[Drlee]

It is just stupid to try to abolish marriage. Simply stupid. It is ingrained in our society and most all of us like it. All we need to do is, wherever there is a law to the contrary, replace the words "a man and a woman" with "two people".

Now here come the mental midgets who want to talk about marrying animals or plural marriage. Separate subject. There is absolutely no requirement that our laws accommodate every peccadillo that every person has.

[anasawad]

@Drlee
Listen, if you don't have the ability to comprehend the basic words of my proposal, don't bother to respond ok.

If you cant understand the difference between abolishing marriage and socializing it, then you don't understand what the argument is about.
And human-animal marriage and polygamy are things that are practiced in many places, you liking it or not is irrelevant, people who want to do it are allowed to do so. (this line is a direct response to a part of your comment and not me making a comparison or anything, because i know you'll try to twist it again)
Marriage should be free for everyone and socializing it would do just that, along with other benefits to the overall society i mentioned before which you haven't even bother to respond to.
Freedom and equality means everyone can get married to whom ever they want regardless of the opinions of other people, if you want to claim the freedom and equality flag then you have to apply the concept of it.
The comparison between gay marriage and human-animal marriage wasn't made by me, but rather by you to try to dismiss the argument since you obviously don't have the capacity to come up with an argument against socializing marriage.
Others before have start arguing about the idea of socializing marriage and removing all government restrictions and involvement into it and we were having a discussion until you showed up with your child like argument being "bla bla bla stupid, bla bla bla nonsense...etc". That is not an argument nor something someone who want to convey the image of intelligence would do. needless to say, you did it.
So you should atleast try to grow up.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

marriage between humans and their pets is a thing now specially in Europe, US and India.
Though full legislation for it isn't up yet

Thank you; in other words, it has no legal meaning whatsoever. Since marriage is a matter of law, if there is no legislation recognising a marriage involving an animal, then you cannot say "it is legal". I can claim that I am Emperor of Neptune without breaking a law, but that does not mean "it is legal to lay claim to planets". Your use of "yet" is underhand; unless you can point to any legislators who are considering it, then it's just an attempt to imply that someone somewhere in the world takes the idea seriously, when they don't.

but you can have official certificates from sites and representatives which has state license to give marriage certificates for people.

Links, or it's not true. Who are these officials?

So i wont put it too far that there would a legal discussion about its legislation in the upcoming times since its currently in the grey, i.e not illegal in many places.

Marriage has a legal meaning, and legal restrictions in various jurisdictions (eg not being married to more than one person at a time in western countries, and, as far as I know, women not marrying more than one man at a time in Muslim countries, either). Laws may say who people can marry, but that doesn't mean that if an object or organism doesn't turn up on a list of "things you can't marry", then marriage to that is "legal". A marriage to Neptune is not "legal", or marriage to the colour blue, but those aren't "illegal". They're just a meaningless concept.

For the other comments, 'm arguing that marriage should be socialized and not the business of the state or authority.

Couples are socialized; why would you want to change marriage to remove the meaning of it, when people already have the option of being a couple and not marrying? Marriage gives people mutual rights, and builds a stable basis for a family. These are things that practically every culture has always wanted, and decently written marriage laws can be fair and equal. Why should we get rid of that, just because you don't want to take part in it yourself?

"And human-animal marriage and polygamy are things that are practiced in many places"
Some evidence for human-animal marriage being practised, please (not just some drooling moron saying "I've married my cat")

"Freedom and equality means everyone can get married to whom ever they want"
'Whom ever' is important; it needs to be a person for a start, so that they can consent. This is why bringing up animals is a stupid red herring.


anasawad: "The comparison between gay marriage and human-animal marriage wasn't made by me, but rather by you"
False. Here's the history in the thread:

Zionist Nationalist: "next step of liberal craziness is marriage with animals (alredy happening on a small scale)"
LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX: "Finally, as long as we consider animals and objects not to be persons that by definition cannot consent, marriage should be restricted to people (eliminating concerns of bestiality or marrying objects)."
Suntzu: How 'bout a guy who wants to "marry" a goat?
Prosthetic Conscience: "It's pointless. A goat cannot exercise any rights or duties."
Suntzu: "No its not. Some animals are self-aware to include dolphins and gorillas."
anasawad: "Heck i think a while back even marriage to animals became an issue of debate. "
anasawad: "if marriage now includes not only between humans but also between humans and animals and objects"
What happens each time is some idiot claims that people do marry animals, and people, such as Drlee, reply "no they don't, and it's meaningless". You were the last to bring it up. You're in no position to call other posters' arguments "child-like".

[anasawad]

@Prosthetic Conscience
And thats the thing, mutual rights between the couple can be guaranteed by a civil contract between them. So the state don't need to have anything to do with it here. Marriage as a legal institution governed by the state has no real purpose or benefit when it can simply be done by the people for them selves.
The state being involved in these matters is an extra spending that doesn't serve anything while the resources put to organize and control it can simply be spent somewhere of more priority.
Marriage doesn't have its basis in the state ? its always been between people and only recently it became a matter of the state. To be more specific within the last century.
By socializing it you remove all restrictions on the people in regards of marriage. You save resources. You save people who want to get married the effort and trouble to get marriage license and approval and all these registration processes. You get more tax money from higher income households since marriage laws give tax breaks to married people by combining them together, which seems fine at first but once you look at the details, you realize it doesn't actually give tax breaks but rather effect which tax brackets the couple are in. That means the households with lower income wont get tax breaks but pretty much stay the same, while households with higher income usually move to a lower tax bracket thus reducing taxes on them, the richer they are the less taxes the more the change happen since its mostly one of the two having high income while the other having normal one.
And you also get more taxes from religious institutions that the only reason they get not to pay taxes is by being representatives of the state.
Not sure about the US but thats the case in most countries 'm familiar with.

So in short, less restrictions, more freedom, more accessibility, less government spending on it, more taxes. And ofcourse as mentioned previously, there are many ways to empower marriage and reduce divorce and separation without having to have state involvement.

And 'm married with two kids, so i wont say i don't want to be part of it, you know.



For the history of the conversation part.
Here are the full contexts:
1-

It seems a waste of time to keep this thing going, not just gay marriage, but the entire topic. Every while there will be a huge chaos and disputes over some sort of marriage or anther. Whethers it between different races, genders, classes, orientations, etc. The topic will always rise up. Heck i think a while back even marriage to animals became an issue of debate.
Why not just make marriage a social construct purely rather than a political and legal one.
It'd be much better for everyone, and much less wasteful of resources spent both by the government and the people on it.

