Should the government legalize poly relationships?

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

Do you think the government should allow a person to legally marry more than one spouse?

I wish there were a "hell yes" option. Polygamists have been vilified for too long--too often portrayed as religious wackos. This popular one-to-one relationship ideology seems totally arbitrary, unnatural and contrived by the Church.

</rant>

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

A lot of people that promote it think of one male and multiple females. There aren't that many males that would go for one female, and multiple males.

 

[midlifebear]

Well, Mr. rex2000, you might think a bit differently if you knew how truly whacko my 52 first cousins from the polygamist marriages on my mother's side of the family are. And uber religious? You betcha boy howdy. I've yet to meet a FLDS male who doesn't deserve to be in jail for mail/tax/welfare fraud or nefarious business dealings. Any my knowledge on the subject is not second hand.

 

[2322]

Anybody ever hear of a thing called "religious cult"?

Yeah.

My thought is that multiple marriages are allowed in Islam and many countries allow it. What happens if we don't recognize these marriages? How could a family travel to the US together? What if they want to immigrate? What about American citizens who are Muslim and want to have a polygamous relationship? What about non-LDS Mormons? By denying legal recognition of what is already a de facto reality in this and other countries, we're placing people, primarily women and children, in jeopardy.

If a man has multiple wives and children with them, then that woman has no legal recourse if a man dies or dumps/"divorces" her. That second or third wife and her kids could be out on the street with nothing if she has no legal status within the relationship. I've thought a lot about this since I met a Saudi man who had two legal wives and I realized that restricting marriage to just two people was rather silly. The government really only has an interest in the contractual obligations of marriage, not the spiritual ones, so why would government care who can marry and who cannot? The government is suppose to be blind to these things so unless they're espousing a particular religious view, which would be clearly illegal, then they have to accept that any adults who wish to enter into a contract should be permitted to do so. Of course religious issues do enter into government consideration of these things so I have no illusions that my position is obvious to everyone, but I hope it is obvious to the majority of SCOTUS.

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

Give us a break. Child Protective Services would have to double their staff just to deal with all the cases arising from this nonsense. People are claiming that marriage is just a legal piece of paper. If you feel that way, don't get married. In states where common-law marriage is not recognized, there won't have to be a divorce proceeding for ending it.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

Well, Mr. rex2000, you might think a bit differently if you knew how truly whacko my 52 first cousins from the polygamist marriages on my mother's side of the family are. And uber religious? You betcha boy howdy. I've yet to meet a FLDS male who doesn't deserve to be in jail for mail/tax/welfare fraud or nefarious business dealings. Any my knowledge on the subject is not second hand.

Well, Mr. Bear, I don't doubt your expertise in the field of 'wackiness', considering where you are from. :tongue:

I'm not promoting simultaneous marriage; I'm simply defending the rights of those who want it (as I've been doing for years on this site). I'm aware of the Kingston family and their microcephalia issues. Nonetheless, I don't think that they should be disallowed to breed.

In what way are your cousins whacked?"

 

[midlifebear]

Well, Mr. Bear, I don't doubt your expertise in the field of 'wackiness', considering where you are from. :tongue:

I'm not promoting simultaneous marriage; I'm simply defending the rights of those who want it (as I've been doing for years on this site). I'm aware of the Kingston family and their microcephalia issues. Nonetheless, I don't think that they should be disallowed to breed.

In what way are your cousins whacked?"

Oh, Mr. rex, the ways in which they are wacked are too weird and numerous that I haven't the time to enumerate. I am pleased, however, to hear you are familiar with the amusing (and somewhat frightening) Kingston family. Before I made my permanent move to Spain I personally led the community fight to get rid of a branch of the Kingstons who had lucked into leasing part of the Winecup/Gambels ranch north of my spread. They lived in filth. They also attracted an element best described by the local sheriff as "corrupt bastards with criminal records." We petitioned the owners of the Winecup/Gambels ranch (mormon investment boyze living in Florida) to please NOT renew the Kingston's lease. When a new ranch manager was hired to take over the Nevada operation he reported to the boyze in Florida about the condition of their ranch houses (he sent lots of photos). The only good that came from the Kingston's short time in our part of the wild and woolly west was the money made by locals hired to clean up what was -- prior to the Kingston occupation -- a pristine multi-use wilderness. The Kingstons had been sending garbage trucks (via back roads into Nevada from Ewetaw) to dump stuff that they could not legally dispose of in either State: medical and radioactive waste. Then there was the issue of repairing the damage to the homes and ranch hand cabins the scourge had occupied.

