NE1: Group Unions Act (Law)

[Napoleon]

Why would someone form a group marriage for tax benefits when it would be easier to form a normal marriage for tax benefits?

Because it increases the number of people entitled to tax benefits.  For example, a spouse can inherit her other spouse's property without having to pay estate tax.  If you increase the number of spouses, each spouse could theoretically inherit property tax-free, increasing the number of people entitled to do so.  Property can be passed down to more than one person tax free, whereas that wasn't possible before.

And that's just the beginning of the myriad of inheritance issues created due to multiple marriages.  It's a bad idea.

Ultimately it ends up being the same total value of property that will be inherited without tax, so I don't see how that could be considered a negative impact.

[bore]

As you'll be aware, a bill dealing with polygamy recently passed the senate,  which is why the northeast can debate this bill. In that thread I laid out my concerns with polygamy, and I'm not sure that this bill adequately deals with them. At the risk of seeming self indulgent, and because I'm quite lazy here are those concerns:

Nay

While I might be able to support polygamy in principle, in practice this will just lead to abuse.

Why would it be any more likely to lead to domestic abuse than monogamous marriages?

Yeah, I didn't phrase that very well. I didn't mean physical abuse, but abuse of the system. With this I can see billionaires buying hundreds of husbands/wives. And I realize that this isn't a strictly logical argument, but I don't want marriage to be like that. I don't want it to be something that is bought and sold and that 50 people can join into.

There are other problems as well (How do you deal with inheritance? What about the children? Has there ever been an example of polygamy where there wasn't severe discrimnation? Does anyone actually even want it?) but that's the main one for me.

Yeah I realise that there is no way of stopping people buying marriage now, we can't make windows into people's souls, but it would be even more common if we allowed polygamy.

I think it's interesting that of the about 1000 societies with some form of polygamy, only 4 are forms where women have multiple men, which shows just how often polygamy leads to discrimination.

I don't doubt that it's possible for children to be raised well in polygamous marriages, but I don't think it's likely.

If 5 or 6 people want to live together and have sex together and raise children together, there is nothing we can do to stop them. But I don't think the government should be encouraging them, because it won't be beneficial for society as a whole.

I suppose we're in a bit of a bind here, because there aren't really any studies on polygamy we can cite on parenting and so on. The reasons that I think polygamy would be bad for society are the same ones I put in my post: that it would lead to the further commercialisation of marriage, that it would lead to discrimination against women and that it is not as good for children to be raised in polygamous marriages.

Senator TNF makes a good point that if you don't think the government should be legislating morals then you should, logically support polygamy, which I agree with. However I do think government should be legislating some morals at least. For example the government should force the rich to give some of their money to the poor, through the government, whether they want to or not. As such I have no problem with the government making a decision to discourage polygamy, because it leads to the greater good.

[Deus Naturae]

Bore, you make a number of claims about polygamy, but you provide no evidence nor reasoning to justify any of them.

Sirnick, what part of this bill would require state or municipal governments to provide tax incentives to group civil unions?

[sentinel]

Marriage already does that IRL. I'm assuming unless there is a conflict state/local laws from real life hold constant at the municipal and state level. Its impossible to simulate every law.

[bore]

Bore, you make a number of claims about polygamy, but you provide no evidence nor reasoning to justify any of them.

The main concerns I have with polygamy are not the sort that need in the strictest sense, evidence or reasoning in the way a tax bill might. I even admit that my first concern (that marriage would, even more so than it is already, be reduced to a commodity to be bought and sold by millionaires) is not strictly a logical one, but more a view of what marriage should be.

The second concern, about the effect a polygamous marriage would have on the children, as both I and Nix (though he supports group marriage) agree is difficult to provide evidence for, due to the fact that polygamy, for obvious reasons, has not been studied. Here we need to ask the question is it likely that it would be detrimental to the children, and I would say, though admittedly based off a hunch, that it is. Now you might say that's not based on reason, but neither is the view that polygamy would be fine- we can not know definitively.

The other 2 concerns are questions that could be disproved by a counterexample, again, not a logical argument. If anyone could provide an example of a non discriminatory polygamous societies, or people actually wanting it,  I'd be interested in seeing it.

[Deus Naturae]

Marriage already does that IRL. I'm assuming unless there is a conflict state/local laws from real life hold constant at the municipal and state level. Its impossible to simulate every law.

I'm not disputing that state and municipal governments currently provide tax incentives to two-person marriages. I'm asking what part of this bill would require state and municipal governments to extend those same tax incentives to group marriages.