Followed by a discussion on the socialization of marriage.
Then this:
Drlee here

I think we can drop the nonsense about abolishing marriage. It will not happen in any of our lifetimes. Not even close. We can also forget the utterly stupid nonsense about marrying animals and such.

In which i replied to all the post but for this particular comment:

Too late, marriage to animals is already legal in many countries including the US.

Then your comment.
What i describe as child like arguments (which it is) is ignoring the entire discussion and all the points and calling socializing marriage as whole a stupid idea without actually arguing the points given.
Then you came along and also ignored the entire argument and focused on a single line that i gave as one of many examples of things people include under marriage and replied to it alone.
Following by Drlee again to still ignore the entire argument and focus on this specific point as if its the center of the discussion when everyone actually arguing simply went by it without even responding because they understood what the argument is about.

That is a child-like argument and also a strawman to divert the topic thus attempting to discredit the argument without even addressing it.

Just to give an extra context:
This is the response to Drlee first post:
http://prntscr.com/eig34p
And the response to it is
http://prntscr.com/eig3b9

Yup, totally addressing my argument and not strawman-ing and ignoring it and very bright responses.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

For the order of mentioning animals: you said both "Heck i think a while back even marriage to animals became an issue of debate" and "if marriage now includes not only between humans but also between humans and animals and objects" before anything you have now quoted. You brought it up. You claimed it's already happening. It's your fault. It's your strawman.

No, marriage is not just about things you can write down in a civil contract. There are parental rights, inheritance rights, rights of hospital visitation, or acting legally for someone in case of incapacity, and more. These involve third parties, so they're not just abotu a contract between two people. What's more, creating civil contracts is not "socializing" marriage. Socializing something is about taking it outside of "contracts" and law in general.

"its always been between people and only recently it became a matter of the state. To be more specific within the last century."
The Roman Republic begs to differ. The kingdom of Israel begs to differ (the Old Testament notes the difference between a wife and a concubine). I think you can probably go back a lot further than that.

"You save resources. You save people who want to get married the effort and trouble to get marriage license and approval and all these registration processes. "
It's a lot easier than drawing up civil contracts that you propose as a replacement. All your complaints about taxes are specific to some country (which I don't know), and are at best an argument for changing the income tax treatment, not getting rid of the legal institution of marriage.

[anasawad]

@Prosthetic Conscience

For the order of mentioning animals: you said both "Heck i think a while back even marriage to animals became an issue of debate" and "if marriage now includes not only between humans but also between humans and animals and objects" before anything you have now quoted. You brought it up. You claimed it's already happening. It's your fault. It's your strawman.

I quoted the first time i mentioned it and i added the context to show what it was meant for.
Its not a strawman, since a strawman is used against an argument not for it.
The point in that segment is that, as stated in it, there will always be something about marriage to come up for legislation, so why not give everyone their freedoms without having any restrictions.
I think that should be very clear since i mentioned in the same part that marriage restrictions has always been an issue whether its about races, religions, classes, genders, etc.

But for the overall, to end this part since you guys insist on keep focusing on this single point.
Yes i do stand by one of the former comments that if someone wants to do it, let them do it, why not ?
Its not like its harming any body.
And yes, it does already happen, not state recognized but people do indeed do it.
Here is an example in first page of google search.
http://www.dogster.com/lifestyle/this-w ... ry-her-dog

It is indeed stupid to marry an animal, i don't deny that. But people do have the right to that stupidity and why should they be stopped ?

No, marriage is not just about things you can write down in a civil contract. There are parental rights, inheritance rights, rights of hospital visitation, or acting legally for someone in case of incapacity, and more. These involve third parties, so they're not just abotu a contract between two people.

Parental rights are not part of marriage laws. People can be parents without being married, and their rights as a parent for their biological or adopted children are not attached to their marriage.

Inheritance rights are same as above, not connected to marriage. The only part that is connected is inheritance of the spouse, which as stated above, can be easily organized by national censuses data collection agencies and departments in most countries being the department of planning doing these things and also by will.
Hospital visitation and in case of incapacity, both same as above.

What's more, creating civil contracts is not "socializing" marriage. Socializing something is about taking it outside of "contracts" and law in general.

I did actually respond to this point before.

Here it is:

And those can still be done between consenting couples who want to do such contract. But instead of having a standard one by the state that is in many case harmful to one of the sides if not both, it should be between people who want to engage in it to decide what should and should not be in it.

Basically, the civil contract is optional if the given couple want certain rules to be enforced. If not, then so it be.

"its always been between people and only recently it became a matter of the state. To be more specific within the last century."
The Roman Republic begs to differ. The kingdom of Israel begs to differ (the Old Testament notes the difference between a wife and a concubine). I think you can probably go back a lot further than that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_ ... w_marriage

In medieval Europe, marriage came under the jurisdiction of canon law, which recognized as a valid marriage one where the parties stated that they took one another as wife and husband, even in absence of any witnesses.

The Council of Trent (convened 1545–1563) ruled that in the future a marriage was only valid in Roman Catholic countries if it was witnessed by a priest of the Roman Catholic Church or, if obtaining a priest were impractical, by other witnesses. This ruling was not accepted in the newly Protestant nations of Europe, nor by Protestants who lived in Roman Catholic countries or their colonies, nor by Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Note that outside of Europe that still didn't happen until latter on.
For example in the middle east both in Iran and in the Ottoman empire, marriage was done by community figures and religious figures and the state didn't interfere in organizing it.
That lasted until the beginnings of the last century where the new states started organizing it and Iran and Turkey both stopped being empires and started interfering in everything people do.

"You save resources. You save people who want to get married the effort and trouble to get marriage license and approval and all these registration processes. "
It's a lot easier than drawing up civil contracts that you propose as a replacement. All your complaints about taxes are specific to some country (which I don't know), and are at best an argument for changing the income tax treatment, not getting rid of the legal institution of marriage.

Not really its not. Drawing up a civil contract which can be done by any civil lawyer and can be done for a very cheap price. And just simply having the same laws applying to all other contracts.
While for having it done by the state, then that includes several legal procedures and usually would cost more for the people.
And note that this also costs the state money to do the hiring and organizing for it.

For the taxes, most countries in Europe and north America and even Iran and Lebanon have very simillar laws and they all give deductions in taxes whether in value or rate for married couples.
Now as i said earlier, If you want to give tax deductions give it to the poor who need the money and not to people who can afford paying it.
So at the simplist point, these tax laws should be removed.
And 'm saying this as a person who get 7% off my taxes just because 'm married and have children.
So though 'm a beneficiary by default, i still think these things shouldn't happen and people like me who can afford to pay the extra taxes shouldn't get discount when we don't need it.



