It's a fairly basic question, my own personal opinion:
1. Anti-incest
2. Anti-polygamy
I've really looked at the points, but in this day and age there's no reason why you need to marry your brother, sister, or whatever nor why you need to have 4 husbands. In Nepal where polygamy was practiced it was practiced because of a lack of people in small villages, where as the populations increased the practice of polygamy is gradually dying off.
Polygamy has room for abuse within the religious community, as well as creating more babies and small children leading to more children being born. With a nation-state of over 300 million we should be discouraging some people from making more children rather than wanting to have more.
One part of the tax code I'd like to see eliminated are the ability to have 6 children and pay no income tax. That's just an encouragement to make babies, of which two people can't handle without help or extreme wealth.
Encouraging homosexuals to get married at the right time would help encourage better marriage practices, and perhaps shift the view of homosexuals towards a more "model minority" group but even that comes with severe drawbacks as seen with Asians. Having pioneer long lasting relationships would perhaps make more social conservatives focus on issues surrounding people that get married today for the "big wedding" and "self fulfillment" that helps lead to divorce. A good witness is necessary for an institution to maintain good standing in society. Gay marriage, arguably, could be one link in actually rehabilitating traditional marriage.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Marriage should be non-existent. Government should get their hands out of it. Offer a "civil union" to any two consenting adults who desire to share joint property. Let Religions deal with marriage, and give it no civil weight.
Well said bLatch. If religions want to be caught up with the wording of things, then great. Otherwise the civil union should cover everything of a financial benifet to anyone who wants to enter this partnership. I know my wife and I wouldn't have married had it not been a wise financial decision. No piece of paper needs to tell you you're in love with someone and plan to be faithful to them.
It's a fairly basic question, my own personal opinion:
1. Anti-incest
2. Anti-polygamy
those two sound great, but what about age? I agree with bLatch and pandafarmer that the government shouldn't even bother, but if 'civil unions' or something like them are to be used to promote stable economic partnerships between induviduals, there should be some restriction on the age of individuals entering such an agreement.
18 seems to be the age of consent for most contracts here in the US (not sure about other places), maybe that's a good starting point.
there are other obvious restrictions on 'marriage' that i would impose, like marriage can only be between two sentient organisms, a clause which would prevent people from marrying cows or dogs or blenders, but would allow people to marry robots or aliens in the future. Somewhat problematically, this would prohibit people from marrying severely mentally disabled induviduals, who would be unable to knowingly and willfully enter into such a contract anyways.
I agree with pretty much everything that has been said. I think the civil union needs to be addressed more so in our society and the simple fact that it hasn't or doesn't cover the same things as marriage(not sure here as I am not familiar with the minor differences between both) needs to be changed. To be married is to be wed in a religious fashion if i'm not mistaken and therefore should have a equal non religious binding agreement between 2 people.
I also would like to see the incentives to marriage addressed at Captain_Morgan stated. There shouldn't be a HUGE incentive to being married and birthing a ton of kids. I have heard many people talk about having as many kids as they can just because of the benefits the state gives and the fed government gives. I worked with someone once that said he and his wife would attempt to have a kid a year until they didn't have to work from all the benefits they were receiving. I was a little more then outraged but I didn't want to judge him due to large family's being a part of how he was raised and perceived life.
There should be no restrictions on marriage. Restricting marriage, is restricting freedom of religion. They go hand in hand. Here, I drafted up a simple bill that should cover the basis:
There shall be no restrictions on what a church determines as a requirement for marriage as long as it abides by local laws.
Done. Let the church decide on what restrictions they shall place, if they don't want to gay marry, then fine. If someone wants to marry a dog, as long as it isn't illegal then fine, if you can find some nut job priest in a religion to do it for you, then go right ahead.
The reason I feel this way? Marriage is outside the jurisdiction of a secular society, and thus civil unions are the way to go. From here the only restrictions should be that you can't marry an animal, or a child. I'm actually totally fine with polygamy, I see nothing inherently wrong with it. The only thing wrong with it is abuse, and the propensity of abuse abuse is quite high in that area.
I also would like to see the incentives to marriage addressed at Captain_Morgan stated. There shouldn't be a HUGE incentive to being married and birthing a ton of kids. I have heard many people talk about having as many kids as they can just because of the benefits the state gives and the fed government gives. I worked with someone once that said he and his wife would attempt to have a kid a year until they didn't have to work from all the benefits they were receiving. I was a little more then outraged but I didn't want to judge him due to large family's being a part of how he was raised and perceived life.
