= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanArmak comments on Poly marriage? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (127)
Adapting the law on man-woman unions to also cover man-man unions does not involve any technical hurdles on the legal side, it's just applying existing laws in a slightly different context.
Marriage with more than two people, however, would require many changes to the text of the law (except in places where the law already covers polygamy).
The burden of changing many legal texts is not nearly a sufficient reason to deny some people equal legal rights.
Do you mean normatively or descriptively (i.e. “a sufficient reason why we should denied”, or “why we have denied”)? I agree with the former, but I'm not so sure about the latter.
Both. Descriptively, the practical difficulty of changing the law isn't the reason the law hasn't been changed in this way; the reason is that a great many people would oppose it on religious, moral, and other normative grounds. Many other laws have been changed over time despite the changes being nontrivial to implement, because the necessary people agreed in those cases that changing the laws was for the best.