The case for polygamy

[eldirector]

I have a question about polygamy in modern America. Say you have husband A and husband B. A has many wives, including wife C. If everybody can marry as many spouses as they want, including wives having multiple husbands ("Paint Your Wagon", anybody?), what happens if husband B also marries wife C, in addition to all of his other wives. Do A and B become "married by proxy" in a pseudo-gay-marriage kind of way? Does A also become husband to all of B's wives, and vice versa?

In a nation with both gay marriage and plural marriage, what would be the legal roadblock to a massive plural gay marriage? What if a bunch of guys wanted to all be married each to all the others? Or a bunch of gals, for that matter? Would each one need to be officially married to each of their spouses, or could there be other marriage topologies? Maybe one person marries each of their same-sex partners and then all of them are considered married to each other by proxy, a star topology. Maybe each person just marries exactly two other members of the marriage group so that they form a ring topology.

Enquiring mathematical minds want to know.

Wait, so we could ALL file jointly on one single tax return? Or is that one filer with 239,516,412 dependents? Should we itemize?

 

[Classic]

Divorce settlements might be a bit trickier.

 

[CarmelHP]

Let a better man than most here speak to it.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”


― Thomas Jefferson

Unfortunately, we're devolving to the licentiousness of our barbarous descendents. This is not new, we saw it chronicled in the last days of the Roman Republic. Licentiousness erupts as the old morality crumbles and is swiftly replaced by tyranny.

 

[Hawkeye]

A couple of comments related to the OP.


In a sense with liberal divorce laws currently in effect, we already practice a form of polygamy now. It should be labeled "SEQUENTIAL- POLYGAMY". That's multiple marriages, but only one at a time!! I can testify that the current laws certainly make that an expensive situation.

I've heard it referred to as serial monogomy...

 

[Hawkeye]

Unfortunately, we're devolving to the licentiousness of our barbarous descendents. This is not new, we saw it chronicled in the last days of the Roman Republic. Licentiousness erupts as the old morality crumbles and is swiftly replaced by tyranny.

"we're devolving to the licentiousness of our barbarous descendents (sic)"

Descendants? Really? Doesn't that term usually mean children, grand children, great grandchildren... ? That is to say, our progeny?

Perhaps you meant our ancestors?

 

[ghuns]

Unfortunately, we're devolving to the licentiousness of our barbarous descendents. This is not new, we saw it chronicled in the last days of the Roman Republic. Licentiousness erupts as the old morality crumbles and is swiftly replaced by tyranny.

That's 3 dollar word right there.

Lets take a closer look at that word children. It's Latin root, licentia, means...

A license, freedom, liberty.

Funny how a word that means freedom and liberty was twisted into something negative...

LICENTIOUS

1 - lacking legal or moral restraints; especially: disregarding sexual restraints

Hmmm, I wonder how that happened?

 

[printcraft]

Wow, the thought of having more than one disappointed woman in an evening.............

Yeah, but think of all the sandwiches you could get.........

 

[Bunnykid68]

Yeah, but think of all the sandwiches you could get.........

uuummmm sammiches

 

[hoosierdaddy1976]

Yeah, but think of all the sandwiches you could get.........

uuummmm sammiches

and the yardwork that could be accomplished...

http://youtu.be/MA2FjhXdydI

 

[Leo]

Since well over 50% of people cannot successfully maintain a traditional one man/one woman marriage, WHY would anyone want to throw the dice on a polygamist marriage? Do they want to crash and burn in a more complex and spectacular disaster?

 

[mrjarrell]

Utah polygamist family celebrating DOMA ruling

Polygamist Activists Predict DOMA Ruling Will Usher in Legalization of Polygamy

If a state wishes to decriminalise or even legalise polyamorous marriages then that should be up to them. If they do, then the feds should recognise the marriages and render them the benefits they are paying for.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Here is my take on the government and marriage issue:

1. Under the Tenth, the feds need to stay out.

2. Most all prohibitions pertaining to specific types of paring for sexual/relationship purposes are based on religion. That said, I find it difficult to have any reasonable outcome other than an all or nothing approach here--in other words, if we reject religious standards, it would seem to apply equally to all combinations including polygamy, plural marriages, and even the extreme example of bestiality.

3. As a corollary to my second point, I would clarify that using religion as a standard in a society which no longer features such faith as the commonplace and nearly ubiquitous element it once was, is inherently unworkable as it presupposes that it is reasonable to expect a non-believer to act as a believer.

4. As you may have guessed by now, I don't have a real solution, merely some problem issues I have yet to work through.

 

[cobber]

I'll take a polygamist who supports his family over a dead-beat, sperm-donor, child-support-scoff-law, who leaves abandoned infants in his wake, and a baby momma relying on state assistance. Any day.

But that's just me...

Half-purple.

 

[CarmelHP]

"we're devolving to the licentiousness of our barbarous descendents (sic)"

Descendants? Really? Doesn't that term usually mean children, grand children, great grandchildren... ? That is to say, our progeny?

Perhaps you meant our ancestors?

No, the quote said ancestors, I was positing the antithesis. Sorry it went over your head, but I'm not surprised.

 

[Expat]

*snap*

 

[Mark 1911]

Many things change with time. Perhaps a discussion like this would have been unheard of 40 years ago. People are free to make their own decisions, to choose their own path in life. I respect their freedom, and as long as my freedom is respected, then I can still find a place among the insanity, and among the people of my time. It is no fluke, no mistake, that we are where we are, when we are. Some things change, but one thing remains constant. God is the same as always. It is men of faith that are needed. Ecce non est abbreviata manus Domini, God's arm, his power, has not grown weaker!

 

[lucky4034]

Here is my take on the government and marriage issue:

1. Under the Tenth, the feds need to stay out.

2. Most all prohibitions pertaining to specific types of paring for sexual/relationship purposes are based on religion. That said, I find it difficult to have any reasonable outcome other than an all or nothing approach here--in other words, if we reject religious standards, it would seem to apply equally to all combinations including polygamy, plural marriages, and even the extreme example of bestiality.

3. As a corollary to my second point, I would clarify that using religion as a standard in a society which no longer features such faith as the commonplace and nearly ubiquitous element it once was, is inherently unworkable as it presupposes that it is reasonable to expect a non-believer to act as a believer.

4. As you may have guessed by now, I don't have a real solution, merely some problem issues I have yet to work through.

I think the best way to work through this situation is to simply list all the reasons it would be necessary for government of ANY kind to be involved with someones marriage?

1. ???
2. ???
3. ???

 

[Hawkeye]

No, the quote said ancestors, I was positing the antithesis. Sorry it went over your head, but I'm not surprised.

Perhaps you should read your words?

"Unfortunately, we're devolving to the licentiousness of our barbarous descendents. "

This is what you said in Post#43.

 

[Expat]

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Perhaps you should read your words?

"Unfortunately, we're devolving to the licentiousness of our barbarous descendents. "

This is what you said in Post#43.

Antithesis dude, antithesis.


ANYway many people already practice marriage unregulated by the government, its called "shacking up."

Part of being unregulated is that it is not legally recognized, there are no tax breaks or incentives and no one to split your property up for you when you desolve the unofficial union by choice or death.