I agree, though tax breaks for families with children are extremely helpful. They've gotten my family through some tougher times. However, this guy who is making children for tax benefits is going to have a hell of a wakeup call when they start turning 18 and he loses those benefits, and has to send them to college. Oh, and when they were younger take care of their medical problems, buy them Christmas presents, and be good parents. In matter in fact, this guy who is trying to abuse the system is just going to end up in inevitable hell for the next 20 years of his life. I'm sure he'll enjoy it a lot.
I agree, though tax breaks for families with children are extremely helpful. They've gotten my family through some tougher times. However, this guy who is making children for tax benefits is going to have a hell of a wakeup call when they start turning 18 and he loses those benefits, and has to send them to college. Oh, and when they were younger take care of their medical problems, buy them Christmas presents, and be good parents. In matter in fact, this guy who is trying to abuse the system is just going to end up in inevitable hell for the next 20 years of his life. I'm sure he'll enjoy it a lot.
all of the things which make that guy's life hell really only affect his children. someone like that isn't going to bother sending their kids to college, or give them adequate medical care, or feed them nutrituous food. It happens all the time.
all of the things which make that guy's life hell really only affect his children. someone like that isn't going to bother sending their kids to college, or give them adequate medical care, or feed them nutrituous food. It happens all the time.
I agree, I was originally going to say something along the lines of report him to CPS, but then I thought that was a rather over-the-top thing to say, or that he'd be a terrible father. Guess I cut too much out, and lost that part of that message by accident.
My point is, that the assistance offered by the government for having children is mostly good. It's the crooks that take advantage of it that is bad. You'll always have crooks, and the guy's life is probably going to be much worse off for taking advantage of the system. He could have also been joking, perhaps? It's sad, but if he truly is stupid enough to be doing it (no pun intended) for the benefits only, then the man would be a terrible father either way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
I agree with civil unions between consenting adults, like if two elderly sisters live together, they can get a civil union to gain the benefits that it has.
Then give the tax breaks too children? if you are a homosexual couple who adopts same tax credits as having your own children, If you and your Tree that got married have a living human child from (X) you get the same tax credits as the other two? Nothing too do with marrage its children.
Its much harder in life for parents with kids, than for singles, and I think we all agree, that we, as a society, need children to be born and raised, so as an incentive to marriage and hopefully children, there are these benefits.
Exactly my point.
Having children (or in the case of a homosexual couple, potentially adopted) should have tax breaks, but not the act of marriage itself.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
I think there should be a limit on age definitely.
But, I'm wondering if the tax break contributes to high divorce rates? Are people jumping into marriage to get tax breaks?
I don't have a problem with them, and I believe that tax breaks should be given to couples especially with children but, I'm just playing the devils advocate wondering if that contributes...
What is all of your reasoning behind stopping polygamy? If 3 or more consenting adults love each other and want to be married together why stop them?
And before you answer, stop and apply your response as an argument against gay marriage and see if you would accept it as an argument against gay marriage.
I think the problem with polygamy is both a problem of logistics and if actually taken to the extremes would lead to much social strife.
In a polygamous marriage, how do you handle divorce? Who is married to whom? Can two of the three make binding legal decisions for the marriage since they constitute a majority or do all three need to? None of these problems exist with a two person marriage.
And for the social aspect, this article explains it well I believe.
I'm appalled by this article. It assumes that everyone who wishes to marry will marry someone and so marrying off couples is a zero-sum affair. This is horrible, and even more horrible if it reflects reality. Do people marry just so they can say they have been - just to get the achievement? To the point that they'd marry anybody who comes along? And the article needs for polyamorous groupings to split for purposes of marriage instead of staying happily unmarried in the groups they love. Absurd to me, dreadful if true. I'm not sure if any of that's worse than the notion that everyone has a need to marry, that we all deserve to marry, that it'd be just the worst thing ever if some man couldn't marry because the people they'd call upon to marry found someone else to love and support.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
What is all of your reasoning behind stopping polygamy? If 3 or more consenting adults love each other and want to be married together why stop them?
And before you answer, stop and apply your response as an argument against gay marriage and see if you would accept it as an argument against gay marriage.
My stance didn't say anything about "love". In my proposed "civil union" love doesn't really enter into the picture as a requirement. The two people could hate each other but want to have join t property for some other reason. Don't care.
The only reason, in a modern first world country, for "marriage" to be recognized by the state is to aid in the proper distribution of property upon dissolution. "Love" doesn't factor in.
The reason to oppose polygamy then would be the quagmire that you get into when you dissolve joint ownership with multiple parties. Two people is difficult enough (just ask any first year law student going through property), adding the legal framework for multiple additional people is too complicated.
