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.
I knew a polyamorous family in Seattle, who were a long established threesome of two men and one woman. They bought a house together, had children, and were together for 15 years. Then one of the guys died, and it was a legal nightmare for the survivors because the guy who died owned 1/3 of their assets but was not legally married to either one of them. They lost their home and custody of their son in extended court battles.
That's unfortunate. This problem could have been avoided with a trust.
I said appropriately. If you don't have the wherewithal to understand that caveat then that is a personal problem. Now in this case you can't divide that appropriately. So they all get all of this particular benefit.
OK, so they all get it. Now no one can be compelled to testify against anyone, as all they have to do is quickly get married. In your opinion, how long until the law is changed and spouses can be compelled to testify against one another? In my opinion, not long.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Jacket
Secondly you need to re-read my last statement as you clearly didn't get it.
Not agreeing with you and not getting it are two entirely different things.
If a person is Jewish or from another religion that endorses Polygamy why can't they get married , they are not under the teaching of Christianity , and the GOD of Christianity allows for Free Choice In Those who are not Christians.....
To the people babbling on about insuring X number of children, I have a question: did they not offer mathematics at the schools you've attended?
Now, listen real carefully. Allowing plural marriages isn't going to change the number of women in society. If there's a relationship between a man and five women, then there's four men who simply don't have partners with which to create children. A woman can produce approximately one child per year. Plural marriage doesn't change that. Concentrating the male donation to the gene pool in a smaller number of individuals doesn't produce more babies.
Here's a newsflash - the freakin' Duggars! Yeah, there are some large families. Do you see insurance companies having meldtowns over them? No. There's not a lot families so large, no, but then there's never going to be much demand for large plural families either because most people interested in just one full-time partner. And that's why insurance companies accommodate them, because they're all about total numbers of insurance, not whether there's 0 or 2 or 14 offspring from one particular man or woman. There's a reason that society isn't teeming with unmarried threesome relationships now. Sure, it happens, but it's rare even though it is perfectly legal. Thus, there's no reason to think that plural marriage being legalized is going to spur more interest in plural marriages. And, again, even if it did it wouldn't increase the total number insured - it would just concentrate insured children in a smaller number of families. An insurance company doesn't care whether the 10,000 families it insures all have 2 children, or if 90% of them have 0 children while 10% of them have 20 children - it's the same number of insured children in the end. How can this not be glaringly obvious to everyone?
Look, I've stated that I have no issue with plural marriage either way. I don't think its legalization is a pressing issue, but I see no reason to deny it to those who want it. If you do, fine. But at least come up with reasons that don't make it look like you failed both third-grade arithmetic as well as Logic 101. And maybe, just maybe, when it dawns on you that your excuses make no sense, you should look in the mirror and decide that maybe, just maybe, you're trying to find excuses to follow what you want, rather than actually being intelligent and letting your outlook follow the actual evidence.
I swear, this dumb numbers argument reminds me of the insipid "But if we let gays marry our population will die out!", as if letting a gay couple certify their marriage is going to make heterosexuals less fecund.
Finally, I'll say this - if the attorneys defending laws prohibiting plural marriages can't come up with better reasons that this inanity, those laws will be overturned.
If you don't think it will affect healthcare then you must be out of your mind.
The company I work has about 250 employees. They are always looking for ways to save money on healthcare. Health meetings once a month, company walks and hikes and healthy meal tips in our monthly news letter are things that were added to keep the employees healthier. We even get a rebate for going to the cheapest doctor in our plan.
Now let's say my company is hiring. John has 5 years experience, 1 wife and 3 kids. Jim has 5 years experience, 3 wives and 7 kids. Who would get the job? John would. Why? The company wouldn't not want to pay for they larger family.
John has 5 years experience, 1 wife and 3 kids. Jim has 5 years experience, 3 wives and 7 kids. Who would get the job? John would. Why? The company wouldn't not want to pay for they larger family.
I'm not at all disputing your point, but it should be noted that it would be illegal for the company to ask how many wives/kids one has. Unless the candidate is an idiot and spills the beans himself, or it's a tiny town, the company probably wouldn't know in advance.
A man marrying several women (or men), and a woman marrying several men (or women) is not complicated.
The trouble arises when there are kids, assets, separations, divorces, alimony, child support etc. If the union doesn't work, how are the legal issues handled. What if a man has four wives and divorces two of them? What do the wives get? How would a prenup work for an athlete or businessman with several wives?
Goats and dogs, like children, are not capable of consent. That is a barrier I hope and pray that we never break.
This should come as no surprise to anyone. If gender is no longer material in the definition of marriage I see no reason why numbers or prior relationships should be either.
But we've opened the door of letting people claim to be whatever they want. When you let a man claim to be gender mis matched even though he has dna of a man you now have to allow children to claim to be age mis matched and 8 year olds are now 25. You wouldn't wanna dare infringe on the rights of a 25 year old stuck in an 8 year old body.
You both beat me to the point I was going to make. As it stands now, for health insurance coverage for a family can be a family of 3 or a family of 19 (Dugger style). That's bad enough, but when you add multiple females bearing multiple off-spring, I don't want to be paying for someone's Nth child.
Second issue- what do you do about SS and aid to dependent children? If this guy has 5 wives and 25 children, do you want the government paying for 30 dependents (spouses included) if something happens to him?
Way too much to unravel from a legal perspective if polygamy is recognized by the states as a form of marriage. Having said that, I don't think it should be illegal if they want to live together, but you only get one "official" spouse and family.
but now you're discriminating against what they define love as. Do you not see why there was an argument against ssm. It's not hatred against anyone it's about drawing a line somewhere. I can justify anything now and claim discrimination if you don't like it.
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.