If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Nature Network)   Presidential candidate wants to legalize polygamy. No, not Mitt Romney   (mnn.com) divider line 90
    More: Interesting, polygamy, Mitt Romney, Presidential candidate wants  
•       •       •

5246 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Feb 2011 at 5:15 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



90 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-02-18 06:51:22 PM
My wife says once in a while that she wants a wife. If my wife marries another girl, and that's her wife, and I never marry my wife's wife, am I a polygamist or is it just my wife who is?

I tell her to snap out of it, because I've had enough threesomes and triads to know that their damn periods synch and they become soul sisters who gang up on you to hate on you if you say something dumb. It's not patriarchal oppression, it's freaking amazonian masterhood.

People think relationship problems are hard, then they find themselves in a house with 2 women PMSing, or 1 woman mad at you for something you did, and the other one joins the first. ALWAYS.

Man cave, hell, you'll need a menstrual hut.


And then your neighbor rolls a golden apple under your tent flap that is engraved FOR THE PRETTIEST.
 
2011-02-18 06:51:50 PM
LOL, you guys continue to prove the point that the polygamy argument is perpetuated by men who want multiple wives, and you offer no proof whatsoever that there are any adult women in this country who want this to be legal. (Sorry, "I know several women" = weak sauce.)

Kinek - According to your argument, there are as many unicorns as women who are willing to fight for this.

Good luck to you boys! I really hope you find happiness somehow with just the one measly spouse you're legally allowed to have. :D
 
2011-02-18 07:06:14 PM

Latinwolf: Listerine: fusillade762: "In Kazakhstan, there are a lot of single women, and it is a national tragedy, because we lose potential mothers,"

Tragedy, sure. Because that's all women are good for, right?

he seems to think that women are biologically meant to bear children. Pretty damn offensive

He also seems to think that it's impossible for them to become mothers without being married first.


So then he should just encourage them to be sluts?

I... actually have no problem with this idea.
 
2011-02-18 07:14:44 PM

ChaoticLimbs: Fine. However, the marriage penalty remains:

The penalty for polygamy is having multiple wives mothers-in-law.


FTFY.
 
2011-02-18 07:19:32 PM

Shenanigans!: LOL, you guys continue to prove the point that the polygamy argument is perpetuated by men who want multiple wives, and you offer no proof whatsoever that there are any adult women in this country who want this to be legal. (Sorry, "I know several women" = weak sauce.)

Kinek - According to your argument, there are as many unicorns as women who are willing to fight for this.

Good luck to you boys! I really hope you find happiness somehow with just the one measly spouse you're legally allowed to have. :D


You're cherry-picking.

I am a male for polygamy and have not desire to be married to one person, let alone multiple people.

As for multiple-marriage being male-centric, yes is is; inasmuch as virtually every aspect of nearly every culture is male-centric. And even if your belief that only men want it were true how is this a justification for making it illegal?

Kidnapping and rape and using coercion to force someone to sign a contract are all illegal, as is statutory rape and yet men still create whole communities where women and girls are literally chattel and traded for financial gain or social currency and they just don't go and get legal recognition because what they are doing is often child rape. Even when the state becomes aware of what is taking place (Jeffs clan being the most recent notable example) the state fails to do shiat, so the law against consent means precisely farkall and actually encourages avoiding oversight. Were it legal to marry multiple partners then while it may or may not affect oversight to prevent abuses, it certainly couldn't make it worse and it would at least give some property/asset rights and custody rights to parents.

As to your belief that no woman would want it, that's highly dubious. What could you possibly base that belief on other than the most absolutely anecdotal of facts; your own feelings. There were and are plenty of women who either have established or participated as equals in communal arrangements throughout the history of this country in secular settings. Most notably were those that are lumped in as part of the "hippie" movement but frequently people have de-facto group marriages for many practical reasons such as economics and emotional support. It's not just about sex, I can guarantee you this.

While my partner and myself are not interested in marriage we have both agreed that people who do choose a communal living system are making a logical, if complicated, choice and it is no less reasonable than many other common and unusual living arrangements people find themselves in.

Ultimately if legal and equal what new harm does this concept bring?
 
