Do you think polygamy should be legalized?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,709
136
Originally posted by: 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.

true, as it is right now in this country, marriages main purpose is for tax benefits. People have been producing kids out of wedlock for ages. and what about common law marriages?
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: BladeVenom

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

who determines this?

Don't mean to sidetrack but the US Gov't (actually USCIS) already does this in immigration matters. I believe the number is 125% x the poverty rate.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: gevorg
Supporting gay marriage, while not supporting polygamy is a great example of double-standards.

No, it's not. And while we're on the subject of polygamy and double standards, why has no one mentioned a wife having multiple husbands? Unless I missed it to this point in the thread I have seen only mention of husbands having a harem of wives.

Edit: And like 2 posts later it's mentioned. Doh!
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: gevorg
Supporting gay marriage, while not supporting polygamy is a great example of double-standards.

No, it's not. And while we're on the subject of polygamy and double standards, why has no one mentioned a wife having multiple husbands? Unless I missed it to this point in the thread I have seen only mention of husbands having a harem of wives.

Edit: And like 2 posts later it's mentioned. Doh!

Yes, it is a double standard. Please make an argument against Polygamy that could not be used against gay marriage, so far, I haven't seen one.

Personally, I'm with Bobberfett on this one, I don't care about either, do whatever you want.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yes for gay no for polygamy. Fact is only losers are polygamists and there is something fvcked with them.

In 20 years or so, Dari, techs, and Dave will be calling you a bigot.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
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.

So what? It's as much their right to marry whomever they want as it is ours.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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.
But that's not very fair to those of us with the polygamy gene.

Lol, gives me a marketing idea, new Polygamy Jeans ®. . . with that secret extra zipper.

hahahahaha wtf. :laugh:
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: Ns1
I think it should be legal but I think the legal ramifications would make it impossible

That has nothing to do with the granting of rights. We don't abridge a right to live because of possible legal ramifications.
 

nonameo

Diamond Member
Mar 13, 2006
5,902
2
76
If a group wants polygamy, they should just form a corporation and pool their income. That is the best solution I can think of.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
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. :|

Haha, sure was easy to get you worked up asshole.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: gevorg
Supporting gay marriage, while not supporting polygamy is a great example of double-standards.

Why does everyone automatically assume that only a man can be a polygamist? Why should a woman be denied the right to multiple husbands?

And the above quoted comment shows a complete lack of logical thinking. At this current time, two consenting adults are allowed to enter into a legal agreement that defines strict rights to property and other personal rights based solely on the promise of commitment to each other. We call this marriage.

Currently, the prevalent outcome has to discriminate against gays when authorizing this legal contract. You are supposed to marry for "love". Why is it somehow assumed that your definition of love is more valid or legally superior to the love felt between same sex partners?

When discussing polygamy, you are adding in more persons which convolutes the equation. This is why almost every business deal is between two entities. When you add a third, you exponentially increase the likelihood of legal problems and that is what the government is truly trying to prevent in this scenario IMO.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: gevorg
Supporting gay marriage, while not supporting polygamy is a great example of double-standards.

Why does everyone automatically assume that only a man can be a polygamist? Why should a woman be denied the right to multiple husbands?

And the above quoted comment shows a complete lack of logical thinking. At this current time, two consenting adults are allowed to enter into a legal agreement that defines strict rights to property and other personal rights based solely on the promise of commitment to each other. We call this marriage.

Currently, the prevalent outcome has to discriminate against gays when authorizing this legal contract. You are supposed to marry for "love". Why is it somehow assumed that your definition of love is more valid or legally superior to the love felt between same sex partners?

When discussing polygamy, you are adding in more persons which convolutes the equation. This is why almost every business deal is between two entities. When you add a third, you exponentially increase the likelihood of legal problems and that is what the government is truly trying to prevent in this scenario IMO.

Why is it somehow assumed that your definition of love is more valid or legally superior to the love felt among three or more partners?

Ramifications are irrelevant. We don't protect or remove rights because of ease or difficulty of protection. If your right to life suddenly becomes difficult to protect, you still retain it.
 

