Sister Wives family uses gay marriage rulings as justification for polygamy.

[pennyone]

Originally Posted by Kennedinho

Polygamy has actually been part of marriage historically in a lot of places. Not a new idea at all

Isn't it allowed in the Bible? Let the religious freaks figure this one out and then come back and tell us.

[Petunia 100]

Originally Posted by sspistol

You need to check yourself. Understood? No one tells me to calm down. Especially when they have no clue what the status of my current demeanor.

It's cool for you to tell others to calm down, but they had better not return the favor?

[Petunia 100]

Originally Posted by Unsettomati

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.

Why are you assuming the women don't also have multiple marriages? Since it would be perfectly legal, that's a mighty big assumption.

[Fifty Seven]

Originally Posted by Petunia 100

Why are you assuming the women don't also have multiple marriages? Since it would be perfectly legal, that's a mighty big assumption.

The case that makes plural marriages legal will probably involve a relationship with one woman and many husbands because then it will be a womens rights issue. After that though I'd bet a majority of plural marriages would involve one man and many wives. Men aren't usually wired to accept sharing a woman with other men. Or a gaygle of homosexual men might work too.

[Petunia 100]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bully

The case that makes plural marriages legal will probably involve a relationship with one woman and many husbands because then it will be a womens rights issue. After that though I'd bet a majority of plural marriages would involve one man and many wives. Men aren't usually wired to accept sharing a woman with other men. Or a gaygle of homosexual men might work too.

If polygamy were legal, I would expect to see a whole bunch of strategic polygamy. Legal marriages for the purpose of enjoying certain legal rights and privileges, with no true marital relationship.

For example, I would legally marry my son-in-law. In that way, my daughter can inherit indirectly through her husband. No estate tax.

No one would ever have to pay estate tax again. See the problem? It would only be a matter of time before there would be no exception for assets held jointly with your spouse. For anyone.

[ischyros]

Originally Posted by jjrose

Did anyone even bother to read the case that the article is about?

This case is about cohabitation laws in UTAH, not legal civil marriage.




[scribd]276381389[/scribd]

Thank you for beating me to this.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by sspistol

You need to check yourself. Understood? No one tells me to calm down. Especially when they have no clue what the status of my current demeanor.

Placed on ignore.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by sspistol

I think that's because the "religions, cults, whatever" who currently practice polygamy would tell you that's not the way it works.

I understand that. But if you were going to legalize it, you wouldn't legalize it that way.

[stevek64]

It's a logical point. The can of worms has been opened. Why should any of us be surprised?

[Petunia 100]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

I understand that. But if you were going to legalize it, you wouldn't legalize it that way.

Agreed. If plural marriage is legal, it has to be polygamy not polygyny or polyandry.