Should it be illegal to have several wives (or hubs) as long as they all know about each other?

[elehhhhna]

Really? I mean, who cares already? If your wacky plural marriage works for you, fine, whatever.

[proteus_lives]

1. Personally I think it's icky but should it be illegal?

I don't know.

If everyone is an adult and consenting, that turns on my "who gives a shit" button.

[geek tragedy]

3. They can live together and have sex and whatever.

They just can't try to form separate legal unions.

[PavePusher]

102. Why not?

If your objection is religous-based, you are on unConstitutional ground.

If it's legal-based, what precedent precludes multiple legal contracts between private Citizens?

[geek tragedy]

2. Yes. Allocation of property and child custody matters

necessitates it.

People can boink as many people as they want, but the state should draw the line at two adults, one relationship.

[LiberalFighter]

8. Don't child born out of wedlock receive child support?

Isn't custody also an issue with unmarried couples that split up with kids?

[Warren Stupidity]

15. yes of course but facts don't matter

[geek tragedy]

24. Sure, with only two people factoring in.

What about when one person divorces from a group of four--should all three divorcees be required to pay child support? How would you determine custody and visitation?

It's not workable.

[pipi_k]

75. Don't see what's so hard about this...

If it's one woman and three men, a simple DNA test determines the biological father for purposes of child support.

In matters of custody and visitation, I would say let the people try to work it out among themselves first. Often, people come up with some pretty reasonable ideas.

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. So you're saying that these new multiple marriages wouldn't be about supporting children?

Just the 2 biological parents would have the responsibility and rights of parenthood?

In that case, what's the purpose of the multi-person marriages? All the adults are responsible for each other, but not for any children? How do you allow for the extra space a home would need for children? It looks pretty complicated to me.

[pipi_k]

80. I don't know what the purpose of a multiple partner marriage would be

quite honestly...

What is the purpose of one-man and one-woman marriage?

Is it only all about having and supporting children? What if they can't have, or don't want to have, children? Does that make the marriage any less valid than a marriage that did produce children?


If people in a multiple marriage didn't want children, why would that be strange?


As far as multiple marriage and children goes, why not leave the issue of child support and custody up to the participants, say, in Prenuptial Agreement...

If all participants agree beforehand on a method of handling such situations, then what business is it of yours or mine?

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. If it's no business of yours and mine, then we shouldn't make laws about multiple person marriages

People can sort their lives out without the state making new laws.

[pipi_k]

97. Existing laws could work

People certainly cannot sort out their own lives, as we already know, but I don't see where multiple marriage would present a bigger problem than monogamous marriages already do.

Child custody and support...some people in monogamous marriage sign Prenup Agreements. Multiple marriage partners can, too.


Property rights...again...Prenup Agreements are done by monogamous couples...workable in multiple marriages also.


In the cases where people don't sign Prenups, then a court appointed mediator could handle things if/when there is a divorce.


So what's the difference between courts having to settle disputes between people who aren't even married as opposed to people in multiple marriages...except that there are probably ten times as many unmarried couples flooding the courts with foolish shit than there are, or could be, from anything arising in a multiple marriage situation.


Also, I have to ask...do people honestly believe that making multiple partner marriage will cause millions of people to run off and marry six other people? Isn't this argument sort of the same the "other side" uses to oppose gay marriage? Wow...make gay marriage legal...then EVERYBODY is going to want to do it, and people will try to marry their PETS!!!111

[muriel_volestrangler]

99. OK, we'll consider multiple divorce

Presumably, when A, B and C are all married, C can decide to break up the marriage, and thus force A and B to divorce each other. Of course, A and B can then decide to get married again, but while the divorce is pending, their financial affairs are up in the air.

What about the concept of 'next of kin'? What happens when someone has multiple next-of-kins (I don't even know what the plural should be ...)

How about spousal rights to pensions? Is there a limit to the number of spouses that must be covered? What stops someone getting married to all their friends, in the hope of getting them some extra benefits? After all, they'll still be able to be married to their preferred partner, they're just adding extra people on.