I'm appalled by this article. It assumes that everyone who wishes to marry will marry someone and so marrying off couples is a zero-sum affair. This is horrible, and even more horrible if it reflects reality. Do people marry just so they can say they have been - just to get the achievement? To the point that they'd marry anybody who comes along? And the article needs for polyamorous groupings to split for purposes of marriage instead of staying happily unmarried in the groups they love. Absurd to me, dreadful if true. I'm not sure if any of that's worse than the notion that everyone has a need to marry, that we all deserve to marry, that it'd be just the worst thing ever if some man couldn't marry because the people they'd call upon to marry found someone else to love and support.
People get married (for the most part) because they want to share their lives with someone, if a group of men take a disproportionate amount of wives, than that leaves men who do want to get married without any chances to do so. This is actually a common problem in countries where polygamy is allowed and it ends up with the person who wants to be with another woman causing social strife because they can't.
This is actually a common problem in countries where polygamy is allowed and it ends up with the person who wants to be with another woman causing social strife because they can't.
I'm interested in the statistics you have to support your claim, but even if you're right, that's not reason enough to restrict a person's freedoms. People aren't guaranteed a marriage at some point in their life, and I'm frankly uncomfortable with how much this feels like male entitlement. Plenty of people who are inclined to marry never will for lack of finding the right someone, and that's exactly as it should be.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
I'm interested in the statistics you have to support your claim, but even if you're right, that's not reason enough to restrict a person's freedoms. People aren't guaranteed a marriage at some point in their life, and I'm frankly uncomfortable with how much this feels like male entitlement. Plenty of people who are inclined to marry never will for lack of finding the right someone, and that's exactly as it should be.
Quite simply it leaves young males without brides, and at worst it creates a social dynamic where young boys are cast out of the "circle of cool kids" and become "lost boys" most famously with Mormons. These lost boys go through basically a living nightmare where they are cast out of their communities usually on crappy logic with no place to go and their female compatriots are married to off to older, more socially connected men.
Areas such as the mountainous regions of Tibet prior to infrastructure practiced polygamy due to the lack of people period, however as people have begun to travel with better infrastructure polygamy is gradually becoming less trendy with the increased availability of potential mates. Ironically this is also perpetuating the death of several languages in that region as well.
In Africa it's more of a property problem with specific tribes, if you're poor you're not getting a wife or more than one and normally much older.
So fairly much polygamy benefits the rich and socially connected except in instances where you have a really screwed up gender ratio and polygamy is used as a way of saying "ya'll get married and make babies." But in areas like Tibet, women can also marry multiple husbands where as in more patriarchal societies it's a no go and there tends to be more social problems.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I'm interested in the statistics you have to support your claim, but even if you're right, that's not reason enough to restrict a person's freedoms. People aren't guaranteed a marriage at some point in their life, and I'm frankly uncomfortable with how much this feels like male entitlement. Plenty of people who are inclined to marry never will for lack of finding the right someone, and that's exactly as it should be.
I'm appalled by this article. It assumes that everyone who wishes to marry will marry someone and so marrying off couples is a zero-sum affair.
It is zero-sum in the sense that being married means you aren't eligible to become married. If there is an imbalance in which of the two genders tend to engage in polygamous relationships (and in the case of our species, there very clearly is when polygamy is a socially sanctioned option) then by simple induction there will be a larger population of individuals who want to be married, but don't get to be. And especially unfortunate is that a majority of these are already the most socially at-risk group (young, male, poor socioeconomic standing). Of course, polyamory is legal, but allowing polygamy is a large step towards social sanction, and even encouragement, which may or may not be a good thing.
I'm trying to find a source, but I'm pretty sure it's well established, at least historically.
I find the line of reasoning unappealing as well, because I don't even think marriage should exist; I see contracts as being useful for child-rearing, not romance. But it's entirely possible that's simply the way things are.
It is zero-sum in the sense that being married means you aren't eligible to become married. If there is an imbalance in which of the two genders tend to engage in polygamous relationships (and in the case of our species, there very clearly is when polygamy is a socially sanctioned option) then by simple induction there will be a larger population of individuals who want to be married, but don't get to be. And especially unfortunate is that a majority of these are already the most socially at-risk group (young, male, poor socioeconomic standing).
So? Why is it the governments place to step in and deny rights because of trying to engineer a certain social outcome? If I made a topic that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because of x and y statistic that shows it would have a negative impact on society, everyone would be up in arms (rightly so).
Is everyone in this topic so blind that they don't see the blatant hypocrisy in using the same types of arguments against polygamy that you would reject when used against gay marriage or interracial marriage?