2011-02-18 07:25:09 PM

Shenanigans!: LOL, you guys continue to prove the point that the polygamy argument is perpetuated by men who want multiple wives, and you offer no proof whatsoever that there are any adult women in this country who want this to be legal. (Sorry, "I know several women" = weak sauce.)


I suspect you miss the point entirely. Hopefully, this will help:

If people want to marry consenting adult/s, it isn't my problem, and I support their choice to be just as happy/miserable as they manage to be. This includes homosexuals, lesbians, polygamists of every stripe, etc. If all included are adults, and able to knowingly enter into a contract, its all good.

Kinek - According to your argument, there are as many unicorns as women who are willing to fight for this.

Good luck to you boys! I really hope you find happiness somehow with just the one measly spouse you're legally allowed to have. :D


The polygamy argument is perpetuated by religious idiots, usually. It is very likely that the women you are dismissing as non-existent exist mainly in relationships that are already polygamist, or are heavily involved in religions that support polygamy. I am sure your judgment of them as non-existent would certainly convince them that they were wholly wrong though.
 
2011-02-18 07:26:36 PM

Barakku: Tax/insurance benefits, for one thing


That's just silly. Insurance benefits are just a contract. If they only want to offer benefits to 2 people in a marriage they'll just change their policy. Or more likely they'll just charge per-head and add requirements like cohabitation or somesuch -- insurance companies spend all day playing with the math to ensure they keep a proper premium/payout ratio and there's no reason to think they couldn't handle polygamy.

Taxes are slightly more complicated, but only because the tax law itself is complicated. Frankly I think it's still that being married or not has any impact on your tax filings, polygamy or otherwise; if you just let everyone file their own taxes it wouldn't be an issue at all. But even if you want to keep all the silly marriage-related tax law you could add 2 lines of text explaining that "MFJ" is only for couples and other groups of adults must file individually unless they qualify for "HoH" filings.

I've seen this argument before and I can't believe people even trot it out. It's like saying we can't have electric cars because they wouldn't contribute appropriately to road maintenance via gas taxes -- the answer is to change the allocation of road maintenance funding, not ban electric cars.
 
2011-02-18 07:26:52 PM

hovsm: As long as everybody is consenting adults and not little girls forced, I see no problem with polygamy.


pute kisses like a man: rogue_L_chick: As long as they are all adults and not that Warren Jeffs-marrying-kids bullshiat, then go for it. If I want to have 4 husbands and 3 wives and a partridge in a pear tree, I should be allowed to. Why the fark should you care?

enjoy filing that joint tax return... or writing your will.


Well we could recognize a legal entity called marriage, this entity would be like a corporation a pseudo person. This entity would be an heir, could be named in wills, and would file taxes as an entity.
 
2011-02-18 07:29:07 PM

Shenanigans!: From TFA: "Asilbek, age 70, also told the magazine that Kazakhstan's air kept men virile even at his age, and that "young girls" often come to his home asking to be his wives."

Have you ever noticed polygamy proponents are always disgusting old men who are looking to get it on with hot young girls?


In defense of the old kook in the article, he's 70. To him, "Young Girls" could be sixty years old. It's a matter of reference. "She's so young, she can't even tie her tits in a knot yet! She doesn't even forget when the local pancake house has half-price Sanka hour!"
 
2011-02-18 07:29:14 PM

Listerine: fusillade762: "In Kazakhstan, there are a lot of single women, and it is a national tragedy, because we lose potential mothers,"

Tragedy, sure. Because that's all women are good for, right?

he seems to think that women are biologically meant to bear children. Pretty damn offensive


I agree. Men should have to bear children too, let them go through the weight gain and agony of labor like everyone else.
 
2011-02-18 07:29:17 PM

ChaoticLimbs: My wife says once in a while that she wants a wife. If my wife marries another girl, and that's her wife, and I never marry my wife's wife, am I a polygamist or is it just my wife who is?

I tell her to snap out of it, because I've had enough threesomes and triads to know that their damn periods synch and they become soul sisters who gang up on you to hate on you if you say something dumb. It's not patriarchal oppression, it's freaking amazonian masterhood.

People think relationship problems are hard, then they find themselves in a house with 2 women PMSing, or 1 woman mad at you for something you did, and the other one joins the first. ALWAYS.

