Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
Your views on MARRIAGE
July 8, 2015 at 9:25 pm
(This post was last modified: July 8, 2015 at 9:25 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
I watched a True Life episode a while back ago where a group of 4 gay guys were in a 4 way relationship, and where one girl was in a relationship with 2 guys at once (they knew about it and were ok with it). These were referred to on the show as a polyamorous relationships, though I guess we'd call it polygamy if they were to actually get legally married that way.
So the question is this:
Whether the unions be between 1 men and multiple women, 1 women and multiple men, multiple men, or multiple women, should unions between more than 2 people be recognized by the government as marriage?
Why or why not?
Thanks!
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 35337
Threads: 205
Joined: August 13, 2012
Reputation:
146
RE: Your views on MARRIAGE
July 8, 2015 at 9:28 pm
I'm not totally sure on this.
If they're consenting adults all equal to choose, why not?
When it comes to multiple marriages, however, in most contexts, it seems to be one man and multiple, often subservient and, sometimes, underage women and girls. This I have a problem with.
Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:
"You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???"
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Your views on MARRIAGE
July 8, 2015 at 9:41 pm
(This post was last modified: July 8, 2015 at 9:41 pm by Minimalist.)
The whole point of marriage is that it is a legal contract between two people which requires the courts on occasion - and with xtians it is about 50% of the time - to get involved in settling property claims. This would be infinitely more difficult with more than two people involved. Then there are paternity issues and pension issues and our judges have enough trouble now.
Screw who you like but keep it simple. We can't afford Bible-based marriages.
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: Your views on MARRIAGE
July 8, 2015 at 9:43 pm
(July 8, 2015 at 9:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The whole point of marriage is that it is a legal contract between two people which requires the courts on occasion - and with xtians it is about 50% of the time - to get involved in settling property claims. This would be infinitely more difficult with more than two people involved. Then there are paternity issues and pension issues and our judges have enough trouble now.
Screw who you like but keep it simple. We can't afford Bible-based marriages.
What about in the case of groups of gay men and women? Or in the case of one woman with multiple men? Certainly not "bible based." Should they be allowed to get married under the law?
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 15351
Threads: 118
Joined: January 13, 2014
Reputation:
117
RE: Your views on MARRIAGE
July 8, 2015 at 9:49 pm
I'm down with consenting adults doing whatever they want.
It gets a little funky when you get the government involved. Do you put a cap on polyamorous relationships? Can 40 people be married? Does one of their employers have to provide dependent benefits to all of those people on one person's salary?
On the other hand, if for example 4 people are in a relationship and want to commit to lifelong relationships to each other, they should be able to choose that, and be able to have all of the societal benefits that come with it, like hospital visitation, mortality decisions, etc.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Posts: 7085
Threads: 69
Joined: September 11, 2012
Reputation:
84
RE: Your views on MARRIAGE
July 8, 2015 at 9:49 pm
(This post was last modified: July 8, 2015 at 9:50 pm by rexbeccarox.)
I said "other" but only because I don't know of many polyamorous groups pushing for the government to recognize their relationships. If there was a movement toward polygamists' rights, I'd support it for sure.
Edited to clarify "polyamorous".
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Your views on MARRIAGE
July 8, 2015 at 9:54 pm
Go back and study the property rights segment of my reply.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass who sleeps with whom but trying to start the slippery-slope argument to bestiality is absurd. It's none of my business. And its none of yours. Or that silly church's.
Posts: 5706
Threads: 67
Joined: June 13, 2014
Reputation:
69
RE: Your views on MARRIAGE
July 8, 2015 at 9:57 pm
There are two basic economic and legal units in society single and married. Married is a legal form, not necessarily a loving or religious one. The function of marriage is to unite the legal and economic interests of two people. Two people are useful when raising children or looking after each other in illness or old age.
I think two is more stable than three or more. But I don't see a fundamental problem with expanding the equation to marriages more than two provided all of the parties consent. Personally, I'd love to have two husbands, but since I'd rather not have a co-wife fairness precludes that extra guy.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Posts: 12221
Threads: 125
Joined: January 11, 2010
Reputation:
45
RE: Your views on MARRIAGE
July 8, 2015 at 10:19 pm
(This post was last modified: July 8, 2015 at 10:23 pm by Rev. Rye.)
Honestly, at this point, I don't see much of a point in codifying marriage at all. It's pretty much based on a fundamentally patriarchal view of women, and, now that we're moving away from that, what's really left? Essentially a commitment for two people to stay together no matter what (or at least until they realise they aren't suited to each other).
And what is the point in formalising that, let alone having the government need to recognise that?
Of course, that said, having more than two people, one starts to get in-groups and out-groups, which really makes everything a lot more complicated than it should be.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.
![[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/yxR97P23/harmlesskitchen.png)
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
Posts: 4664
Threads: 100
Joined: November 22, 2013
Reputation:
39
Your views on MARRIAGE
July 8, 2015 at 10:22 pm
I think marriage is becoming a very dated concept that is a remnant of religion. The only reason anyone is interested in it now is the tax break or other legal aspects. So basically it is just a contractual agreement between two people.
I really don't see why 3 or 40 people can't have a contract with each other. Would it get confusing? Sure it would but that's what lawyers are for. I'm sure they would love to represent a 40 person divorce. It would probably cost a fortune. Actually the cost would be so high that most people would choose to stay married to avoid the divorce cost.
|