Of course, polyamory is legal, but allowing polygamy is a large step towards social sanction, and even encouragement, which may or may not be a good thing.
Replace "polyamory" with homosexuality, and polygamy with "gay marriage".
So? Why is it the governments place to step in and deny rights because of trying to engineer a certain social outcome? If I made a topic that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because of x and y statistic that shows it would have a negative impact on society, everyone would be up in arms (rightly so).
Is everyone in this topic so blind that they don't see the blatant hypocrisy in using the same types of arguments against polygamy that you would reject when used against gay marriage or interracial marriage?
Replace "polyamory" with homosexuality, and polygamy with "gay marriage".
But there really are no non-religious arguments against gay marriage...
It is the government's job to protect the society...
1. Anti-incest
2. Anti-polygamy
I've really looked at the points, but in this day and age there's no reason why you need to marry your brother, sister, or whatever nor why you need to have 4 husbands. In Nepal where polygamy was practiced it was practiced because of a lack of people in small villages, where as the populations increased the practice of polygamy is gradually dying off.
Polygamy has room for abuse within the religious community, as well as creating more babies and small children leading to more children being born. With a nation-state of over 300 million we should be discouraging some people from making more children rather than wanting to have more.
One part of the tax code I'd like to see eliminated are the ability to have 6 children and pay no income tax. That's just an encouragement to make babies, of which two people can't handle without help or extreme wealth.
Encouraging homosexuals to get married at the right time would help encourage better marriage practices, and perhaps shift the view of homosexuals towards a more "model minority" group but even that comes with severe drawbacks as seen with Asians. Having pioneer long lasting relationships would perhaps make more social conservatives focus on issues surrounding people that get married today for the "big wedding" and "self fulfillment" that helps lead to divorce. A good witness is necessary for an institution to maintain good standing in society. Gay marriage, arguably, could be one link in actually rehabilitating traditional marriage.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Marriage should be non-existent. Government should get their hands out of it. Offer a "civil union" to any two consenting adults who desire to share joint property. Let Religions deal with marriage, and give it no civil weight.
those two sound great, but what about age? I agree with bLatch and pandafarmer that the government shouldn't even bother, but if 'civil unions' or something like them are to be used to promote stable economic partnerships between induviduals, there should be some restriction on the age of individuals entering such an agreement.
18 seems to be the age of consent for most contracts here in the US (not sure about other places), maybe that's a good starting point.
there are other obvious restrictions on 'marriage' that i would impose, like marriage can only be between two sentient organisms, a clause which would prevent people from marrying cows or dogs or blenders, but would allow people to marry robots or aliens in the future. Somewhat problematically, this would prohibit people from marrying severely mentally disabled induviduals, who would be unable to knowingly and willfully enter into such a contract anyways.
in summary, I'd add:
3. over 18 years old
4. sentient beings only
I also would like to see the incentives to marriage addressed at Captain_Morgan stated. There shouldn't be a HUGE incentive to being married and birthing a ton of kids. I have heard many people talk about having as many kids as they can just because of the benefits the state gives and the fed government gives. I worked with someone once that said he and his wife would attempt to have a kid a year until they didn't have to work from all the benefits they were receiving. I was a little more then outraged but I didn't want to judge him due to large family's being a part of how he was raised and perceived life.
There shall be no restrictions on what a church determines as a requirement for marriage as long as it abides by local laws.
Done. Let the church decide on what restrictions they shall place, if they don't want to gay marry, then fine. If someone wants to marry a dog, as long as it isn't illegal then fine, if you can find some nut job priest in a religion to do it for you, then go right ahead.
The reason I feel this way? Marriage is outside the jurisdiction of a secular society, and thus civil unions are the way to go. From here the only restrictions should be that you can't marry an animal, or a child. I'm actually totally fine with polygamy, I see nothing inherently wrong with it. The only thing wrong with it is abuse, and the propensity of abuse abuse is quite high in that area.
I agree, though tax breaks for families with children are extremely helpful. They've gotten my family through some tougher times. However, this guy who is making children for tax benefits is going to have a hell of a wakeup call when they start turning 18 and he loses those benefits, and has to send them to college. Oh, and when they were younger take care of their medical problems, buy them Christmas presents, and be good parents. In matter in fact, this guy who is trying to abuse the system is just going to end up in inevitable hell for the next 20 years of his life. I'm sure he'll enjoy it a lot.
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
GPolukranos, Kill ALL the Things!G
all of the things which make that guy's life hell really only affect his children. someone like that isn't going to bother sending their kids to college, or give them adequate medical care, or feed them nutrituous food. It happens all the time.
