writing group and meandering thoughts.

[kippurbird]

So, the guy who wrote that horribly cliche piece of drivel turned out to be rather nice about it (and kinda hot >.> ) and wasn't at all like Miss Formulaic. He seemed to be very interested in our comments and didn't mind that I was horribly brutal. He asked questions about how to make it better and was generally everything a reviewer could want in a person. I look forward to his next installment with high hopes.

Now, on a completely random matter as I wait for the paint to dry on my birthday present for my brother (we exchange presents on our birthdays, don't ask, we just do). I think Polygamy should be made legal.

Why? You may ask. My response: Why not? How is it wrong to be married to more than one person. Where does it say that it's a morally wrong thing to do? If all parties that are involved are consenting adults, they why shouldn't they get married in any which way they please? No one is getting hurt by such a marriage. It's just a different way of doing so. In fact I think the fact that it is illegal is unconstitutional according to the Constitution of the United States. It does, after all, state that we are allowed religious freedom and there are religions that allow for polygamy. So, theoretically those who practice those religions should be allowed to practice that practice. >.> Also, there is the separation of church and state. This I think is important, because in the Protestant tradition (On which this country was founded in )polygamy is a Bad Thing (I don't know why as I'm not a Protestant nor a Christian) and so they have imposed their religious ideal upon the rest of the country. If the US wanted to fully espouse that they are a land of true religious freedom and that there is a true separation between church and state then polygamy should be legalized.

After all beyond religion there isn't a good reason not to. I have yet to hear an argument as to why we shouldn't allow it. It just isn't allowed.

Perhaps I should start a petition to get it on a ballot or something. =D

Comments

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

I'm personally in favor of giving monogamous and polygamous the same legal advantages - none. I don't think the government has any legitimate interest in giving tax breaks and the like to someone just because they're lucky enough to have found someone they love.

[gjohnsonkoehn.livejournal.com]

So, you don't think spouses should be granted power of attorney? Be entitled to share in things like pension funds and social services? Be accorded automatic visiting rights in hospitals?

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

Not as an automatic privilege of marriage. You can grant power of attorney to anyone of your choice, or even multiple people. I see no reason why it has to be an automatic granting.

Most of the rights granted to spouses could easily be set up by legal documents. Or indeed, denied in a specific case. It may well be that a specific individual's spouse is NOT the best person to have power of attorney, for example. Why shouldn't they be able to choose not to grant it to their spouse if they think it's not in their interest?

I just see no reason why I, as a single person, should have to pay more taxes to subsidize the government's tax advantages to married people. And, yes, it is a subsidy. That is, in fact, the very reasoning that was used when those benefits were first established, that the government should encourage marriage.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

Furthermore, with the wide variety of relationships that exist today, recognizing just two legal states "married" and "not married" seems rather archaic to me. Having a single set of one-size-fits-all benefits is rather constrictive. I'm in favor of allowing far more freedom of choice in the matter. A given couple should be able to CHOOSE what rights they want to give to each other, instead of having a single set that the government predetermined.

[gjohnsonkoehn.livejournal.com]

Most of the rights granted to spouses could easily be set up by legal documents.

This is true. On the other hand, this would be more complicated than the existing setup, and I'm not entirely clear on what the upside is; those not married can do it your way, those married get it done for them. And if your spouse isn't the best guarantor of your interests, then fella, you've married the wrong damn person.

And what's with your last two sentences? I never said it wasn't a subsidy; indeed, that's exactly what it is. The real question is whether or not it's a stability-generator worthy of being subsidized or not.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

How does marriage today, in the 21st century, generate ANY stability? I see no benefit to society in encouraging marriage today. It may well have served that function decently mid-20th century and before, but it certainly doesn't now! Marriages are no more stable than cohabiting couples. If you want to set up a system to "encourage stability", then it shouldn't be so easy to enter or exit. That would make marriage really stable (it would also trap people in unhappy relationships, but hey, that's the price you pay for stability). I just don't see how marriage today is about anything more than special privileges and tax breaks. Especially for the wealthy with their prenups, but even for the lower- and middle-classes.

The upside is that it would be customizable. You can grant only the rights you want to grant, rather than having the government tell you "You must grant your spouse these rights". It would permit marital-type benefits to be extended to other individuals.

And if your spouse isn't the best guarantor of your interests, then fella, you've married the wrong damn person. What if you're married to a wonderful person, who loves you deeply and cares very much about you, but they're really not all that bright, while on the other hand, you have a good (platonic) friend who is very knowledgeable about medicine. Who would you prefer to make medical decisions for you? Shouldn't you have the right to say that your spouse, regardless of how well-meaning they might be, should defer to your friend's judgment? You could request that of your spouse, sure, but there's nothing stopping them from claiming the right to make those decisions if something came between your friend and them.

I just don't think unstated assumptions and one-size-fits-all solutions are the best ways to handle interpersonal relationships.

And it really wouldn't be much more complicated. I suspect the majority of couples woudl simply pick a standardized set of legal documents and be done with it, while those who wish to customize them can.