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.
FFS, I'm not suggesting it can't be done. I'm simply pointing out that someone is going to have to tell the Health Insurance Companies that they aren't allowed to say "maximum of one spouse and 10 children". That someone would be the Gov't. Again, my point is that at this point, it's not possible to keep gov't out of marriage issues.
FFS calm down. I'm simply pointing out that its already done for the most part.
Health benefits already cover families with 10 kids and families with one. Numbers aren't actually that hard, if we saw a rash of polygamous marriages (not likely IMO) you could easily have benefits that state "...to a maximum of [insert $ figure]".
Particularly in America the issue isn't too many married couples having two many kids (or even the risk of too many spouses), it's the number of kids being raised by their mother alone because the dad has skipped out. The societal cost of that is far far greater and folks that would seek to limit reproductive choice share part of that blame.
Health benefits already cover families with 10 kids and families with one. Numbers aren't actually that hard, if we saw a rash of polygamous marriages (not likely IMO) you could easily have benefits that state "...to a maximum of [insert $ figure]".
Particularly in America the issue isn't too many married couples having two many kids (or even the risk of too many spouses), it's the number of kids being raised by their mother alone because the dad has skipped out. The societal cost of that is far far greater and folks that would seek to limit reproductive choice share part of that blame.
Or, as is commonly the case, the father was kicked out. But yes single mother households are much more common than gay or polygamous households are ever likely to be, and are much more harmful to society as well.
Imagine that. Self-governing, sovereign citizens being able to self-determine.
I mean, what I quoted above seems like a VERY GOOD THING and THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.
Are you implying that that's a *bad* thing, or am I misreading?
I could care less what anyone else does as long as it doesn't infringe against the rights I've earned nor do I have to pay for any of it. The easiest way to figure out who really wants something badly is to charge them for it not give it to them for free. If they can't pay for it then they haven't earned it and do not deserve it.
What I think is interesting is that we always think of polygamy as being one man with multiple wives. What about the one wife with multiple husbands scenario?
Polyandry. I totally agree with you.
The world is changing before your very eyes, everyone. And changes you would scoff at or have trouble conceiving of will be arriving. Could be after you're dead.
I'm gonna quote myself from the previous polygamy thread:
Quote:
50 years from now this (same sex marriage, poly marriage) won't even draw comment. I could see in 100 years a "marriage" is a defined 10 year contract between 8 people to raise x number of children sharing genetic material from 6 of them. And none of that would bother me either.
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.
I could care less what anyone else does as long as it doesn't infringe against the rights I've earned nor do I have to pay for any of it.
Good. "Neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
So, we are in agreement, then, that "anyone should be able to do anything they want as long as everyone involved consents and is of age" is THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.
That's great. But then you go and drop this nugget:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sspistol
The easiest way to figure out who really wants something badly is to charge them for it not give it to them for free. If they can't pay for it then they haven't earned it and do not deserve it.
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.
That reaction certainly sounds calm to me.
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.