At least gypsies leave a place in livable condition for other gypsies.

Then there is the Green compound out in far western no where Ewetaw. The Sevier County government is unable to get them to follow any building codes, contain and properly manage their huge waste problem. And for those of you LPSGers who have ever had a midnight call to subscribe to magazines, the odds are in your favor if you bet the call came from the Greens. That's their major means of income: unsolicited magazine sales pitches via phone and junk mail. Legal business, yes. Do they pay the IRS what the rest of us would pay for annual income taxes? No.

My particular family connection is via the fabulous Barlows who lurk among the faithful -- and pseudo tolerant -- mainstream mormons of Clearfield, Fairview, Syracuse, and weird places west of Ogden. Odd people. Many with felony records. Lots of child predators (they likes them young girlz). Sex with adolescent girls seems to be an article of their faith. Not pretty. However, in my humble opinion a more unpardonable sin is their architectural taste in multi-family housing, best described as The Ramada Inn School of Architecture. Talk about a blight upon the innocence of wild nature. OY!

I would feel the same if same sex marriages were to be plural. One husband is enough, thank you very much. No need for two or more. :wink:

 

[dolfette]

I would be for it, provided that people in poly relationships aren't entitled to additional tax benefits. That's essentially what the rite of "marriage" is all about, minus all of the religious hoopla. It would be really messy (if not hypocritical) to watch a man claim multiple spouses to get bigger tax breaks when two men or women who love each other cannot.

if you only gave the same tax breaks/family unit, rather than breaks/spouse, then the number of partners wouldn't matter.

 

[rsny845]

I say yes - provided all parties are ADULTS (over 18 and not already pregnant) who are well aware of the options available in society, have independent education and no coersion of any kind is brought to bear. Certainly property rights and divorce proceedings would need to deal with the new marital arrangements.

 

[B_Nick4444]

anything that enables an increase in the number of human beings on the planet should be discouraged

 

[rob_just_rob]

In theory yes.

In practice, it seems that legalized polygamy would be another mechanism through which vulnerable persons could be victimized.

 

[EboniGoddess]

I didn't read everyone's post but I would say NOOOOOO!

Social security would really be fucked.....one guy pays into it and 12 women get widow benefits? Hell No!

Also, spousal health benefits would have to be extended to all members in the marriage. Having more than one spouse makes things much more complicated.

I'm not going to sit here and go all radical on you because I am for same-sex marriage but I do believe legalizing polygamy is not in the best interest of society. I do feel like some women would be forced to accept a husband who wants another wife. There are lots of stay at home moms who wouldn't have much of a choice if their husband decided he wanted another wife. Choices are limited if a woman hasn't worked in 20 years and who's husband has paid the bills since they got married.

This brings up another question. Should one spouse be allowed to let another into the marriage without consent of the other member of the marriage? What if the law mandated both spouses must consent?

The discussion of polygamy mostly involves men taking on more than one wife. Women having more than one husband happens rarely in certain countries and is done almost always to stop disputes over land so multiple family members (most likely brothers) marry one woman.

Also, divorce settlements would be tricky. Lets say I hate my husband and I deside to divorce him......where he would ask for half both of them could possible ask for 1/3 which would mean both of them would end up with 66% together rather than half. I'd be only stuck with 1/3 of my own money........its too complicated

 

[B_quietguy]

if you only gave the same tax breaks/family unit, rather than breaks/spouse, then the number of partners wouldn't matter.

Why stop there? We could amend the tax laws to give tax breaks only to individuals - rather than to "couples". While we are at it, how about saying people only pay taxes on their own individual income regardless of whether they have 1 spouse, 3 spouses, or zero.