[pipi_k]

101. Divorce...

If A, B, and C are married and C decides to divorce whichever is the opposite sex, then how does that force A & B to divorce?


Next of kin... One's spouse would be the next of kin. Or, again, if one doesn't want one's spouse to be next of kin, it could be specified in a Prenup Agreement and the designation falls to whatever blood relative the person names.


Pensions...A couple I've known for some time has this situation going on...the man was married to his ex wife for a long time. They divorced and he got married again after he retired. His retirement pension is handled this way...his ex wife gets part of his pension. He and his present wife get the remainder. When he dies his pension will be reduced and his ex wife will continue to get a share and his present wife will get the remainder. This doesn't seem to be much different from what could happen in a multiple marriage. The man's pension is reduced and the surviving spouses share it.

If people want to marry all their friends with the hope of cashing in on a pension, then it's not going to cost the company handing out the pension anything because after the death of the ex employee, the pension gets reduced and goes to the surviving spouse. If there are multiple spouses, then each of them get just a fraction of a reduced amount.

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. The sex of the people doesn't come into it

The relationship between A, B and C is one of equal partners. Therefore, just as all 3 must give consent for this officially recognised relationship to start, any one of them must have the ability to dissolve it. A is married to B & C; B is married to C & A; C is married to A & B.

One of these people wouldn't have just one spouse to be next of kin; that's the whole point about setting up a multi-person marriage. This is about people having multiple spouses.

OK, at least you have been the first person to actually suggest some of the legal mechanics of how the new marriages would work. Thank you for that; but I think it would be highly complicated to revise all the areas of law and finance in which marriage is involved to come up with rules that work for multiple spouses.

[LiberalFighter]

117. I would not want to be involved in a fiasco like that as an attorney or a judge.

[PoliticAverse]

10. 2 vs 3...

If the state has to decide allocation issues and custody for 2 people, why couldn't it also
decide it for 3 ?

[geek tragedy]

19. Well, shit, why not 20 then?

Better yet, just stop at 2.

[PoliticAverse]

32. Political compromise

I suppose a political compromise can be reached at 10...

[HuckleB]

47. Knowing how much time the divorced couples I work with spend in traffic...

... to transport their kids between houses... well... yikes.

[raccoon]

78. Not to mention inheritance. Think what a headache all this issues can be

with two people in a marriage. Headaches would increase exponentially if people have multiple spouses.

But lawyers could really cash in on it.

[Gormy Cuss]

120. Both of those can be handled via adaptations of existing laws.

After all,it's not as if either property dispersal or child support laws haven't been adapted over time.

[krabigirl]

4. No, it should not be illegal.

[TalkingDog]

113. +1

n/t

[napi21]

5. Most people find it difficult enogh to deal with ONE! Why in the

hell would anyone want more than that?

[KansDem]

54. My thought exactly!

Why make same mistake over and over?

What was it Freud said about insanity?...;)

[Freddie Stubbs]

107. Lots of people do stupid things that are not prohibited by law

[lunatica]

6. A good community would be multiple wives and husbands

That would actually be a solid strength for the country and the family units. I read about it first in a Robert Heinlein book. Or was it Arthur C Clarke?

[pitohui]

61. that should have been yr first clue both clark and heinlein evil men in their person al lives

jeez louise, what's next, let's advocate for child rape as long as the child is from a powerless country?

don't take advice from evil men

[lunatica]

74. I have no idea what you're talking about

Links please.

[PavePusher]

104. I'm not sure how you equate child rape with consenting-adult relationships...

but it does not speak well of you....

Also, please explain your claim that Heinlein and Clarke were "evil men".

Or did I miss a bushel-load of sarcasm?

[sarge43]

121. In what way were either evil men in their personal lives?

Please don't bother to cite that discredited smear of Clarke by The Sunday Mirror.

Fictional writing is not advice; it's fiction.

[sarge43]

119. Both had the situation in a couple of their novels. n/t

[blondeatlast]

7. Illegal? Not in my opinion, even though the idea is respulsive personally. nt

[Rex]

9. Moral relativity. To me, no of course not who really cares or should?

I mean, that is not my bag - but hey if you are into that sort of thing have fun imo. Just no bitching in 10 years.