EDIT: extra segment was added to the first part.

[Drlee]

So in short, less restrictions, more freedom, more accessibility, less government spending on it, more taxes. And ofcourse as mentioned previously, there are many ways to empower marriage and reduce divorce and separation without having to have state involvement.

Of course you do not see how this is entirely wrong.

I will skip over the ridiculous notion that I might have more freedom. That is simply wrong. My marriage took an hour to get the license and another hour for the ceremony. It cost next to nothing.

Look at your last bit and I will talk you through why it is simply wrong:

... there are many ways to empower marriage and reduce divorce and separation without having to have state involvement.

This is pretty obviously untrue. Before you read on tell me what they are?

Do you realize that a lawsuit has very specific costs to the government. Any dissolution of property without divorce laws could easily and almost always result in an expensive trial. Would you charge the participants for this? So let me get this straight. Suppose you have a poor man and women who entered into a civil contract for marriage like you propose. The relationship becomes abusive. A divorce is necessary. Absent government divorce laws each case would have to be individually adjudicated. You may say that their marriage contract should solve for these potentialities. It could never do that and even if every i was dotted and every t crossed there is still the case of special circumstances that either could claim which would require a judge and maybe even a jury deciding. Very very expensive. Beyond what poor people could afford so what is your solution for them? Take away their recourse to the courts? That will never happen in the US.

So perhaps you imagine a set of laws governing these civil unions, published in advance, with specific instructions for the dividing of property, disposition of children and limits on appeal? That what you have in mind? Well we already have that. It is called "marriage".

There is not a single state in the United States that has religious marriage. All marriages performed in the US are civil unions just as you describe. The only specific caveats are that they are between people and that those people are not already married. What other requirements do YOU have? Do you want the law to write in the possibility of a woman marrying her cat? (She can already leave all of her money to her cat, can sleep with the cat and has absolute right to do pretty much with her cat as she will as long as she does not brutalize her cat.) Do you personally want plural marriage to be written into law? Do you favor polygamy? I don't care to hear a "logical" argument. They are almost always facile and tedious.

No son. You are proposing a solution in search of a problem.

I think you need to resolve within yourself how you feel about constitutional representative democracy. If you want to play the anarchist card then I have no desire to follow you down that rabbit hole. If you were an American who believe that there is merit to allow a person to enter into a domestic partnership contract with a newt I would caution you to consider the following?

Who pays for the newt to be represented in court in the case of the breach of that contract?

Do the police protect the newt if the person in the contract contrives to step on the newt rather than pay newt support?

If the person and the newt adopt a child, who gets custody? But wait. What if the child is another newt?

Can the newt draw social security payments based upon the person's work history just like a spouse?

What constitutes newt abuse? Is swearing at and belittling the newt considered abusive within the context of a contract or do we have to specify that in advance?

Same sex couples looked to the equal protection clause in the constitution for their right to marry. It reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (emphasis added).

Persons. Not Pleurodelinaes. The poor newt can't look to the constitution for the remedy to his unrequited love of...well...you. So for you and your adoring salamander to finally enter in to connubial bliss (a bliss which in this case can make a special claim to having been born of fire) you need to get some laws going. You should write to your elected representative. Perhaps she can help. Something like this:

Dear Representative Jones.

I an shocked and appalled at how my rights have been trampled in the so-called democracy. Trampled! I want to marry Doris Fourfoot. She (I am fairly certain it is she) is my one true love and I want to solemnize it. "She" and I went to the courthouse to get a license and it was appalling what happened. First they did not want to let her in. Why? Because she is a newt. That's it. When I told them why I was there they finally relented and let us by. I can tell you I did not appreciate the way the guard could barely conceal his laughter but I have already taken that up with his supervisor. Doris, to her credit, said nothing.

The clerk of the court was pretty insulting too though I admit she did get all of the other people who work in the courthouse to come to the counter and help her decide. Some of them were as rude or more rude than the guard and one of them threw up when Doris ate a fly? What is so fucking funny about eating a fly? Would you laugh if your husband ate one? Don't answer that. Anyway. Miss Fourfoot and I were peremptorily turned away so I am writing to you. Here is what I want you to do.

I want you to change the words "person" in the constitution to "being". I know it takes 75% of the states or something like that but I feel it is important for you to get started. You could sponsor the bill and go on Glen Beck's, no wait, Bill O'Rielly's show to announce it. He could get that judge Napolitano to comment on it and he could write a book about Doris. It would fit right in with his "The killing of" series. And yes. That is right. Doris is sadly not with us anymore. She got into an altercation with my common-law spouse "Miss Pussy Boots-Feline" and was eaten.

You will be happy to know that I have forgiven Miss Pussy Boots-Feline and we are seeing each other again. We would like to marry. We can't wait until the day she can proudly call herself Miss Pussy Boots-Anasawad.

Now get to work you public servant or I will not vote for you again. (Neither will Miss Pussy Boots and that is another thing.....)

Your boss

Anasawad

[Godstud]

Great response, Drlee!

Something you may have forgotten, however, is that newts can change their gender(Amphibians), so there's an entirely different difficulty in marrying a newt.

Without marriage, you need something(a contract perhaps), that gives you all the privileges and benefits that marriage has, for people who want to commit to a long-term relationship. Let's call that contract 'marriage', for simplicity's sake... No wait...

[Prosthetic Conscience]

@anasawad, all you've found is some moron saying "well, if I say you're married to your pet, then you are". That is not "official". That she is a "priest" because someone else online says she's a "priest" doesn't count either; in no way does it make her an "official". Yes, it's stupid; but you brought it up, and when Drlee said we should drop discussion of it, you said "too late, it's already legal in the USA". You have been repeatedly bringing up "marriage to animals" in this thread, claiming it's legal and relevant to a discussion of gay marriage. It's your strawman, but you falsely accused Drlee of mentioning it first.

Parental rights are a part of marriage laws; yes, you get rights outside marriage too, but being married does have effects. Inheritance by a spouse is part of inheritance law, so why try to pretend it isn't? And whether someone is married will, in the UK for instance, affect how much their children get if they die without a will. Yes, wills can specify who gets what, but that's another level of complication, while you were claiming that things would be easier without marriage being a legal process. Hospital visitation rights cannot always be determined by pre-written wishes, at least in some countries.

