Ouch. Hate it when I do that.

It makes no difference whatsoever if this woman's theories are correct or not. The point is that someone is already making the same arguments for polygamy as are currently being made for gay marriage. Gays say homsexuality is innate. She says polygamy is innate. Gays say that to keep them from marrying when they don't have a choice about their sexuality is wrong. She says the same about polygamy. Quite frankly, no one can prove either one of them wrong or right yet.

I'm pretty sure that I was told point blank before that this argument wouldn't be made by intelligent people and that polygamy had nothing to do with homosexuality. Seems someone was wrong.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Well, there is pretty good evidence that there is a genetic component to homosexuality. I've never come across anything similar for polygamy - probably because it's never been looked at.

---

_______________________________________________

"Well, there is pretty good evidence that there is a genetic component to homosexuality."

I was of the understanding that there is no evidence that homsexuality is genetic.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Board=freespace&Number=148106

Interesting link to the "Gay Gene" debate.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

i think there are valid reasons to preclude polygamous marriage situations.

Such as? (And I sincerely hope you have a more compelling argument than "it will complicate intestacy laws.")

if one wants to go the "natural" route, then it seems to me that monogamy is in the minority amongst the other animal species.

I think, perhaps, you misunderstand what is meant by those who argue for the rule of natural law. It does not mean looking to the animal kingdom for examples of behavior to emulate, or for lessons about what's normal or moral.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I was of the understanding that there is no evidence that homsexuality is genetic.

No specific genes have been identified (and there certainly isn't a single "gay gene") but there is pretty good evidence of a genetic component. At least one study as posted in one of the previous gay marriage threads (ironically by an anti-gay marriage advocate) - I dont feel like searching for it, but the gist of the results is that the concordance of homosexuality runs like this: identical twins > non-identical twins > adopted (non-related) siblings.... ie for siblings living in the same household (environment) the more genetic similarities, the greater the concordance of homosexuality. Hopefully that makes sense.

---

_______________________________________________

but there is pretty good evidence of a genetic component.

That's arguable, to say the least.

But more importantly- so what? The argument that homosexuality is genetic, even if true, is unrelated to the question of whether gay marriage should be allowed.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Show me a polygamous society that worked in history.

Am I to understand that you don't think polygamy has ever been successfully practiced by particular societies, and that therefore we shouldn't experiment with it?

From wikipedia:

Polygynous societies are about four times more numerous than monogamous ones. In 1994, Theodore C. Bergstrom noted in his paper "On the Economics of Polygyny" [1] (http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Evolution/polygyny3.pdf) (U. Mich. Center for Research on Economic and Social Theory, Working Paper Series 94-11) that "Although overt polygamy is rare in our own society, it is a very common mode of family organization around the world. Of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny (some men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850.

Now show me a society in history that allowed gay marriage.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

That's arguable, to say the least.

If you say so, but sibling concordance studies are pretty common in science, and seem pretty sound to me.

But more importantly- so what?

Yeah yeah, I know. I'm not going to get into it - my point was simply to say that you can't say the case for gay marriage is 100% the same as the case for polygamy. I see no reason to buy the opinion that "there is a little poly in all of us".

---

_______________________________________________

my point was simply to say that you can't say the case for gay marriage is 100% the same as the case for polygamy. Of course not. The case for polygamy is much stronger on just about every ground.

I see no reason to buy the opinion that "there is a little poly in all of us". And why not? Because you really don't think that people are attracted to/capable of loving/etc more than one person, and that there is evidently a strong observable drive to have intimate relationships with more than one person, or just because the idea of multiple marriage shocks your delicate sensibilities?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

we've had this discussion before on the reasons i believe polygamy could be validly outlawed. yes, it has to do with intestacy and divorce. also things such as spousal privilege. polygamy taken to an extreme will necessarily result in incest. biological/birth defect concerns arise from that.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

yes, it has to do with intestacy and divorce.

You've consistently thrown out the allegation that polygamy will result in such confusion to intestacy laws that we shouldn't allow it. You never actually make the case, though- I guess your allegation is enough, huh? Explain to me, exactly, how it presents an unsolvable problem.

also things such as spousal privilege. Problem being?

polygamy taken to an extreme will necessarily result in incest. Come again? Isn't that a little like me arguing that homosexual marriage, taken to an extreme, will inevitably result in pedophilia? Which is to say, it's ridiculous.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"I see no reason to buy the opinion that "there is a little poly in all of us"

Really? Then why do so many people cheat on their spouses, girfriends/boyfriends, etc. Obviously that is some evidence that people want to be involved with more than one person.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"polygamy taken to an extreme will necessarily result in incest"

How does polygamy lead to incest? What is your definition of incest? And how quickly do you think birth defects arise? Plenty of societies have had intermingled blood lines without everyone missing toes or whatever.

"yes, it has to do with intestacy and divorce. also things such as spousal privilege"

So for gays, it's ok to change the laws, but for polygamists it's just more toruble than it's worth to uphold their rights?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

The desire for a little variety on the side does not equate with the desire to be in a polyamorous relationship.

