Crookbond Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Let's be practical .... Human relationships are not like scientific formulas Civil liberties defy "cute" practical arguments. Since human relationships aren't scientific formulas, we should NOT decide the number of people that constitutes a marriage.
Brainfade Posted June 30, 2015 Author Posted June 30, 2015 Three people MAY enter a union of marriage and associate with themselves AT THE SAME TIME. That's what a ménage à trios is by definition. That's not a marriage. That's just sex.
zen Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Three people MAY enter a union of marriage and associate with themselves AT THE SAME TIME. That's what a ménage à trios is by definition. That's a form of polyamory .... Marriage should "ideally" happen when the person has decided to commit to one partner Civil liberties defy "cute" practical arguments. Since human relationships aren't scientific formulas' date=' we should NOT decide the number of people that constitutes a marriage.[/quote'] But it can be argued that the scientific formula for marriage has been worked out Most cultures and societies have started out by practising Polygamy, and over the centuries have worked out the right combination Now Islam allows Polygyny but the cap is at 4
Crookbond Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 That's not a marriage. That's just sex. Arrggh ... it's a romantic relationship including sex.
Crookbond Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 That's a form of polyamory .... Marriage should "ideally" happen when the person has decided to commit to one partner There is no IDEAL - you are using self fulfilling definitions aka X is ideal because X is ideal. This is even more cool - one form of polyamory is acceptable but another form isn't. But it can be argued that the scientific formula for marriage has been worked out Most cultures and societies have started out by practising Polygamy, and over the centuries have worked out the right combination Now Islam allows Polygyny but the cap is at 4 Not it hasn't. There are no scientific formulae just "this was been done in the past". Most cultures also worked out that homosexuality was sin - we know how that has turned out. You are confusing the word "scientific" with concepts like "popularity", "social acceptance" etc. I don't see how Islam worked out the magic number 4. No experiments, no studies - bas bhagwaan ne aakar kisi ko bola, chalo maan lete hai.
zen Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Not it hasn't. There are no scientific formulae just "this was been done in the past". Most cultures also worked out that homosexuality was sin - we know how that has turned out. You are confusing the word "scientific" with concepts like "popularity"' date=' "social acceptance" etc.[/quote'] Agree with your point if you insist on being completely accurate with the use of terminologies. However since human relationships are not purely science, one has to consider other concepts too After taking the holistic approach, it can be argued that single partner formula for marriage will probably work for most .... There is no point on reinventing the wheel (unless it is absolutely necessary) Now there may be a few cases where Polygamy would work, however by legalizing Polygamy to facilitate these cases, the chances of such legal rights being exploited by many (and esp. against women) would be high, so I would not support it PS It is understood that "Marriage" has more to it than amor .... Animals practice Polyamory too
Ram Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Polygamy and Polyandry is already widespread today. We just call it a different name - 'Affairs'. :)
Brainfade Posted June 30, 2015 Author Posted June 30, 2015 Polygamy and Polyandry is already widespread today. We just call it a different name - 'Affairs'. :) :-)!! Let's legitimize them and give all partners equal rights by contract. Otherwise, the "woh" in the relationship lacks security. What I should've asked in the OP is "should polygamous and polyandrous marriages be legalized" !!
Ram Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 :-)!! Let's legitimize them and give all partners equal rights by contract. Otherwise, the "woh" in the relationship lacks security. What I should've asked in the OP is "should polygamous and polyandrous marriages be legalized" !! Of course it should. Who is anyone to tell two (or more) consenting adults to what sort of marital arrangements they should (and should not) enter with each other? Will it be the case in today's society? As long as the religious right in every society continue to wield significant power over public policy, this probably will not happen.
Raghav_12 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 why there should be any marriage at all.. let people live the way they want with same sex spouse or with ten spouses of mixes genders.. let people have their life without any social or legal constraints..
Crookbond Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Agree with your point if you insist on being completely accurate with the use of terminologies. However since human relationships are not purely science, one has to consider other concepts too After taking the holistic approach, it can be argued that single partner formula for marriage will probably work for most .... There is no point on reinventing the wheel (unless it is absolutely necessary) Now there may be a few cases where Polygamy would work, however by legalizing Polygamy to facilitate these cases, the chances of such legal rights being exploited by many (and esp. against women) would be high, so I would not support it Bhai kehna kya chahte ho? First you say science then not science not some other concepts! If you can't define, then it should be fluid. Like I said repeatedly, the consequences of the choices with civil rights aren't a good enough reason to deny these rights. In a democracy, civil rights are absolute. PS It is understood that "Marriage" has more to it than amor .... Animals practice Polyamory too In the current world, live-in partners have the same status as "marriage".
Brainfade Posted June 30, 2015 Author Posted June 30, 2015 Bhai kehna kya chahte ho? First you say science then not science not some other concepts! If you can't define, then it should be fluid. Like I said repeatedly, the consequences of the choices with civil rights aren't a good enough reason to deny these rights. In a democracy, civil rights are absolute. In the current world, live-in partners have the same status as "marriage". Can they claim tax benefits? Can they claim inheritance? Can they make medical decisions for their partners?
