17 Nov 08
The problem of plural marriages were solved long ago. The first wife is in the position of authority. When it comes to other things, such as taxes and such, they'd just be added as other sources filing jointly. Problem solved.
No such problem exists. There are alot of Mormons out there that have plural marriages, but can't make it public because then they'd get in trouble with the law. True, it is a minority of Mormons, but even a minority of such a large group makes for alot of people.
17 Nov 08
Originally posted by EladarYou didn't read my post, so you are addressing problems I wasn't talking about.
The problem of plural marriages were solved long ago. The first wife is in the position of authority. When it comes to other things, such as taxes and such, they'd just be added as other sources filing jointly. Problem solved.
Nemesio
17 Nov 08
I believe I answered your questions. When it comes to who has the right of a spouse when there are mulitple spouses, the answer is the first spouse.
I need to say spouse here because really we are talking the marriage of multiple people. There's no reason why five different guys could be married. There's no reason why two guys and three women can't get married. As long as everyone agrees to the situation, who is to judge?
17 Nov 08
Originally posted by EladarYou can believe it all you want. You didn't address the issue of divorce.
I believe I answered your questions. When it comes to who has the right of a spouse when there are mulitple spouses, the answer is the first spouse.
I need to say spouse here because really we are talking the marriage of multiple people. There's no reason why five different guys could be married. There's no reason why two guys and three women can't get married. As long as everyone agrees to the situation, who is to judge?
You didn't address the issue of visitation rights. You didn't address the issue
of perpetual inheritance. You didn't address the issue of gang marriage.
Who is the first spouse in a marriage; it takes at least two. What happens if
four people marry simultaneously?
And, yes, your other point is true. If we allow plural unions, there should be
no stipulations as to its gender content.
Nemesio
18 Nov 08
Originally posted by NemesioWell it seemed to work for thousands of years in other cultures so perhaps we can put our little minds together and think of a way?
You can believe it all you want. You didn't address the issue of divorce.
You didn't address the issue of visitation rights. You didn't address the issue
of perpetual inheritance. You didn't address the issue of gang marriage.
Who is the first spouse in a marriage; it takes at least two. What happens if
four people marry simultaneously?
And, y ...[text shortened]... e allow plural unions, there should be
no stipulations as to its gender content.
Nemesio
18 Nov 08
Originally posted by whodeyAgain, you keep getting confused.
Well it seemed to work for thousands of years in other cultures so perhaps we can put our little minds together and think of a way?
Back then, other cultures didn't have government which provided certain
civil privileges. That's what we're talking about. So, unless you think
there's some plural union contract from the stone ages, your point is totally
irrelevant.
Nemesio
18 Nov 08
Originally posted by NemesioSo you are perfectly comfortable with denying people their rights based upon the complexity that may arise from giving them their rights?
Again, you keep getting confused.
Back then, other cultures didn't have government which provided certain
civil privileges. That's what we're talking about. So, unless you think
there's some plural union contract from the stone ages, your point is totally
irrelevant.
Nemesio
18 Nov 08
Originally posted by whodeyAgain: I am too ignorant of the issues at hand to favor or oppose it. Because
So you are perfectly comfortable with denying people their rights based upon the complexity that may arise from giving them their rights?
I've not seen any particular proposal which seems to accord plural unions
rights while at the same time protects the State from the abuses I mentioned
and is fair and just to the members of the plural union, I can't say one way
or the other.
What I do know is that the contract that would suffice for plural unions
would look nothing like that for dual unions (because of the difference in
constitution of plural unions). That is, the issue of the legal permissibility
of plural unions has no bearing on that of dual unions.
But, to answer you directly: No, I'm not comfortable denying anyone equal
protection under the law. If a contract could be devised that protected the
State from the handful of concerns I raised (and I'm sure there are more,
since I'm not a lawyer and can't anticipate the abuses that might take place
under plural unions), then I would support it.
Nemesio
18 Nov 08
Originally posted by NemesioFair enough.
Again: I am too ignorant of the issues at hand to favor or oppose it. Because
I've not seen any particular proposal which seems to accord plural unions
rights while at the same time protects the State from the abuses I mentioned
and is fair and just to the members of the plural union, I can't say one way
or the other.
What I do know is that ...[text shortened]... he abuses that might take place
under plural unions), then I would support it.
Nemesio