[sentinel]

Marriage already does that IRL. I'm assuming unless there is a conflict state/local laws from real life hold constant at the municipal and state level. Its impossible to simulate every law.

I'm not disputing that state and municipal governments currently provide tax incentives to two-person marriages. I'm asking what part of this bill would require state and municipal governments to extend those same tax incentives to group marriages.

Legally the argument can be made.

[sentinel]

Suggestion: Have the Northeast simply not be the institution that marries people. Let religious institutions do it. No one here has responded to my question about a compelling state interest for group marriages and no one else seems to believe in tax incentives for marriage..so whats the point? Lets just let religious institutions or whoever wants to do it marry people.

We'll just require written agreements regarding visitation rights, property rights, inheritance etc.

[Deus Naturae]

Suggestion: Have the Northeast simply not be the institution that marries people. Let religious institutions do it. No one here has responded to my question about a compelling state interest for group marriages and no one else seems to believe in tax incentives for marriage..so whats the point? Lets just let religious institutions or whoever wants to do it marry people.

We'll just require written agreements regarding visitation rights, property rights, inheritance etc.

That sounds like an excellent idea. The best way to accomplish that would be to simply repeal the Northeast Marriage Act, no?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This is simply a terrible bill and an attack on the very institution of marriage itself.  If it passes, I will work to have it repealed at the ballot box by referendum. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

an attack on the very institution of marriage itself

What does that even mean?

The quoted portion of my post means that I consider group marriage an attack on the institution of marriage.

[Napoleon]

an attack on the very institution of marriage itself

What does that even mean?

The quoted portion of my post means that I consider group marriage an attack on the institution of marriage.

Its a union, not a marriage.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

an attack on the very institution of marriage itself

What does that even mean?

The quoted portion of my post means that I consider group marriage an attack on the institution of marriage.

And I'm asking: What is an "attack on the institution of marriage"? This is a line typically associated with opponents of gay marriage, and I'm not sure what it means when they use it, either, aside from "this is a thing that makes me uncomfortable so I don't think anyone else should be allowed to do it."

Well, I suspect that opponents of polygamy will inevitably end up using certain lines often associated with opposition to same-sex marriage, even if they support allowing the latter (as I do).  You'd be right in saying that I personally have a problem with the concept of a marriage between more than two people and that this is part of why I oppose it.  Unlike gay marriage, I don't think one can legitimately argue that banning polygamy is state-sanctioned discrimination or that opposition to polygamy stems from bigotry (though knowing Atlasia, someone will surely try to argue both these things ).  However, my biggest reason for opposing it is that I believe it has the potential to be extremely damaging to the emotional and psychological health of children throughout the Northeast.  Before Representative Deaus asks, I admit I don't have any statistics or studies readily available.  However, I think that assertion is pretty much common sense and you guys aren't going to change my mind on it.  However, one thing that is well-established is that IRL is that polygamy has been a significant contributor to the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa.  It is also pretty well-documented that polygamy tends to increase the number of families with more children than they can afford to take care of (and I have to imagine that in wealthier areas, it'd lead to more abortions too).

[Deus Naturae]

Dude, "common sense" is a terrible argument, and one that I'm pretty sure I've heard used against same-sex marriage back when very few people supported it.

As for HIV/AIDS, that's obviously a problem with sexual sanitation. Anything that leads to an increased number of sexual encounters is going to lead to increased HIV/AIDS. If you're going to argue against group marriage on that basis, you're also arguing against group sex, prostitution, and anything else that leads to more sex. Instead of trying to limit the amount of sex people have as a result of their relationships, we should see that the real problem is a lack of condoms etc. There are a number of causes of that problem, but polygamy isn't one of them.

As far as children go, I fail to see how denying polygamous families equal rights under the law is beneficial to children of group marriages.

[Napoleon]

I don't think this bill endorses polygamy nor will it cause polygamy to be some mainstream thing. This basically takes marriage and any concept of such away and replaces it with union relationships people can form if they so choose, for any reason. It wouldn't necessarily mean its polygamous.

[Napoleon]

"Common sense" seems to be a PC wording of "I don't need to be rational or think critically about the issue and therefore will avoid saying anything of substance".

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

There's no debating that it is discrimination; that's a semantic issue. The question at hand is whether there is sufficient evidence to justify that discrimination.

