Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We legislate morality all the time. That argument is weak.
Technically we don't. The government doesn't legislate morality, it provides legal protections to citizens. Murder is not illegal because it's immoral, it's illegal because it deprives other citizens the right to life, liberty, or property without due process. So while it may appear that we legislate morality, it has more to do with legal implications and state interest than morals, as morality is subjective.
Indeed, originally marriage was more like a business transaction. The whole romantic aspect was added relatively recently, and in some countries that has not happened yet, at least not for the masses, maybe for the upper class.
"The whole romantic aspect was added relatively recently, and in some countries that has not happened yet"
Ya, like the filthy FLDS "God Told Us To" RELIGIOUS community I heard about on TV today...they're right here in the USA...marrying multiple women, ordering 14 year olds to marry their cousins, forcing married women to leave their husband to be "wife" to another perverted old man...17 year olds forced to marry mentally sick 68 year old perverts...
...not a lot of romance....but these religious pigs really LOVE polygamy....as long as women are not allowed to have many husbands
I did actually think about that, but just decided to express it from my male point of view.
Why female polygamy is so rare is an interesting issue .
Doesn't the patriarchal nature of societies explain that? The fact that women in most cultures have always been inherently inferior to men seems to explain why women would rarely have multiple husbands.
Well thinking of the legal benefits of monogomous marriages I think the two major ones are
legal heirs, both wives and children
Automatic power of attorney over finances and health/life decisions
Given the difficulty we see when a marriage dissolves between 2 people allowing plural marriages would increase that 100X.
SS and SSI benefits, 401K and insurance benefits. Would this be split amoung mulitple wives and children or increased to compensate multiples?
How would assests and liabilities be split if one wife wanted out of the marriage. Would property have to be sold to compensate that wife and how would that affect the other members of the hh legally. What about child support. Would it be reduced because the father had increased dependants?
If the family applied for government assistance how would that be determined. If the husband lost his job and two wives worked part time how would food stamp eligibility be determined? Within the illegal polygamy situations we see most wives and their children living seperate and on welfare.
Which wife would make medical decisions? What if they didnt agree. I guess one could be appointed power of attorney, but I'd bet that would be constantly challenged in court.
What about tax deductions. How do you file joint income taxes between 5 people.
Im assuming the legal marriage is between the man and wife 1 and the man and wife 2 and the man and wife 3 and not between wife 1 and wife 2 and wife 3, even so there are just too many legal quagmires for this to work. It would take up excessive court time and the state and federal govs. would have to rewrite laws and procedures. Attorneys would have a field day tho.
Doesn't the patriarchal nature of societies explain that? The fact that women in most cultures have always been inherently inferior to men seems to explain why women would rarely have multiple husbands.
Women are NOT inherently inferior to men.
They have been treated as inferior, told they're inferior, and weighed down with pregnancy and poverty to keep them under control of men.
"Most cultures"....just the stupid ones where tiny little scared men have only one way to feel big...beat down women...
"Ya, like the filthy FLDS "God Told Us To" RELIGIOUS community I heard about on TV today...they're right here in the USA...marrying multiple women, ordering 14 year olds to marry their cousins, forcing married women to leave their husband to be "wife" to another perverted old man...17 year olds forced to marry mentally sick 68 year old perverts...
This is full of judgements.
What is filthy to you is just fine to others,
as apparently by those who are okay with gay marriage despite the fact that most people do not support it.
Don't some of you see the irony?
It is fine for you to declare some "perverted," etc.
But the traditional-marriage crowd is "bigoted," "closed-minded," "judgemental," etc.
Well thinking of the legal benefits of monogomous marriages I think the two major ones are
legal heirs, both wives and children
Automatic power of attorney over finances and health/life decisions
Given the difficulty we see when a marriage dissolves between 2 people allowing plural marriages would increase that 100X.
SS and SSI benefits, 401K and insurance benefits. Would this be split amoung mulitple wives and children or increased to compensate multiples?
How would assests and liabilities be split if one wife wanted out of the marriage. Would property have to be sold to compensate that wife and how would that affect the other members of the hh legally. What about child support. Would it be reduced because the father had increased dependants?
If the family applied for government assistance how would that be determined. If the husband lost his job and two wives worked part time how would food stamp eligibility be determined? Within the illegal polygamy situations we see most wives and their children living seperate and on welfare.
Which wife would make medical decisions? What if they didnt agree. I guess one could be appointed power of attorney, but I'd bet that would be constantly challenged in court.
What about tax deductions. How do you file joint income taxes between 5 people.
Im assuming the legal marriage is between the man and wife 1 and the man and wife 2 and the man and wife 3 and not between wife 1 and wife 2 and wife 3, even so there are just too many legal quagmires for this to work. It would take up excessive court time and the state and federal govs. would have to rewrite laws and procedures. Attorneys would have a field day tho.
The Polygamy Pigs who belong to FLDS just go on Welfare for their 22 children....they call it "bleeding the beast"...it's generational with them.
So, as far as inheritence, I guess they don't care when PapaPig kicks the bucket.
I'm just curious, because I think anyone that wants more than one spouse is clinically insane, but what is the compelling state interest in banning polygamy?
Anti-gay marriage threads often list this as a potential "slippery slope" consequence of permitting gay marriage (along with a lot of other things that are just ridiculous).
Why should the government care if people want to be in a "plural marriage?"
Please don't respond with "because it changes the traditional definition of marriage", because that's just not really an argument.
How would this affect their benefit entitlement? For example, medicaide has an income qualification based on the total people in a family. Can you count four wives and twenty kids in those figures? What if the husband falls ill? Which wife is his medical proxy? I have no moral stand against it myself but it just seems like it would be way too complicated to be legal.
Women, in most cultures, are unable to defend themselves against being forced to do whatever the men wanted. They have become more equal since the mass production of low cost firearms. I would consider shooting the "perverted old goat" justifiable homicide to prevent rape. The women of Islam and FLDS need to be better armed and more willing to protect themselves.
Now if a group of women decided to share a single man that would be their decision and I cannot see where it would be a problem. So long as there is no coercion involved people should be allowed to form any arrangement they want. Who are we to say what is right for everyone else.
What is filthy to you is just fine to others,
as apparently by those who are okay with gay marriage despite the fact that most people do not support it.
Don't some of you see the irony?
It is fine for you to declare some "perverted," etc.
But the traditional-marriage crowd is "bigoted," "closed-minded," "judgemental," etc.
Food for thought.
Only really "uninformed" people would equate filthy perverted pedophiles who hide behind god as the same as two adults , of any sex, getting married to each other...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