You quote Wikipedia on what constituted a valid medieval European marriage - it could be a common-law marriage, but it could also happen under the church rules - canon law. And it was " a matter of the state" - the state had many laws about what married people could do. And the point is that states have had such rules for thousand of years, not just a century - eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome . This is, for instance, why children born outside a marriage were called 'illegitimate'.

[anasawad]

@Drlee

This is pretty obviously untrue. Before you read on tell me what they are?

Already stated here;

What should be done is increasing awarness and education about raising families and relationships, and allowing birth control and abortions for those who are not ready to have children so they're not trapped in such scenario.

There already are classes for couples starting families on how to raise a family, and there are many private firms for helping couples solving any problems they have in their relations and consulting them on how to improve it.
We don't need to start anything new, just promote the already existing ones.
And these things spans all corners of a relationship and a family from helping with communications to even how to improve the sex-life of the couple.
But most people are usually hesitant to take these type of educational materials or seek consultancy.
Promoting them and making people more open to such things to improve their relationships and lives would help greatly in improving the quality of their relations and the quality of marriage they're in, and i would argue would reduce the rates of divorce and separation.

Do you realize that a lawsuit has very specific costs to the government. Any dissolution of property without divorce laws could easily and almost always result in an expensive trial. Would you charge the participants for this? So let me get this straight.

Well, considering that people already do sign special contracts for these things even when marriage is state organized, thats pretty much a void point since you're going to have it either way.

Suppose you have a poor man and women who entered into a civil contract for marriage like you propose. The relationship becomes abusive. A divorce is necessary. Absent government divorce laws each case would have to be individually adjudicated. You may say that their marriage contract should solve for these potentialities.

So, domestic abuse, a crime that already has laws regarding it in the justice system should be looked on in contracts ? Those aren't even in the current marriage laws.
Again, not a point since thats a different set of laws and not really related to marriage. Domestic abuse if you were wondering also happens with couples whom are not married, and the process is still the same.
Void point again.

It could never do that and even if every i was dotted and every t crossed there is still the case of special circumstances that either could claim which would require a judge and maybe even a jury deciding. Very very expensive. Beyond what poor people could afford so what is your solution for them? Take away their recourse to the courts? That will never happen in the US.

This is on the scenario of domestic abuse which these things would happen whether in a state organized marriage or between non married couples and even in socialized marriage. Since its a crime and victims of the crime don't pay for the costs of trailing the person who victimized them.
Anther void point.

Note that these are strawman points since you're bringing irrelevant premises to the topic since the discussion is about the institution of marriage in law and those are not included in these laws but rather a different set of laws.

So perhaps you imagine a set of laws governing these civil unions, published in advance, with specific instructions for the dividing of property, disposition of children and limits on appeal? That what you have in mind? Well we already have that. It is called "marriage".

For dividing properties, its actually already bad and unjust laws which is the reason why people make their own contracts when getting married to set their terms.

For children, that is also not included in marriage laws since >

Parental rights are not part of marriage laws. People can be parents without being married, and their rights as a parent for their biological or adopted children are not attached to their marriage.

There is not a single state in the United States that has religious marriage. All marriages performed in the US are civil unions just as you describe. The only specific caveats are that they are between people and that those people are not already married. What other requirements do YOU have? Do you want the law to write in the possibility of a woman marrying her cat? (She can already leave all of her money to her cat, can sleep with the cat and has absolute right to do pretty much with her cat as she will as long as she does not brutalize her cat.) Do you personally want plural marriage to be written into law? Do you favor polygamy? I don't care to hear a "logical" argument. They are almost always facile and tedious.

As said, people should be able to do whatever they wish to do. I don't deny its stupid for people to marry animals, but if they wish to do so, let them.
For polygamy, actually yes i do support allowing it.
Its in the first statement i made in this thread, here you go;

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I support full freedom in the marriage topic for people including homosexual marriage, polygamy for both genders and to all genders.

Its in the very first page of the thread.
I do stand by it.

I think you need to resolve within yourself how you feel about constitutional representative democracy. If you want to play the anarchist card then I have no desire to follow you down that rabbit hole. If you were an American who believe that there is merit to allow a person to enter into a domestic partnership contract with a newt I would caution you to consider the following?
Who pays for the newt to be represented in court in the case of the breach of that contract?
Do the police protect the newt if the person in the contract contrives to step on the newt rather than pay newt support?
If the person and the newt adopt a child, who gets custody? But wait. What if the child is another newt?
Can the newt draw social security payments based upon the person's work history just like a spouse?
What constitutes newt abuse? Is swearing at and belittling the newt considered abusive within the context of a contract or do we have to specify that in advance?

To answer all the above, if people want to do it, let them.
And no there wont be any court cases or anything, first because animals cant do such thing and second because the rights of the person will always trump the rights of the animal.
Thats why i said this earlier;

Yes i do stand by one of the former comments that if someone wants to do it, let them do it, why not ?
Its not like its harming any body.

If its not harming anyone, and its just their desire in their own life, and no one is paying anything for it.
Why should anyone interfere with it ?

Its funny you're making this argument because earlier you said this;

So I am still waiting for someone to tell me how they are negatively affected by same sex marriage.

Well, you're also not affected by someone doing this, so why are you against people doing what they want when they're not harming anyone or affecting anyone in any negative way ?
Are you triggered by people doing things you don't like ?

Same sex couples looked to the equal protection clause in the constitution for their right to marry.

And how exactly does my proposal deny them the right to get married ?
By opening the right for everyone to get married, somehow this translates in your mind that gay people are restricted from this right ?

For the rest of your post. more bullshit, no real substance.
So far you have not made a single valid point. And the only point you're angry about is contradictory to your own previously stated opinion.



@Prosthetic Conscience

all you've found is some moron saying "well, if I say you're married to your pet, then you are". That is not "official". That she is a "priest" because someone else online says she's a "priest" doesn't count either; in no way does it make her an "official". Yes, it's stupid; but you brought it up, and when Drlee said we should drop discussion of it, you said "too late, it's already legal in the USA". You have been repeatedly bringing up "marriage to animals" in this thread, claiming it's legal and relevant to a discussion of gay marriage. It's your strawman, but you falsely accused Drlee of mentioning it first.

Read the above answer to the same thing.

Parental rights are a part of marriage laws; yes, you get rights outside marriage too, but being married does have effects.

What if the marriage ended ? do these laws change ? the answer is no, because parental rights are a different set of laws.

Inheritance by a spouse is part of inheritance law, so why try to pretend it isn't? And whether someone is married will, in the UK for instance, affect how much their children get if they die without a will.

