Do you think polygamy should be legalized?

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

With Polygamy, only allow as many wives as a person could afford.

who determines this?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
With Polygamy, only allow as many wives as a person could afford.

Oh, sure, and what new federal bureaucracy would determine what that level is?

Would it vary by location as some places are cheaper to live in than others?

Would it adjust yearly for inflation?

If the husband took a lower paying job, would he have to jettison one or more of his current wives?

To be fair, whatever minimum you came up with would have to apply to the first wife as well. Would you then legally prohibit young folks just starting out from marrying? What if the female was already pregnant? Would you legally FORCE the baby to be illegitimate?

If a guy had three wives in Utah, but moved to pricier New York without a raise in pay, would he have to divorces one of his wives? Would he then STILL be legally responsible for child support for the children he had with the wife he was now legally forced to divorce?

See?

Plus . . . ALL the other endless legal ramifications I talked about would still apply.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Sure, why not? It's truly none of my business.

You might change your mind about that when:

1. Your company's health care costs skyrocket because they have to cover that perk for your co-worker's seven wives and 27 children on the back of his one salary . . . so they cut EVERYONE'S coverage, including yours.

Wouldn't UHC would take care of this issue? - the whole family would be insured anyway, so polygamy shouldn't mess anything up there.

2. Your taxes go up because that guy's 27 dependent deductions mean that not only does he pay zero income tax but he and his lovely family are now eligible for a WIDE variety of free social services . . . which you are now paying for.

3. Your wife, with whom you are not currently getting along, secretly marries the guy who cuts your lawn one night in Vegas while you thought she was visiting her Mom, and, after the divorce, YOU have to pay 18 years of child support for the twins she was carrying that he had fathered when he legally married YOU and her.

I think you can find ways around most of the technicalities and find ways to financially discourage it so that its more fiscally bearable.

But isn't there some morality issue with it that we're all missing? The practice objectifies or takes advantage of women somehow?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: spidey07
3) Marriage is a union to raise children - more rub there as that is my view and belief. If society could stick to this simple concept..

I'm pro-choice, pro-dowhateverthehell you want. But marriage is a promise to birth and raise children. That is what it means to me and I'm sure many disagree with that.

Homosexual people are perfectly capable of contributing towards birth, just like anyone else. Your position makes no logical sense. They're not sterile.

Furthermore, under your argument, people who are physically incapable of having children, the elderly, people who don't want to have children, etc. shouldn't even be allowed to marry...is that really your position?

Also, what happens if two people marry and have children and those children become adults? Does the marriage get dissolved? What about if a couple in their 50's lose their child to an accident? Does their marriage get dissolved now?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: spidey07
The trend IS NOT toward legalizing gay marriage. In fact the trend is strongly against it. It is your very question as to why the trend is strongly against gay marriage as that line of thinking leads to marrying whatever the hell you want. That is wrong. So very, very wrong.

Polygamy, gay marriage, having kids out of wedlock are all the same - they are wrong. Do not allow this behavior or line of thinking.

Would you say the same thing if you were born gay?

Nobody is born gay. It's a freaking choice. And if you're born gay that is natural selection saying "you don't get to play in the gene pool or influence a child". aka, marriage.

Nobody should care about what you think because they're not hurting anyone, or themselves, so why deny them rights that others are already receiving?

If being gay is a choice, then with an amount of evidence equal to what you've provided for that assumption, I'm going to assume that being straight is also a choice. Frankly, the idea of straight marriage disgusts me, I say we design a proposition to ban straight marriage because I'm a cowardly piece of shit who doesn't know how to mind my own business.

 

[little elvis]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: spidey07
The trend IS NOT toward legalizing gay marriage. In fact the trend is strongly against it. It is your very question as to why the trend is strongly against gay marriage as that line of thinking leads to marrying whatever the hell you want. That is wrong. So very, very wrong.

Polygamy, gay marriage, having kids out of wedlock are all the same - they are wrong. Do not allow this behavior or line of thinking.

Would you say the same thing if you were born gay?

Nobody is born gay. It's a freaking choice. And if you're born gay that is natural selection saying "you don't get to play in the gene pool or influence a child". aka, marriage.

I'm still waiting for the brimstone and fire I was promised when we (Canada) legalized Gay Marriage in 2005. So disappointing. I had my lawn chair out and popcorn popped and...... nothing.

They promised that society would self destruct, people would start marrying inanimate objects, and animals..... well that didn't happen either.... I guess the slippery slope wasn't so slippery after all...

They promised mayhem, they promised that your children would be infected with gay!

They promised dammit!

And........ Nothing... Life continues on

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Sure, why not? It's truly none of my business.

You might change your mind about that when:

1. Your company's health care costs skyrocket because they have to cover that perk for your co-worker's seven wives and 27 children on the back of his one salary . . . so they cut EVERYONE'S coverage, including yours.

2. Your taxes go up because that guy's 27 dependent deductions mean that not only does he pay zero income tax but he and his lovely family are now eligible for a WIDE variety of free social services . . . which you are now paying for.

