Next up Polygamy. (legal, drug, insurance, companies)
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.
The issue is only about what governments want to acknowledge about their civilians. Gay marriage is a matter of gender, monogamy and polygamy are a matter of how many. Monogamy and polygamy should be treated just as technicalities regarding the benefits that married people have from their governments and what they give back to the government and society. And just because state doesn't want to recognise polygamy into the laws, it doesn't mean that more than 2 people cannot live together and share expenses, bedroom and caring of the children.
If gay marriage is now legal in many states , what valid arguments are there against polygamy ?
Before someone complains about women suffering how about women with multiple husbands ?
What valid argument could be made against people choosing to enter into a polygamous marriage as adults ?
Not that I'm an old school Mormon or support this, I was wondering if this will be the next "civil rights" issue?
Personally, I could care less if someone like "King Duck Phil" would want to marry a goat or donkey or both... I don't think that would be like statutory rape or anything.
If gay marriage is now legal in many states , what valid arguments are there against polygamy ?
Before someone complains about women suffering how about women with multiple husbands ?
What valid argument could be made against people choosing to enter into a polygamous marriage as adults ?
Not that I'm an old school Mormon or support this, I was wondering if this will be the next "civil rights" issue?
The problem with true polygamy is the contractual difficulties. Unlike a SSM couple in which contracts can be applied regardless of gender, contracts would have difficulties with multiples of persons with the same contractual claims.
State recognized marriage should be abolished. Ends all of these arguments. If you want to be married at a southern Baptist Church to one person of the opposite sex, that's your business. It should mean nothing as far as taxation, or mean anything legally
The Government should get out of the marriage business altogether, treat all citizens equally. One of the many problems with a large central government that feels it needs to control everything.
If gay marriage is now legal in many states , what valid arguments are there against polygamy ?
Before someone complains about women suffering how about women with multiple husbands ?
What valid argument could be made against people choosing to enter into a polygamous marriage as adults ?
Not that I'm an old school Mormon or support this, I was wondering if this will be the next "civil rights" issue?
I don't have one. It'll be a tax nightmare though but that might be worth it. I could marry multiple husbands and dh could marry multiple wives and I could cover them all on my health insurance. Then we won't need obummercare.
Seriously, it's time for the government to get out of our private lives. Whether I'm married to Jim or Julia, have zero or 24 kids, live in a tent or a mcmansion is none of their business. Go to a flat tax. If you earn an income, you pay say 15% tax, period. Done. No IRS no tax returns to file. If you're trying to support 20 kids on your income or make payments on a $400,000 mortgage, that is your problem not mine. If you need charity to support your brood, go to a church or file for welfare.
I don't think the government should be sanctioning marriage at all these days. The only real legal purpose marriage ever had was protecting women and the children born of the union. Now we can just send them to the Maury show and find out whose the daddy and send him the bill and women are no longer viewed as property. We can actually work and support ourselves. Maybe it's just time for the government to get out of our private lives and let us decide who we want to marry or not marry as the case may be.
The question we need to answer is what is marriage and what is the legal purpose of marriage. When we answer that we'll figure out who should be married to who. I really don't see a legal purpose to marriage these days with DNA testing and women working. It would be just as easy to enter into a legal contract or will your possessions to the person you want to have them. One problem is that our laws regarding marriage are archaic. They date back to a time when women couldn't support themselves or their children and men had to. Why should one spouse have to pay the other alimony these days? Why isn't dividing the marital assets enough? Take your share of what you earned together and go.
I think we are quickly approaching simply not needing legal marriage at all.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 01-04-2014 at 07:23 AM..
The problem with true polygamy is the contractual difficulties. Unlike a SSM couple in which contracts can be applied regardless of gender, contracts would have difficulties with multiples of persons with the same contractual claims.
I don't see the complexity. Companies make labor contracts with many unions and suppliers without such difficulty.
A polygamous contract would establish rights to the various children, if any, property ownership, and inheritance. No so complicated.
I don't have one. It'll be a tax nightmare though but that might be worth it. I could marry multiple husbands and dh could marry multiple wives and I could cover them all on my health insurance. Then we won't need obummercare.
Seriously, it's time for the government to get out of our private lives. Whether I'm married to Jim or Julia, have zero or 24 kids, live in a tent or a mcmansion is none of their business. Go to a flat tax. If you earn an income, you pay say 15% tax, period. Done. No IRS no tax returns to file. If you're trying to support 20 kids on your income, that is your problem not mine. If you need charity to support your brood, go to a church or file for welfare.
Without letting this thread go off onto a tangent about flat taxes, 15% is not enough to run the government. 15% is the lowest amount the super-rich pay on their taxes and we have others below paying more.
I'd agree with you somewhat on your view on " it's time for the government to get out of our private lives," if conservatives really meant it. They are just fine with laws that restrict abortion and mandate that a doctor stick a probe up a woman's cooch prior to getting an abortion. Many are also wild over the idea of drug testing welfare beneficiaries.
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.