Crookbond Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Of course it should. Who is anyone to tell two (or more) consenting adults to what sort of marital arrangements they should (and should not) enter with each other? Will it be the case in today's society? As long as the religious right in every society continue to wield significant power over public policy, this probably will not happen. There are some religions that allow it - religion isn't the sole reason; it's the mindset of fluidity and understanding the concept of "freedom of choice" why there should be any marriage at all.. let people live the way they want with same sex spouse or with ten spouses of mixes genders.. let people have their life without any social or legal constraints.. I met a 40 something woman today who told me how she's living with her boyfriend and kids. I have a French friend whose parents aren't married but have kids for 40 years and she doesn't intend to marry either. She has a BF for 6 years and has communicated that to him quite clearly. In terms of a society, the prime example is The Netherlands. Here's an article of your interest The Dutch Don’t Care About Marriage http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/roiphe/2013/10/marriage_and_the_dutch_what_americans_could_learn_from_the_conjugal_indifference.html The point I'm trying to make is that we wouldn't accept it until being allowed to accept. Let people make the choice.
Brainfade Posted June 30, 2015 Author Posted June 30, 2015 There are some religions that allow it - religion isn't the sole reason; it's the mindset of fluidity and understanding the concept of "freedom of choice" I met a 40 something woman today who told me how she's living with her boyfriend and kids. I have a French friend whose parents aren't married but have kids for 40 years and she doesn't intend to marry either. She has a BF for 6 years and has communicated that to him quite clearly. In terms of a society, the prime example is The Netherlands. Here's an article of your interest The Dutch Don’t Care About Marriage http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/roiphe/2013/10/marriage_and_the_dutch_what_americans_could_learn_from_the_conjugal_indifference.html The point I'm trying to make is that we wouldn't accept it until being allowed to accept. Let people make the choice. Again, this is not about societal acceptance. It is about taxes and legal benefits. Straight up. End of story.
Crookbond Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Again' date=' this is not about societal acceptance. It is about taxes and legal benefits. Straight up. End of story.[/quote'] Professor saheb, it is not even about tax benefits; it is about civil rights. Even if (hypothetically) there was ZERO tax benefits; I would still champion the cause. Tax benefits are perks not the core. Also, I just gave examples of how a culture without marriage turns out just fine.
zen Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Bhai kehna kya chahte ho? First you say science then not science not some other concepts! If you can't define, then it should be fluid. Like I said repeatedly, the consequences of the choices with civil rights aren't a good enough reason to deny these rights. In a democracy, civil rights are absolute. In the current world, live-in partners have the same status as "marriage". After taking the holistic view, as I said, such rights offered legally can lead to exploitation (esp. of women) which is my major concern Live-in partners and married couples may have legal equal rights in some cases, however that may not necessarily be true socially
Crookbond Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 After taking the holistic view, as I said, such rights offered legally can lead to exploitation (esp. of women) which is my major concern Live-in partners and married couples may have legal equal rights in some cases, however that may not necessarily be true socially Many legal right leads to issues - taking away civil liberties is undemocratic.
zen Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Many legal right leads to issues - taking away civil liberties is undemocratic. In theory, I agree with most of your assessments .... However, I also look at practical implications. For e.g. say the right to drive a car at 300 kmph (as we know many parts of the Autobahn in Germany do not have speed limits) In theory - If the individual wants to drive at 300 kmph, if he has the vehicle do that, why should he be stopped In practice - On some roads it could be feasible, but not all roads are designed to handle such speeds In theory - But special lanes could be made available on such roads In practice - but irresponsible speeding can impact responsible drivers in other lanes In theory - But if the vehicle, road and the driver consent, who are we to stop that In practice - the vehicle, road and the driver is an integral part of a system. A punctured tire at 300 kmph could severely impact drivers in other lanes In theory - but then we can design special tires In practice - but still how can we guarantee that it would be fail proof In theory - nothing can be guaranteed, even driving at 100 kmph can have the similar consequences, so why be undemocratic towards those driving at 300 kmph In practice - yeah but driving at 100 kmph and at 300 kmph is different. Also such laws could encourage drivers whose vehicles are not necessarily equipped to go fast to drive fast, creating additional safety hazards In theory - ..... So as I said, in theory I agree with most of your points. However, I am looking at the practical aspects as well :top:
Crookbond Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Small issue - There is no theory vs practical for civil liberties. They are ABSOLUTE and fundamental pillars of democracy.
zen Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Small issue - There is no theory vs practical for civil liberties. They are ABSOLUTE and fundamental pillars of democracy. As I said you definitions are accurate. However, Polygamy could fall in to civil liberties' domain for some, while for many it could be a morally unacceptable behavior or something that could lead to exploitation. Note that right to getting married is not being challenged
Recommended Posts