Should Polygamy be legal?

[Joven_Switch]

Why? or why not? I mean both, polygyny and polyandry.

 

[Saint_Ann]

It was certainly popular with Osama Bin Laden.

 

[dolf]

The options suck.

 

[pointless]

yes, but only if they shut up about it really needs to be an option. fuckers are worse than vegans at times.

 

[rockcasbah]

I love that shit; birds, little boats.

Oh, polygamy.

 

[oggbashan]

Please note that if women live together they tend to synchronize their periods and PMT.

Be very careful what you wish for...

 

[InternationalFunboy]

The options suck.

Clever.

I voted yes of course. But really...I think I'd be more into the idea of shitcanning the whole legal side of it. Come and go from people's lives as all deem fit, or not even. I'm not able to easily imagine How this became a contract in the business sense.

I guess it's maybe because people die without wills and people feel entitled to their shit?

 

[silver gurl]

What ogg said.
Have you not seen the show Sister Wives? Because that will suck the life right out of you.

 

[stickygirl]

What happened to polytechnics? Why is cotton still nicer to wear than polyester? Who let parrots become addicted to opium?

 

[Ziggins]

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vP8pzNZddwA/U1f-fDub4JI/AAAAAAAASGs/BIeuqp5PjoE/s1600/Lesbian_Polygamy_Massachusetts_Three_Women.JPG
https://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-07-23-20130721photo1.jpg

 

[domroger]

Consenting adults should be able to do anything they like in private ,as long as they don't frighten the horses .

 

[Liar]

Marriage between two consenting adults is pretty simple as a legal construct. Add people and it gets exponentially complex.

Can clever lawyers work it out? Probably. But I'm not one of them. Niether clever nor lawyer.

 

[HisArpy]

Marriage between two consenting adults is pretty simple as a legal construct. Add people and it gets exponentially complex.

Can clever lawyers work it out? Probably. But I'm not one of them. Niether clever nor lawyer.

The whole thing comes down to the fact that some people are too stupid to understand anything.

Polygamists want legal protection and benefits for having multiple sexual affairs and cover for any offspring produced.

Except laws already exist for those things. Child support exists even for married men. Adoption exists. Estate planning where you can give your estate to anyone you want, however you want, exists.

Living together isn't illegal even if you're married. Nor is "swinging", "wife swapping", or any of the extramarital things people do.

Yet the polygamists want "multiple person marriages." Which is essentially, "in name only" because the circumstances don't change just because some clerk gives you a stamped piece of paper.

This is the same mistake "gay marriage" advocates made. "Marriage" has a specific definition and it doesn't include the modern ideal. The technicalities and benefits of marriage should be available for everyone who wants to cohabitate, but the TERM has a specific definition. It's a religion-based ceremony which doesn't include the definitions that some factions want it to include.

Only now it does.

Except it doesn't. Not really.

I have friends and clients who are LBGT (I REFUSE to put the Q on the end - it's FUCKING STUPID) and every time they introduce their partner as "their husband/wife" they stumble over it. Every. Time.

Because they know the words don't match what they're trying to say.

What the LBGT community needed to do was create a new term instead of co-opting an established one still in current use. "Life partner" is what I use when I refer to their significant other. Several, not all, of my friends and clients have begun to use that term themselves. Because it fits. It conveys the exact thing they want to say without introducing controversy.

Polygamists, if they really want to make themselves respectable, need to figure out how to do the same. The legalities will follow.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The whole thing comes down to the fact that some people are too stupid to understand anything.

Yes, but how is Conager germane to this conversation?

I have friends and clients who are LBGT (I REFUSE to put the Q on the end - it's FUCKING STUPID) and every time they introduce their partner as "their husband/wife" they stumble over it. Every. Time.

Have you considered it might be the look of fear and/or loathing on your face when encountering same-sex couples that might take some couple nervous?

 

[BrokenBarbie]

Sure, because why should anyone be limited in the number of people they can disappoint?

 

[oggbashan]

I'm a lawyer!

But are you clever?

My family solicitors are. That's why they have owned the same desirable premises for five hundred years.

 

[HisArpy]

Yes, but how is Conager germane to this conversation?

Well, if he isn't, then why the fuck did you bring him into it?

It's like you think that disparaging someone on a porn board makes you look like you're something other that stupid or something.

Have you considered it might be the look of fear and/or loathing on your face when encountering same-sex couples that might take some couple nervous?

I'd seriously consider it if they didn't keep inviting me and mi esposa over for fun 'n gamez.

But, since they do, and on a fairly regular basis, it's probably not what you're fantasizing about.

 

[Liar]

I'm a lawyer!

Cool.

How would a polygamic marriage of four work? Are all equally married to each other? Is it three people married to the same one? And if so, can one of the three marry a fifth, who then is not married to the other three? Who is next of kin? If some are foreigners, does it cover residence rights for all of them? What happens if person 3 wants a divorce? Who gets custody of the poodle?

 

[kissedcherry]

None of the states business

It is none of the states business. Anyone that thinks that people should make laws that dictate how personal matters of life are conducted is a sick control freak.

Also, women should be able to have multiple husbands just as men should be able to have multiple wives.

 

[HisArpy]

It is none of the states business. Anyone that thinks that people should make laws that dictate personal matters of life are conducted is a sick control freak.

Also, women should be able to have multiple husbands just as men should be able to have multiple wives.

The only purpose "marriage laws" serve is to notify the State about taxation status. However, somewhere along the way, those laws became "authority" for the State to dictate who you could marry. Blood tests? WTF would anyone need a blood test to get married? For that matter, why does anyone need a "marriage license"? We're not property.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

It is none of the states business. Anyone that thinks that people should make laws that dictate personal matters of life are conducted is a sick control freak.

Also, women should be able to have multiple husbands just as men should be able to have multiple wives.

Then shut up about abortions...right?

 

[SpeareChucker]

Then shut up about abortions...right?

Not if you care about rights.

Marriage is not a right.

You do know this.


Right???

 

[JohnnySavage]

The government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

 

[SpeareChucker]

The government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

I agree, but then who adjudicates divorce?
Who prevents the spouse from being put out destitute?

Of course, this would also happen in a poly-, who gets to keep or take with them?

I would like the government to be hands off,
but there clearly needs to be a framework,
unless you want to go with the church
position and let the pastor(s) decide.

A real conundrum...

 

[SpeareChucker]

Marriage contracts?

But that would be the state again
and we have fought to wane the power of church...

Right, or wrong, no judgement here, but it seems to be
either not allow the institution, leave it only to the Church, or
make it the purview of the State or make it a partnership; I don't know.