Didn't claim it isn't. And i already answered this part, twice.

Inheritance rights are same as above, not connected to marriage. The only part that is connected is inheritance of the spouse, which as stated above, can be easily organized by national censuses data collection agencies and departments in most countries being the department of planning doing these things and also by will.
Hospital visitation and in case of incapacity, both same as above.

Basically, same laws, same everything, but without having to hire an extra set of people to apply them.

You quote Wikipedia on what constituted a valid medieval European marriage - it could be a common-law marriage, but it could also happen under the church rules - canon law. And it was " a matter of the state" - the state had many laws about what married people could do. And the point is that states have had such rules for thousand of years, not just a century - eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome . This is, for instance, why children born outside a marriage were called 'illegitimate'.

Actually i quoted the part that directly conveys my point. Marriage is done by the people. they declare it. Governments or governing bodies when gathering data and information they include it.
Here is my first response to this point before you even got into the argument;

If we made it just a social construct that can be done between any two people or even more if you'd like. Then its much easier, and you can register it in censuses and already existing government forms handling the recording of information about the population.

Government departments already gather these info all around, and already register it in their sets.
So the registration problem is solved, because the info is going to be gather either way by other departments. So that would solve both the inheritance dilemma both of you are proposing, simply by using already existing departments and keeping them as they are.
And for the quote, note the highlighted part. Marriage, although had restriction mainly by religion, was already socialized. 'm proposing to socialize it simply without the restrictions.


Basically, all the points so far given by you two are either irrelevant by being not connected to marriage laws. Or some imagined dilemma although the solution already exist and its not a problem to begin with.



EDIT: BTW, for the part about the collection of Data for things like inheritance and all related topics.
You can easily take a look at central Asia, some parts of India, and the middle east where there are clans and tribes and they do get marriages but not done by the state. And everything still works pretty much in the given order of the country for inheritance including the spouse since the governments have departments gathering these information and others about the population constantly.
In most its the department of planning. In the US, you have the census bureau which conducts both a major census every 10 years and on the other several censuses and information gathering about the population, economy, demographics, etc independently of all other departments. And it does it constantly not on a periodic timeline, only the major ones are done periodically.
So this problem you're making already have a solution really.

[Suntzu]

Make civil union a state matter, two males, two females, a male and a female or even three or more.

Make marriage a religious matter.

Let the state set the rules for civil union.

Let religions set their rules for marriage.

[Donna]

Everything is conversion and perversion. Solve et coagula.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Actually i quoted the part that directly conveys my point. Marriage is done by the people. they declare it. Governments or governing bodies when gathering data and information they include it.
Here is my first response to this point before you even got into the argument;
If we made it just a social construct that can be done between any two people or even more if you'd like. Then its much easier, and you can register it in censuses and already existing government forms handling the recording of information about the population.

I don't think you understand what states do. It's not about recording information. It's about applying laws. And marriage is about how the relationship between people is formally treated in society, not about who recorded the start of it. The state makes laws and enforces them, and does so in the knowledge of who can get married, and sets limits on who can get married, so that the laws do not become meaningless.

Censuses are no good as the origin of information to allow laws to be applied to people; they happen infrequently, and are not recorded so that you can look up information about an individual, or a couple. The "already existing government form" you also suggest the state relies on is the marriage certificate. And you can't just arbitrarily make it more than 2 people in a society where the laws that mention marriage are all about it being 2 people. Because a relationship between 2 people may not make any sense for 3 or more people. All the laws would have to be revised, so it's ridiculous to say "let's just let people decide for themselves how many spouses they have". It would be a fundamental change in the state.

[anasawad]

@Prosthetic Conscience

I don't think you understand what states do. It's not about recording information. It's about applying laws. And marriage is about how the relationship between people is formally treated in society, not about who recorded the start of it. The state makes laws and enforces them, and does so in the knowledge of who can get married, and sets limits on who can get married, so that the laws do not become meaningless.

I do understand that, and thats exactly what 'm arguing against, the state interfering in who can and can not get married.
The laws that are there to protect and guarantee people's rights and safety are all different sets of laws applied with or without a marriage being involved.

Censuses are no good as the origin of information to allow laws to be applied to people; they happen infrequently, and are not recorded so that you can look up information about an individual, or a couple. The "already existing government form" you also suggest the state relies on is the marriage certificate.

Not really, if you looked at EU stats for example, you'll see that they record both how may people are married, cohabiting, or even more than one couple living in the same household.
Marriage certificates are only a part of it and there are already existing other ways to gather info on continuous basis. Its usually easier in republics.

And you can't just arbitrarily make it more than 2 people in a society where the laws that mention marriage are all about it being 2 people. Because a relationship between 2 people may not make any sense for 3 or more people. All the laws would have to be revised, so it's ridiculous to say "let's just let people decide for themselves how many spouses they have". It would be a fundamental change in the state.

Why not ? polygamy does happen in many countries specially in the middle east and central Asia. As long as all sides involved consent to it then i don't see where the problem is.


BTW, these types of marriages (ones without state supervision and registration) are actually most common in Iran. Its called Mot'a marriage which is basically two people letting a local sheikh or a judge or a family senior wed them. There are casual contracts to it that everyone uses so no side abuses the other. Ofcourse even those have restrictions of being only between men and women. But nevertheless, its done without the marriage ever being registered in the state, and since the department of planing gathers information continuously, its usually updated every month or so, and state representatives are used to seeing those community figures and gather who they wedded. (sometimes for this type the couple can also determine the period of the marriage in advance)
There is also an even less organized form which is called "white marriage" spreading which is similar to what you call cohabitation just simply much longer term where the couple simply declare they're married, live together and continue together normally. Its more common among poorer people and many continue life long relationship like this. Though some government official on the clerics hardliners side are against it, but they haven't been able to do much about it. ( in censuses, those are counted among the married people)


And so far, after decades of these things, its still ok, organizing and data collection is fine since its done by independent agencies.
Its not perfect, because the clerics are fucking things up, but its doable and it gives the people much more freedom in this regard. Just left is making it fully free.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

I do understand that, and thats exactly what 'm arguing against, the state interfering in who can and can not get married.
The laws that are there to protect and guarantee people's rights and safety are all different sets of laws applied with or without a marriage being involved.

And they depend on knowing that each person is married to zero or one people, in the countries where that is the law. Or in countries allowing polygamy, they will have written the laws to say "one wife's property stays with her; no other wives have a claim on it", and so on. All these laws have assumptions about the numbers involved, and you can't just say "everyone gets to be married to as many people as they want, and we'll make up the interpretation of all our laws as we go along".