 

[B_quietguy]

I'm going to have to say that I'm "not sure" about this one. It gets really complicated when kids are involved. I can only imagine kids saying "I have 2 mums and 2 dads".

Kids have dealt with two moms and two dads already. Like when original mom and dad divorce and each gets remarried. Once we legalize poly families, the original couple need not get divorced just because mom and dad also love others.

Also, it seems like the law is supporting the Bible and marriage is according to the Bible so polygamy wouldn't really make sense in that case.

So what about all those Bible stories of guys having many, many wives and concubines. There was Solomon with 700 wives and concubines. David "stole" wives from poor men and sent the men off to battle to get killed. Solomon's son was caught fucking one of his father's concubines on the roof of the palace in broad daylight in front of a big crowd. Patriarchs like Abraham and Isaac fucked not just their wives, but used their wives' handmaidens like live-in sex toys.

So if you want to use the Bible to justify monogamy laws, why not also use the Bible to justify all kinds of weird perversions?

 

[B_quietguy]

No, most people can't even manage being married to one person let alone multiple people.

So if some people have really good communication skills, and excellent interpersonal skills, they should not be allowed to have more than one spouse just because some other people can't?

Of course, with the current law, the "most people can't even manage being married to one person" are still allowed to legally marry one person regardless of whether you or I think they are clueless about social skills.

 

[B_quietguy]

anything that enables an increase in the number of human beings on the planet should be discouraged

Are you assuming that all marriage relationships must lead to procreation?

 

[B_quietguy]

marriage is indeed a contract.

it is not for a politician to decide that two or more consenting adults cannot be allowed to create these contracts.

personally, i'm never going to marry because the whole deal makes my skin crawl. but i still believe that everyone should have the right.

Right on! In almost every contract, whether to buy or sell, or for employment, the only people who can amend the contract are the participants themselves. Marriage is the only contract whereby the participants (the spouses) can never amend it. The power to change marriage contracts is the hands of state legislatures. They can change marriage laws to make it easier or harder to divorce. They can change marriage laws to say who owns what property when divorce occurs or a spouse dies. State legislatures can change marriage law without your consent and it affects your existing marriage contracts.

Why participate in a contract where you can not amend it to your specific needs?

Why participate in a contract where only some politician can change it without your consent?

 

[rob_]

I am fairly ignorant about poly relationships. I don't disapprove of them, I just don't think they work well. If divorce rates are so high with two-partner marriages, just think about how much this would increase if three or more partners were involved.

I think legalizing poly relaitonships is a terrible idea and would only create more trouble than it's worth.

 

[Wish-4-8]

I didn't read everyone's post but I would say NOOOOOO!

Social security would really be fucked.....one guy pays into it and 12 women get widow benefits? Hell No!

Also, spousal health benefits would have to be extended to all members in the marriage. Having more than one spouse makes things much more complicated.

I'm not going to sit here and go all radical on you because I am for same-sex marriage but I do believe legalizing polygamy is not in the best interest of society. I do feel like some women would be forced to accept a husband who wants another wife. There are lots of stay at home moms who wouldn't have much of a choice if their husband decided he wanted another wife. Choices are limited if a woman hasn't worked in 20 years and who's husband has paid the bills since they got married.

This brings up another question. Should one spouse be allowed to let another into the marriage without consent of the other member of the marriage? What if the law mandated both spouses must consent?

The discussion of polygamy mostly involves men taking on more than one wife. Women having more than one husband happens rarely in certain countries and is done almost always to stop disputes over land so multiple family members (most likely brothers) marry one woman.

Also, divorce settlements would be tricky. Lets say I hate my husband and I deside to divorce him......where he would ask for half both of them could possible ask for 1/3 which would mean both of them would end up with 66% together rather than half. I'd be only stuck with 1/3 of my own money........its too complicated

Damn, thats the smartest thing I have ever seen you post. (no offence) I am impressed! I have misjudged you. My bad. (not because I agree or disagree, just the points were well made) :wink:

 

[Wish-4-8]

After reading Jason els post, I have a question.
Can someone who knows give us some insight on how poly marriages work in those other countries where its the norm? I mean, they must have firgured out how to handle all the legal issues mentioned.