Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was the pp who wrote about polygamy in my family. The culture was Chinese.
There are a few things that I have noticed over the years about what works with polygamy.
First, the men have to be relatively wealthy. Poverty makes everyone miserable. Later the wives blame their misery on polygamy when in reality, it is the lack of money, which is in part due to the large family.
Second the men can not expect to exploit one wife to provide for the others. That gets old quickly.
Third, the men have to be mature enough to avoid pitting one wife against the other. This is probably the trickiest part of it. Some say that they just never speak about one wife with the other and keep them as far apart as is reasonable.
Last, the men need to be likeable. The bad guys never make it.

I can add to that through the lens of Muslim practices, specifically Gulf Arabs.

First, it's the money. The guy needs to be rich, the richer the better. In that religion, the man is responsible for 100% of all household expenses plus children. There is no commingling of assets in Islam.

Second, it's better if the women don't care too much about the guy or care only slightly. It works well in marriages built on recognition of mutual duties vs. passionate love. I.e. the guy makes a rotation and sticks to it faithfully. The wives also appreciate some time off.

Third, it helps if society embraces the practice. Children of polygamous marriages in the Gulf tend to get along well and see each other as full brothers and sisters. This does not, though, extend to wives. All wives live separately and are not expected to mingle. There is no expectation of a mixed household, and it is fact very strongly frowned upon. All wives are entitled to separate households.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about gay polygamy? Is that okay?

It may be ok for knee-jerk liberals who have a visceral reaction to polygamy (probably because they associate it with the most conservative aspects of historical Mormonism) but have no problem with homosexual sodomy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Polygamy shouldn't be illegal for much longer once the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage. It's hard to make a legal distinction for outlawing one marriage arrangement between consenting adults (which actually has some historical basis in US history) while legitimizing an arrangement that few even contemplated 15 years ago.

Exactly right.

I disagree. The law is not written to decide the legal and tax implications of partnerships beyond 2 individuals.

I don't care about the morality of it, nor should the law. What I care about is the possibility of an association built for the purpose of avoiding taxation or hiding ownership of assets.

As with anything else, the law can be modified. You don't lose out om tax revenue. If the women in polygamous marriages married monogamous men, you would also lose tax revenue.

No, it's not so simple. For example, I could create a commune in which assets are held in perpetuity by constantly adding members to the marriage over the years. If the final spouse never dies, there is no transfer. Eventually the children could marry into the relationship, perhaps after the parents are deceased. You can also add spouses for the purposes of reducing your income tax bracket. Not useful today, because you can only do it once and you might like to be married to someone who makes money. But with a piece of paper, you can now add two or three more people of middle class income to bring down the average. It would not be much harder than going into a lake house with some friends. Another fun one would be immigration and naturalization. I could go on and on.

When you look at marriage as a religious or social institution, it is a deep and personal relationship like no other. But if you look at the legal marriage contract, it is a series of special rights, privileges, tax benefits, and loopholes. With legal polygamy, you can still have that personal relationship with one person. But you can, on paper, marry lots of people and end up with a really incredible package of legal benefits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people will scoff at this...and call it bigotry...but with the passing of laws regarding same sex marriage polygamy is next.

Fine with me. My main issue with the current state of polygamous marriages is that they often involved young women who are coerced. I don't care what consenting adults do.

Anonymous wrote:How about gay polygamy? Is that okay?

Anonymous wrote:I was the pp who wrote about polygamy in my family. The culture was Chinese.
There are a few things that I have noticed over the years about what works with polygamy.
First, the men have to be relatively wealthy. Poverty makes everyone miserable. Later the wives blame their misery on polygamy when in reality, it is the lack of money, which is in part due to the large family.
Second the men can not expect to exploit one wife to provide for the others. That gets old quickly.
Third, the men have to be mature enough to avoid pitting one wife against the other. This is probably the trickiest part of it. Some say that they just never speak about one wife with the other and keep them as far apart as is reasonable.
Last, the men need to be likeable. The bad guys never make it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Polygamy shouldn't be illegal for much longer once the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage. It's hard to make a legal distinction for outlawing one marriage arrangement between consenting adults (which actually has some historical basis in US history) while legitimizing an arrangement that few even contemplated 15 years ago.

Exactly right.

I disagree. The law is not written to decide the legal and tax implications of partnerships beyond 2 individuals.

I don't care about the morality of it, nor should the law. What I care about is the possibility of an association built for the purpose of avoiding taxation or hiding ownership of assets.

As with anything else, the law can be modified. You don't lose out om tax revenue. If the women in polygamous marriages married monogamous men, you would also lose tax revenue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Polygamy shouldn't be illegal for much longer once the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage. It's hard to make a legal distinction for outlawing one marriage arrangement between consenting adults (which actually has some historical basis in US history) while legitimizing an arrangement that few even contemplated 15 years ago.

Exactly right.

I disagree. The law is not written to decide the legal and tax implications of partnerships beyond 2 individuals.

I don't care about the morality of it, nor should the law. What I care about is the possibility of an association built for the purpose of avoiding taxation or hiding ownership of assets.

Anonymous wrote:Polygamy is illegal because women always get the shaft. It is well documented that polygamy is harmful to women and children.

Okay now I am laughing at my sentence-- unfortunately they only get one!

Anonymous wrote:The law is unconstitutional if people predisposed to multiple spouses and partners are discriminated against.