Man cave, hell, you'll need a menstrual hut.


And then your neighbor rolls a golden apple under your tent flap that is engraved FOR THE PRETTIEST.


If the law ever allows a poly marriage I imagine that to bring a new person into the marriage all parties would have to consent.
 
2011-02-18 07:33:06 PM
For some real woman who want it legal see the reality tv show Sister Wives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Wives
 
2011-02-18 07:35:48 PM

logruszed: Shenanigans!: LOL, you guys continue to prove the point that the polygamy argument is perpetuated by men who want multiple wives, and you offer no proof whatsoever that there are any adult women in this country who want this to be legal. (Sorry, "I know several women" = weak sauce.)

Kinek - According to your argument, there are as many unicorns as women who are willing to fight for this.

Good luck to you boys! I really hope you find happiness somehow with just the one measly spouse you're legally allowed to have. :D

You're cherry-picking.

I am a male for polygamy and have not desire to be married to one person, let alone multiple people.

As for multiple-marriage being male-centric, yes is is; inasmuch as virtually every aspect of nearly every culture is male-centric. And even if your belief that only men want it were true how is this a justification for making it illegal?

Kidnapping and rape and using coercion to force someone to sign a contract are all illegal, as is statutory rape and yet men still create whole communities where women and girls are literally chattel and traded for financial gain or social currency and they just don't go and get legal recognition because what they are doing is often child rape. Even when the state becomes aware of what is taking place (Jeffs clan being the most recent notable example) the state fails to do shiat, so the law against consent means precisely farkall and actually encourages avoiding oversight. Were it legal to marry multiple partners then while it may or may not affect oversight to prevent abuses, it certainly couldn't make it worse and it would at least give some property/asset rights and custody rights to parents.

As to your belief that no woman would want it, that's highly dubious. What could you possibly base that belief on other than the most absolutely anecdotal of facts; your own feelings. There were and are plenty of women who either have established or participated as equals in communal arrangements throughout the history of this country in secular settings. Most notably were those that are lumped in as part of the "hippie" movement but frequently people have de-facto group marriages for many practical reasons such as economics and emotional support. It's not just about sex, I can guarantee you this.

While my partner and myself are not interested in marriage we have both agreed that people who do choose a communal living system are making a logical, if complicated, choice and it is no less reasonable than many other common and unusual living arrangements people find themselves in.

Ultimately if legal and equal what new harm does this concept bring?


The harm is that poly marriages allow high value people, particularly men, to acquire multiple partners at the expense of less valuable people.

It is better for society if we restrict the number of partners in a marriage to two and best if it is one man and one woman, because men, particularly young men, who can not find mates tend to be angry risk seekers. Angry risk seekers tend to engage in violent illegal behavior.
 
2011-02-18 07:39:19 PM

logruszed: Ultimately if legal and equal what new harm does this concept bring?


What I'm saying is - where are the women who want this right? I'm not for creating legislation for hypothetical situations.

Proponents of same-sex marriage have done an excellent job making themselves heard and bringing their passion and numbers to strengthen and legitimize their argument, so legalization of this scenario is a no-brainer and an inevitability.

Honestly the argument for polygamy in this thread just makes me want a Silkwood shower. Men arguing for what they think hypothetical women want really just skeeves me out and further reinforces what I already believed about polygamy - it's pretty much just dudes who want it.

Since the institution of polygamy in this country (and I'm not talking communes or other types of informal arrangements) has traditionally been a tool for the systematic abuse of women, you're not going to see most women get on board with the idea unless actual, real women come out and say this is something they want for themselves.

Men advocating for polygamy is honestly nothing but creepy. Sorry, but that's the reality of it. My suggestion - if you want to legitimize your argument, get some (adult) chicks on your side to speak out on your behalf, and then you might be on to something.
 
2011-02-18 07:39:40 PM

Slaves2Darkness: logruszed: Shenanigans!: LOL, you guys continue to prove the point that the polygamy argument is perpetuated by men who want multiple wives, and you offer no proof whatsoever that there are any adult women in this country who want this to be legal. (Sorry, "I know several women" = weak sauce.)

Kinek - According to your argument, there are as many unicorns as women who are willing to fight for this.