Not really, if you looked at EU stats for example, you'll see that they record both how may people are married, cohabiting, or even more than one couple living in the same household.

No, that's useless. If I want to know who Monsieur Hulot's wife is for legal purposes, I can't get that from the census. Knowing how many married couples live in his district is useless. Only knowing how many were there 9 years ago is even worse.

Marriage certificates are only a part of it and there are already existing other ways to gather info on continuous basis. Its usually easier in republics.

God know where 'republics' come into this, but the point is that official registration of marriages gives you a definitive record, while others give you "a best guess". Legally, certainty is good.

Why not ? polygamy does happen in many countries specially in the middle east and central Asia. As long as all sides involved consent to it then i don't see where the problem is.

because it's a huge change to culture which you can't just allow through when a few people decide they want polygamy for themselves - see above. I also doubt there's a single country that allows polygamy that has actual equality between the sexes for it (because, for a start, that would always be at least partially a same-sex marriage, and those countries aren't keen on that. Equal laws for polygamy would mean that all existing members of a marriage must consent to adding a new one, that any combination in the marriage can ask for a divorce from any other combination, but you'll have to decide how that gets resolved - must you have universal consent for a partial divorce? Or just a majority vote? How are children treated - do biological parents get extra rights and responsibilities, or is it all shared? What about inheritance? And so on).

BTW, these types of marriages (ones without state supervision and registration) are actually most common in Iran. Its called Mot'a marriage which is basically two people letting a local sheikh or a judge or a family senior wed them. There are casual contracts to it that everyone uses so no side abuses the other. Ofcourse even those have restrictions of being only between men and women. But nevertheless, its done without the marriage ever being registered in the state, and since the department of planing gathers information continuously, its usually updated every month or so, and state representatives are used to seeing those community figures and gather who they wedded. (sometimes for this type the couple can also determine the period of the marriage in advance)

So this is pretty intrusive; a state official is having to ask questions every month from everyone 'senior' about who got married recently. I can see that an authoritarian state would like this excuse to be questioning every month, but it'd be a lot simpler if the couple just went to the official the one time they want to get married.

There is also an even less organized form which is called "white marriage" spreading which is similar to what you call cohabitation just simply much longer term where the couple simply declare they're married, live together and continue together normally. Its more common among poorer people and many continue life long relationship like this. Though some government official on the clerics hardliners side are against it, but they haven't been able to do much about it. ( in censuses, those are counted among the married people)

And what legal status do they have? If none, then yes, it's just cohabitation. This raises all the questions of how many people they can declare themselves married to, how they add to or subtract from the people in these relationships, and so on.

And so far, after decades of these things, its still ok, organizing and data collection is fine since its done by independent agencies.
Its not perfect, because the clerics are fucking things up, but its doable and it gives the people much more freedom in this regard. Just left is making it fully free.

Again, I don't think you understand what a state does. The purpose is not just knowing who is regarded by society as 'married'; it's to apply that to the laws. If the laws only work with 2 people in a marriage, then you need to ensure that no one is creating marriages with 3 or more people.

[anasawad]

@Prosthetic Conscience

And they depend on knowing that each person is married to zero or one people, in the countries where that is the law. Or in countries allowing polygamy, they will have written the laws to say "one wife's property stays with her; no other wives have a claim on it", and so on. All these laws have assumptions about the numbers involved, and you can't just say "everyone gets to be married to as many people as they want, and we'll make up the interpretation of all our laws as we go along".

Well, yea, property laws are applied and it doesn't count on marriage. The property goes to those who legally own it, and if a married couple were buying it together, then it'll be registered as a shared property.
In polygamy the same applies, each has his\her properties.
Usually all people getting married have anther contract aside from the marriage specifying financial and property rights and obligation of each side in the marriage and what they get if the marriage ended. This contract has its own terms decided by the people getting married.
Almost everyone in central Asia does it.

No, that's useless. If I want to know who Monsieur Hulot's wife is for legal purposes, I can't get that from the census. Knowing how many married couples live in his district is useless. Only knowing how many were there 9 years ago is even worse.

What i meant is, there are already agencies collecting these data, and they can do the recording of the people married.

God know where 'republics' come into this, but the point is that official registration of marriages gives you a definitive record, while others give you "a best guess". Legally, certainty is good.

Because republics have elections, and that means the data is already registered and collected by a number of agencies and on individual basis.

because it's a huge change to culture which you can't just allow through when a few people decide they want polygamy for themselves - see above. I also doubt there's a single country that allows polygamy that has actual equality between the sexes for it (because, for a start, that would always be at least partially a same-sex marriage, and those countries aren't keen on that. Equal laws for polygamy would mean that all existing members of a marriage must consent to adding a new one, that any combination in the marriage can ask for a divorce from any other combination, but you'll have to decide how that gets resolved - must you have universal consent for a partial divorce? Or just a majority vote? How are children treated - do biological parents get extra rights and responsibilities, or is it all shared? What about inheritance? And so on).

Polygamy means that a person being married to multiple people. Not multiple people being in a single marriage.
Parental rights remain with the parents. Child rights remain for the children.
Both are separate set of laws from those of marriage.

Most countries allowing polygamy indeed don't have same sex marriage, in Iran its partial being allowed for transgenders and trans-sexuals but not yet for homosexuals outright.

So this is pretty intrusive; a state official is having to ask questions every month from everyone 'senior' about who got married recently. I can see that an authoritarian state would like this excuse to be questioning every month, but it'd be a lot simpler if the couple just went to the official the one time they want to get married.

Its pretty much part of a decentralized government, not just about marriage but in all matters.
Those seniors and social figures are usually the one handling the collection of data from their perspective areas and simply give it to the state for registration.
4 states have these types of things as far as i know; Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Lebanon. Those 4 countries all have partial autonomy for many areas and districts within them.

And what legal status do they have? If none, then yes, it's just cohabitation. This raises all the questions of how many people they can declare themselves married to, how they add to or subtract from the people in these relationships, and so on.

Full legal status of marriage, once they declare themselves married and the state when gathering data registers them and their records will officially include that they're married, simply without issuing a marriage certificate and usually they make a civil contract between them to organize the financial and properties included if such exists.

President Khatami pushed for this as the tax system in Iran is based on that of the US and in many cases, people with lower income tend to move up in tax brackets thus white marriage allows them to be married without state supervision, and their status is only considered as married when it comes to voting. Basically they don't get any of the advantages nor any of the disadvantages.

