General Discussion

LostOne4Ever

(9,755 posts)

9. Okay

Sun Dec 28, 2014, 05:43 PM

Dec 2014

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Lets say a straight woman marries one man and then another.

Are the men married to each other? If one of them wants a divorce, what percentage of the income from each person does the ex-spouse get in alimony from the woman and other man? What if a man wants a 2nd wife but the first wife doesn't want to agree to it? The first wife's income and rights would be affected and then the question of what say she gets in HER own marriage becomes a question. What about the Man? Or the woman he wants to marry? If one man wants to divorce the other man but not the woman will that work? How would property be divided up?

Imagaine:
Person A is married to persons B and C
Person B is married to persons A and D.
Person C is married to persons A and E.
Person D is married to persons B and F.
Person E is married to persons C and G.
Person F is married to persons D and H.

How are they ever going to get that to work? Or taxes? Or who owns what property? Joint bank accounts? Who gets whose SS? Who gets what part of their job benefits? What if Wife A is divorcing Husband B who tries to get around it by transferring all his assets to wife D?

Divorce and marriage laws would have to be completely reworked. There are over a 1000 rights and privileges associated with marriage and almost every one would have to be worked from the ground up. As things are with 2 people divorces are messy long affairs, now image that with 3, 4 , or 5 people.

Not to mention that almost every case of polygamy (not true group marriage but similar) involves abuse and exploitation? How do you prevent that?

Also, don't forget, we would have to settle all the disagreements that would come up in handling these issues. There are no dictators in this country.

Group marriage is a hornet's nest of legal, logistical and ethical issues. Fix all of those and you have my support, but otherwise I think supporting that would shatter our family courts.[/font]

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

156 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should plural marriage (more than one partner) be legalized? [View all] discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 OP

why not? belzabubba333 Dec 2014 #1

I'd say do away with the institution legally first treestar Dec 2014 #2

IMHO, not a bad idea... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #71

so you want to eliminate marriage laws and replace them with the same thing CreekDog Dec 2014 #87

This is an argument that rose during the marriage equality debate Algernon Moncrieff Dec 2014 #92

Why is it... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #95

I went to a clerk, paid for one document, and signed it in front of witnesses at the church Algernon Moncrieff Dec 2014 #102

I think that is what will happen in the long run treestar Dec 2014 #97

Not particularly treestar Dec 2014 #96

Yes if all parties involved are consenting and avebury Dec 2014 #3

This was one of my thoughts discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #98

Lawyers would love it tularetom Dec 2014 #4

The life insurance and retirement actuaries would have a nightmare though. TexasTowelie Dec 2014 #27

Are the kids on their own too? former9thward Dec 2014 #100

How is that? Almost 50% of all births are to unmarried partners already. The CS system in kelly1mm Jan 2015 #126

You are saying 50% is a good thing??? former9thward Jan 2015 #131

No, it is not much harder to establish child support without a marriage, at least in MD, kelly1mm Jan 2015 #132

It is far more likely the father former9thward Jan 2015 #134

You seem to be saying that men only work (or more men work) when they are married than kelly1mm Jan 2015 #135

Father's do not get custody execept in rare former9thward Jan 2015 #136

In Maryland, in 2013, fathers received primary custody in 52% of all contested child custody cases. kelly1mm Jan 2015 #137

Futher, why do you think if the mother is fit, she gets the kids? 1) that is not the law in ANY kelly1mm Jan 2015 #138

I do not do family law former9thward Jan 2015 #141

I think you may have missed the 23% of ALL cases in MD for 2013 where fathers get primary custody. kelly1mm Jan 2015 #144

You proved my point. former9thward Dec 2015 #155

you don't do family law, you just comment on it CreekDog Dec 2015 #154

No. I don't . former9thward Dec 2015 #156

It would be an ethical, logistical, and legal nightmare... fix those problems then we'll talk (nt) LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #5

No it would not. dilby Dec 2014 #6

Okay LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #9

Why is the text like that? 951-Riverside Dec 2014 #23

Formatting I do to make my post stand out LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #24

Your posts definitely stand out Capt. Obvious Dec 2014 #39

I also find it off-putting dumbcat Dec 2014 #44

I skip over his posts and read the responses Capt. Obvious Dec 2014 #47

Some people like it some don't. If you don't Ill make sure to reply to you using normal formatting. LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #53

