More Expansion Of Marriage

[columbus]

Please do!

I'll need to hear that from staff.
Also, should head and butt be separate threads?
Could I have a roll call vote from the RF elite? @Smart_Guy
Tom

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Yes, I'm sure the Founding Fathers had allowing incest and polygamy in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights. I'm sure they really wanted a hedonistic free for all. Yes, you're correct.

Well, I doubt they thought about it much.
What I'm sure they did think about was that there are lots of different people who would have lots of different ideas about what individuals should do and what government should do, and that those people would come together through their elected officials to pass laws, and to have lawsuits as a result, and eventually the supreme court would have to rule on whether or not laws meet the intent and spirit of the Constitution, and then the cycle would have to start over again, as new issues arose and society adjusted to whatever changes that happened and passed new laws. They were very careful to keep moralism out of the structure of the government, and created a structure that could be changed and updated in response to the later needs of the nation. They could no more foresee the issues of 2015 any more than we can see the issues of 2240. But they wanted to create a system of government that could continue serving the citizens for much longer than 450 years. Not that any really thought it would last more than a few decades, I'm sure.

 

[columbus]

OK
Apparently a gay guy has to explain modern marriage and why polygamy and incest present problems.

Jezus Keyrist.

In sophisticated cultures marriage is when competent people choose each other to establish a mutually supportive, committed, and permanent relationship. A simple term for this is "next of kin".
The only reason the government has to get involved is when decisions must be made that were not previously made.
Polygamy doesn't work. If someone is married to more than one other, it defeats the state purpose. If someone is incapacitated, which spouse's opinion matters? If husband #1 thinks his wife wants one thing, and #2 thinks something else, how would the authorities know if they can't ask her?

Incest has other problems. Family dynamics are not always about love and care. If two people think that their best mate for life is a close relative, the odds of them both freely, and comp
etently, choosing the marriage are minute.
I would fully expect some investigation to be sure.
Tom

 

[LuisDantas]

Mentally healthy people don't have to ask. It's like asking why it's disgusting for parents and their children to have sex together. There's an innate revulsion to it that is there from evolution. There are genetic problems with it and psychiatric problems, too. It's very unhealthy and it ruins family.

Asking is fine.

 

[Bunyip]

I would take no issue with polygamy. It is a pretty common traditional arrangement.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I'll need to hear that from staff.
Also, should head and butt be separate threads?
Could I have a roll call vote from the RF elite? @Smart_Guy
Tom

I'm afraid I don't understand how I can help in this

 

[columbus]

I'm afraid I don't understand how I can help in this

I just like making you blush
Tom

 

[Baladas]

Incest has other problems. Family dynamics are not always about love and care. If two people think that their best mate for life is a close relative, the odds of them both freely, and comp
etently, choosing the marriage are minute.
I would fully expect some investigation to be sure.
Tom

I would expect an investigation too. I wouldn't be opposed to mandatory therapy sessions to ensure that the relationship is non-coercive and that both parties are competent.

There are simply way too many cases in which these relationships could be coercive.

 

[columbus]

I would take no issue with polygamy. It is a pretty common traditional arrangement.

But what important reason would the state have for getting involved?
I would take issue with polygamy for other reasons. I see no reason for the government to forbid such biblical relationships. Just no reason to keep track.
Tom

 

[LuisDantas]

But what important reason would the state have for getting involved?

Inheritance rights, medical decisions, shared responsibilities, among others.

 

[columbus]

Inheritance rights, medical decisions, shared responsibilities, among others.

But in a multiple marriage none of that would be clear. That is my point. In a modern marriage the issues are settled unless the parties choose something else, deliberately. If they want to do that they don't need the government.
Tom

 

[LuisDantas]

But in a multiple marriage none of that would be clear. That is my point. In a modern marriage the issues are settled unless the parties choose something else, deliberately. If they want to do that they don't need the government.
Tom

Isn't that why government registering of any arrangements would be needed?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

But in a multiple marriage none of that would be clear. That is my point. In a modern marriage the issues are settled unless the parties choose something else, deliberately. If they want to do that they don't need the government.
Tom

but, the legal requirements for such a marriage could be established to make things clear. For example, for a long time, the right of the spouse to make decisions for the other in medical situations of incompetence was assumed. Now, increasingly, we are having to specify through living wills what those arrangements are to be. It would make sense that one requirement of marriage is that those questions have to be answered in the marriage agreement itself.

 

[Revoltingest]

But in a multiple marriage none of that would be clear. That is my point. In a modern marriage the issues are settled unless the parties choose something else, deliberately. If they want to do that they don't need the government.
Tom

The parties involved could make any ambiguities clear.