Good luck to you boys! I really hope you find happiness somehow with just the one measly spouse you're legally allowed to have. :D

You're cherry-picking.

I am a male for polygamy and have not desire to be married to one person, let alone multiple people.

As for multiple-marriage being male-centric, yes is is; inasmuch as virtually every aspect of nearly every culture is male-centric. And even if your belief that only men want it were true how is this a justification for making it illegal?

Kidnapping and rape and using coercion to force someone to sign a contract are all illegal, as is statutory rape and yet men still create whole communities where women and girls are literally chattel and traded for financial gain or social currency and they just don't go and get legal recognition because what they are doing is often child rape. Even when the state becomes aware of what is taking place (Jeffs clan being the most recent notable example) the state fails to do shiat, so the law against consent means precisely farkall and actually encourages avoiding oversight. Were it legal to marry multiple partners then while it may or may not affect oversight to prevent abuses, it certainly couldn't make it worse and it would at least give some property/asset rights and custody rights to parents.

As to your belief that no woman would want it, that's highly dubious. What could you possibly base that belief on other than the most absolutely anecdotal of facts; your own feelings. There were and are plenty of women who either have established or participated as equals in communal arrangements throughout the history of this country in secular settings. Most notably were those that are lumped in as part of the "hippie" movement but frequently people have de-facto group marriages for many practical reasons such as economics and emotional support. It's not just about sex, I can guarantee you this.

While my partner and myself are not interested in marriage we have both agreed that people who do choose a communal living system are making a logical, if complicated, choice and it is no less reasonable than many other common and unusual living arrangements people find themselves in.

Ultimately if legal and equal what new harm does this concept bring?

The harm is that poly marriages allow high value people, particularly men, to acquire multiple partners at the expense of less valuable people.

It is better for society if we restrict the number of partners in a marriage to two and best if it is one man and one woman, because men, particularly young men, who can not find mates tend to be angry risk seekers. Angry risk seekers tend to engage in violent illegal behavior.


This argument could be used against lesbian marriages.

Thus, it is probably invalid.
 
2011-02-18 07:47:35 PM

Kinek: Slaves2Darkness:
It is better for society if we restrict the number of partners in a marriage to two and best if it is one man and one woman, because men, particularly young men, who can not find mates tend to be angry risk seekers. Angry risk seekers tend to engage in violent illegal behavior.

This argument could be used against lesbian marriages.

Thus, it is probably invalid.


Yes, it could be an argument against homosexual marriage, not that I've heard anybody use it against that. The counter argument though is the social justice of allowing two homosexuals to marry greatly out weighs the damage of removing a potential heterosexual partner. Particularly when you consider that even if you restrict homosexuals from marrying you are not expanding the potential pool of heterosexual marriage partners.
 
2011-02-18 07:48:55 PM

Shenanigans!: logruszed: Ultimately if legal and equal what new harm does this concept bring?

What I'm saying is - where are the women who want this right? I'm not for creating legislation for hypothetical situations.

Proponents of same-sex marriage have done an excellent job making themselves heard and bringing their passion and numbers to strengthen and legitimize their argument, so legalization of this scenario is a no-brainer and an inevitability.

Honestly the argument for polygamy in this thread just makes me want a Silkwood shower. Men arguing for what they think hypothetical women want really just skeeves me out and further reinforces what I already believed about polygamy - it's pretty much just dudes who want it.

Since the institution of polygamy in this country (and I'm not talking communes or other types of informal arrangements) has traditionally been a tool for the systematic abuse of women, you're not going to see most women get on board with the idea unless actual, real women come out and say this is something they want for themselves.

Men advocating for polygamy is honestly nothing but creepy. Sorry, but that's the reality of it. My suggestion - if you want to legitimize your argument, get some (adult) chicks on your side to speak out on your behalf, and then you might be on to something.


I went to a lecture this week on the response of the South to polygamy in the U.S. during, and slightly after reconstruction. Essentially the south hated polygamy because it 'Disrupted Christian Households' and 'Denigrated Women'. In southern culture, the myth of the 'White, virginal, saintly, Woman' was the driving force behind the lynchings of Black Men (as the archetypal libidinous rapist) and the driving out of Mormons (As they were proponents of the 'barbaric practice' of polygamy. Women in the south could not defend themselves, or were incapable of making their own decisions, thus, the men believed it fell to them to protect Women from things they could not understand.