Again, I don't think you understand what a state does. The purpose is not just knowing who is regarded by society as 'married'; it's to apply that to the laws. If the laws only work with 2 people in a marriage, then you need to ensure that no one is creating marriages with 3 or more people.

Yes, but the actual marriage laws aren't as wide as you think they are.
Most of the points mentioned so far aren't really about marriage laws but rather separate set of laws that married people are only a group of the overall people its applied to.
Polygamy is not 3 or more people. Its one person being married to one or more people.
If for example i want to marry more than one person ( i don't but just an example), my wife has to consent that i do so. Once i do, i am the one engaged in polygamy not her.


On a side note, for the authoritarian state comment, Iran is democratic and has large participation rates in elections. Simply different structure in most part than other countries. Evidence for that is that the opposition (reformists) just won a majority in the parliament, the assembly, the supreme court and the military command along with half the guardian council in the last election, while the ruling party barely won third.
For example the supreme leader who is elected through representative democracy plays the role of the president in countries like the US, while the president who is elected direct elections plays the role of secretary of state.

[Drlee]

The laws that are there to protect and guarantee people's rights and safety are all different sets of laws applied with or without a marriage being involved.

This is not true in the US and the EU. There are many aspects of marriage, covered by specific laws, that do not apply to other states of cohabitation.

Besides. We already have what you want. I simply cannot believe you do not see it. In the US, if you do not want the state involved in your "marriage" then simply do not get married. People are free to live together with or without a contractual relationship. They can define that any way that they like. Even groups of people can and have formed polyfidelitous communes. I know someone who used to belong to one.

My current wife and I lived together for a number of years before marrying. No harm no foul.

As I have repeatedly said, you are proposing a solution in search of a problem.

On a side note, for the authoritarian state comment, Iran is democratic and has large participation rates in elections.

This is completely disingenuous. Iran is far from democratic. It has the veneer of democracy but is one of the strongest theocracies in the world. Every aspect of their "democracy" is subject to vetting by religious leaders. These so-called unofficial marriages of yours are tightly controlled by the laws of Islam enforced in the person of the Supreme Leader and his appointees. (Nore his, never hers.)

Saudi Arabia has high participation in local elections but is an absolute monarchy. I suppose you would call them democratic too.

[anasawad]

@Drlee

This is not true in the US and the EU. There are many aspects of marriage, covered by specific laws, that do not apply to other states of cohabitation.

Those of marriage laws apply only to married people. But the other things you pointed are separate set of laws.
Property laws are separate. Parental rights, Child rights, domestic abuse, etc are all part of other sets of laws.
Marriage laws aren't as wide as you imagen them to be.

Besides. We already have what you want. I simply cannot believe you do not see it. In the US, if you do not want the state involved in your "marriage" then simply do not get married. People are free to live together with or without a contractual relationship. They can define that any way that they like. Even groups of people can and have formed polyfidelitous communes. I know someone who used to belong to one.

My current wife and I lived together for a number of years before marrying. No harm no foul.

Sure, but some people want to be married not just cohabiting. Cohabitation does exist among the younger generation in countries like Iran BTW. But some if not many simply want to be married instead of just living together. And it also counts that there are many religious people whom don't want to engage in actions counter to their religion but yet cant afford having fully state organized marriage.

This is completely disingenuous. Iran is far from democratic. It has the veneer of democracy but is one of the strongest theocracies in the world. Every aspect of their "democracy" is subject to vetting by religious leaders. These so-called unofficial marriages of yours are tightly controlled by the laws of Islam enforced in the person of the Supreme Leader and his appointees. (Nore his, never hers.)

Its a theocratic rule because the clerics have won the government. This last election they lost it and there are already proposed bills to legalize marijuana and opium.
Once the 2019 election for the supreme leader position is in, the reformists are going to take it in ease since they won the assembly. Which means the government will turn from theocratic to socialist. Reformists already control the parliament which means internal legislations are done by them. They appointed the supreme court leadership. The military command. And half of the guardian council which supervises the government.
Once the supreme leader position is secured in the coming elections the other half of the guardian council will appointed by the reformists and the revolutionary guards command as well. Meaning all parts of the state will become controlled by socialists not by clerics.

Does the laws of Islam allow trangenders to get married ? Or does it allow transgenders to change their sex to begin with with full state recognition and the official gender even on the birth certificates changing to the new one ? Iran is the second highest in these regards and its state subsidized. I doubt that theocratic law. Unless ofcourse its not but rather its a democratic process in which reformists and republicans in early 2000s managed to control legislation passing these laws.
Does Islamic laws allow drugs ? because Iran has one of the largest drug addiction treatment programs in the world and currently considering legalizing drugs and make it state produced and distributed. That doesn't seem like theocratic to me ? unless ofcourse its not, but rather clerics just happened to win elections and thus pass legislations that are theocratic in their terms.
You do have such things in the US you know, you should know that since you're a republican and its your party pushing for Christian theocratic legislations lately.

Saudi Arabia has high participation in local elections but is an absolute monarchy. I suppose you would call them democratic too.

No, because Saudi Arabia leaders can over-rule anything the people trying to pass. The supreme leader in Iran can not do so without the parliament and the supreme court whom are elected positions.
Saudi Arabia restrict voting for large portions of its citizens mainly women.
Iran in the past election for the parliament of 290 seats had 12 thousand people running for offices, 7000 of them passing the qualifications tests. Along with 79-82% voter turnout in the elections.
And the reformists, being the opposition coalition won most seats compared to the clerics who won a third and the moderates whom were basically screwed in the elections.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Well, yea, property laws are applied and it doesn't count on marriage. The property goes to those who legally own it, and if a married couple were buying it together, then it'll be registered as a shared property.
In polygamy the same applies, each has his\her properties.
Usually all people getting married have anther contract aside from the marriage specifying financial and property rights and obligation of each side in the marriage and what they get if the marriage ended. This contract has its own terms decided by the people getting married.
Almost everyone in central Asia does it.

So you're saying that most people already all have prenuptial agreements that have to divide up the property that all members of a marriage bring into it, and how property gained during it will be allocated (in case there's a divorce, and one or of the members leaves the marriage - this is not always obvious, because some may take time off work to raise children)? That's very complicated, and you're complaining that they have to do a one-time registration of marriage with the state? That registration is nothing compared to constructing those contracts.

[quoteWhat i meant is, there are already agencies collecting these data, and they can do the recording of the people married.[/quote]
But it would be far more efficient to have the newly married couple go to the state, rather than the state having to constantly check who is now married to whom.

Because republics have elections, and that means the data is already registered and collected by a number of agencies and on individual basis.