You made your beds, now pick which one you want to sleep in! :)

[tridim]

11. Shouldn't be illegal as long as they don't get special tax treatment

[blondeatlast]

13. Good point! nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Would those advocating legal multiple marriages describe the laws, please?

And an idea of why we need 3, 4 etc. people to say they are all married would be good too (and are you happy with a marriage involving 2 sisters and a man, for instance). NB: don't just say "it'd be like Muslim men who are allowed multiple wives in some countries"; those are inherently unequal unions, and we know you're not advocating that.

[WolverineDG]

25. Uh, because the current bigamy statute in Texas creates a thought crime

for starters. Quite frankly, if your panties get twisted because someone on your street might have 2 wives or husbands, I think you need to get what's called a "life." And as for multiple marriage being "inherently unequal unions," so are monogamous ones.

dg

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. All marriages are inherently unequal, according to you?

OK, I assume you want to abolish all marriages, then.

I haven't the faintest what you mean about 'thought crime' and Texas bigamy statutes. Believe it or not, we're not all experts on Texas bigamy laws, whatever is special about them. Try keeping it general, since multiple marriages aren't recognised in any state, or western country.

The thing is, advocates for multiple marriage are saying there is need for special legal recognition of relationships involving many people. Why? What do these groups need, and what would the qualifications for such groups be?

[WolverineDG]

71. Just pointing out that the reason you gave against polygamous marriages

can be used against monogamous ones. Yes, monogamous marriages have been & some continue to be, inherently unequal. Otherwise, there would be no need for property laws stating that married women can own & manage their own property, get credit, hold jobs, go to school, etc.

Since mainstream monogamous society doesn't even blink anymore when a married couple breaks up & the parties cohabit with others & have kids with them, why all the hand-wringing & denials that bigamy/multiple marriage is bad?

What most people in multiple marriages want is de-criminalization, which is a different kettle of fish from recognition.

Quite frankly, what the fuck is it to YOU how others run their personal, private lives? Why do you have to be such a nosy busybody into what goes on in other peoples' bedrooms?

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. This has nothing to do with "people's bedrooms"

This is about marriage, which is about a publicly-recognised relationship between two people. When 2 people get married, they are asking the rest of society to treat them differently. This is not about whether 3 or more people have sex in any combination; this is about crafting laws to tie 3 or more people together legally in a system of responsibilities and privileges.

No, modern monogamous marriages in western countries are not inherently unequal. If you think there is part of law that makes them so, then you should be telling us what the discriminatory law is, and fighting to abolish that law. That would be far more important than deciding we need a system for multiple people to make, maintain and dissolve a marriage with each other.

I'm not 'hand-wringing'; I'm asking the proponents of multiple marriage to tell us why they think they need these extra responsibilities and privileges, what they think they'd do for society when they have them, and what the limits of them are. When there are 2 people in a marriage, existing laws frequently take account of that. Have you gone through all laws to see how they'd be affected by there being multiple spouses in a marriage? Is there a limit to the number of people, or their blood relationships, that you'll allow? Have you considered, instead, that "personal, private lives" can be run by groups by staying personal, rather than asking for the state to define the relationship between you?

"What most people in multiple marriages want is de-criminalization, which is a different kettle of fish from recognition. "

It's 'criminal' because a marriage is a legal promise to someone else not to make the same promise to a third person, unless you get a divorce. If you want a multiple relationship, then just don't make the promise again. You've now said there's some weird Texas law about the 'appearance' of a marriage. Yes, that sounds stupid, because it's not a second marriage, but a stupid law in Texas is no reason to write vast amounts of new laws everywhere. Just get rid of the Texas foolishness.

[WolverineDG]

88. You do realize that all your hand-wringing, nosey nellie busybody excuses against plural marriage

are the same ones used against gay marriage, don't you? All the blathering about "extra" or "special" rights, "concerns" about laws regarding property division & child custody, "concern" for the welfare of children, "concerns" about inequality. GMAFB.

