I agree. However, I am opposed to the practice of the lesser wives going on welfare and CHIP and all the other strained social safety nets because Hubby doesn't make enough money to support 3 stay at home women and their 10+ kids between them. Their sex lives aren't anything I care about until we're spending scarce resources on these idiots.
I don't think the rule about survivor benefits was ever used against gay marriage. In fact gay marriage is the only fair thing to do since spouses of either gender should have this protection.
The fairness issue applies even if only a minuscule portion of society is involved. I wold be against a billion dollar tax cheat even if it only applied to a few people. Besides, if something gets you free government money then some people will use it just for that.
Good point, but it would be hard to enforce. Just because several women share a house with a man doesn't mean they're all married to him. Technically, of course, only one woman at a time can be married to him.
Then, to be fair, women must be allowed to have multiple husbands. If several wives of one man have several husbands of their own it becomes a total mess. For one thing which father would be responsible for a given child? Would they all have to be DNA tested?
I'm not against multiple marriage in principle but a lot of legal issues would need to be sorted out.
And quite possibly when they're alive. Polygamy tends to devalue women by making them just part of a set. And as things stand now the husband has no responsibility to any of the wives but the first one.
"I don't think the rule about survivor benefits was ever used against gay marriage. "
I had that exact argument with more than one person. "Allowing them the same benefits as married people will overwhelm the system and hurt all married people" I actually had one person tell me that 'as a tax-loving liberal' I should be worried about all these people paying less in taxes because they can file as married.
We may have married for love (and the sex. That was really good, too.), but we moved the date up four months because of health insurance. Ms. Gnome had none, and I had the good stuff from a state job. She asked me to stop on my way over to her place after work and pick up a prescription for her, and she'd pay me back. The bill was $60.00. When I got there, I said, "You know, if we were married, this would have cost you $15."
Everyone assumed I'd knocked her up when the date changed.
My understanding, from the year I spent at a Mormon college, is that Mormon men were being killed because people hate people who are different, and there was a surplus of women, including but not limited to widows with children, who needed someone to provide for and protect them (this was back in the day, after all). Now, this reasoning is paper thin and if you look too closely the holes are real big, but that's what they taught 20 years ago when asked.
Saw a TV interview with a polygamist who was asked the question, "What would you think if your daughter or wife had two husbands?"He replied, "Doesn't matter what I think. That's not God's Plan." Can't argue with that, huh? It's good to have God on your side. My wife's nephew wanted to buy an expensive truck. His wife complained and he said, "I prayed to God about it, and He told me that He wanted me to have it."
Aren't all of the people participating in such marriages consenting adults? As long as they are whose business is it? True freedom is scary and that's one reason we don't experience it.
as I mentioned in another non-comment yesterday, they can decriminalize polygamous behavior if they want, but we should be able to withdraw their statehood in return.
If "polygamy and domestic abuse go hand in hand" is NOT up for debate. There are certain men who will beat on women whether married, dating, or just for kicks. Having polygamy decriminalized will not change those men. It will only remove consequences for the men and access to services for the victims. Of course, the victims may not use the services, but they will be available.
I agree. However, I am opposed to the practice of the lesser wives going on welfare and CHIP and all the other strained social safety nets because Hubby doesn't make enough money to support 3 stay at home women and their 10+ kids between them. Their sex lives aren't anything I care about until we're spending scarce resources on these idiots.
I don't think the rule about survivor benefits was ever used against gay marriage. In fact gay marriage is the only fair thing to do since spouses of either gender should have this protection.
The fairness issue applies even if only a minuscule portion of society is involved. I wold be against a billion dollar tax cheat even if it only applied to a few people. Besides, if something gets you free government money then some people will use it just for that.
Good point, but it would be hard to enforce. Just because several women share a house with a man doesn't mean they're all married to him. Technically, of course, only one woman at a time can be married to him.
Then, to be fair, women must be allowed to have multiple husbands. If several wives of one man have several husbands of their own it becomes a total mess. For one thing which father would be responsible for a given child? Would they all have to be DNA tested?
I'm not against multiple marriage in principle but a lot of legal issues would need to be sorted out.
And quite possibly when they're alive. Polygamy tends to devalue women by making them just part of a set. And as things stand now the husband has no responsibility to any of the wives but the first one.
"I don't think the rule about survivor benefits was ever used against gay marriage. "
I had that exact argument with more than one person. "Allowing them the same benefits as married people will overwhelm the system and hurt all married people" I actually had one person tell me that 'as a tax-loving liberal' I should be worried about all these people paying less in taxes because they can file as married.
You should get out and meet a better class of people.
Logically the argument you cited should apply against all married people since they overwhelm the system and hurt single people.
I'm reminded of a line from "Lower 48," a song from the Gourds:"I married my cousin up in Arkansas/Married two more when I got to Utah"
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
We may have married for love (and the sex. That was really good, too.), but we moved the date up four months because of health insurance. Ms. Gnome had none, and I had the good stuff from a state job. She asked me to stop on my way over to her place after work and pick up a prescription for her, and she'd pay me back. The bill was $60.00. When I got there, I said, "You know, if we were married, this would have cost you $15."
Everyone assumed I'd knocked her up when the date changed.
My understanding, from the year I spent at a Mormon college, is that Mormon men were being killed because people hate people who are different, and there was a surplus of women, including but not limited to widows with children, who needed someone to provide for and protect them (this was back in the day, after all). Now, this reasoning is paper thin and if you look too closely the holes are real big, but that's what they taught 20 years ago when asked.
Saw a TV interview with a polygamist who was asked the question, "What would you think if your daughter or wife had two husbands?"He replied, "Doesn't matter what I think. That's not God's Plan." Can't argue with that, huh? It's good to have God on your side. My wife's nephew wanted to buy an expensive truck. His wife complained and he said, "I prayed to God about it, and He told me that He wanted me to have it."
Oh, you and your "facts" getting in the way of a good anecdote.
Aren't all of the people participating in such marriages consenting adults? As long as they are whose business is it? True freedom is scary and that's one reason we don't experience it.
upfist for Steve Dahl reference...
as I mentioned in another non-comment yesterday, they can decriminalize polygamous behavior if they want, but we should be able to withdraw their statehood in return.
Sorry to be weird, but withdrawing their statehood sounds like a Mormon form of birth control.
If "polygamy and domestic abuse go hand in hand" is NOT up for debate. There are certain men who will beat on women whether married, dating, or just for kicks. Having polygamy decriminalized will not change those men. It will only remove consequences for the men and access to services for the victims. Of course, the victims may not use the services, but they will be available.
Ta; glad to have read that.