Anyone being affected by Proposition 8?

[classicman]

Support the reduction of the human population = support for gay marriage.
GO GAY for the PLANET!
They should start their own PAC like moveon.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

reductio ad absurda or ponzi scheme is the argument.

In a finite population, if some males have multiple spouses then other males are lacking.
In small polygamous communities, such boys are driven out by one means or another.

Originally Posted by glatt

I'm not following you on either point. Can you flesh those out at all?

I was making the argument against polygamy, not gay marriage,
in a finite (small) population... and assumed there were "multiple wives"

If there are 100 men and 100 women, and 30 men have a total of 60 wives,
there would be only 40 single women left to wed among the remaining 70 single men.
The married men (in power) see this problem coming,
and so force the excess males (boys) out of the community.

Of course, gay marriage would be one solution to this situation.
as would reversed polygamy where those 40 women have multiple husbands.
Don't laugh, supposedly the latter happened in isolated Eskimo families

In other (very large) cultures this "ponzi scheme" kind of problem is not as apparent,
particularly if the polygamous males are only a minority among the male population.
The bachelors probably still aspire to polygamy, so they are content with hope and dreams
.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

...reversed polygamy where those 40 women have multiple husbands.
Don't laugh, supposedly the latter happened in isolated Eskimo families
...

I can see where this is unlikely in a society where men hold all the wealth and power. While I believe that, in our society, most wealth and power remains with men, the emergence of "cougars" may indicate that multiple husbands for women is not such a stretch these days.

[infinite monkey]

All bathrooms will be outfitted with yellow carpeting.

[Clodfobble]

I think in a culture of modern women such as we live in today, the risk of voluntary polygamy suddenly taking a significant hold in society is low. If polygamy were made legal today, I don't see much changing.

The real risk, in my mind, is abusing the polygamist "marriage contract" for corporate business means. Say a group of men want to form a company, but they want, for example, not to have to testify against each other if the company is ever sued, just as a wife has the right not to have to testify against her husband. So they all polygamist gay marry each other on paper.

I think you could successfully allow for gay marriage, while still outlawing polygamy on the argument that it would promote conspiracy and fraud.

[Spexxvet]

Gay polygamy! The old boy network on steroids.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

The real risk, in my mind, is abusing the polygamist "marriage contract" for corporate business means.

Interesting! That hadn't occurred to me.

[ZenGum]

Well, abolish the right of a spouse to not testify against their spouse(s). That is an old fashioned and sexist rule anyway.

[Happy Monkey]

Sexist how? It's a two-way street.

[ZenGum]

It is now, but when it was introduced it was with the idea that the man would be doing everything and the woman merely an assistant at best.

[richlevy]

Found this on Facebook. One of the arguments against polygamy is that some families ended up on public assistance. In a modern economy, it's not as easy to have a homebound labor pool as it is on a farm.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

It is now, but when it was introduced it was with the idea that the man would be doing everything and the woman merely an assistant at best.

I'm not sure how that is relevant to spousal priviledge. It's about who can be called to testify, and by whom; not about the extent of their involvement in the crime.

It's there to avoid putting someone in the position of having to choose between condemning their spouse and perjuring themselves.

[Lamplighter]

Another state steps up in the district of the 9th Federal Court of Appeals

Reuters
Nicole Neroulias
2/8/12
Gay marriage wins final legislative approval in Washington state

(Reuters) - A bill to legalize gay marriage in Washington state won final legislative approval
on Wednesday in a largely party-line vote that moved the state to the cusp of becoming the seventh
in the nation to recognize same-sex nuptials.

Washington's Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire said she looked forward to signing the measure
and "putting into law an end to an era of discrimination" even as opponents,
led by religious conservatives, vowed to seek its repeal at the polls in November.

[ZenGum]

HM ...

Okay. drop the sexist. Maybe even the outdated.

I think it is wrong. Why is there no parental priviledge? Sibling? Avuncular? Why should someone get away with a crime just because the main witness is their spouse?

[Happy Monkey]

I won't argue that. Probably something to do with "the sanctity of marriage".

Though my guess is there's a de facto family priviledge to some extent, as the danger of perjury, and the potential bad taste left in jurors mouths from forcing a parent to testify, may discourage prosecutors from doing so in many cases.