The reason those who are involved in multiple marriage want "extra" rights is so that they don't have to fear that someone (usually Dad) will be arrested & thrown in jail, while the kids are carted off by the ever-loving hands of CPS. Since mainstream society doesn't look askance at married people having affairs (& children) with those who aren't their spouse, :wtf: is it about multiple marriage that has your panties in a twist?

Most aren't asking for recognition. They'd rather bigamy between *consenting adults* be de-criminalized. That is not the same thing as recognition. Your false "concerns" about property & child custody are already taken into account, due to the ever-growing number of children born to people who aren't married to each other.

And once more (with feeling) just what the fuck is it to you if someone decides to live with 2 or 3 other wives or husbands & say they're married to all of them?

dg

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. No, they are not the same

You want special state recognition of relationships involving multiple people. That is nothing like extending equality to gay people, who want the same right as straight people to marry one consenting spouse, and to use the existing laws which all work on the principle of a person only having one spouse.

Marriage is recognition by the state. People can already make whatever private promises they want to each other. Marriage is about taking the relationship into the public sphere, so that the couple gets treated by the state and other entities as a couple.

Once more, with feeling: it's nothing to me if someone decides to live with 2 or 3 other people; they can even say they all regard themselves as married to each other; but they're saying so doesn't make it so. You are proposing that the state has to treat them differently from just private individuals who have decided to live together. Why do we need to overhaul the whole legal system to give these people something new?

[PavePusher]

105. "Equal Protection" clause fits here. n/t

[WolverineDG]

111. Recognition does not equal de-criminalization

I've said that at least 3 times. Reading comprehension problem, much?

And yes, the arguments against bigamy (between consenting adults) are exactly the same as those against gay marriage: "Special" rights, against tradition, people making private promises (contracts) between each other, false "concern" over children, false "concern" over changing "the whole legal system to give these people something new."

dg

[muriel_volestrangler]

112. Marriage is currently an exclusive arrangement, whether same sex or mixed sex

You are asking for a new type of arrangement which is not an exclusive arrangement. Bigamy is criminal because it breaks the agreement. You want to set up something new, with state recognition.

No. 2 does not equal 3. Therefore this is not the same as the arguments about gay marriage. You know that perfectly well.

[WolverineDG]

127. No, it's not "new"

Newsflash: people screw around on their spouses all the time. They have kids with their paramours all the time. So "breaking an exclusive arrangement" is *not* new.

I'm sure you're happy with wasting law enforcement's time enforcing bigamy laws against consenting adults, but I quite frankly think it's a waste of time & resources that could be better spent going after real criminals.

And yes, these are the same arguments against gay marriage, especially when you invoke "tradition." If that makes you uncomfortable, that's not my problem.

dg

[Warren Stupidity]

14. no. It is none of my business.

The state should leave people, especially consenting adults, alone and free to live their lives as they see fit. It is unfortunate that a privacy right is not explicitly enumerated in the bill of rights.

[jpgray]

27. Does it worry you that it fails the harm principle?

I wear no utilitarian beanie, but given the exploitation (primarily of women) that goes on in monogamous marriage already, doesn't "leveraging up" the capacity for that exploitation bear some risk? In a culture where hugely prominent social authorities train women to defer to a husband in all matters, I don't think allowing someone enough wives to start a baseball team is going to be in any way benign.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. The supposed harm is generally covered by other laws

for example laws against under age sex and coerced marriages. If there is some other explicit legislatable harm in multiple marriages be specific about what that is. Something as ill defined as "women defer to husband" is not really something we should deal with via the legal system.

[JoePhilly]

52. The OP includes a woman with many Husbands too ...

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. 'leaving people alone' would mean not creating laws for multiple marriage

Marriage is a public recognition, by definition.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. so then you have no problem with the state legislating

who should be allowed to marry, and prohibiting consenting adults from marrying based on arbitrary moral standards?

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. The existing laws all specify marriages of just 2 people, to each other

so if there is special legal treatment of people who are married, then we should keep it to pairs. We probably need to prevent people marrying their own children, because that would be used as a dodge to avoid inheritance taxes. I wouldn't call that an "arbitrary moral standard", though.

