5 ms·

To date no "most progressive family law in the world" has touched the legalization of polyamory; why so? The only thing that comes to mind is that it would be

by listic 4y ago

To date no "most progressive family law in the world" has touched the legalization of polyamory; why so? The only thing that comes to mind is that it would become too convenient a loophole to escape taxes.

tasty_freeze 4y ago
When the US legalized gay marriage (at least for now), one of the talking points against it was that men could marry their sons to avoid the inheritance tax, the same idea you are talking about. But the fact is fathers could marry their daughters and mothers could marry their sons to avoid taxes before that law was passed, yet it wasn't done. It was all just a smokescreen. The other funny thing was that the people against gay marriage by and large were also against inheritance taxes, so you'd think they'd applaud a new loophole.
- travisathougies 4y ago
  > But the fact is fathers could marry their daughters and mothers could marry their sons to avoid taxes before that law was passed, yet it wasn't done. No fathers cannot marry their children. Nor can mothers. That is illegal in every state I believe.
  - trasz 4y ago
    That's true: in US you can legally marry a child ("the youngest girls to marry in 2000-2010 were three Tennessee 10-year-old girls who married men aged 24, 25, and 31, respectively, in 2001", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_S...), but not your own child. Although I'm sure there are ways around it if you are wealthy enough. (ps "Human Rights Watch pointed out that Afghanistan has a tougher law on child marriage than parts of the United States")
    - travisathougies 4y ago
      Tennessee law has changed and there are now minimum ages. Surprisingly, there is no minimum age in CA; it's up to the courts.
theonlybutlet 4y ago
Abuse and violence.
- TomMckenny 4y ago
  Logically I don't see how a n>2 person marriage would be more likely to be abusive than a two person marriage.
  - Sir_Burpalot 4y ago
    Sharing a household with a genetically unrelated adult is one of the biggest risk factors for experiencing child abuse. This is well known and well supported by evolutionary psychology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect Therefore, introducing additional genetically unrelated adults into a family would likely increase the risk of child abuse.
    - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
      Poverty and systemic issues contribute way more than that. Can we abolish poverty before we abolish civil rights?
      - theonlybutlet 4y ago
        That's a strawman and nobody is abolishing your civil rights. Civil rights don't mean you can do whatever you want.
        pastacacioepepe 4y ago
        > That's a strawman The fallacy is to say that we can't have legalized polyamory because it's negative for the children, while we allow sistemic issues to have a much greater negative effect on said children. > and nobody is abolishing your civil rights Hello Texas? What are we even talking about? > Civil rights don't mean you can do whatever you want. I never said this, but if you needed to remind yourself of it go ahead.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
notch656a 4y ago
Polyamory isn't illegal in most 'progressive' nations.
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  You're missing the point. It isn't recognized as a legal family form either.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Earlier you praised democracy being the system by which the "population" decides "their own political matters." You go on to cite this democratic system where "46,000 neighborhood meetings" determine family law as being exemplary citizenship involvement and democratic process. Then you take a viewpoint (legalize polymarous marriage, basically) that goes against the democratic majority in the US and Cuba. Wanting to force an anti-democratic solution while praising democracy as the solution is contradictory. Do you want polyamorous marriage, or do you want democratic decision making on family law? Until the public opinion changes, you can only pick one.
    - trasz 4y ago
      Human rights aren’t something that should be voted on.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - notch656a 4y ago
        I'd agree that your argument at least has merit, and I'd point out your argument is counter to 'pastacacioepepe' glorification of democracy as the tool for settling these rights. Of course down in the weeds is 'what are human rights' which is often settled by democratic process. It turns out to be a nasty problem determining who decides what human rights really are.
      - pastacacioepepe 4y ago

by listic 4y ago

tasty_freeze 4y ago

When the US legalized gay marriage (at least for now), one of the talking points against it was that men could marry their sons to avoid the inheritance tax, the same idea you are talking about. But the fact is fathers could marry their daughters and mothers could marry their sons to avoid taxes before that law was passed, yet it wasn't done. It was all just a smokescreen. The other funny thing was that the people against gay marriage by and large were also against inheritance taxes, so you'd think they'd applaud a new loophole.

travisathougies 4y ago
> But the fact is fathers could marry their daughters and mothers could marry their sons to avoid taxes before that law was passed, yet it wasn't done. No fathers cannot marry their children. Nor can mothers. That is illegal in every state I believe.
- trasz 4y ago
  That's true: in US you can legally marry a child ("the youngest girls to marry in 2000-2010 were three Tennessee 10-year-old girls who married men aged 24, 25, and 31, respectively, in 2001", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_S...), but not your own child. Although I'm sure there are ways around it if you are wealthy enough. (ps "Human Rights Watch pointed out that Afghanistan has a tougher law on child marriage than parts of the United States")
  - travisathougies 4y ago
    Tennessee law has changed and there are now minimum ages. Surprisingly, there is no minimum age in CA; it's up to the courts.

theonlybutlet 4y ago

Abuse and violence.

TomMckenny 4y ago
Logically I don't see how a n>2 person marriage would be more likely to be abusive than a two person marriage.
- Sir_Burpalot 4y ago
  Sharing a household with a genetically unrelated adult is one of the biggest risk factors for experiencing child abuse. This is well known and well supported by evolutionary psychology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect Therefore, introducing additional genetically unrelated adults into a family would likely increase the risk of child abuse.
  - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
    Poverty and systemic issues contribute way more than that. Can we abolish poverty before we abolish civil rights?
    - theonlybutlet 4y ago
      That's a strawman and nobody is abolishing your civil rights. Civil rights don't mean you can do whatever you want.
      - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
        > That's a strawman The fallacy is to say that we can't have legalized polyamory because it's negative for the children, while we allow sistemic issues to have a much greater negative effect on said children. > and nobody is abolishing your civil rights Hello Texas? What are we even talking about? > Civil rights don't mean you can do whatever you want. I never said this, but if you needed to remind yourself of it go ahead.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

notch656a 4y ago

Polyamory isn't illegal in most 'progressive' nations.

pastacacioepepe 4y ago
You're missing the point. It isn't recognized as a legal family form either.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Earlier you praised democracy being the system by which the "population" decides "their own political matters." You go on to cite this democratic system where "46,000 neighborhood meetings" determine family law as being exemplary citizenship involvement and democratic process. Then you take a viewpoint (legalize polymarous marriage, basically) that goes against the democratic majority in the US and Cuba. Wanting to force an anti-democratic solution while praising democracy as the solution is contradictory. Do you want polyamorous marriage, or do you want democratic decision making on family law? Until the public opinion changes, you can only pick one.
  - trasz 4y ago
    Human rights aren’t something that should be voted on.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - notch656a 4y ago
      I'd agree that your argument at least has merit, and I'd point out your argument is counter to 'pastacacioepepe' glorification of democracy as the tool for settling these rights. Of course down in the weeds is 'what are human rights' which is often settled by democratic process. It turns out to be a nasty problem determining who decides what human rights really are.
    - pastacacioepepe 4y ago