It's time to legalize polygamy...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that the polyarmoury polygamy thing will be a complete failure to most families who have no experience with it.
I have read countless books about polygamy in the FLDS communities and there seem to be some rules that the families have to live by for it to work.
Seems like the men have to have some self control and be very very careful about what they say to their wives.

Except, it is no longer confined to fringe Mormon types. There is a sizeable lefty community who are into multiple partner relationships, except typically the bisexual wife is at the "center" of the relationships. These people refer to their family units as "poly" to distinguish themselves from the stereotypical polygamous family.

And I think they will fail. Those people should not even go through the paperwork. Bet the divorce rate will be 100%.

[Anonymous]

The right has lost its mind over this. Some of the more colorful, actual responses to date:

*Allow government employees to refuse to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds.

*Eliminate the institution of civil marriage entirely

*Constitutional amendment

*Write essays saying now is the time to legalize polygamy, so that we then understand what a bad thing we did.


Y'all look like vampires doused with holy water. Seriously, have some self-respect. Pull yourselves together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The right has lost its mind over this. Some of the more colorful, actual responses to date:

*Allow government employees to refuse to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds.

*Eliminate the institution of civil marriage entirely

*Constitutional amendment

*Write essays saying now is the time to legalize polygamy, so that we then understand what a bad thing we did.

*Abolish the Supreme Court

Y'all look like vampires doused with holy water. Seriously, have some self-respect. Pull yourselves together.

Forgot Ted Cruz,

[Anonymous]

I read something interesting about this the other day (I wish I could link, but I can't remember where I read it) talking about the societal problems that legalized polygamy would cause, which are not parallel to same sex marriage. If there are 100 men and 100 women, and the richest 5 men each take 10 wives, that would leave 95 men and 50 women. We've already seen problems around the world when there are more men looking for wives than there are women who are available to marry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read something interesting about this the other day (I wish I could link, but I can't remember where I read it) talking about the societal problems that legalized polygamy would cause, which are not parallel to same sex marriage. If there are 100 men and 100 women, and the richest 5 men each take 10 wives, that would leave 95 men and 50 women. We've already seen problems around the world when there are more men looking for wives than there are women who are available to marry.

Yes, this. It isn't necessarily about morality, it is about the possible societal problems. In the end, it's the "unwanted" males who may suffer and cause problems. Not great for the women either, obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read something interesting about this the other day (I wish I could link, but I can't remember where I read it) talking about the societal problems that legalized polygamy would cause, which are not parallel to same sex marriage. If there are 100 men and 100 women, and the richest 5 men each take 10 wives, that would leave 95 men and 50 women. We've already seen problems around the world when there are more men looking for wives than there are women who are available to marry.

First of all, the balance would not be that far off. I am a woman and would welcome an imbalance. It is scary for women over 35 in the dating world, worse as you get older. Men would just have to start to behave themselves to get a wife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read something interesting about this the other day (I wish I could link, but I can't remember where I read it) talking about the societal problems that legalized polygamy would cause, which are not parallel to same sex marriage. If there are 100 men and 100 women, and the richest 5 men each take 10 wives, that would leave 95 men and 50 women. We've already seen problems around the world when there are more men looking for wives than there are women who are available to marry.

First of all, the balance would not be that far off. I am a woman and would welcome an imbalance. It is scary for women over 35 in the dating world, worse as you get older. Men would just have to start to behave themselves to get a wife.

It's a nice thought, but historically the exact opposite happens when there is a male/female ratio imbalance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read something interesting about this the other day (I wish I could link, but I can't remember where I read it) talking about the societal problems that legalized polygamy would cause, which are not parallel to same sex marriage. If there are 100 men and 100 women, and the richest 5 men each take 10 wives, that would leave 95 men and 50 women. We've already seen problems around the world when there are more men looking for wives than there are women who are available to marry.

Yes, this. It isn't necessarily about morality, it is about the possible societal problems. In the end, it's the "unwanted" males who may suffer and cause problems. Not great for the women either, obviously.

There are several problems with polygamous marriages that don't apply to two-person marriages.

First, the state's recognition of a marriage confers certain benefits, like lower taxes (if one spouse earns substantially less than the other), community property, non-probate transfer of assets upon death, etc. The reason we give those benefits is because we want to encourage marriages so as to create stable families to raise stable children. It's pretty clear that two-parent households are more stable than one-parent households, but not that three (or more)-parent households would give society any greater benefit. Of course, you don't have to have kids to get the benefits, but kids (and societal stability generally) are why the benefits are there in the first place. (This reasoning doesn't go against gay marriage, because the evidence is that gay couples do have children, and those who don't are no different from hetero couples who don't have children).