[Warren Stupidity]

73. uh - nice try. The existing laws frequently specify one man/one woman

so that was a huge dodge on your part. "We probably need to prevent people marrying their own children" - yeah marriage should be restricted to consenting adults, and blood relatives are out for sound medical reasons covered by incest laws.

Now back to arbitrary moral standards, did you have an argument there, or was that a concession speech?

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. Counting out blood relatives is an arbitrary moral standard

You're saying that a man could marry 2 women, but not if they are sisters, then? There would be no incest involved (I presume you are not saying that all individuals in the marriage have to have sexual relations with all the other individuals). But you're ruling it out, because your morality is calling it 'incest'. What's more, there's no 'sound medical reason' to prevent same sex marriages between siblings even if they do have sex. But you've just ruled out blood relatives, because you haven't thought this through, and came up with something arbitrary.

"The existing laws frequently specify one man/one woman" - yeah, frequently, but not always. Some already also specify 2 men, or 2 women, and it is very easy to change existing laws that specify a man and a woman to 2 people of the same sex. Changing them to 3 people, or 6, or 66, isn't so easy. And changing them to include people of the same sex is part of equal rights; everyone gets to have a spouse if they want, that way. You're advocating that people can have many spouses. That's not a question of equality; you're asking for something new. And I still haven't seen a reason for the state to give concessions to people because they feel like it.

[Warren Stupidity]

82. no I am saying incest is illegal for good reasons. duh.

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. And yet you've ruled out all blood relatives in your world of multiple marriages

Despite there being no medical reason to prevent 2 brothers, or 2 sisters, in a multi-person marriage. Or, for that matter, a brother and a sister if they don't have reproductive sex. Your 'good reasons' are arbitrary moral standards.

Duh.

[tularetom]

16. Lawyers would love for it to be legal

I can see a whole shitload of divorce/dissolution/child support issues involved in multiple partner unions.

Look how fucking complicated it is to end a union of two people, and multiply it by 10.

If somebody wants to screw a lot of different partners I don't care. I'm just not sure a 3, 4, or 10 way living arrangement should be called marriage.

Unless you live in Utah that is.

[Xenotime]

17. Funny how marriage...

between 1 man and 1 woman is Ok in this so called progressive society..but no more.

[Terra Alta]

18. it shouldn't be illegal.

If all the parties consented to it, I see no reason why it should be illegal for a man to have several wives -- or for a woman to have several husbands. It is not something I would do, but I won't condemn those who do.

[WolverineDG]

20. No

as long as they are all consenting adults & any kids are being cared for properly, who gives a flip? There are real crimes out there that law enforcement needs to deal with.

The Nosy Nellies & Busybodies need to mind their own business.

dg

[jpgray]

21. Yep. Imagine the mechanics of a polyandrous custody battle

:scared:

[nolabear]

22. No, I don't think it should be illegal. And there are many more plural "marriages"

Than people cop to. I know of a couple of them, and they seem to work. Both are one man, two women btw. I do think it would be wise to have special legal structures in place so no one gets abandoned if things get tough, and all children are taken care of equally. But that would, I suppose, be a private matter.

[WolverineDG]

28. and then there are the unintended bigamists

thanks to the new law in Texas, anyone at any time could be charged with bigamy, if you somehow "create the appearance" of a marriage to someone else. IOW, if some outside 3rd party *thinks* you're married to one person when you're married to someone else, ta da! Bigamy!

dg

[HuckleB]

51. Wow! How did that bizarre law come about? -eom-

[BolivarianHero]

23. Yes it should be...

In every culture with some prominence in Western societies that allows polygamy, the wretched institution goes hand in hand with the subjugation of women and with robbing them of their ability to reach their full potential, both individually and collectively.

If Wahabis and Mor(m)ons want to live in theocracy that does not treat women with the dignity that ought to be afforded to all of humanity, they're free to live elsewhere (and to take Newt Gingrich with them).

[HuckleB]

29. +1 That was essentially my first thought.

On edit: Reading this thread is interesting, but not in a good way. It seems like history is too easily forgotten. This isn't just an intellectual exercise, when put in practice, but that seems lost on more than a few of us here.