That's a damn weird republic. Why do voting records have to say who is married to whom?

Polygamy means that a person being married to multiple people. Not multiple people being in a single marriage.

By definition, a person being married to multiple people means there are multiple people in the marriage, if the parties in a marriage have equality.

Parental rights remain with the parents. Child rights remain for the children.
Both are separate set of laws from those of marriage.

When a woman has multiple husbands, is one of them always designated as the father of a baby, so that he gets the parental rights and responsibilities, and the others don't? Is a DNA test compulsory, to find the truth? In the case of divorce, how is custody decided? And maintenance? What happens with adoption, or sperm donation?

[quoteMost countries allowing polygamy indeed don't have same sex marriage, in Iran its partial being allowed for transgenders and trans-sexuals but not yet for homosexuals outright. [/quote]
Ah, so it's unequal marriage, then. Man A is married to Woman B and Woman C, but Woman B is not married to Woman C. That's not a model that countries that want equality can use, then. Which countries do have polygamy with equal rights?

Its pretty much part of a decentralized government, not just about marriage but in all matters.
Those seniors and social figures are usually the one handling the collection of data from their perspective areas and simply give it to the state for registration.

That's a failed state, then. You can't just rely on "seniors" to run things. They are unelected and unappointed. What happens if they don't like someone, or get dementia?

4 states have these types of things as far as i know; Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Lebanon. Those 4 countries all have partial autonomy for many areas and districts within them.

I have no idea what district autonomy has to do with this. Is it just that districts have different laws about marriage, making this all more complicated still?

Full legal status of marriage, once they declare themselves married and the state when gathering data registers them and their records will officially include that they're married, simply without issuing a marriage certificate and usually they make a civil contract between them to organize the financial and properties included if such exists.

As I said, this is a more complicated system than having a system based on a standard set of rights and responsibilities.

President Khatami pushed for this as the tax system in Iran is based on that of the US and in many cases, people with lower income tend to move up in tax brackets thus white marriage allows them to be married without state supervision, and their status is only considered as married when it comes to voting. Basically they don't get any of the advantages nor any of the disadvantages.

As I said, a failed state. Why does being married affect voting? That sounds very dodgy.

Polygamy is not 3 or more people. Its one person being married to one or more people.
If for example i want to marry more than one person ( i don't but just an example), my wife has to consent that i do so. Once i do, i am the one engaged in polygamy not her.

Only in a state with unequal marriage laws.

On a side note, for the authoritarian state comment, Iran is democratic

But for some reason your marital state affects your vote. That's another deficiency for a 'democracy'. Certainly, that's a system no other country should learn from.

[anasawad]

@Prosthetic Conscience

So you're saying that most people already all have prenuptial agreements that have to divide up the property that all members of a marriage bring into it, and how property gained during it will be allocated (in case there's a divorce, and one or of the members leaves the marriage - this is not always obvious, because some may take time off work to raise children)? That's very complicated, and you're complaining that they have to do a one-time registration of marriage with the state? That registration is nothing compared to constructing those contracts.

No its not. Even if with a standard marriage certificate, everyone still does it to guarantee their rights instead of end up being screwed by the default split.
Its much simpler than the court handling the division and much more safer for people to guarantee their rights.

But it would be far more efficient to have the newly married couple go to the state, rather than the state having to constantly check who is now married to whom.

Or since its going to be constantly checked who is doing what to whom all the time by multiple agencies regardless, then the more efficient way is to cut down the number of agencies doing the check not to add more.

That's a damn weird republic. Why do voting records have to say who is married to whom

If your spouse for example voted while you didn't turn out for some reason, when counted, if you're an eligible voter your vote will be automatically counted as the same as that of your spouse.
If you're wondering, in the last election 61% of the cases being like that was the women voting and their husbands votes counted by default as theirs.

By definition, a person being married to multiple people means there are multiple people in the marriage, if the parties in a marriage have equality.

No, thats not by definition infact that doesn't even resembles what polygamy means.
Polygamy means a person is involved in multiple marriages not multiple people being in the same marriage.

When a woman has multiple husbands, is one of them always designated as the father of a baby, so that he gets the parental rights and responsibilities, and the others don't? Is a DNA test compulsory, to find the truth? In the case of divorce, how is custody decided? And maintenance? What happens with adoption, or sperm donation?

Polygamy means one person being engaged in multiple marriages, that means if a women was to engage in polygamy with multiple men, the men wont be married to each other rather each in a separate marriage with her.
If a child was conceived, then yes, the father is determined and he gets the parental rights unless both of the parents decided something else.
Custody and child care is also based on a separate set of laws and decided by court.

That my dear is how a strawman looks like.

Ah, so it's unequal marriage, then. Man A is married to Woman B and Woman C, but Woman B is not married to Woman C. That's not a model that countries that want equality can use, then. Which countries do have polygamy with equal rights?

If a man is married to woman B and woman C, then his marriage to woman B is separate from his marriage to woman C.
The consent of the first wife is needed to allow the man to get married again is because she has her own rights in financial and property matter.
That can be in reversal if the woman was the one to be married to multiple men which this type of things (i.e polygamy by women) is only practiced in northern Khorasan province.

That's a failed state, then. You can't just rely on "seniors" to run things. They are unelected and unappointed. What happens if they don't like someone, or get dementia?

They're the leaders and organizers of their communities, how do they become that if the people of the community didn't put them there exactly you think ?
And no, thats not a failed state, thats a decentralized state in civil matters.
its also decentralized on province levels where each province has its own laws as long as it does not contradict the basic law.

I have no idea what district autonomy has to do with this. Is it just that districts have different laws about marriage, making this all more complicated still?

Provinces have different laws. Districts and towns handle applying and organizing these laws.
Other than criminal laws ofcourse which is in the hands of the central province governments.
Its like states in the US.

As I said, this is a more complicated system than having a system based on a standard set of rights and responsibilities.

No its not, it requires government agencies less size, budget and staff. Its much more direct for the people. And is more accommodating to people's needs.

As I said, a failed state.

You do realize what a failed state means right ?
If Iran was a failed state, then the US for example would be way beyond being just a failed state.

Only in a state with unequal marriage laws.

Do explain how do polygamy means unequal marriage laws ?

But for some reason your marital state affects your vote. That's another deficiency for a 'democracy'. Certainly, that's a system no other country should learn from.

It doesn't. I already mentioned the reason behind the law. It doesn't affect your vote. Just the voter turnout by allowing people to fill in for their spouses.


Don't try to manipulate words and context.