SandEagle

Lifer
Aug 4, 2007
16,809
13
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yes for gay no for polygamy. Fact is only losers are polygamists and there is something fvcked with them.

have more than 1 wife and you're a loser?

have 100 girlfriends and you're 'the man'?

does not compute
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,226
5,802
126
Leave as is: Illegal, but turn a half-blind eye to Religious nutters. When they step out of line, Enforce the Law.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: 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.

spidey is the embodiment of someone's sig on here:

"Don't argue with idiots; they'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
I think only 1 poster had anything worth while . If ya have the polygamy gene . Than you should have same rights as gays. Same as the killer gene . the Lieing Gene The stealing gene . If we have genes that makes same sex look good . It stands to reason these other genes exist . Were are these peoples rights. They can't help who they are . When I say same rights . I mean Killers kill . They can't help it poor dears. You can't argue for the gay gene and forget the rest . That means your being selective and thats not equal rights. Its prejudice
 

thirtythree

Diamond Member
Aug 7, 2001
8,680
3
0
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I think only 1 poster had anything worth while . If ya have the polygamy gene . Than you should have same rights as gays. Same as the killer gene . the Lieing Gene The stealing gene . If we have genes that makes same sex look good . It stands to reason these other genes exist . Were are these peoples rights. They can't help who they are . When I say same rights . I mean Killers kill . They can't help it poor dears. You can't argue for the gay gene and forget the rest . That means your being selective and thats not equal rights.

Because stealing, lying (in some cases), and killing infringes on the rights of an unwilling participant... Polygamy is a consenting relationship.
 

thirtythree

Diamond Member
Aug 7, 2001
8,680
3
0
I think it should be legalized, but some serious thought would have to be given to legal ramifications.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Originally posted by: thirtythree
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I think only 1 poster had anything worth while . If ya have the polygamy gene . Than you should have same rights as gays. Same as the killer gene . the Lieing Gene The stealing gene . If we have genes that makes same sex look good . It stands to reason these other genes exist . Were are these peoples rights. They can't help who they are . When I say same rights . I mean Killers kill . They can't help it poor dears. You can't argue for the gay gene and forget the rest . That means your being selective and thats not equal rights.

Because stealing, lying (in some cases), and killing infringes on the rights of an unwilling participant... Polygamy is a consenting relationship.

That still doesn't change the fact that they can't help themseves. We all know right from wrong or we should . But once ya start making exceptions to the rule . GAY gene . Than you show prejudice. YOU say draw the line somewhere . But you have the choice . Isay If these genes exist. Than prejudice should not be shown . Just get rid of law and order. That fixes everthing. It really wouldn't be much differant than what we already have.

So the spreading of sexual diesease is OK in your book. Doesn't that infringe. I mean Doing another guy has to be dirty stinky business. So disease is likely. So ya see unwilling participant also apply to the gay community.

 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Originally posted by: Perknose
Divorce would be a legal nightmare.

We'll just get rid of divorce. Don't like your current wife? Just keep adding them on. :D
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,709
136
Originally posted by: sandorski
Leave as is: Illegal, but turn a half-blind eye to Religious nutters. When they step out of line, Enforce the Law.

why? consenting adults should be able to do as the please.
 

thirtythree

Diamond Member
Aug 7, 2001
8,680
3
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
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. :|

First of all, don't unmarried fathers have to pay child support -- or fathers with multiple children from multiple partners? If not, that's a pretty sweet deal. If so, your third paragraph makes no sense. Anyway, this is happening now whether polygamy is legal or not, as are the other scenarios you've mentioned. Current polygamists (that I've heard of) seem to be doing fine, and it's not like there's going to be a huge surge in the number of polygamists if it were legal. Personally I've never heard polygamists call for greater rights, but I haven't followed it that closely. If they have been, we should get cracking on figure out the legal aspects of polygamous marriage.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Originally posted by: spidey07
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.
Actually, everyone is born a total moron; some of us just grow out of it.


Originally posted by: spidey07
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.
Great! So my lesbian mothers, who raised two children, should be allowed to get married then. I mean, after all, they birthed one child, adopted a second, and raised them both to be successful adults. That's your qualification for marriage, right?

I'll go spread the good news; spidey07 officially supports gay marriage.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,582
2,817
136
IF you are one to believe that marriage is a state-sponsored entity and that the state has no place to deny marriage to homosexuals THEN you cannot be against polygamy without compromising what you believe in. The gov't has no more (or just as much, depending on your POV) place regulating multiple-partner marriage than it does same-sex marriage.

The 'legal ramifications' would NOT be that bad. Many of the issues faced are already on the table with society's predilection for children out of wedlock, multiple marriages and divorces, step-parents multiple times over, etc. The only reasonable restriction that would seem necessary (off the top of my head) would be to mandate that if you are in a multiple-partner marriage where your sex is the plurality (i.e., you're a woman in a 5 wife household or a man in a 6 husband household) you cannot take a second spouse without leaving your first marriage. That would prevent a lot of the legal entanglement, as marriage wouldn't be a 'pyramid scheme'. Hell, eliminate 'community property' and allow spouses in the plurality to leave without penalty and it would stand a chance of being less disruptive than "traditional" marriage is now!