Should we legalize Polygamy ?

[Marisa]

Oh, lol. I should have been able to figure that out, but I so rarely think about cones that I got all befuddled.



Hmm, basically I don't make any particular exception for any particular arrangement one wants to exist in. I simply don't see why giving everyone in the world the benefit of marriage as sanctioned by government except single people makes any sense:

"U.S. Federal Code Title 5 Part III says: The President may prescribe rules which shall prohibit... discrimination because of marital status. Yet more than 1,000 laws provide overt legal or financial benefits to married couples. Marital privileging marginalizes the 50 percent of Americans who are single. The U.S. government is the main perpetrator, but private companies follow its lead. Thus marital privilege pervades nearly every facet of our lives. Insurance policies—ranging from health, to life, to home, to car—cost more, on average, for unmarried people compared to those who are married. It is not a federal crime for landlords to discriminate against potential renters based on their marital status. And so on."

Ah, poor married people. They can't get married and divorced to even more people simultaneously while needlessly causing more and more taxpayer money to hire more courts to arbitrate more poorly arranged relationships, while for some reason being expected to pay more in the taxes to help pay the costs of for children whose parents get financial benefits to have them in the first place, all while being reminded frequently that the reason I haven't been able to get access to an $1400 MRI for the purposes of preventative care because the country can't afford it.

In all honesty, there's probably a pretty good argument for removing tax benefits for married folk. Single people are raising kids, too, so we could probably stand to keep benefits related to those expenses. But for the most part, most families are dual income, so we could probably make an argument for removing those credits, or at least limiting accessibility.

ETA: it's been a long time since I filed single, and have been my husband's tax dependent for some time since I've been a SAHM for well over a decade.

 

[dust1n]

In all honesty, there's probably a pretty good argument for removing tax benefits for married folk. Single people are raising kids, too, so we could probably stand to keep benefits related to those expenses. But for the most part, most families are dual income, so we could probably make an argument for removing those credits, or at least limiting accessibility.

I think it's reasonable to have tax adjustment for kids, enough though it might act like a slight incentive, just because it's worth investing in kids so they don't grow to suck, and I get to deal with more people who don't grow up in abhorrent conditions.

But with marriage, none of it really makes sense to me. What benefit does it matter to me if two people who live in the house made their relationship federally official. Seems silly. Confers disadvantages to people who don't necessarily choose to be single, or people like myself (not to say I'm choosing to be single or anything), who don't see much a value in a patriarchal relic of legally binding a woman to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In all honesty, there's probably a pretty good argument for removing tax benefits for married folk. Single people are raising kids, too, so we could probably stand to keep benefits related to those expenses. But for the most part, most families are dual income, so we could probably make an argument for removing those credits, or at least limiting accessibility.

ETA: it's been a long time since I filed single, and have been my husband's tax dependent for some time since I've been a SAHM for well over a decade.

American taxes are a mystery to me.

Here in Canada, marriage (or at least moving in together) generally means no change or a slight increase in taxes, since some tax credits are on a one-per-household basis.

Married seniors can do pension income splitting, but that's the only tax benefit I can think of that comes with marriage.

 

[Marisa]

I think it's reasonable to have tax adjustment for kids, enough though it might act like a slight incentive, just because it's worth investing in kids so they don't grow to suck, and I get to deal with more people who don't grow up in abhorrent conditions.

But with marriage, none of it really makes sense to me. What benefit does it matter to me if two people who live in the house made their relationship federally official. Seems silly. Confers disadvantages to people who don't necessarily choose to be single, or people like myself (not to say I'm choosing to be single or anything), who don't see much a value in a patriarchal relic of legally binding a woman to me.

I'm no student on the subject, but tax benefits for the married were originally instituted to level the playing field between married men and single men. Married men were supporting an entire family off one income, single men only themselves. Of course nowadays, I'd imagine the majority of families are dual income.

 

[Marisa]

American taxes are a mystery to me.

Here in Canada, marriage (or at least moving in together) generally means no change or a slight increase in taxes, since some tax credits are on a one-per-household basis.

Married seniors can do pension income splitting, but that's the only tax benefit I can think of that comes with marriage.

They're a mystery to we American's, too. I cannot fathom why we allow corporations to write off the expense of moving jobs overseas, instead of penalizing them heavily for doing so. But that's probably just me. LOL

 

[Smart_Guy]

Erm, more taxes because of marriage/having a partner?

 

[McDoogins]

The main reason it's not allowed from my understanding is because they don't want huge households with multiple spouses talking advantage of the welfare/assistance system by pooling their resources together.

 

[columbus]

Is polygamy illegal? I don't think it is.
People are free to do whatever they want, religiously and sexually. If some guy wants to have 22 wives and a church will marry him to all of them, it is just "religious freedom". The state won't recognize more than one at a time, but that doesn't mean that the marriages are illegal.
Heck, Warren Jeffs could still be happily married to his harem if he'd stuck to consenting competent adults. It was the underage girls he and his buddies were swapping that caused all that trouble.
Polygamy is legal, so it doesn't need legalizing. It is not recognized by the state, and there is no reason for the state to recognize it. It is just a guy with a wife and a bunch of other babymommas. That doesn't even need religion.
Tom

 

[McDoogins]

Is polygamy illegal? I don't think it is.
People are free to do whatever they want, religiously and sexually. If some guy wants to have 22 wives and a church will marry him to all of them, it is just "religious freedom". The state won't recognize more than one at a time, but that doesn't mean that the marriages are illegal.
Heck, Warren Jeffs could still be happily married to his harem if he'd stuck to consenting competent adults. It was the underage girls he and his buddies were swapping that caused all that trouble.
Polygamy is legal, so it doesn't need legalizing. It is not recognized by the state, and there is no reason for the state to recognize it. It is just a guy with a wife and a bunch of other babymommas. That doesn't even need religion.
Tom

I think it used to be legal in Utah but I could be wrong. For the record I have nothing against it.