[valerief]

31. They can all move to Somalia and free trade themselves to death, too! nt

[riderinthestorm]

59. Yup, +1.

And the children aren't left in a good spot either. There are more than enough studies out there that demonstrate that this isn't great for any of those involved, nor for society.

[woo me with science]

62. It's not just Wahabi Muslims who practice polygamy. nt

[woo me with science]

63. Delete...posted in wrong place. nt

[eridani]

66. The two multi-spouse unions that I know of personally consist of 2 men

--and one woman. Is that OK?

[mkultra]

128. was that in Nepal?

[uncommon]

84. Amen.

[Mimosa]

26. Polygamy really works well in those Muslim countries, right?

Polygamy doesn't work out well for women or children. It's been done and proved bad over the centuries.

Polyandry? Most straight men wouldn't go for it.

[valerief]

30. Marriage should be illegal! Or mandatory. I forget which. Anyway,

every time a man marries two women in a state, he can't marry another woman until a woman marries two men in the same state. And back and forth and back and forth, et cetera, et cetera. It can be called the Marriage Balance Act. Because it would un-Something if men had more wives in a state than women had husbands. Dead spouses are deducted from the running tally.

Yes, I can be crazy, too, but in my own way.

:crazy:

[HuckleB]

33. A fair and quick Q & A on the topic.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/the-big-question-whats-the-history-of-polygamy-and-how-serious-a-problem-is-it-in-africa-1858858.html

[Dappleganger]

34. What's next, turtle marriage?? nt

[HuckleB]

36. The Two P’s of Gender Inequality: Prostitution and Polygamy

The Two P’s of Gender Inequality: Prostitution and Polygamy – How the Laws Against Both Are Underenforced to Protect Men and Subjugate Women

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20090709.html


and...


The Marriage Debate and Polygamy:
Several Utah Cases Challenge Whether Anti-Polygamy Laws Are Constitutional
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040729.html

[stray cat]

38. Isn't it as much a choice as having an abortion? Pro-choice

[HuckleB]

40. Has that been the case historically?

:shrug:

An examination of the effects of polygamous marriage suggests it's bad for everyone in society, not just women
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/jul/26/religion-polygamy-monogamy-psychology-crime

[PoliticAverse]

41. Apparently

it's a woman's right to pay a man to take something out of her but not
a woman's right to get paid by a man for putting something into her.

[mkultra]

129. or prostitution?

[RC]

43. If serial polygamy is legal, why not parallel polygamy?

[PoliticAverse]

44. Because...

That would even be harder to do successfully than parallel parking.

[eridani]

67. Excellent! Too bad we aren't doing DUzys any more

You'd be a shoo-in. Welcome to DU, BTW.

[Unvanguard]

46. It should be legal, but not as described.

To protect the interests of people in previous marriages, the consent of all parties should be required to bring new people into the relationship.

[Sheepshank]

48. Around these parts the additional marriages are not recognized as legal marriages.

Prosecution really doesn't revolve around co-habitating consenting adults. Nothing illegal about co-habitating adults.

But around here, many many of those subsequent sister-wives in plural marriages are on welfare and cHips and other state bennies, when they really do have a means of support. The state does go after welfare fraud, and in some casea, as in the Jeffs, harming the kids when they are forced into marriages at an exceptionally young age.

[Hoyt]

49. Not sure it should be illegal, but they should definitely be prohibited from possessing guns.

[HuckleB]

53. +1 IMO, this is the most valuable post on this thread.

[MellowDem]

50. Not illegal... or legal

You should be able to marry however many people you want, according to whatever definition of marriage you have. But according to the law, marriage should only be between two people, in terms of the privileges and tax breaks that can go along with that (and children). If people want to marry a ton of other people AND be married in the legal sense for tax purposes or whatever, they should just choose two people who will represent that marriage in a sense. Hell, if you have an even number (let's say six) you can get three marriages between you, assuming that same sex marriages are made legal eventually if it's not 50/50 ration of men to women. But for legal purposes, making it more than two people would be a nightmare and nigh impossible. The state does not have to honor every religious or secular belief out there about relationships. Many times it is best not to. Of course, if poly relationships become incredibly widespread or the majority one day, I could see the law evolving. Personally, I see the number of people marrying at all going down in the future, rather than an increased need for poly marriages (though poly relationships may very well increase.

