The Political Discussion Thread

[jelgate]

Soul just wants to pursue FH and keep other options open

[SoulReaver]

I would wager that the issue is legal in nature. The existing framework for marriage needs no tweeks in same sex marriage, it just changes from "man and woman" to "Person A and Person B". Polygamy adds a further dimension to that. I have no theoretical objection to Polygamy to be honest, but given the strain that a 2 person relationship can endure, I don't know if adding more people would be a stabilizing factor, or a destabilizing one.

a non-issue - long before the legal concept of marriage existed those who just lived together would've thought the exact same thing about today's marriage system. moreover it's not like it's new territory anyway so the legal aspect's no excuse

as for the stabilizing factor it'd be a lot more stable - and a lot less hypocritical - than today's de-facto polygamy that arises when spouses cheat & lead double or triple lives (now that's a destabilizing factor what with separations divorces arguments etc. & kids caught in the middle)

[SoulReaver]

Soul just wants to pursue FH and keep other options open

hush damnit

[Annoyed]

a non-issue - long before the legal concept of marriage existed those who just lived together would've thought the exact same thing about today's marriage system. moreover it's not like it's new territory anyway so the legal aspect's no excuse

as for the stabilizing factor it'd be a lot more stable - and a lot less hypocritical - than today's de-facto polygamy that arises when spouses cheat & lead double or triple lives (now that's a destabilizing factor what with separations divorces arguments etc. & kids caught in the middle)

I've been liking this argument till I saw this.
Has everybody forgotten that the idea behind a marriage is that you don't stray?
Marriage is not supposed to be "something to do 'till something better comes along".

[Gatefan1976]

a non-issue - long before the legal concept of marriage existed those who just lived together would've thought the exact same thing about today's marriage system. moreover it's not like it's new territory anyway so the legal aspect's no excuse

What the law was "then" does not matter, you have to deal with the way it is -now- and either accept or change it.

as for the stabilizing factor it'd be a lot more stable - and a lot less hypocritical - than today's de-facto polygamy that arises when spouses cheat & lead double or triple lives (now that's a destabilizing factor what with separations divorces arguments etc. & kids caught in the middle)

As I said, I have no theoretical objections to it. De-facto affairs and such however do not deal with assets and such, the toyboy or mistress has no legal standing in such decisions, a legally recognized marriage of 3 or more would have to deal with it.

[Gatefan1976]

I've been liking this argument till I saw this.
Has everybody forgotten that the idea behind a marriage is that you don't stray?

No it isn't.

Marriage is not supposed to be "something to do 'till something better comes along".

It's a civil contract, everything else is window dressing -no matter how important that dressing is-

[SoulReaver]

What the law was "then" does not matter, you have to deal with the way it is -now- and either accept or change it.

As I said, I have no theoretical objections to it. De-facto affairs and such however do not deal with assets and such, the toyboy or mistress has no legal standing in such decisions, a legally recognized marriage of 3 or more would have to deal with it.

as I said the then's why changing the now shouldn't be a problem. also the whole sharing aspect is only simple when 1 person's involved ("zerogamy"?) so now that a legal framework already exists for 2, not much of an issue
now adultery may not involve material possessions but on the other hand when an illegitimate kid's born as a result it becomes a whole lot more complex - and destabilizing - than if it were among legal spouses

I've been liking this argument till I saw this.
Has everybody forgotten that the idea behind a marriage is that you don't stray?
Marriage is not supposed to be "something to do 'till something better comes along".

well yeah (monogamous) marriage is in theory about absolute loyalty between the 2 spouses just like marriage is in theory stronger than bloodline etc.
all in theory of course eh?

[Gatefan1976]

as I said the then's why changing the now shouldn't be a problem. also the whole sharing aspect is only simple when 1 person's involved ("zerogamy"?) so now that a legal framework already exists for 2, not much of an issue.

Legally speaking, you are right. Now you just have to deal with the social aspect. If a push for polygamy came along, and gathered social momentum and acceptance, then sure, changing the law is quite possible. I even wonder if any change would be required as you could use things such as pre-nups and post-nups to predetermine such things as can be done now.

now adultery may not involve material possessions but on the other hand when an illegitimate kid's born as a result it becomes a whole lot more complex - and destabilizing - than if it were among legal spouses

Socially, yes. Legally, not really. Biological mother and father are still held to existing laws.

well yeah (monogamous) marriage is in theory about absolute loyalty between the 2 spouses just like marriage is in theory stronger than bloodline etc.
all in theory of course eh?

Monogamy is all about absolute loyalty, marriage need play no part in that.

[SoulReaver]

No it isn't.

It's a civil contract, everything else is window dressing -no matter how important that dressing is-

even in western countries this depends for instance France separated the church & state in the very early 20th century & was theoretically secular yet the frogs still maintained adultery - among other things - as a criminal offence for a good part of the century (silly isn't it)

when they finally did decriminalize cheating it still remained a "fault" in that if the judge learns that a spouse cheated then this could affect the outcome of the divorce including their alimony. I believe that also applies in the US

[SoulReaver]

If a push for polygamy came along

admittedly that's the real stumbling block :/
for some reason the vast majority of people in our societies still don't care about polygamy
that's too bad. maybe the revolution will come from Gateworld?

Socially, yes. Legally, not really. Biological mother and father are still held to existing laws.

I know - there's a legal framework for that

Monogamy is all about absolute loyalty

so is polygamy

[Gatefan1976]

even in western countries this depends for instance France separated the church & state in the very early 20th century & was theoretically secular yet the frogs still maintained adultery - among other things - as a criminal offence for a good part of the century (silly isn't it)

when they finally did decriminalize cheating it still remained a "fault" in that if the judge learns that a spouse cheated then this could affect the outcome of the divorce including their alimony. I believe that also applies in the US

All this is how other laws interact with marriage in event of failure, not what marriage -is- though dude.

[Gatefan1976]

admittedly that's the real stumbling block :/
for some reason the vast majority of people in our societies still don't care about polygamy
that's too bad. maybe the revolution will come from Gateworld?

I would call you a hopeless romantic, but given the object of your desire..............

I know - there's a legal framework for that

Yup

so is polygamy

Sure, but neither -require- marriage, that was my point.

[SoulReaver]

Sure, but neither -require- marriage, that was my point.

All this is how other laws interact with marriage in event of failure, not what marriage -is- though dude.

marriage laws
as with anything the toughest part of marriage is dealing with such contingencies mate
anyway now I dunno if we're even talking about the same thing at this point so to be clear, wtf is 'marriage' to you?
a sacred union of 2 lives under God/the grand scheme of things?
a contract useful for paying lower taxes?
a headache?

I would call you a hopeless romantic, but given the object of your desire..............

yo, IRL she could be a man for all I know :/

[Gatefan1976]

and as with anything the toughest part of marriage is dealing with such contingencies mate.

Sure, but they are exactly that, contingencies.

now you wanna define marriage? heavily depends on each & everyone's personal legal moral (and religious) views doesn't it. what is marriage to you? a sacred union of 2 lives under god/the grand scheme of things? a contract useful for paying less taxes? a headache?

How one personally defines marriage is not my concern, the only thing that matters in the grand scheme of things is what society deems legal and illegal. People are free to push for their definition of marriage to become legal or illegal however

[aretood2]

No it isn't.

It's a civil contract, everything else is window dressing -no matter how important that dressing is-

Is that how you proposed?