• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

Rather than a marriage license, we'd need to establish something like a marital corporation. The terms of the marriage -- entry into, exit from, rights and privileges -- would be clearly spelled out by the corporate bylaws. After that, a judge or other arbiter's only involvement would be findings of fact within the scope of the bylaws. The corporation would enjoy whatever rights and incur whatever responsibilities would normally come with a marriage license.

Problem solved. :D


I don't have a problem with that. People in polyamorous relationships should absolutely be drawing up contracts, powers of attorney, agreements on child custody, etc etc etc.

The issue of course in calling it "marriage" is that things like benefits, social security survivorship, tax stuff, etc are predicated on two people. I just don't think there are enough of these relationships to make us change all the 2-person-relationship laws (though others may disagree, of course).

But yes- if you are doing this - and many are (5% according to one article I glanced at briefly) I hope you are protecting yourself and others through such contracts and such.

And maybe two person relationships should be governed by contracts as well! Might spell things out a heckuva lot more than they are currently!
 
The issue of course in calling it "marriage" is that things like benefits, social security survivorship, tax stuff, etc are predicated on two people. I just don't think there are enough of these relationships to make us change all the 2-person-relationship laws (though others may disagree, of course).

Shouldn't be all that difficult really. Define a "standard" marriage as being an entity involving 2 adults not related by blood, having an indefinite expiration date and the rights and responsibilities distributed in a default manner. Then convert all standing marriages to such an arrangement. After that allow subsequent marital entities to have their own definitions for the distribution of rights and responsibilities.

And maybe two person relationships should be governed by contracts as well! Might spell things out a heckuva lot more than they are currently!

It would certainly force people to give the shape of their long-term entanglements some thought beforehand.
 
Rather than a marriage license, we'd need to establish something like a marital corporation. The terms of the marriage -- entry into, exit from, rights and privileges -- would be clearly spelled out by the corporate bylaws. After that, a judge or other arbiter's only involvement would be findings of fact within the scope of the bylaws. The corporation would enjoy whatever rights and incur whatever responsibilities would normally come with a marriage license.

Problem solved. :D

Go read Heinlein's Friday.

Shouldn't be all that difficult really. Define a "standard" marriage as being an entity involving 2 adults not related by blood, having an indefinite expiration date and the rights and responsibilities distributed in a default manner. Then convert all standing marriages to such an arrangement. After that allow subsequent marital entities to have their own definitions for the distribution of rights and responsibilities.

I think we'd be better off just grandfathering in the current marriages and not allowing any new ones. You can then set the current laws to expire in say 75 years.
 
Go read Heinlein's Friday.

... or you could just elaborate on why you even brought it up. ;)

I think we'd be better off just grandfathering in the current marriages and not allowing any new ones. You can then set the current laws to expire in say 75 years.

I'd be alright with that if you gave parties to existing marriages the option to convert.
 
Why would you ... never mind. No, I haven't read it. I hadn't even heard of it. Popular culture and I have a very strange relationship.


"Friday" (Title of the novel and name of the main character) was a very special person in the novel, someone with - shall we say - a very stressful life. Because of her special conditions, she oft discriminated against and ostracized. She found refuge in a poly based family structure (IIRC in Australia or New Zealand?) which acted as a place of peach and refuge from the outside world. Your description of "...marital corporation. The terms of the marriage -- entry into, exit from, rights and privileges -- would be clearly spelled out by the corporate bylaws." is pretty much a blueprint for that sub-arc to the story.


>>>>
 
Your description of "...marital corporation. The terms of the marriage -- entry into, exit from, rights and privileges -- would be clearly spelled out by the corporate bylaws." is pretty much a blueprint for that sub-arc to the story.


>>>>

O.O

Damn. I guess Mark Twain had it right when it came to new ideas. :lol:
 
O.O

Damn. I guess Mark Twain had it right when it came to new ideas. :lol:


Heilein in his early career wrote a lot of "G" rated stuff, later on he really explored some social dynamics that were definitely not "PG-13", especially once he started the Lazarus Long multi-verse. :LOL:


>>>>
 
Go read Heinlein's Friday.


Thank you !!! I was trying to remember the name of the book I had read that had the whole contract/corporate structure thing like TacticalEvilDan proposed. Could not remember it!

TED, it's great you came up with it without reading the book!
 
Heilein in his early career wrote a lot of "G" rated stuff, later on he really explored some social dynamics that were definitely not "PG-13", especially once he started the Lazarus Long multi-verse. :LOL:


>>>>

"Stranger in a Strange Land" was definitely not "run of the mill" social dynamics either.

And Marge Piercy explored some different themes in her books - I think it was "Woman on the Edge of Time" that talked about "pillow" friends and "hand friends" .... and of course "Gate to Women's Country" with its breeding program to get rid of violence was pretty subversive...
 
Heilein in his early career wrote a lot of "G" rated stuff, later on he really explored some social dynamics that were definitely not "PG-13", especially once he started the Lazarus Long multi-verse. :LOL:


>>>>

Thanks for the explination, WW. Friday was actually the first book of Heinlein that my now wife introduced me to and I've loved his work every since. Make sure you read his first novel, which wasn't published till recently, For Us The Living. It's a good read. As is the unabridged Stranger in a Strange Land, recently published by his widow.
 
Thanks for the explination, WW. Friday was actually the first book of Heinlein that my now wife introduced me to and I've loved his work every since. Make sure you read his first novel, which wasn't published till recently, For Us The Living. It's a good read. As is the unabridged Stranger in a Strange Land, recently published by his widow.

Goodness I wish I had time to re-read those. Maybe I should make time.
 
Freedom of polygamy! Only polygamy for normal people can overcome homosexuality abnormal.
 
Freedom of polygamy! Only polygamy for normal people can overcome homosexuality abnormal.

But wait! if three guys or three women get married then you have....Dun dun dun....homosexual polygamy!
 
But wait! if three guys or three women get married then you have....Dun dun dun....homosexual polygamy!
I knew that a question arises. Homosexuals want to be like normal people, in all its manifestations. Therefore it is better now to let them polygamous family or even to marry animals.
Three Men in a Boat (To Say Nothing of the Dog),[Note 1] published in 1889, is a humorous account by English writer Jerome K. Jerome of a boating holiday on the Thames between Kingston and Oxford.
it's just a book about a gay family new type.:shock:
 
But wait! if three guys or three women get married then you have....Dun dun dun....homosexual polygamy!

Situation like that there's only one thing you can do and that's walk into
The shrink wherever you are ,just walk in say "Shrink, You can get
Anything you want, at Alice's restaurant.". And walk out. You know, if
One person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and
They won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony,
They may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them.
And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in
Singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an
Organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said
Fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and
Walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

(lyrics to Alice's Restaurant - ARLO GUTHRIE - ALICE'S RESTAURANT LYRICS )
 
Back
Top Bottom