Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think either should be illegal.
I've always wondered how mistresses weren't polygamy?
But you can see for taxation and other benefits why the government might prefer to keep people in units of two adults. There are government benefits distributed to spouses of government employees, for example, and you don't want people pretending to be polygamous so they can get more benefits.
That doesn't support making social polygamy illegal.
Why should people be punished for being who they are?
I don't think anyone should be punished but I can see why the government might say to it's employees, you get to designate one person as the recipient of your benefits -- we aren't going to increase your benefits because you have more than one spouse.
You get to increase if you have more than one child. How is that different?
To get child benefits you have to have the actual child.
To claim spousal benefits, you only have to make the person your spouse legally even if it is only for the purpose of giving a friend benefits. No doubt there is some fraud on this front now but you can imagine the fraud we would have if you could claim multiple spouses.
Anonymous wrote:Laws change all the time.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think either should be illegal.
I've always wondered how mistresses weren't polygamy?
But you can see for taxation and other benefits why the government might prefer to keep people in units of two adults. There are government benefits distributed to spouses of government employees, for example, and you don't want people pretending to be polygamous so they can get more benefits.
That doesn't support making social polygamy illegal.
Why should people be punished for being who they are?
I don't think anyone should be punished but I can see why the government might say to it's employees, you get to designate one person as the recipient of your benefits -- we aren't going to increase your benefits because you have more than one spouse.
You get to increase if you have more than one child. How is that different?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think either should be illegal.
I've always wondered how mistresses weren't polygamy?
But you can see for taxation and other benefits why the government might prefer to keep people in units of two adults. There are government benefits distributed to spouses of government employees, for example, and you don't want people pretending to be polygamous so they can get more benefits.
That doesn't support making social polygamy illegal.
Why should people be punished for being who they are?
I don't think anyone should be punished but I can see why the government might say to it's employees, you get to designate one person as the recipient of your benefits -- we aren't going to increase your benefits because you have more than one spouse.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think either should be illegal.
I've always wondered how mistresses weren't polygamy?
But you can see for taxation and other benefits why the government might prefer to keep people in units of two adults. There are government benefits distributed to spouses of government employees, for example, and you don't want people pretending to be polygamous so they can get more benefits.
That doesn't support making social polygamy illegal.
Why should people be punished for being who they are?
I don't think anyone should be punished but I can see why the government might say to it's employees, you get to designate one person as the recipient of your benefits -- we aren't going to increase your benefits because you have more than one spouse.
Anonymous wrote:Love is love is love.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think either should be illegal.
I've always wondered how mistresses weren't polygamy?
But you can see for taxation and other benefits why the government might prefer to keep people in units of two adults. There are government benefits distributed to spouses of government employees, for example, and you don't want people pretending to be polygamous so they can get more benefits.
That doesn't support making social polygamy illegal.
Why should people be punished for being who they are?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think either should be illegal.
I've always wondered how mistresses weren't polygamy?
But you can see for taxation and other benefits why the government might prefer to keep people in units of two adults. There are government benefits distributed to spouses of government employees, for example, and you don't want people pretending to be polygamous so they can get more benefits.
That doesn't support making social polygamy illegal.
Anonymous wrote:I don't think either should be illegal.
I've always wondered how mistresses weren't polygamy?