Second, unlike SSM, there's a big initial cost to figuring out how plural marriage would work. For example, what kind of relationships would be allowed, and exactly who is married to whom? Say you have one husband and two wives. Are the wives married to eachother too? Can one member independently marry a fourth person, who does not marry the other two? Can that person have a separate marriage too? How much of a daisy-chain (if any) would be allowed? This matters because of all those things that go along with marriage. Even in a simple husband-wife-wife situation, if one person dies, who is their "spouse" for purposes of getting their retirement? Who gets their assets? How do you allocate the assets of a second wife in a two-wife marriage, where there is a surviving husband, first wife, and children from both wives? Do the living wife's children inherit from the dead wife, at the expense of the dead wife's children? And speaking of children, how do you handle custody in the two-wife situation with children from multiple wives. You might suggest going with the biological parents, but what if children are adopted into the plural marriage?

It's not that it would be impossible to figure these things out, but there would be a big cost to it. We have spent thousands of years developing family law and property law with the idea of a two-person marriage. In the last 100 years or so, the trend (a good trend) has been to make spouses equal. And if spouses are equal, there's no reason to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. We don't have any experience with how plural marriage would work, and even setting aside the way that it has been practiced (encouraging child abuse, exiling young males), it poses big problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read something interesting about this the other day (I wish I could link, but I can't remember where I read it) talking about the societal problems that legalized polygamy would cause, which are not parallel to same sex marriage. If there are 100 men and 100 women, and the richest 5 men each take 10 wives, that would leave 95 men and 50 women. We've already seen problems around the world when there are more men looking for wives than there are women who are available to marry.

Yes, this. It isn't necessarily about morality, it is about the possible societal problems. In the end, it's the "unwanted" males who may suffer and cause problems. Not great for the women either, obviously.

There are several problems with polygamous marriages that don't apply to two-person marriages.

First, the state's recognition of a marriage confers certain benefits, like lower taxes (if one spouse earns substantially less than the other), community property, non-probate transfer of assets upon death, etc. The reason we give those benefits is because we want to encourage marriages so as to create stable families to raise stable children. It's pretty clear that two-parent households are more stable than one-parent households, but not that three (or more)-parent households would give society any greater benefit. Of course, you don't have to have kids to get the benefits, but kids (and societal stability generally) are why the benefits are there in the first place. (This reasoning doesn't go against gay marriage, because the evidence is that gay couples do have children, and those who don't are no different from hetero couples who don't have children).

Second, unlike SSM, there's a big initial cost to figuring out how plural marriage would work. For example, what kind of relationships would be allowed, and exactly who is married to whom? Say you have one husband and two wives. Are the wives married to eachother too? Can one member independently marry a fourth person, who does not marry the other two? Can that person have a separate marriage too? How much of a daisy-chain (if any) would be allowed? This matters because of all those things that go along with marriage. Even in a simple husband-wife-wife situation, if one person dies, who is their "spouse" for purposes of getting their retirement? Who gets their assets? How do you allocate the assets of a second wife in a two-wife marriage, where there is a surviving husband, first wife, and children from both wives? Do the living wife's children inherit from the dead wife, at the expense of the dead wife's children? And speaking of children, how do you handle custody in the two-wife situation with children from multiple wives. You might suggest going with the biological parents, but what if children are adopted into the plural marriage?

It's not that it would be impossible to figure these things out, but there would be a big cost to it. We have spent thousands of years developing family law and property law with the idea of a two-person marriage. In the last 100 years or so, the trend (a good trend) has been to make spouses equal. And if spouses are equal, there's no reason to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. We don't have any experience with how plural marriage would work, and even setting aside the way that it has been practiced (encouraging child abuse, exiling young males), it poses big problems.

The easy way to start is to just allow the basic one spouse of opposite gender being able to marry others of the opposite gender. One many many wives, or one woman many husbands. Then you make a mandatory will and trust. Mandatory initial fees to cover the high court costs that come with screwed up wills. Split SS benefits equally among surviving spouses. Children from each wife get their mothers assets. Courts protect children's assets. Not that complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to say, if you want the government out of marriage, the government should get out of marriage. Huge problems though when it comes to workplace benefits

It's actually quite simple -- no workplace benefits for any spouses! The idea that a spouse should get benefits even though he or she doesn't work there, is a relic of the 1950's era when the man worked and the woman stayed home. Today the spouse almost certainly has his or her own job, and spousal benefits are a relic of history

My husband covers the family even though we both work for the school system, but yes, I could easily cover myself - and vice versa.

But what if one of us stayed home? I get your point - to some extent. But then should the SAHP become self-insured then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guys, there's a whole world of poly people who aren't religious. It's a pretty interesting world, in which kids are being raised, people are holding down jobs, mortgages get paid.

It even exists in DC.

http://www.bmorepoly.org/about.php

This world is often way way way less salacious - or damaging to kids, or women - than what you're imagining, if this is your first time thinking about what it means to have more than one partner with whom you build a life.