 

[columbus]

I think it used to be legal in Utah but I could be wrong. For the record I have nothing against it.

It is not illegal now, that is my point.
I do have something against it myself, but that is not my point.
Tom

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

why should the government have anything to do with deciding what is marriage and who can marry who. it should be totally up to the individuals involved. more than one wife? more than one husband? who cares?

 

[Sakeenah]

Recently, after straights saw through there Heterosexual Supremacy, gay and lesbian women could get married. We celebrate this victory for gays & lesbians, and an end to Heterosexual Supremacists everywhere.
However, now we have the issue of Polygamy to deal with. Specifically, polygamy involves the marrying of several wives ( and husbands, I think). I have mixed feelings about this issue. In the Tankh/ Old Testament, we have several examples of people marrying several wives. It would seem that God likes/allows this kind of behavior. However, I feel that it could be explotative to women, as a man marries several wives and treates them like slaves. I'm not sure about my own people.
What do you feel ? Should people be allowed to marry several wives ( and if we do, several husbands) ?

Yes I think it should be legal

 

[stujames32]

Ok for you non christians I am going to put this out there and if you dont like it tough. Throughout the whole old testimate God approves of polygyny. This is different than todays definition of polygamy. He does not approve anywhere in the bible or anywhere else of same sex anything matter of fact he destroys groups of people that practice such sinful acts. So if you all want to fight for gays getting married in polygamy relationships do as you please but Christain polygyny is not nor will it ever condone it.

 

[Valjean]

If it's not causing harm it should be legal. The law has no business legislating propriety or religious restrictions.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, it should not be legalized.

Polygamy leads to a horde of legal and social problems whereas monogamous marriage, whether gay or straight, doesn't or at least not at same scale. The slippery slope argument doesn't work here since they're simply far more different than alike. According to research, polygamy is highly correlated with social instability, poverty, war and conflict and the oppression of females including violence against women. Wealthier males in such societies tend to hoard all the young females, leaving poorer males with with a smaller pool of potential mates, which increases feelings of anger, repression and hostility among younger males. They become more apt to be drawn into violent revolutionary extremist movements. It's also bad for children since there tends to be less investment in child welfare in polygamous societies.

http://news.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monogamy-reduces-major-social-problems-of-polygamist-cultures/
http://www.scidev.net/global/gender/news/polygamous-marriages-raise-risk-violence.html
http://www.economist.com/news/speci...work-and-wedlock-can-tame-them-men-and-mayhem

As for women having multiple husbands, that's extremely rare, historically and culturally. Basically, monogamy tends to produce greater equality between women and men, as well as reduce violence and hostility.

 

[Scott C.]

Recently, after straights saw through there Heterosexual Supremacy, gay and lesbian women could get married. We celebrate this victory for gays & lesbians, and an end to Heterosexual Supremacists everywhere.
However, now we have the issue of Polygamy to deal with. Specifically, polygamy involves the marrying of several wives ( and husbands, I think). I have mixed feelings about this issue. In the Tankh/ Old Testament, we have several examples of people marrying several wives. It would seem that God likes/allows this kind of behavior. However, I feel that it could be explotative to women, as a man marries several wives and treates them like slaves. I'm not sure about my own people.
What do you feel ? Should people be allowed to marry several wives ( and if we do, several husbands) ?

It seems to me there are two questions regarding the legalization of polygamy.

1) Should polygamist marriages be legalized?

2) If polygamist marriages are not allowed, should it be legal for a man and more than one woman to live with each other in what they consider a polygamist relationship, as long as they don't fraudulently represent that they are legally married?

I see little difference between (2) and the situation where a promiscuous man sleeps around and has children with more than one woman. Neither he nor society considers him to be a polygamist. His behavior, while immoral, is not illegal. One could argue that this should be illegal. But, it's not, and since it's not, neither should (2) be illegal. Whether a man who fathers children from multiple women calls himself a playboy or a polygamist should be irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.

 

[Valjean]

Polygyny and polyandry develop in cultures where they're functional, where monogamy would be problematic. They become problems when religious tradition leads to their retention after the social conditions that necessitated them have changed.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

It should be left to the people... Not governments, religious and liberal hypocrites or people who have nothing to do with it.

 

[Deidre]

I don't see the big deal with polygamy really. It's never appealed to me, to be involved with a polygamist, but if this is something that is logical and sound to the person, then I don't see an inherent problem with it. It just might be odd to some people, if it's outside the box of their traditional thinking.

 

[Acim]

Definitely favor legalization of it.

Monogamy people's fervor around 'legitimate marriage' always humors me. Ya know, like they have all the legal issues worked out so everything is smooth. I guess we can pretend it's perfectly fine going outside of a monogamous marriage and coveting other people is normal. Seems to be working out well so far. I mean 50% divorce rate, there's gotta be a lot of pride in that.