Honest Question re: Polygamy

[NotoriousRBG]

If the government has no business interfering in the lives of two consenting adults, how can anyone here argue that the government does have standing to interfere with three consenting adults?

Madness abounds.

[NuclearDem]

1. Missed one, EarlG.

[closeupready]

3. Probably, yes.

[NaturalHigh]

2. I agree with you.

[LostOne4Ever]

4. Honest? Yeah right.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]BTW nice being the sole vote for the judge here.

You are totally not a troll [/font]

[niyad]

6. thank you for pointing that out. somehow, not in the least surprising.

[cwydro]

5. Do you have a preference for toppings?

Meat lovers? Pepperoni?

[niyad]

7. probably a combo

[cwydro]

8. Oh yes, the Skinner special.

I've seen a few of those served!

[niyad]

9. indeed we have!!

[SheilaT]

10. What three or more consenting adults

do in privacy is no business of the government.

But given the legal and financial benefits that accrue married couples (and in some cases divorced people) then the government has a right to make a few rules.

Social Security is one. If there are three, four, ten adults married to each other, and one divorces out of the relationship after they've all been married ten years, do the other two, three, or nine get to collect the spousal benefit at retirement? Or a man has six wives, dies, do they all get the widow's benefit?

How about pensions? Right now most people, when they go to collect a pension, can choose a lower amount so that a surviving spouse gets a portion of the pension holder dies first. How would that work if you have two or more spouses?

Inheritance. Child support. Probably lots of other things I'm not thinking of.

Divorce itself. Imagine the nightmare of property settlement if more than two consenting adults are involved.

On the other hand, think of how much more employment for lawyers in this field.

[jberryhill]

12. You're not going to get an answer

The people starting these threads don't answer these questions.

Whether shit-stirrers or merely ignorant, they will not distinguish between equal protection under existing laws, and something that requires a paradigmatic redraft of a host of new laws.

[uppityperson]

14. Exactly.

[pnwmom]

16. Best answer. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

11. Honest answer:

form a corporation. problem solved.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Where are all the droves of brave, brave advocates who were glutting up these threads so recently?

See how swiftly they dropped the issue they claimed such passions about? Fucking shams.

[pnwmom]

15. The issue isn't whether such relationships should be criminalized or interfered with.

The question is whether they should be given the legal status of a marriage -- whether the law must be changed to accommodate marriages of more than two -- and, if so, how many more, and how that would work, and what the effects would be on society.