Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by tosseraccount | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

tosseraccount

If love is about ignoring race,class,gender,age shouldn't it be about ignoring numbers, too?

Polygamy is the next hurdle for society.

The judges should declare all consenting marriage legal !

View on HN

>The judges should declare all consenting marriage legal !

If it is truly consenting, taking into account the modern defined limits on who can give consent, why not? A polygamous relationship is already legal in practice (adultery and extra-marital sex are not crimes). The paperwork and law changes aren't going to be simple, but besides for that I don't see a justification in continuing the ban.

Polygamous/polyamorous relationships can easily be supported from a property rights standpoint using corporate entities (LLCs). I see it as the ultimate social/political hack for a right.

Could you elaborate, or point to some material which expounds on this hack?

Any property to be shared by the relationship is owned by the LLC, with people in the relationship being owners of the LLC.

Here's a great article on the subject: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/up-for-pol...

> adultery and extra-marital sex are not crimes

It's still illegal in 21 states[0]. Those laws however are rarely enforced.

[0] http://www.theweek.co.uk/62723/adultery-laws-where-is-cheati...

It is also against the UCMJ.

Or make all marriages inconsequential.

I wish more people saw it this way. The fact that a government has any say in who can/can't marry and be with in their private lives is absurd. The concept of marriage should be left up to religious entities.

However, there are many legal matters that are deeply affected by marital status (whether or not you want to call it differently). Many of those rights/benefits are there for good reasons, e.g. child custody, decision-making in medical matters, etc. You can call marriage something different but you'd end up with a legal relationship that looked an awful lot like marriage. Personally, I don't think having a civil union that's different from a religious marriage (with no legal significance) is unreasonable as a concept. But it's not the way institutions have evolved--and, especially now, it doesn't really solve a problem. One could imagine civil unions being expanded as scope but they're never going to be arbitrary so long as there are rights and responsibilities associated with them.

I doubt the USA keeps an eye on Canadian legal cases (though Commonwealth countries certainly do) but Canada's polygamy laws were tested by a high court very recently (2011). The existing laws were upheld.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/canada-s-poly...

It absolutely should be restricted by age.

Historically it wasn't.

As we see today, history isn't always right. Sex with minors should always been illegal.

Sex with 17 year old should be illegal?

Why, exactly?

What if the partner is 18?

What if the partner is 35?

If the age of consent is 18 (and I don't think that is true across all the States), then 17 is illegal and should be illegal no matter what the age of the partner is.

I hope you don't have good luck with enforcing it. I don't have a problem with an 18 year old and a 17 year consenting to sex with each other.

I am sure a lot of people don't myself included. We are talking about the law and minors though. Society sets that "consensual" age limit. I am sure everyone has their age "line in the sand" so to speak.

But most of the time the law has provisions for edge cases, such as the Romeo and Juliet laws that exist in many states (laws that override the age of consent when the age difference is small).

Some jurisdictions disagree. Personally, I think it's a lot different for a couple who barely straddle the consent age to be having sex, than for one of them to be 50.

A minor can't consent.

Why the downvotes? Is that not a valid point? Or is it bad because it's a point used by the opposing side? Or is the problem the way it was stated?

SSM and polygamy are not really related issues. You run into very complicated issues when you consider how children and property ownership would work in a many-person relationship. Marriage specifies shortcuts for these kinds of things, but they only work for two-person relationships. Polygamous relationships would basically require unique contracts given all circumstances, which is a pretty high burden. It's also not clear that polygamous marriages would have the same kind of societal benefits that two-person marriages have.

I think it's a point that can be convincingly argued, but the legalization of SSM does not imply a requirement for polygamous marriage's legalization. They're entirely different issues.

I am arguing that they are related.

re: children; in a gay marriage, at best the child belongs to one of the parents, at worst: it is adopted.

How is it different from polygamy.

Regarding property ownership: polygamy has been historically done is so many cultures that there is prior art & legal framework.

polygamy's legitimacy was taken away, unlike gay marriage, where it was never legitimate.

Both were illegitimate because of moral reasons. And now, that is being whittled away....

It should be restricted by age, but even when I don't agree with you on that point, I don't understand the downvotes (not that I really care about internet points BTW)

I think I prefer the term 'polyamorous', but agreed :)

I agree with your sentiment, but no with your account name. I don't think you deserve to be downvoted.

Why restrict love to one person?

We aren't as open minded on here as we like to think.

It touched a raw nerve apparently based on the voting.

They tried to shout down gay marriage, too.

One problem I have with polygamy is that its more common to have one-man-many-woman marriages than one-woman-many-man marriages. This results in a surplus of single males, who are prone to causing trouble.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com