Uganda Criminalizes Homosexuality

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Interesting, actually didn't know there'd be distinct laws for polygynous and polyandrous relationships, but that probably should've been obvious if I'd thought about it. Thanks Elerond, I feel enlightened!

 

Yeah Elerond summarized it nicely, by the way Elerond you know a lot about polygamy..how many wives do you actually have ?

 

 

Why do you presume that they are (only) wives?

 

I researched subject little bit when helped with equal marriage civil bill campaign in here Finland, because allowance of polygamy marriage is thing that always rises on surface when one speaks about allowance of same-sex marriage, so I though it's probably better know at least little bit about subject.

 

 

In South Africa our constitution allows same sex marriages but we call it civil unions, but its basically the exact same thing. Its one of the things I am very proud of as a South African because we have  lots of other social issues we need to deal with

In Finland do you guys allow same sex marriages?

 

 

Currently in Finland it is possible for same-sex couples to register themselves to be in civil union, such unions don't have all the same rights (some economical things, changing sure name to your spouse's needs separate application [which isn't free], adoption rights as couple, etc.) as civil marriages, which is why there was campaign for civil bill that would make all civil unions to be same in eyes of law. Bill is currently in Finnish Parliament, which will vote about bill in September.

 

 

Okay thanks for explaining, well hopefully the Finnish government will pass this bill and give truly equal right to same sex marriages

[Chairchucker]

 

 

Interesting, actually didn't know there'd be distinct laws for polygynous and polyandrous relationships, but that probably should've been obvious if I'd thought about it. Thanks Elerond, I feel enlightened!

 

Yeah Elerond summarized it nicely, by the way Elerond you know a lot about polygamy..how many wives do you actually have ?

 

 

Why do you presume that they are (only) wives?

 

I researched subject little bit when helped with equal marriage civil bill campaign in here Finland, because allowance of polygamy marriage is thing that always rises on surface when one speaks about allowance of same-sex marriage, so I though it's probably better know at least little bit about subject.

 

 

What is the specific opposition to polygamy? Is it because it would be a massive nuisance sorting out what rights who has in relation to who else?

[Elerond]

 

 

 

Interesting, actually didn't know there'd be distinct laws for polygynous and polyandrous relationships, but that probably should've been obvious if I'd thought about it. Thanks Elerond, I feel enlightened!

 

Yeah Elerond summarized it nicely, by the way Elerond you know a lot about polygamy..how many wives do you actually have ?

 

 

Why do you presume that they are (only) wives?

 

I researched subject little bit when helped with equal marriage civil bill campaign in here Finland, because allowance of polygamy marriage is thing that always rises on surface when one speaks about allowance of same-sex marriage, so I though it's probably better know at least little bit about subject.

 

 

What is the specific opposition to polygamy? Is it because it would be a massive nuisance sorting out what rights who has in relation to who else?

 

 

From legal standpoint it is quite difficult if we want to have equal rights for all parties.

 

For example if anybody has right to marry multiple partners, we need to decide that do they need permission from their current spouse/s if they decide marry new partner and if we allow them to marry without permission then we need to decide what is relationship between new spouse/s and old spouse/s. And how right over legal decision in medical emergencies, how inheritance will be divided, what happens in divorce cases and etc..

 

Instead of individual right to marry multiple partners there could be option that marriage becomes union that can take additional members. Then we need to decide if it's all the members in marriage or majority of members that has to approve new person in the union. How divorce will work needs to be solved also in this case (divination of assets, do union as whole lapse, or is possible to drop only one member or divide union to multiple unions, how case is solved if there is no consensus which member/s should be removed from union who should stay in union, how parental rights go, etc.).  

 

Power dynamic also rises up often in conversation as in classical polygamous marriages one person usually has power over other members in union, which is against current world view and laws.

 

Of course tradition, religion, morality, different from status quo can be also found in arguments against polygamy.

 

But I would say that main argument against polygamy is in how much changes it would need in different laws to make it work with constitutional rights, create legal processes to handle divorces, inheritances, union splits, union creations, parental rights, child rights and etc. issues. 

[Chairchucker]

Yeah that's what I figured. Did you also have to cover things like incest, age of consent, and the right of consenting adults to marry rollercoasters or horses?

 

And of course there's this little issue: 

[Elerond]

Yeah that's what I figured. Did you also have to cover things like incest, age of consent, and the right of consenting adults to marry rollercoasters or horses?

 

And of course there's this little issue:

 

 

Some people always bring those up, but usually they are also those people that don't actually care what other side's arguments are as they have already decided that they are right.

 

But as idea behind modern marriage is union between partners that have equal rights, which means that marriage with inanimate objects or animals (other than human) would need many aspects from marriage (economical, inheritance, medical emergency, divorce, etc.) that it could work from point of law. Necrophilia also is problematic thing as people have bodily autonomy even after death (like for example they can forbid using their organs as transplants or their body in scientific studies), so allowance of necrophilia would also in most cases need removing bodily autonomy from bodies of death person and family's right what happens to bodies of their loved ones and probably some other factors. 

 

Incest is always problematic thing, even if you leave out genetic impoverishment, because of power dynamics and family structure that usually make such relationships so one sided that it often can undermine constitutional rights of other person. 

 

Age of consent is always hardest thing, as it is very society depending thing, especially when you take in consideration that there is lot things that society seen appropriate to limit with age restrictions. So questioning age of consent also put all those other age limits under question, as if person is mature enough handle one thing that was previously restricted, then why they aren't mature enough handle this another thing. Which means that age of consent discussion should be one of general development of maturity.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Elerond

[BruceVC]

 

Yeah that's what I figured. Did you also have to cover things like incest, age of consent, and the right of consenting adults to marry rollercoasters or horses?

 

And of course there's this little issue:

 

 

Some people always bring those up, but usually they are also those people that don't actually care what other side's arguments are as they have already decided that they are right.

 

But as idea behind modern marriage is union between partners that have equal rights, which means that marriage with inanimate objects or animals (other than human) would need many aspects from marriage (economical, inheritance, medical emergency, divorce, etc.) that it could work from point of law. Necrophilia also is problematic thing as people have bodily autonomy even after death (like for example they can forbid using their organs as transplants or their body in scientific studies), so allowance of necrophilia would also in most cases need removing bodily autonomy from bodies of death person and family's right what happens to bodies of their loved ones and probably some other factors. 

 

Incest is always problematic thing, even if you leave out genetic impoverishment, because of power dynamics and family structure that usually make such relationships so one sided that it often can undermine constitutional rights of other person. 

 

Age of consent is always hardest thing, as it is very society depending thing, especially when you take in consideration that there is lot things that society seen appropriate to limit with age restrictions. So questioning age of consent also put all those other age limits under question, as if person is mature enough handle one thing that was previously restricted, then why they aren't mature enough handle this another thing. Which means that age of consent discussion should be one of general development of maturity.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone expected such a reasonable and informative answer, well played sir

[Chairchucker]

Ah, well like Mr Mitchell says, you could just have an extra box you tick.

 

Honestly I would've thought incest would be the biggest sticking point other than polygamy, if it was just about genetic tomfoolery, well, there's plenty of precedent for us not caring about hypothetical unborn children. If it was about power imbalance, there's a bit of precedent *cough*WoodyAllen*cough* there as well.