If you don't like it let me know and I will make my replies to you in normal text LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #54

Well I like it pipi_k Dec 2014 #46

Thank you very much! LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #57

Boffo! LostOne4Ever rock Dec 2014 #52

Thank you! LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #58

None of these issues is unique to polygamy. Orsino Dec 2014 #42

Every case of polygamy I have heard of LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #60

Re: "...I have heard of... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #65

Haven't these cases also turned into big state-supported Ilsa Dec 2014 #80

Your fonts and color choices are great ChazII Dec 2014 #56

Thanks again LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #59

All of those issues are less complicated than you realize Nevernose Dec 2014 #26

Depends on what you mean it is legal LostOne4Ever Dec 2014 #61

Gay marriage used to be an ethical, logistical, and legal nightmare and we still fought for their liberal_at_heart Jan 2015 #149

Start having parades, and demand equality ... JoePhilly Dec 2014 #7

This is one of the key issues which may bury plural marriage discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #62

i haven't heard the term plural marriage used CreekDog Dec 2014 #83

Too complicated if more than one partner is recognized by law. Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #8

Now toss in child custody for good measure. Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #13

'Complicated' isn't an excuse to deny people the right Bonx Dec 2014 #19

Just because someone says a thing is complicated doesn't mean it isn't complicated. Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #20

I'm not sure what your point is. Bonx Dec 2014 #25

Same sex marriage is in no way more legally complicated than hetero marriage gollygee Jan 2015 #119

Depends on the tax effects dumbcat Dec 2014 #10

How would you feel about... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #63

why are you so against laws relating to marriage? CreekDog Dec 2014 #84

People can schtup and love whoever they want. geek tragedy Dec 2014 #11

And I say... pipi_k Dec 2014 #12

I think it should be legal for people to live in whatever arrangement they choose, if everyone is a Warren DeMontague Dec 2014 #14

Marry 12 people, if that's what you choose to do. bigwillq Dec 2014 #15

#3 Boreal Dec 2014 #16

I have no problem with it tabbycat31 Dec 2014 #17

This represents a dramatic enforced change in laws, so it's nothing the government should recognize. Yo_Mama Dec 2014 #18

How many mothers-in-law do you really want?!?!?!? ManiacJoe Dec 2014 #21

And anniversary gifts to buy? Nye Bevan Dec 2014 #22

Somewhere, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are laughing their asses off. cherokeeprogressive Dec 2014 #28

What happens and who pays whom when the inevitable STD gets passed around? TexasTowelie Dec 2014 #29

Tax code nightmare. Starry Messenger Dec 2014 #30

Option 3 I really don't care JonLP24 Dec 2014 #31

Marriage can be overrated. WheelWalker Dec 2014 #32

And undervalued. Sweeney Dec 2014 #34

It should not be allowed. Sweeney Dec 2014 #33

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2014 #36

The effect is the same: Sweeney Dec 2014 #37

Make it 10 men and one woman Capt. Obvious Dec 2014 #40

Except for number two on the hit list. Sweeney Dec 2014 #45

So what's the difference between pipi_k Dec 2014 #48

The socially un regulate sexuality of some men is a problem. Sweeney Dec 2014 #67

A look into ENDOGAMY, the practice of marrying within a specific ethnic group, class or social group appalachiablue Dec 2014 #70

I am aware that Jewish people were exempted from such bans because Sweeney Dec 2014 #74

Until railroads most people never traveled much beyond 20 miles from their communities. The links appalachiablue Dec 2014 #75

Many believe Elizabeth was an xy female, sterile, masculine in many respects. Sweeney Dec 2014 #79

That seems plausible for Eliz. At least she lived and was pretty healthy unlike her younger bro. appalachiablue Dec 2014 #82

Syphilis which supposedly can only be contacted when the symptoms are showing Sweeney Dec 2014 #88

I actually wasn't intending pipi_k Dec 2014 #104

We have to find a way for such marriages to become undone... krispos42 Dec 2014 #35

+1. Nt riderinthestorm Dec 2014 #41

Hah!!! pipi_k Dec 2014 #49

But we have to have the debate first krispos42 Dec 2014 #50

Having been involved in a polyamorous relationship before for quite some time Blue_Adept Dec 2014 #38

