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.
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.
Chicken Little went around screaming, "The sky is falling. The sky is falling!"
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? You better think before you denigrate.
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? Because you're wrong!
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.
Absolutely wrong. If polygamy and all benefits of marriage were legalized, they would get an enormous benefit from in health insurance compared to the rest of us. If a man has 5 wives and 25 children the company (or he) pays the "family rate". The "family rate" doesn't care how many children you have. So for argument sake, he's paying $1,000 per month for all 31 of them.
Now if those 5 wives are married to 5 men, you have 5 families paying the "family rate". So the insurance company is collecting $5,000 per month for the same number of people.
So the way insurance premiums are set up today, the insurance company would have to cover 5X the number of people (the multiple would be however many "wives" they guy had) in a polygamous marriage. Which means rates will go up for everyone if PolyMan is only paying $1,000 per month for his tribe of 31 people. It has no effect on the number insured, the effect is on the amount of premium collected for the same number of people!
It's one of my pet peeves when you see very large families. I had a small business before I retired that provided health care so I know how the premiums are set.
I'm sure legalizing polygamy isn't going to cause lots of people to get involved in a polygamous relationship, however, I was pointing out an economic inequality that arises from such an arrangement.
Last edited by macrodome2; 08-29-2015 at 08:47 PM..
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.
Actually I don't see the connection. It makes no difference in the economic sense whether the two people are male/female or same sex. All systems currently in place can easily accommodate all combinations.
However, once you introduce polygamy the economic systems that are in place become unbalanced. I am not talking about discrimination at all. I am simply pointing out that you now have much more complexity in health care premium costs, social security benefits, aid to dependent children and anything else the relies on a "family rate'. I find it annoying when extremely large families pay the same as a family of 4.
So as I said in my previous post, what do you intend to do when Jim Bob and his 5 wives and 25 children are paying the "family rate" for insurance? If Jim Bob only had 1 wife and 5 kids, and there were 4 other families paying the "family rate" the insurance company would be collecting 5X what Jim Bob is paying. If they can't collect it from Jim Bob, who do you think is going to pay more?
What do you do if something happens to Jim Bob and he can't work or even worse he dies. Now Jim Bob's 25 children get to collect SS under the "aid to dependent children". This is not welfare that ends in a few years, but continues until the children reach adulthood. Who do you think will be paying for that? If those children and wives were spread across 5 family units Jim Bob would have fewer "dependents" in need of aid.
When Jim Bob stops working, do each of his 5 wives get 1/2 of his SS?
I would not anticipate if polygamy were made legal lots of people would run out tomorrow and sign up, but social issues (since it's generally one man and many women) aside, there are economic issues to consider. There is nothing at all discriminating with the suggestion that they get limited to one "official family" for economic reasons.
Last edited by macrodome2; 08-29-2015 at 08:51 PM..
People said the same thing about gay marriage. NO ONE is going to enter into a straight marriage, gay marriage or poly marriage for health insurance or tax write offs.
Why not? It isn't as if one marriage for legal or financial reasons would prevent you from having another marriage for more personal reasons.
Why not? It isn't as if one marriage for legal or financial reasons would prevent you from having another marriage for more personal reasons.
Have at it. You can marry a second spouse for personal reasons, and the government shouldn't prosecute you or him/her.
But don't expect the government to recognize a second union when it comes to legal protection and benefits. That just creates all kinds of legal chaos.
Have at it. You can marry a second spouse for personal reasons, and the government shouldn't prosecute you or him/her.
But don't expect the government to recognize a second union when it comes to legal protection and benefits. That just creates all kinds of legal chaos.
That's what we are discussing. Second unions, third union, etc. Polygamy.
I agree, it would create all kinds of legal chaos. That sums up my pov nicely.
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.