Essentially, you believe that women (I emphasize of Age) who enter polygamous unions, do not understand what they're doing and should be protected from their own mistakes? Are women somehow inferior in your eyes?
 
2011-02-18 07:52:06 PM
Howcome nobody ever promotes polyandry? I'd like five or six hot husbands taking care of me and catering to my every sexual desire.

Gentlemen?
 
2011-02-18 07:53:07 PM

Slaves2Darkness: Kinek: Slaves2Darkness:
It is better for society if we restrict the number of partners in a marriage to two and best if it is one man and one woman, because men, particularly young men, who can not find mates tend to be angry risk seekers. Angry risk seekers tend to engage in violent illegal behavior.

This argument could be used against lesbian marriages.

Thus, it is probably invalid.

Yes, it could be an argument against homosexual marriage, not that I've heard anybody use it against that. The counter argument though is the social justice of allowing two homosexuals to marry greatly out weighs the damage of removing a potential heterosexual partner. Particularly when you consider that even if you restrict homosexuals from marrying you are not expanding the potential pool of heterosexual marriage partners.


Depends on the nature of the partners. Are these bisexual women? Then the situation is still somewhat analogous.

Gay marriage of males would remove womenless men from the equation, but something tells me they wouldn't be too pissed if females were removed from the equation. Unless they too, are also bisexual. Still, gay marriage of males would remove angry men from the population as they have an alternate set of people to pair with.
 
2011-02-18 08:00:46 PM

Gyrfalcon: Howcome nobody ever promotes polyandry? I'd like five or six hot husbands taking care of me and catering to my every sexual desire.

Gentlemen?


If you can find five or six guys who all want to share you with each other and fulfill certain needs you have, go for it.
 
2011-02-18 08:02:43 PM

Kinek: Essentially, you believe that women (I emphasize of Age) who enter polygamous unions, do not understand what they're doing and should be protected from their own mistakes? Are women somehow inferior in your eyes?


I'm not sure where you got that idea, as I've said multiple times I'm happy to hear what the female pro-polygamy movement has to say whenever they pop into existence.
 
2011-02-18 08:06:49 PM

Shenanigans!: What I'm saying is - where are the women who want this right? I'm not for creating legislation for hypothetical situations.

Since the institution of polygamy in this country (and I'm not talking communes or other types of informal arrangements) has traditionally been a tool for the systematic abuse of women, you're not going to see most women get on board with the idea unless actual, real women come out and say this is something they want for themselves.


Back in the 1870, Utah was the second state to the right to vote to women (Wyoming granted it the year before). They used this voting power to continue to support plural marriage.

The federal government came in and took away women's right to vote in part because they voted for polygamy.
 
2011-02-18 08:27:12 PM

helix400: The federal government came in and took away women's right to vote in part because they voted for polygamy.


And this sparked such an outrage in the Mormon Church...they abandoned the practice of polygamy rather than fighting for the right.
 
2011-02-18 08:34:08 PM

Shenanigans!: helix400: The federal government came in and took away women's right to vote in part because they voted for polygamy.

And this sparked such an outrage in the Mormon Church...they abandoned the practice of polygamy rather than fighting for the right.


Except the part where they publically declared they weren't doing it anymore, and then kept on doing it because they didn't feel like listening to the federal government. Until they eventually stopped it.
 
2011-02-18 08:39:25 PM

Kinek: Shenanigans!: helix400: The federal government came in and took away women's right to vote in part because they voted for polygamy.

And this sparked such an outrage in the Mormon Church...they abandoned the practice of polygamy rather than fighting for the right.

Except the part where they publically declared they weren't doing it anymore, and then kept on doing it because they didn't feel like listening to the federal government. Until they eventually stopped it.


And now they don't even like to discuss it as part of their history. You know your cause is creepy when the LDS is even creeped out by it.
 
2011-02-18 08:42:25 PM

Shenanigans!: Kinek: Shenanigans!: helix400: The federal government came in and took away women's right to vote in part because they voted for polygamy.