3. Your wife, with whom you are not currently getting along, secretly marries the guy who cuts your lawn one night in Vegas while you thought she was visiting her Mom, and, after the divorce, YOU have to pay 18 years of child support for the twins she was carrying that he had fathered when he legally married YOU and her.

And, and, and . . .

Legal polygamy would be a legal nightmare.

Your tying of legal rights to a religious ceremony is your problem, not mine.

If you make polygamy legal, then YOU HAVE to deal with all these legal ramifications.

One way or the other, YOU JUST DO.

If, for instance, you allow polygamy but say that NOTHING WILL CHANGE LEGALLY, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING when you say you would tie NO legal rights to it, then you would have women as wives having children with men who have ZERO legal obligation to support them at all.

Only the first wife and her children would inherit anything or have any legal rights if the husband died.

Nice try, Chief, but YOU have obviously not thought this through even one little bit. :roll:



Edit: Damn, but your reply is one endlessly stupid statement. What exactly would YOU do, Chief, with a family where the first wife and her children with a guy had health insurance under the husband's job but the second and third wife and the children he fathered with them, under the same roof, didn't?

Well?

Do you even stop to think before you post?

ALL the many other LEGAL ramification are endless and varied and, one way or the other, WOULD have to be dealt with and WOULD incur a legal nightmare, whether you think so or not.

Damn, you're dumb. :|

Well, he had me pegged.

 

[dlx22]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: dlx22

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: spidey07
The trend IS NOT toward legalizing gay marriage. In fact the trend is strongly against it. It is your very question as to why the trend is strongly against gay marriage as that line of thinking leads to marrying whatever the hell you want. That is wrong. So very, very wrong.

Polygamy, gay marriage, having kids out of wedlock are all the same - they are wrong. Do not allow this behavior or line of thinking.

The facts would disagree with you. In California, for example, proposition 22 was passed in 2000 to define marriage as one man and one woman by 61.4% of the popular vote. Being unconstitutional, and NOT a constitutional amendment, the supreme court in California overturned it. Proposition 8, which is identical to proposition 22 except for the fact that it's an amendment (and NOT subject to the supreme court's decision), just passed with 52.5% of the vote.

In other words, in 8 years, support for making same sex marriage illegal, at least in California, decreased by about 9%. Your claim about the trend against gay marriage is not backed up by the facts, which directly refute what you just said. In fact, based on the current rate of decrease in support, it's a reasonable assumption that if the question of gay marriage is put before Californians again in 2012, they will legalize it. While I'm sure you'll be among the last converts, support for gay marriage is growing, and your opposition to it will be the minority opinion pretty soon.

Actually running the numbers quickly shows that oppisition to gay marriage increased roughly 16% from prop 22 to prop 8, while support of gay marriage increased dramatically by 68% You are correct that support is increasing for gay marriage but incorrect in concluding that support against it is decreasing.

Well you can always make numbers do interesting things, but it's worth thinking about what you said for a second. Support for an idea can't both be increasing AND decreasing, you're comparing changes in voting totals on either side. We don't know if those changes actually represent changes in opinion, or just more people voting this election, or what. In other words, there is pretty much no way to account for non-voters on either side. Also you have to take population increase into account. California has about 11% more people today than in 2000.

Basically, there is no way to draw any conclusion about changes in total number of voters on either side between 2000 and 2008, certainly there is not enough information to suggest that everyone who DIDN'T vote in 2000 was undecided (and thus an increase on each side represents and increase in the support for that side), which seems to be what your argument is implying. The only real thing we can compare is of the people who's position we know, what percentage of them voted which way. And that measurement suggests that opposition to gay marriage is decreasing.

All I'm trying to get you to see it that opposition to gay marriage is not actually decreasing, it is only decreasing as a percentage of people voting on the issue. Subtle difference I know but they are two completely different points. Fortunately support of gay marriage seems to be increasing as I indicated before at a much faster rate which would indicate that in a relatively short period of time (perhaps even another 4 years) the majority of the population will support gay marriage.

Truth be told we would need an equation with probably 50 variables and massive data sets to form any definitive "facts" and by the time we get all that data gay marriage will be legal anyways so it will be a moot point. lol.

 

[LunarRay]

Is this sorta like back in the '60s... Peace on Earth or bring a blanket? I guess I don't much care how many husbands or wives folks have so long as the law does provide for them in the manner currently enjoyed by married couples.

It seems to me that the greater the esteem one holds marriage in... when they support and give that opportunity to another who until that time did not enjoy it the gift is in sync with that esteem.. Who gave more ....??? the one who had much and gave little or the one who had little and gave it all?? You can measure your love by your giving... and supporting.. your fellow humans...

 

[gevorg]

Supporting gay marriage, while not supporting polygamy is a great example of double-standards.

 

[Moonbeam]

Supporting 16 year olds being able to drive, while not supporting 15 year olds from not doing the same is a great example of double-standards.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Dari
10% of all animals are gay. Shows how little you know about the science of animal sexuality.

I know. Isn't that darwin saying - "you don't get to contribute to the gene pool."

Be intellectually honest. There are only two outcomes and they both come down to evolution.

Do you or do you not believe in darwinism? Because you have to accept it all, not just parts you agree with.