Here's a book you may enjoy if you want to know more about what day to day life is like for people in poly relationships:

http://www.amazon.com/Polyamorists-Next-Door-Multiple-Partner-Relationships/dp/1442222956

from your first site -

as well as sex-positive gatherings

What does that even mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read something interesting about this the other day (I wish I could link, but I can't remember where I read it) talking about the societal problems that legalized polygamy would cause, which are not parallel to same sex marriage. If there are 100 men and 100 women, and the richest 5 men each take 10 wives, that would leave 95 men and 50 women. We've already seen problems around the world when there are more men looking for wives than there are women who are available to marry.

Yes, this. It isn't necessarily about morality, it is about the possible societal problems. In the end, it's the "unwanted" males who may suffer and cause problems. Not great for the women either, obviously.

There are several problems with polygamous marriages that don't apply to two-person marriages.

First, the state's recognition of a marriage confers certain benefits, like lower taxes (if one spouse earns substantially less than the other), community property, non-probate transfer of assets upon death, etc. The reason we give those benefits is because we want to encourage marriages so as to create stable families to raise stable children. It's pretty clear that two-parent households are more stable than one-parent households, but not that three (or more)-parent households would give society any greater benefit. Of course, you don't have to have kids to get the benefits, but kids (and societal stability generally) are why the benefits are there in the first place. (This reasoning doesn't go against gay marriage, because the evidence is that gay couples do have children, and those who don't are no different from hetero couples who don't have children).

Second, unlike SSM, there's a big initial cost to figuring out how plural marriage would work. For example, what kind of relationships would be allowed, and exactly who is married to whom? Say you have one husband and two wives. Are the wives married to eachother too? Can one member independently marry a fourth person, who does not marry the other two? Can that person have a separate marriage too? How much of a daisy-chain (if any) would be allowed? This matters because of all those things that go along with marriage. Even in a simple husband-wife-wife situation, if one person dies, who is their "spouse" for purposes of getting their retirement? Who gets their assets? How do you allocate the assets of a second wife in a two-wife marriage, where there is a surviving husband, first wife, and children from both wives? Do the living wife's children inherit from the dead wife, at the expense of the dead wife's children? And speaking of children, how do you handle custody in the two-wife situation with children from multiple wives. You might suggest going with the biological parents, but what if children are adopted into the plural marriage?

It's not that it would be impossible to figure these things out, but there would be a big cost to it. We have spent thousands of years developing family law and property law with the idea of a two-person marriage. In the last 100 years or so, the trend (a good trend) has been to make spouses equal. And if spouses are equal, there's no reason to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. We don't have any experience with how plural marriage would work, and even setting aside the way that it has been practiced (encouraging child abuse, exiling young males), it poses big problems.

The easy way to start is to just allow the basic one spouse of opposite gender being able to marry others of the opposite gender. One many many wives, or one woman many husbands. Then you make a mandatory will and trust. Mandatory initial fees to cover the high court costs that come with screwed up wills. Split SS benefits equally among surviving spouses. Children from each wife get their mothers assets. Courts protect children's assets. Not that complicated.

The argument is that if the Constitution requires MM marriages then it also requires MFF marriages. I'm saying that unlike MF vs MM marriages, there is a good reason to distinguish between the two. As a policy matter, you might support poly marriages, but the Constitution does not require them. As I said, it's not that it would be impossible to regulate poly marriage, it's just that it would be hard. For starters, rewrite the internal revenue code to account for 3+ co-spouses. GO!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I view this “polygamy” concept as yet another way to marginalize the traditional family - one father and one mother to raise a family.
I see it as dangerous and not beneficial to anyone.
Call me old fashioned. I believe that children do best in a loving home with a father and a mother.
The efforts to undermine this model and to promote non-traditional families will do nothing but create more societal problems.

You're old fashioned. And way way way out of touch.

I must be too. PP, I agree wholeheartedly. Not good for the kids. If you read this thread, you'll see there is not much concern for the kids.

The offspring are not involved in this decision. Rather, it is a decision or decisions between several consenting adults.

The state has no more say in such marriages than with differentiating between straight and gay couples. At least, the state should not be involved at all. It is discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read something interesting about this the other day (I wish I could link, but I can't remember where I read it) talking about the societal problems that legalized polygamy would cause, which are not parallel to same sex marriage. If there are 100 men and 100 women, and the richest 5 men each take 10 wives, that would leave 95 men and 50 women. We've already seen problems around the world when there are more men looking for wives than there are women who are available to marry.

That is based on a totally sexist assumption that only men would have multiple female spouses.

[Anonymous]

Hahaha- open up the marriage definition and try to shut the box.

#caitlynnismyhero