And this sparked such an outrage in the Mormon Church...they abandoned the practice of polygamy rather than fighting for the right.

Except the part where they publically declared they weren't doing it anymore, and then kept on doing it because they didn't feel like listening to the federal government. Until they eventually stopped it.

And now they don't even like to discuss it as part of their history. You know your cause is creepy when the LDS is even creeped out by it.


I don't know. It got covered pretty thoroughly in two of my classes. So. Yeah. You're wrong.
 
2011-02-18 08:47:06 PM
Oooh, low blow fark
 
2011-02-18 08:51:01 PM

Listerine: fusillade762: "In Kazakhstan, there are a lot of single women, and it is a national tragedy, because we lose potential mothers,"

Tragedy, sure. Because that's all women are good for, right?

he seems to think that women are biologically meant to bear children. Pretty damn offensive


Rephrase that, they ARE biologicaly meant to bare children. But not their soal perpose in life.
 
2011-02-18 08:51:29 PM

Gyrfalcon: Howcome nobody ever promotes polyandry? I'd like five or six hot husbands taking care of me and catering to my every sexual desire.

Gentlemen?


Because most men have a strict limit of one penis per fantasy.
 
2011-02-18 08:58:40 PM

Kinek: Shenanigans!: Kinek: Shenanigans!: helix400: The federal government came in and took away women's right to vote in part because they voted for polygamy.

And this sparked such an outrage in the Mormon Church...they abandoned the practice of polygamy rather than fighting for the right.

Except the part where they publically declared they weren't doing it anymore, and then kept on doing it because they didn't feel like listening to the federal government. Until they eventually stopped it.

And now they don't even like to discuss it as part of their history. You know your cause is creepy when the LDS is even creeped out by it.

I don't know. It got covered pretty thoroughly in two of my classes. So. Yeah. You're wrong.


Yeah, they don't seem to be big fans of it today.

Even if they were, having the Mormon Church back your cause does not reduce the creep factor.
 
2011-02-18 09:30:37 PM

hitlo58: But not their soal perpose in life.


/sayof pricipal-like typing detected
 
2011-02-18 09:44:18 PM

Slaves2Darkness: It is better for society if we restrict the number of partners in a marriage to two and best if it is one man and one woman, because men, particularly young men, who can not find mates tend to be angry risk seekers. Angry risk seekers tend to engage in violent illegal behavior.


China's going to discover this before too long. Some forcasts say 37 million "extra" males by 2020. Better get cracking on that sex robot.
 
2011-02-18 10:01:13 PM

Shenanigans!: Kinek: Shenanigans!: Kinek: Shenanigans!: helix400: The federal government came in and took away women's right to vote in part because they voted for polygamy.

And this sparked such an outrage in the Mormon Church...they abandoned the practice of polygamy rather than fighting for the right.

Except the part where they publically declared they weren't doing it anymore, and then kept on doing it because they didn't feel like listening to the federal government. Until they eventually stopped it.

And now they don't even like to discuss it as part of their history. You know your cause is creepy when the LDS is even creeped out by it.

I don't know. It got covered pretty thoroughly in two of my classes. So. Yeah. You're wrong.

Yeah, they don't seem to be big fans of it today.

Even if they were, having the Mormon Church back your cause does not reduce the creep factor.


That is talking about current practice. No, mormons are not currently polygamists. You seemed to imply though in your post that mormons are creeped out by their history. Some may be. But most won't deny it, and many may engage you and tell you it's connotations in the social life of the times.
 
2011-02-19 12:57:44 AM
Just another example of how Kazakhstan wants social reform. First the homosexuals no longer having to wear blue hats, and now this.
 
2011-02-19 01:51:50 AM

Gyrfalcon: Howcome nobody ever promotes polyandry? I'd like five or six hot husbands taking care of me and catering to my every sexual desire.


I've often countered to the Missus that if she needs someone to do all these tasks, she needs to find husband #2 so husband #1 can take a break sometimes. In principle I'm not against it, although I'm not sure how it'd actually work in practice but it certainly does sound like a fine idea to have an extra set of hands. Is this just for "more fun with friends"? Or is it the real business of raising chilluns?

