Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-28-2015, 05:55 PM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,612,234 times
Reputation: 12523

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-28-2015, 05:59 PM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,612,234 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Jacket View Post
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 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2015, 06:05 PM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,612,234 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howest2008 View Post
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.....
Because this is not a theocracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2015, 06:30 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
81 posts, read 105,803 times
Reputation: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2015, 06:57 PM
 
28,164 posts, read 25,235,101 times
Reputation: 16665
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverhead View Post

It's my right and we are very happy.And it's none of your damn business.
What do you not understand about CONSENT?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2015, 06:59 PM
 
171 posts, read 196,695 times
Reputation: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irononehuh View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2015, 09:16 PM
 
Location: West of Louisiana, East of New Mexico
2,916 posts, read 2,987,749 times
Reputation: 7036
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2015, 09:37 PM
 
Location: Planet Earth
2,776 posts, read 3,047,209 times
Reputation: 5022
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer View Post
I have issues with the sewer of morality we have come to accept as somehow normal

Goats and dogs next
The Old Testament is full of polygamy...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2015, 09:46 PM
 
2,078 posts, read 1,024,582 times
Reputation: 2108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2015, 09:51 PM
 
2,078 posts, read 1,024,582 times
Reputation: 2108
Quote:
Originally Posted by macrodome2 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:33 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top