[Fleshdancer]

55. As long as everyone is 18+ years of age

I don't want to see 14 and 15 yr old girls being forced into marriage. As long as everyone involved are adults, then I don't care.

[flvegan]

56. If folks are happy, I could care less about what it is making them so.

What's really sad? The crusty old white republican men would sooner embrace this than allowing a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman.

[Generic Brad]

57. It should be legal only when they stop opposing gay marriage

Once they start supporting gay marriage, I will support their right to do whatever the hell they want to in the privacy of their own homes.

[WinkyDink]

58. Yes. The State does not have to codify personal desires.

[pitohui]

60. it's a great way to be sure we'll never have a decent public health care option

can we PLEASE stop promoting this idea, can we PLEASE let the fascist polygamists of utah do all the hard work themselves?

no small/medium business could ever have a "spousal" health care plan if polygamy was legal...stop doing the work for the lowlife, k, thanks

[PoliticAverse]

70. Yet another argument

for divorcing your health care from your employer.

[woo me with science]

64. Problem comes when the first wife has no say in the matter,

which is how it often works in practice where it exists now.

[Bunny]

115. Yes. As it's practiced in America today, the women involved have very little choice

in the matter. They know no other lifestyle and have pretty much no choice about staying or leaving their little inbred communities. And their daughters are groomed from infancy to be subservient and submissive and think they're blessed to be given in 'marriage' at the age of 12 to some creepy old man with ten other 'wives'. Legalizing polygamy would only serve to legitimize the child sexual abuse that is already rampant in that culture.

[treestar]

65. Basically agree

It would be better than cheating/divorce, and the children would probably do OK (so long as they were not abused, but that takes place anywhere, and not married off too young, but then all the same laws would apply).

Property rights could get hairy but could be figured out.

[texastoast]

68. I don't think it is workable

At least, that's what the kid in me says. It might be workable in a different culture, where "everyone was doing it," but I think it would suck to be a kid of a marriage like that in this culture.

[Rochester]

69. Yes, it should be illegal

[gulliver]

76. Sounds more like "free love" plus big lawyer bills.

Imagine a guy with multiple wives. Each wife could then have multiple husbands (who, in turn, could have multiple wives). The holiday travel planning would need a supercomputer.

[uncommon]

83. Considering the tax and divorce/child custody implications, I don't think the courts could handle

legalizing this.

The fact that it's gross is beside the point.

[snooper2]

85. Sure, as long as when the third "partner" comes into the picture

Any and all bennies for all are lost...

No welfare for (unmarried sister wives, or extra men laying around)

[Blue_Tires]

109. +1

[LynneSin]

86. If only to get the children off the welfare and as long as no one is coerced.

All those FLDS plural marriages take advantage of the welfare system. After the first wife, those women bearing children will leave the father blank since it could lead an investigation into their lifestyle. Since these women technically have no spouse and probably no job (or very menial task job) many of them will go to welfare to make ends meet.

What sucks is that they leave the father field blank so the state has no father to go after for child support payments.

Talk about a scam!

[NeedleCast]

87. I have no problems with polygamy as long as no one is being coerced.

[COLGATE4]

89. I think Mark Twain said something like "If it doesn't hurt me

or frighten the horses, it's OK with me".

[nyc 4 Biden]

90. Rich men would have a great many wives.

Leaving less (but better quality obviously) for the common man.

eta: to answer the question, I think consenting adults should be allowed to marry whoever and as many as they want.

[kentuck]

91. But what is the divorce rate...

for having extramarital affairs??

[T. Count]

93. Child support would be interesting. If there were 10 husbands and 1 wife

would each only have to pay 1/10 the child support in the case of divorce?

[pipi_k]

114. If they all agreed beforehand

to do that...each pay 1/10th child support...then I don't see a problem.

Otherwise, there's DNA. Biological father would pay 100%.