You have to wonder though why another assumedly childless male would want to drop in and help with all the manhours raising a 3-year old sired by someone else. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I love my offspring since the instant he hit atmosphere but love for other peoples' children is not on the same level.
 
2011-02-19 03:54:15 AM

vincentfox: Gyrfalcon: Howcome nobody ever promotes polyandry? I'd like five or six hot husbands taking care of me and catering to my every sexual desire.


I've often countered to the Missus that if she needs someone to do all these tasks, she needs to find husband #2 so husband #1 can take a break sometimes. In principle I'm not against it, although I'm not sure how it'd actually work in practice but it certainly does sound like a fine idea to have an extra set of hands. Is this just for "more fun with friends"? Or is it the real business of raising chilluns?

You have to wonder though why another assumedly childless male would want to drop in and help with all the manhours raising a 3-year old sired by someone else. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I love my offspring since the instant he hit atmosphere but love for other peoples' children is not on the same level.


Polygamy covers both polyandry and polygynous marriage. Also according the Shenanigans! you don't exist.
 
2011-02-19 05:31:11 AM

vincentfox: You have to wonder though why another assumedly childless male would want to drop in and help with all the manhours raising a 3-year old sired by someone else. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I love my offspring since the instant he hit atmosphere but love for other peoples' children is not on the same level


You can't really be implying that you can smell your DNA in your child and without that genetic link you wouldn't love it, are you?

You're aware that adoption exists, right? And that not all step-parents are evil? There are demonstrably a large number of people that want children and aren't picky about what sperm was involved.

Love is a choice. You spent months working yourself up to love your child, were presumably happy about the idea by the time it was born, accepted the lifelong commitment to your child and now hold it as a symbol of your worth/marriage/etc. Not to mention the pure practicality of "love" in a relationship with strong dependence -- loving your child helps you rationalize all the care you're required to provide.

/ Not saying you don't really love your child
// Just saying you're probably not analyzing the situation correctly
 
2011-02-19 05:46:02 AM

pute kisses like a man: enjoy filing that joint tax return... or writing your will.


I can write a will that says whatever I please, married or not. Being married may also give my spouse(s) rights in lieu of or in addition to a will, but I don't see how having more than one spouse make things any more complicated -- presumably all the joint property continues to remain joint property and the individual property is disposed of according to my will and the existing probate law.

Tax returns are also a silly argument. Everyone can just file individually. The IRS could petition the OMB to add a sentence to the instructions that note MFJ is only for couples. Also, since MFJ only gives you deductions/contribution limits/etc. for 2 adults it's probably not in your best interest anyway, so I'm not sure the IRS would even care. And personally I think everyone should file individually in the first place, but that's another matter entirely.

And as others have suggested you could just treat any group of married people as a legal entity in and of itself, just like a partnership. They could elect to be taxed as a corporation or they could have passthrough tax liability and file individual returns. They could own property individually an dispose of it via their will or they could own property via the partnership and simply cede their interest in the partnership to the remaining partners in the case of their death. This is really not a legally complicated matter.

This whole class of arguments is just silly. As I said before, it's like banning electric cars because they don't pay gas taxes and therefore don't fund road maintenance instead of just changing the allocation of road maintenance funds.
 
2011-02-19 09:45:12 AM
Not a single "Big Love" reference? WTF?
 
2011-02-19 03:07:42 PM

hairywoogit: To claim that it will massively complicate it all, and make it all untenable, is ridiculous. It will make it more complicated for some people, sure, but we could develop case law to deal with it, tax and inheritance laws to cover it, etc.


My comment to enjoy the filing was not meant as an argument or rhetorical device to promote an opinion against allowing polygamy. It was an awareness that it would be complicated, which equals not fun.

I don't have any problem with a state choosing to recognize polygamy. I don't really think that the state interests in marriage trump the individual interests of those who wish to married to more than one person.

I, however, would not like to be married to more than one person, because one wife is about my quota. So, by my lack of opposition to polygamy, I am basically in support of it because I cannot see the ban on it justifying the infringement upon those who desire it.

I agree with you that, just because it's complicated legally is no reason to deny something. The law needs to grow.

however, enjoy filing that tax return. jk.
 
Displayed 40 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report