Marriage has nothing to do with nature. It is a social contract between two individuals who are willing to make their commitment to each other exceptional. If we wanted to go down the natural route, each man would have his own harem until another man beat him to death for his women.

I think it would be the other way around with 1 woman having a harem of men. Especially if you wanted to keep a clean gene pool free of in breeding.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yes for gay no for polygamy. Fact is only losers are polygamists and there is something fvcked with them.

You're right, only non-losers should be allowed to marry and breed.

Sig Heil!

And that clearly excludes you.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: spidey07
The trend IS NOT toward legalizing gay marriage. In fact the trend is strongly against it. It is your very question as to why the trend is strongly against gay marriage as that line of thinking leads to marrying whatever the hell you want. That is wrong. So very, very wrong.

Polygamy, gay marriage, having kids out of wedlock are all the same - they are wrong. Do not allow this behavior or line of thinking.

Would you say the same thing if you were born gay?

Nobody is born gay. It's a freaking choice. And if you're born gay that is natural selection saying "you don't get to play in the gene pool or influence a child". aka, marriage.

No people are born as total morons, but a lot of people grow up to be just that.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yes for gay no for polygamy. Fact is only losers are polygamists and there is something fvcked with them.

BIGOT!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: gevorg
Supporting gay marriage, while not supporting polygamy is a great example of double-standards.

how?

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: gevorg
Supporting gay marriage, while not supporting polygamy is a great example of double-standards.

how?

sarcasm meter

 

[Fox5]

Marriage shouldn't be a legal institution, leave it to churches.
Civil unions (or whatever you want to call marriage as a legal institution) should be open to any 2 individuals who want to live together.
Polygamy should have no recognized legal form, but shouldn't be illegal. If people want to live together with as many people as they want (within zoning codes) then let it be so, but no tax benefits for them.

 

[dawp]

I think it should all be legal, polygamy,polyandry, group and same sex marrages. government has no business telling anyone who the can and can't marry within reason, no one under the age 18 or so should be allowed to decide or be arranged to be married .

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yes for gay no for polygamy. Fact is only losers are polygamists and there is something fvcked with them.

Who are you to dictate who co-habitates and fucks?

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: spidey07
The trend IS NOT toward legalizing gay marriage. In fact the trend is strongly against it. It is your very question as to why the trend is strongly against gay marriage as that line of thinking leads to marrying whatever the hell you want. That is wrong. So very, very wrong.

Polygamy, gay marriage, having kids out of wedlock are all the same - they are wrong. Do not allow this behavior or line of thinking.

Yeah? What makes those things wrong? Because you said so?

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: spidey07
3) Marriage is a union to raise children - more rub there as that is my view and belief. If society could stick to this simple concept..

I'm pro-choice, pro-dowhateverthehell you want. But marriage is a promise to birth and raise children. That is what it means to me and I'm sure many disagree with that.

Homosexual people are perfectly capable of contributing towards birth, just like anyone else. Your position makes no logical sense. They're not sterile.

Furthermore, under your argument, people who are physically incapable of having children, the elderly, people who don't want to have children, etc. shouldn't even be allowed to marry...is that really your position?

Also, what happens if two people marry and have children and those children become adults? Does the marriage get dissolved? What about if a couple in their 50's lose their child to an accident? Does their marriage get dissolved now?

People like spidey checked their logic in at the church door at age 7

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Rainsford,

You're talking about California. A single state. Before I get attacked further here is my position:

1) I don't care what one does and exercising their freedom and liberty without persecution or prosecution. That is liberty.
2) I DO care about marriage and what it means to me, and that's probably the rub.
3) Marriage is a union to raise children - more rub there as that is my view and belief. If society could stick to this simple concept..

I'm pro-choice, pro-dowhateverthehell you want. But marriage is a promise to birth and raise children. That is what it means to me and I'm sure many disagree with that.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm married and as of right now I don't have children and may never have them. My best friend's wife is infertile. Should he divorce her since she can't have kids? Should she be banned from future marriage as well. Your 'concept' is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Fox5
Polygamy should have no recognized legal form, but shouldn't be illegal. If people want to live together with as many people as they want (within zoning codes) then let it be so, but no tax benefits for them.

I think that's already the case - I'm aware of no laws (outside of, as you mentioned, zoning codes) which prohibit, say, 1 man from living with multiple women (or variations on that theme). The law doesn't recognize such a relationship legally, but it doesn't prohibit it either. Isn't Hugh Hefner currently (allegedly) living in a polygamous relationship right now, legally?

Regarding polygamy generally, while I have no issue with it theoretically, it opens a host of problems on a practical level, as Perknose already explained quite well. One additional problem Perk didn't mention but would also arise is related to the estate laws - when someone dies intestate (without a will) in a polygamous relationship, how is their property distributed? Talk about a mess!

 

[PrinceofWands]

You can live with as many partners as you want. You can have kids with as many partners as you want. You can probably find legal means to get most of the same rights as a spouse. Given all that I see no need give a marriage license to multiple spouses.

If there really are issues that can't be resolved without the piece of paper then sure, go for it. It seems like it would just be a logistical nightmare though...from a paperwork and legal standpoint.