's a big deal. We have plenty of multi party property disputes to draw from.

I really don't care either way but there is no judicial reason to legalize it. People are polygamists by choice and they have the same exact legal protections (the ability to marry one person) as everyone else. So it would only be legalized through the legislative process, which means it's going to have to become much more popular than it currently is.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9667
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Skye1013 » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:58 am

I actually don't have any qualms about polygamy/polyandry. I would draw the line in the sand where the article mentions - legal-aged, consenting adults, but other than that, I can't see any real reason to prevent it. Sure, some laws in regards to taxes or divorce might have to be reinterpreted (through courts or legislation) to encompass a multiple spouse household... but just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's something that shouldn't be done.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3941
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:15 am

Fridmarr wrote:there is no judicial reason to legalize it.


Is there any judicial reason to make it illegal?

Fridmarr wrote:People are polygamists by choice and they have the same exact legal protections (the ability to marry one person) as everyone else.


Is this substantially different from people arguing that the Equal Protection clause isn't applicable in Same Sex Marriage because gay people also have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender?

As far as divorce/inheritance determinations: that's what probate courts are for.

Also yes I intended to include polyandry in the original post. I'm curious as to why the original editorial singled out polygamy.

It's unlikely that polygamy/polyandry will be balanced


I don't see this as being a useful argument. Am I missing something?
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:17 am

No there isn't a judicial reason to make it illegal, but that has no relevance, because the legislative branch has already done that. The only judicial concern then becomes whether or not there is reason for the judicial branch to overrule the legislative process.  In this case, there is isn't any that I can see.
 
Within our current system (and I say that so we don't get spun out of control on a discussion of rights and choices), it can easily be considered different if the court decides that homosexuality is not a choice.  If the court does not take that stance, then our current marriage laws would not contradict the equal protection clause. The court could easily rule that way which effectively returns gay marriage to legislatures. Though I don't think that's the issue they are reviewing anyhow.I don't see an equivalent with polygamy however.


The only way I see legalized polygamy it's through legislative action. And in truth gay marriage will also probably follow that path.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9667
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:31 am

fuzzygeek wrote:I don't see this as being a useful argument. Am I missing something?


I tried to make the argument for why it could be in my post (TLDR version: people get angry when somebody hogs all the women/men.) I'm not sure how great the effect is, if it has any at all, but I've seen the argument made.

Counter to that is that nobody else has any say in what consenting adults get up to.
Paxen
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:53 pm

In his novel Friday, Robert Heinlein envisaged a world in which family units were formed from multiple men and women all married to one another and living together, sharing in the duties of earning money, raising children, etc.

While an interesting idea, I doubt very much it would work in practice.

The concept of poly marriage exists in many places in the world, and I don't have any particular issue with it provided it isn't exploitive. It's certainly not for me, however.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1988
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:29 pm

So the whole argument for austerity is based on an a spreadsheet error...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/ ... CV20130418

Honest Mistake or Deliberate Error?

"Reinhart and Rogoff, however, say their conclusion that there is a correlation between high debt and slow growth still holds."
Yeah, but their results actually had that growth as negative, rather than just slowing down as the corrected spreadsheet now shows.

-0.1 to 2.2 growth is quite a difference, specially on a global scale.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11110
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:46 pm

Probably an honest mistake, but their methodology seems a little dodgy, as does the "well our math was wrong, but our central premise is still correct." statement.

If you want to make something deliberately misleading, you adjust your inputs *before* publishing them and your formulae, so anyone double-checking your work comes up with the same numbers in the end.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:45 pm

I'm pretty sure polygyny is the term for multiple wives, polyandry is the term for multiple husbands, and polygamy is the term for multiple marriage. So they're not singling out multiple wives, but actually using the catch-all term for multiple spouses.

I can see a solution to all divorce problems. If a couple divorces, or a trio, or a however-many-people-plus-a-dog-cat-and-goat divorce, then the simplest solution would be eminent domain. All contested assets become property of the state to be auctioned off to the highest bidder with the proceeds going to a worthy charity. If you really really REALLY want that throw blanket that grandma knitted for you ten years ago on Christmas? Put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise, act like a reasonable adult and figure out a relatively amicable way of deciding who gets what. Then the number of spouses wouldn't matter a whit, and there would be equal treatment under the law for everybody.

But that's too draconian.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:37 am

SO you think the solution to divorces is to not make tham happen and have people sray in unhappy or abusive relationships because they would loose everything if they needed to divorce?

I could see the argument being made (still tood raconian) if divorce was actually somethin the state was hurt by, but as far as I'm awre, everyone could be divorced and it would hurt the state not one iota (there may be consequences due to differeing tax codes for spouses and divorced, but thats a tax issue, not a divorce issue).
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:23 am

Divorces cost the state a LOT of money if you consider the man hours they spend tracking down people who fail to pay child support or (p)alimony alone, or the jail time people get for it once they've been tracked down. It gets worse when you consider the number of judges in civil court who have to preside over divorce proceedings.

I'm not saying that people have to stay in unhappy or abusive relationships because they would lose everything. I'm saying that adults should be able to work their shit out in an adult fashion. Risking the loss of anything you contest in a divorce, or having to put your money where your mouth is, would be draconian, yes - but possibly not unreasonable or unworkable as a solution. Public auction doesn't mean you can't go to the auction and bid on your belongings (and let's face it - most of the shit with sentimental value that gets contested in a divorce isn't objectively worth all that much to begin with), it just means that you have to be willing to risk losing them and paying to keep them.

Abusive relationships are a different matter entirely. If abuse can be proven, then the abuser should be sentenced as a criminal defendant, and the person leaving the abuser shouldn't have to risk anything. In cases like that? Fuck 'em. Let the shitsack abuser rot in prison and watch the person they abused for n (days/weeks/months/years - circle one) and prevent them from contesting anything in the divorce.

Needless to say, it's probably pretty clear that I'm against divorce. I could care less what you marry, or how, but if you give your solemn oath to make a lifelong commitment, then keep your damn word. Not to mention that divorce rates are stupid high and climbing. I also fully expect people to be able to act like adults and handle their problems in an adult fashion - but I'm constantly disappointed on that count.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:32 am

How do you divide up finances in that scenario, though? To be able to auction off belongings, you need to have already settled the matter of who gets what money.
I don't play WoW any more.
Donnan - Nangun - Kysen - Kysen - Mardun - Timkins

Mostly-Book Blog.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 6833
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:24 am

That's an absurd abuse of eminent domain, and spousal abuse isn't always crime.

Basically you're trying to create a system where people aren't allowed to be wrong...
It is hopelessly flawed.

Edit: That's not even eminent domain, that's just government seizure of property, which opens all kinds of problems. For eminent domain the government has to pay for it, which would defeat the purpose.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9667
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Skye1013 and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Skye1013 and 1 guest