I agree, I was originally going to say something along the lines of report him to CPS, but then I thought that was a rather over-the-top thing to say, or that he'd be a terrible father. Guess I cut too much out, and lost that part of that message by accident.
My point is, that the assistance offered by the government for having children is mostly good. It's the crooks that take advantage of it that is bad. You'll always have crooks, and the guy's life is probably going to be much worse off for taking advantage of the system. He could have also been joking, perhaps? It's sad, but if he truly is stupid enough to be doing it (no pun intended) for the benefits only, then the man would be a terrible father either way.
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
GPolukranos, Kill ALL the Things!G
Government shouldn't give any legal benefits to marriages over single people.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Exactly my point.
Having children (or in the case of a homosexual couple, potentially adopted) should have tax breaks, but not the act of marriage itself.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
But, I'm wondering if the tax break contributes to high divorce rates? Are people jumping into marriage to get tax breaks?
I don't have a problem with them, and I believe that tax breaks should be given to couples especially with children but, I'm just playing the devils advocate wondering if that contributes...
And before you answer, stop and apply your response as an argument against gay marriage and see if you would accept it as an argument against gay marriage.
In a polygamous marriage, how do you handle divorce? Who is married to whom? Can two of the three make binding legal decisions for the marriage since they constitute a majority or do all three need to? None of these problems exist with a two person marriage.
And for the social aspect, this article explains it well I believe.
http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/03/one-man-many-wives-big-problem
My stance didn't say anything about "love". In my proposed "civil union" love doesn't really enter into the picture as a requirement. The two people could hate each other but want to have join t property for some other reason. Don't care.
The only reason, in a modern first world country, for "marriage" to be recognized by the state is to aid in the proper distribution of property upon dissolution. "Love" doesn't factor in.
The reason to oppose polygamy then would be the quagmire that you get into when you dissolve joint ownership with multiple parties. Two people is difficult enough (just ask any first year law student going through property), adding the legal framework for multiple additional people is too complicated.
People get married (for the most part) because they want to share their lives with someone, if a group of men take a disproportionate amount of wives, than that leaves men who do want to get married without any chances to do so. This is actually a common problem in countries where polygamy is allowed and it ends up with the person who wants to be with another woman causing social strife because they can't.
Quite simply it leaves young males without brides, and at worst it creates a social dynamic where young boys are cast out of the "circle of cool kids" and become "lost boys" most famously with Mormons. These lost boys go through basically a living nightmare where they are cast out of their communities usually on crappy logic with no place to go and their female compatriots are married to off to older, more socially connected men.
Areas such as the mountainous regions of Tibet prior to infrastructure practiced polygamy due to the lack of people period, however as people have begun to travel with better infrastructure polygamy is gradually becoming less trendy with the increased availability of potential mates. Ironically this is also perpetuating the death of several languages in that region as well.
In Africa it's more of a property problem with specific tribes, if you're poor you're not getting a wife or more than one and normally much older.
So fairly much polygamy benefits the rich and socially connected except in instances where you have a really screwed up gender ratio and polygamy is used as a way of saying "ya'll get married and make babies." But in areas like Tibet, women can also marry multiple husbands where as in more patriarchal societies it's a no go and there tends to be more social problems.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~bowles/PuzzleMonogamous.pdf goes into a lot of detail and cites its sources.
It is zero-sum in the sense that being married means you aren't eligible to become married. If there is an imbalance in which of the two genders tend to engage in polygamous relationships (and in the case of our species, there very clearly is when polygamy is a socially sanctioned option) then by simple induction there will be a larger population of individuals who want to be married, but don't get to be. And especially unfortunate is that a majority of these are already the most socially at-risk group (young, male, poor socioeconomic standing). Of course, polyamory is legal, but allowing polygamy is a large step towards social sanction, and even encouragement, which may or may not be a good thing.
I'm trying to find a source, but I'm pretty sure it's well established, at least historically.
I find the line of reasoning unappealing as well, because I don't even think marriage should exist; I see contracts as being useful for child-rearing, not romance. But it's entirely possible that's simply the way things are.
So? Why is it the governments place to step in and deny rights because of trying to engineer a certain social outcome? If I made a topic that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because of x and y statistic that shows it would have a negative impact on society, everyone would be up in arms (rightly so).
Is everyone in this topic so blind that they don't see the blatant hypocrisy in using the same types of arguments against polygamy that you would reject when used against gay marriage or interracial marriage?
Replace "polyamory" with homosexuality, and polygamy with "gay marriage".
But there really are no non-religious arguments against gay marriage...
It is the government's job to protect the society...
Therefore gay marriage should be illegal because of the impact it would have on society.