[Iggo]

94. Nope.

[bigwillq]

95. No, shouldn't be illegal (nt)

[Liberty Belle]

96. It should not be legal - bad situation for kids, and the polygamists

typically have lots of them. The children grow up with very negative role models of how women should be treated, also.

[pipi_k]

100. OK, but what about

people who run around having kids and kids and more kids without even being married?

Men with 4 or 5 or 8 kids, all by different women...and they don't support those kids

Women with as many kids, all by different fathers...


Many of those women get just as badly treated by men....maybe even worse...than women in polygamous marriages do, or would be. A constant parade of men coming in and out of the kids' lives...maybe even being abused by their moms' current boyfriends... How many "daddies" do these kids typically see before they leave home? Is this really any better than kids in a polygamous marriage having 4 or 5 "mommies"?


And there are way more of those kids with a new "daddy" every 6 to 18 months than there might ever be from polygamous marriages.

[uncommon]

103. Two wrongs don't make one right -

both of these situations suck for kids and women.

[pipi_k]

108. Exactly...but the difference is...

that there are probably way more kids living in the first situation than in the second, and even if multiple marriage became legal, the first situation would probably still be more common.

Nobody is calling for laws to prevent men from running around impregnating as many women as they can.

Nobody is calling for laws to prevent women from having whole litters of children from multiple fathers.


Yet I would be willing to bet that the very same people who think multiple marriages should not be legal (because of the poor kids) probably think, OTOH, that forced sterilization of people who spawn kids outside of marriage is a flagrant violation of their "Civil Rights".

I, personally, don't see where having children should be a Civil Right. It's a responsibility that should not be taken lightly or handed off to people who fuck up kids' lives because they think they have a right to have litters of kids they can't handle.

[PavePusher]

106. You are implying that there is only one form of polygamy...

and that no other model is possible.


Supporting data, please? (P.S., just because you haven't seen any other form plastered across the MSM <and why would non-dysfunctional forms make the news>, doesn't mean they don't exist. Lack of data is not data.)

[Cleita]

116. No, it shouldn't be among consenting adults,

but some boundaries do have to be set, like mature men can't marry fourteen year olds or vice versa.

[Vinca]

118. All I care is that if people choose to have multiple spouses and

dozens of kids, they have the income to support them.

[meow mix]

122. On Caprica some familys consist of many men and women all inter-married to each other.

i see that show as a look at an very progressive america, in about 50 - 100 years.

[JCMach1]

123. What about this guy? Meet Dad Daad (ironic name)

How many kids do you want to have? 1… 2 or 5 or 10? Not 100 I guess! But this dad who became father of 78 children about a month back wants to have 100 children by the end of 2015.

In US, it was a big news when a couple managed to have 17 children. But this guy married 15 brides to produce 78 children. I don’t know if he remembers names and birthdates of all his wives, let alone the children. Poor guy, he has to divorce previous wives to make way for new ones in order to stay within the legal limit of four. Now he has 3 wives with him and he is looking for a new wife to make it four.

UAE national Daad Mohammed Murad Abdul Rahman, 60, is one-legged as he lost a leg in a road accident. His youngest child, Tariq, is about a month old and his oldest son, Ayoob, is 36. Two out of his current three wives are pregnent now and he is expecting two more addition in his family within a month... http://blog.xnepali.com/dad-daad-aiming-century/

[Warren DeMontague]

124. The problem, as I see it, is you'd have corporations declaring themselves a group marriage

and taking advantage of different laws pertaining to shared property, etc.

What if, say, 20,000 Exxon Executives decide they're "married" and don't have to pay taxes on profit distributions amongst themselves? I'm not a lawyer, but I think this could pose a problem.

[PoliticAverse]

126. I don't think that will be a problem...

until the supreme court reaches a decision on "Spouses United"...

[Warren DeMontague]

125. I do think that consenting adults should be able to enter into any sort of mutually agreed upon

relationship they want, as long as everyone is a consenting adult.

[mkultra]

130. Illegal. polygyny always wins over polyandry

And polygyny has some very severe effects on a culture. Real damage, not imagined bullshit damage assigned to gay marriage.