---

_______________________________________________

"The desire for a little variety on the side does not equate with the desire to be in a polyamorous relationship"

How do you know that? The contention is that the desire to be in a polyamorous relationship has been suppressed by societal conventions. Certainly it is conceivable that the inability of a large portion of our society to remain monogamous is an indication of that polyamorous tendency leaking out. Agree or not, the argument could certainly be made, and will be made by people who will use the gay marriage movement to advance their own cause as well. As predicted, many other causes will attempt to ride the coattails of the gay marriage movement.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

ok. man "a" has wives b, c, d. wife b has husband e, f. this could go on for a while. but suppose man a dies intestate, but with substantial possessions. typical intestate laws have inheritance going to spouse. if there is another child from a previous marriage, then that child is typically entitled to a specific share of the estate. but suppose no previous children. anyhow, so once mr. a dies, how is it divided? what if all he has is a house? wife b, c, and d all want said house. or alternatively, c and d want money from house, wife b wants the house. how do you resolve that? more importantly how do you write a coherent law such that this type of situation is resolved more mechanically without having to go through much litigation?

how would you treat marital property in case mr. a divorces wife b, but not c or d? typically, anything that is acquired post marriage is communal property subject to splitting upon divorce. so, is wife entitled to anything that mr. a acquired jointly with wife c or d? is mr. a entitled to property that wife b acquired in her marriages with hubbies e and f? again, how do you write a relatively simple, coherent law that permits easy splitting of assets?

as for spousal privilege(in case you aren't aware, spousal privilege means that a spouse can't be compelled to testify against the other spouse) in testimony, this is less difficult in most situations. the majority of jurisdictions hold that the testifying spouse holds the privilege. in some jurisdictions, it is jointly held, meaning that the defendant spouse can preclude witness spouse from testifying. now suppose in this latter case, mr. a is on trial. wife b had conversation with husband e--totally unrelated to her marriage with mr. a and this conversation would incriminate mr. a. can he then prevent her from testifying even though the conversation had nothing to do with mr a and wife b's marriage? can husband e testify?

the only reason my extreme polygamy argument is ridiculous is because with the population size as is, the chances are slim to none that everyone would end up related in some fashion and thus creating some level of incest. but if everyone just started taking multiple wives/husbands and having kids, eventually everyone would be directly related to everyone else.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"but if everyone just started taking multiple wives/husbands and having kids, eventually everyone would be directly related to everyone else"

Nobody is saying that everyone will or that everyone has to marry mutltiple people. What makes you think everyone would be doing it? Especially if you disregard the idea that the tendency is in everyone.

"again, how do you write a relatively simple, coherent law that permits easy splitting of assets? "

As if divorces are simple now since there are only two people.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Actually, she is a proponent of polygamy and, I think, of gay marriage as well. I suspect she will be a very good advocate indeed.

Her point is not so much to make analogies between gay marriage and polygamy, her point is to make polygomy legal. She is using most of the same arguments.

Polygomy advocates will make it very difficult to intellectually justify approving of gay marriage but not polygomy. They will line up all the scientific justification as required in due time.

anyhow, so once mr. a dies, how is it divided?

Oh, no, and now there are wives b, c, and d who all have a claim to the house! The horrors! Whatever are we to do? Well, either we could say that wife b, being the senior partner, as it were, gets the house, or more likely, we could simply say that wives b, c, and d all have an equal claim on the house, and more or less hold it in common. I don't see the big deal here. Is it much different from a situation in which a sole surviving parent dies, and his/her children have to divide the estate?

how would you treat marital property in case mr. a divorces wife b, but not c or d? typically, anything that is acquired post marriage is communal property subject to splitting upon divorce. so, is wife entitled to anything that mr. a acquired jointly with wife c or d?

Yes, I don't see why she wouldn't be, and I don't see that this presents any bigger problems than we already deal with as a matter of course.

now suppose in this latter case, mr. a is on trial. wife b had conversation with husband e--totally unrelated to her marriage with mr. a and this conversation would incriminate mr. a. can he then prevent her from testifying even though the conversation had nothing to do with mr a and wife b's marriage? can husband e testify?

One could easily pass a law to whatever effect one wanted. Let's say we decide to say that the spousal privilege applies throughout the marriage, and no spouse within the group can be compelled to testify against someone else within the marriage, and also that any spouse within the marriage can prevent another spouse in the group marriage from testifying. Once again, it doesn't seem very complicated to me.

but if everyone just started taking multiple wives/husbands and having kids, eventually everyone would be directly related to everyone else.

Good grief. We agree that this is a ridiculous argument. (Though my analogy to gay marriage/pedophilia isn't appropriate, I guess, as I misunderstood your point here. It's more like saying that if everyone adopted gay marriage, we'd be extinct within a century.)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Build your society that way, and property division will be the least of society's problems.

If man a in your case also went ahead and married man e and f, would they be entitled to a bigger cut? Would a and e be both husbands in law and husbands? Do you think we could all wind up married to each other?

I wonder why people think these situations would take all meaning from marriage.

I may have missed this in other responses, but have you noticed that the article and justification cover POLYAMORY instead of POLYGAMY?

There is enough of a difference in definition between the two, especially when it is done by a Yale Law School graduate. I imagine the choice of words is very intentional.

If you love more than one person, then you are polyamorous. It does not have to involve sexual relations.

---

_____________________________________
You're not stuck in traffic. You ARE traffic.

If you love more than one person, then you are polyamorous. It does not have to involve sexual relations."

Except that the article specifically refers to polyamory as being on the "sexual continuum."

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)