I feel the same way about this that I do about drugs and other similar 'sin' issues stevenleser Dec 2014 #43

I Voted for #1 ProfessorGAC Dec 2014 #51

They can do that now, without marriage. If you have an unrelated SO and you pay for their kelly1mm Jan 2015 #127

Why? SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #140

I passed because I do not care about the marriage part. What I do care about is that the extra jwirr Dec 2014 #55

Are you okay with the current tax benefit for marriage? n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #64

Do you mean that married couples get a break that singles do not get? I do not know enough jwirr Dec 2014 #66

For example... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #68

I am sure that the Texas thing really ended up costing the taxpayers a fortune and did not change jwirr Dec 2014 #69

I'd say no, although conceivably the whole thing could be done consensually CreekDog Dec 2014 #72

Thanks for the feedback... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #73

Why do you ask this question though? CreekDog Dec 2014 #85

Seems like a fair question... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #91

How does society "underwrite" the arrangement of marriage? CreekDog Dec 2014 #110

when are your taxes higher due to marriage? discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #113

There is a MASSIVE marriage penalty in the ACA (Obamacare). Two single people kelly1mm Jan 2015 #128

I answered, how about you? discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #115

this is one thought about what you're proposing: CreekDog Jan 2015 #120

Thanks... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2015 #122

Well you don't want government recognition of marriage CreekDog Jan 2015 #123

I suppose discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2015 #124

Ooh Ooh, I know, I know! NYC_SKP Jan 2015 #147

Plural marriage has been used way to often to subjugate women. Agnosticsherbet Dec 2014 #76

I've heard that argument Algernon Moncrieff Dec 2014 #93

In that instance, they are wiling. Agnosticsherbet Dec 2014 #103

I would not be willing to strip women (or men) of agency due to the fact that some are taken kelly1mm Jan 2015 #129

as a guy i have no problem either way Ramses Dec 2014 #77

The potential legal knots not withstanding, 3catwoman3 Dec 2014 #78

This message was self-deleted by its author pathansen Dec 2014 #81

i think a previous poll question you asked is relevant to this discussion CreekDog Dec 2014 #86

I'd like to see 'equal protection (and treatment) under the law discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #94

Head of household is not temporary (so long as you qualify) You are thinking of qualifying widow(er) kelly1mm Jan 2015 #130

Not touching this one with a 10 foot pole davidpdx Dec 2014 #89

I can't think of a single case in modern history where this type of situation underahedgerow Dec 2014 #90

All one has to do is research the very sad stories of women who endure polygamy TexasMommaWithAHat Dec 2014 #99

For the record... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #101

again, why if you're against the government recognizing marriage at all CreekDog Dec 2014 #105

According to the poll... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #106

but you've said you're against those benefits CreekDog Dec 2014 #107

I like survivor benefits discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #108

So if we make all tax consequences of marriage neutral, then you'd be satisfied CreekDog Dec 2014 #109

i'd be okay with that discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #111

Yes and you mentioned Warren Jeffs CreekDog Dec 2014 #112

so would I discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #114

Marriage as an institution benefits society as a whole TexasMommaWithAHat Dec 2014 #116

I like marriage discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #117

Yes, but it should not receive all the same benefits. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #118

Inheritace taxes between spouses are $0. You could give your spouse 5 trillion dollars kelly1mm Jan 2015 #133

Why is the government involved with an individual's interpersonal relationships anyway? PowerToThePeople Jan 2015 #121

+1 liberal_at_heart Jan 2015 #150

I'm not sure how I feel about this, Trillo Jan 2015 #125

Yep SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #139

Long history of abuse with multiple wives n2doc Jan 2015 #142

Then we would have to outlaw all marriage because domestic abuse is a huge problem in marriage liberal_at_heart Jan 2015 #151

I just do not get the willingness of some progressives to strip others of agency. Paternalism kelly1mm Jan 2015 #152

Just curious - why are you asking? Is there a movement to allow them? jwirr Jan 2015 #143

They exist; it's illegal; people are doing it anyway discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2015 #145

Thank you. I agree. jwirr Jan 2015 #146

Of course. Consenting adults should be able to be married. liberal_at_heart Jan 2015 #148

Yes! Why not? If people are happy to be in a polygamous relationship, why should we care? BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #153