mmmcheezy wrote:The human and dog marriage is obviously a strawman because we're talking about CONSENTING ADULTS,
mmmcheezy wrote:As far as binning the idea of "traditional" marriage altogether, I think you'll see [once again, if you read the rest of the thread] that most of us are pretty much in favor of that.
mmmcheezy wrote:"The idea of marriage is only to"...... blah blah blah --->insert whatever totalitarianist fundyism you like here <---
mmmcheezy wrote:Next time you feel like posting a strawman, can you at least go for one that isn't tired, one that we haven't already heard from those nasty right wing fundies hundreds of times?
mmmcheezy wrote:ADULTS ADULTS ADULTS ADULTS ADULTS READ THE GODDAMN THREAD WE ARE ALL TALKING ABOUT ADULTS EXCEPT YOU. /shouting.
Lion IRC wrote:Why not just dump the concept of marriage all together?
Lion IRC wrote:Why not just dump the concept of marriage all together? This is getting so boring.
xrayzed wrote:I don't see marriage disappearing anytime soon, although I can see it changing significantly over time. It's a very complex institution that has a range of social, emotional, legal ramifications, quite apart from whatever supposed interest a god might have in the issue.
byofrcs wrote:There is a perfectly good reason to limit it to two people (in same species).
Governmental database schemas.
It's probably cost hundreds of millions to allow the databases to have one party as male and one as female but to allow any arbitrary number of people and certainly to allow non-human species would be a coding nightmare.
Worse than Y2k, worse than Web2.0, worse than Client-Server, worse than the day someone mentioned there is 29 days in February and we had to shift the trilithons one virgin width to the right, worse than the day Khufu, on a bender, thought it would be fun to have something really really big.
xrayzed wrote:I don’t think the argument against polygamy/polyandry on legal grounds holds up.
The issue of inheritance for multiple spouses isn’t any more complex than the issue of inheritance for multiple children. The basic principle in the absence of a will would be an equal division of property between the surviving spouses.
What if a man has four wives, and each of those wives has additional spouses? That’s irrelevant – they don’t have a legal claim on the inheritance because their legal relationship based on marriage is with the surviving wives, not the deceased husband.
The issue of who raises the children would default to the surviving parent. Certainly this could be challenged by other members of extended family, but this is not novel. It occurs today, for example with grandparents who seek custody where the parents are unfit to raise the children.
The “circular relationship” problem doesn’t pose any additional problems, Suppose two wives share two husbands, and one of the wives dies. Her surviving husbands have an equal share of the inheritance, and the surviving wife has none, because she does not have a legal relationship based on marriage with her.
There may be compelling reasons for opposing polygamy/polyandry, but legal complexities isn't one of them.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest