How would parallel polygamy be any different in this respect from serial polygamy? That is, how is this different from a situation where two divorced people (with children) remarry and then have children of their own?So, do you think divorce, or remarriage after divorce, should be outlawed? If not, how is this different from a three-adult household?
I don't think it would be any different, but I do believe divorce shouldn't be as easy to have as it is now in modern society. Divorce shouldn't be outlawed, but harder to get, it shouldn't be just something that can happen like that, there should be valid reasons for it, not : "I'm not in love with you anymore, so lets give our kids a bad life as long as I'm happy with myself". Polygamy and homosexual marriages (in the traditional sense, which means I agree with you about them having a civil contract) should be outlawed I believe. Marriage is about staying together, like I said, in sickness and in health, if you don't believe you can stay together then don't marry. Get some kind of contract stating you are living together, but if you want to have kids and raise them well, be sure or almost sure you're gonna stay together otherwise you'll not only ruin your life but theirs as well.
You do know that polygamy is permitted in a number of societies, right?
Yup, I do, I states it as such earlier.
Did you also know that in almost all of these societies, polygamy is actually very rare, and the societies in which it isn't rare, the reason is that women lack basic civil liberties and are considered property?
Seems quite logical, but in the societies where it does happen (even though it is rarely), do women also have the right to be polygamous ?
So yes, absolutely, if civil partnerships were permitted between more than two people, absolutely the rights should be exactly the same for either sex. That's the whole point, really.
Sorry the whole point about the women being able to was supposed to relate to the paragraph with X and Y...
Correction, you're only talking about men marrying a lot of women. I've been talking about people forming civil partnerships with each other irrespective of gender or sexual preference. In fact, I want to leave sex entirely out of the discussion -- sex is not the state's business.
Well, the US is a bit behind on civil liberties I believe (even removing some of them), but I think that in France and in Belgium as well, people are allowed to live together and form civil contracts of conditions and what would happen with property and so on, regardless of sex and/or sexual preference.
And I didn't understand what you meant by : "Correction, you're only talking about men marrying a lot of women."
Not really. A civil partnership contract would have to be one that includes all parties involved. So if Y1, X1, and X2 have already formed one, X2 would not be able to form another such contract with Y2 and Y3 without the consent of Y1 and X1. If everybody agrees, I don't see any problem with that either.
You don't see a problem with the children ?
That's know as the "slippery slope" fallacy. Look it up.
I hope you don't mind Wiki.
But it says not all slippery slopes are fallacies : "The slippery slope can be valid or fallacious."
Some people use it others argue against it. I, on this matter argue for it.
Yes, you're right, I can't be sure it will run down the slope, but I'm not willing to risk it.
"As an example of how an appealing slippery slope argument can be unsound, suppose that whenever a tree falls down, it has a 95% chance of knocking over another tree. We might conclude that soon a great many trees would fall, but this is not the case. There is a 5% chance that no more trees will fall, a 4.75% chance that exactly one more tree will fall, and so on. There is a 92.3% chance that 50 or fewer additional trees will fall. On average, another 14 trees will fall. In the absence of some momentum factor that makes later trees more likely to fall than earlier ones, this "domino effect" approaches zero probability."
This is one of their examples for slippery slope as a fallacy. Yes, it's true, it won't keep slipping, or the trees won't keep falling down. But is it worth the risk ? I prefer building a scaffold around the tree to support it than taking the risk of letting it fall.
No more than kids of heterosexual couples. This has been extensively researched; you might want to look that up too.
I don't know where to look this up, so if you have a source for that, I'd be glad ot check it out.
I don't know what you mean by that.
Sounds like a recipe for a soap opera.
That's because it's all it is supposed to be, a soap opera, nothing more.
If the laws were the same for everybody, a homosexual divorce would be no different from a heterosexual one.
It's not, seeing as many courts favor the woman except if the woman is an abuser or if the woman accepts shared custody. Courts also favor biological parents, so if one of the two mothers of a child got the child by insemination, then she would be favored over the other mother. If there are two fathers, both moving to different countries but only one can take the child, what happens then ?
In a normal marriage, the mother would take the child, but here we stand blocked at an impasse which can't be broken.