 

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong; banning polygamy is not state-sanctioned discrimination.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 Try again, but this time read what I said before you start misrepresenting it.  When you do that, I'll be happy to respond to your thoughts on the above part of my post.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is what we call a straw-man (and a pretty obvious one).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another straw-man, come on Nix, you're better than this.  Anyway, you asked for citations and I will give you two (the first is really more of an example of what can happen when polygamy is widespread although I freely admit it is probably one of the more extreme examples):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4720457.stm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2205968/

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

"Common sense" seems to be a PC wording of "I don't need to be rational or think critically about the issue and therefore will avoid saying anything of substance".

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

You are literally arguing with me over a dictionary definition. Discrimination is "the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category." Whether we agree to use language as it's described in the dictionary isn't really relevant to this debate, but it annoys me to be told that I'm wrong by someone who's making assumptions based on connotations that are frequently associated with a word.

I reject the claim that I am using a "straw-man [sic]" to argue my case. I raised certain questions about your points because they show that the claims that you're making aren't really connected to the issue of group marriage at all. I appreciate you providing links to your sources, but you're missing my point: How do the effects of polygamy as it is practiced in the developing world relate to whether the Northeast recognizes group marriage?

We can put the definition debate aside for now.  What were asking me if I thought we should ban sex or ban poor people from marrying if not straw-men?  The question you raised in this post, however, is a fair one.  I think that given how polygamy has been a significant factor in the spread HIV/AIDS, it seems reasonable to suggest it could easily do the same with many STDs (including HIV/AIDS) in the Northeast.  The link between polygamy and group marriage is that they seem to be basically the same thing.  Additionally, because polygamy is banned in virtually all first world countries, I kind of have to look at the developing world to provide concrete real world examples rather than just my own speculation and personal views.

[Deus Naturae]

Except that the Northeast doesn't have widespread cultural taboos against contraceptive use, and access to condoms is presumably widespread.

Also, polygamy isn't currently "banned" in the Northeast. Polygamous families just don't have equitable legal rights. You have yet to explain how denying legal rights to polygamous families is going to help anyone.

[cinyc]

The debate period is over.  But before we vote, because Rep. Deus never mocked up a draft of the bill using the word "union" instead of "marriage", I need to have Rep. Deus confirm that this is the text of what we will be voting on:

Group Unions Act
The Northeast Marriage Act of 2005 is hereby amended to read:

Be it resolved the following:
1. This act shall be cited as the Northeast Unions Act of 2014

2. The term "union" as used in this act shall be defined as a civil union, and not an actual marriage as defined in the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia, and therefore does not come under jurisdiction of the Atlasian Senate.

3. The definition of union shall be the union of multiple persons, and excluding:
i) The union of a person with a non-person, or an object ii) The union of a person with a dead person or the union of two dead persons iii) The union of a person to his or her mother, father, son, daughter, sister, brother, first cousin, grandparent and their ancestors, grandchildren and their descendants, aunts and uncles and their ancestors, and nephews and nieces and their descendants. Adopted family in these relations shall also be excluded.

4. The union of multiple persons must be certified by an appointed municipal clerk, or in the case of forum members, must be certified by the Governor. A union must be witnessed by at least two other persons to be legal.

5. A union shall always be a union of complete equity. No provisions are to be assumed to favor any of the persons unless consented to by all parties.

6. A union is a contract that must be approved by all parties, the witnesses and the officer presiding over the election.  If more than two persons wish to form a legal union, all parties involved must sign a contract dictating the division of property in the case of divorce.

7. A union between two persons may be nullified at any time with the consent of both parties. At this time the property of the members of the union shall be divided to both of the parties, unless an agreement is made before the union.   In the case of a union between more than two persons, all parties shall have the right to divorce themselves from the union at any time without the consent of other parties.  Children under the age of 18 who are under the guardianship of the union shall have their custody given to the most competent of the union, with rights of the other parties to be able to have visiting access.

8. Rights of the union, including, but not limited to: i) It is assumed that the property of the members of the union shall be the ownership of both parties. This may be nullified with a pre-nuptual agreement. ii) The union parties will have the right to open a join bank account. iii) The union parties will have a right to certain tax benefits. iv) The union parties will have a right to certain social security benefits. v) The union parties will have visiting room privileges at hospitals.

9. This bill shall be post dated to October 1, 2005 and all unions to occur between that date and the passing of this legislation shall fall under this act.

[Deus Naturae]

Looks good, except that in Section 8, clause 1, the word "both" should be changed to "all."

[cinyc]

It is time to vote on the bill, as amended:

Group Unions Act

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This vote shall remain open for the earlier of 48 hours or when all Representatives have voted.

[SWE]

Aye

[cinyc]

Nay