Why only two? Why can’t three marry?
Chekmate, it’s obvious that the 50/50 split idea is not getting any support. Would you like to withdraw it so that proper attention can be paid to the rest of the OP?
So why can’t three (or more) people get married? Part of the idea behind a “life partner” is that there will be someone to make the calls if you become unable to handle your own affairs. Having a second “life partner” would defeat that making it a committee-based decision process. It would also complicate the legal and financial issues enormously. I suppose if there was a big outpouring of support for poligamy then that could be overcome, but I’m not hearing it.
Your next-of-kin argument falls on the floor when you consider who the next-of-kin is for an unmarried adult with no adult children and two living parents (the answer: both parents, with no preference for either) or an unmarried adult with no children, no living parents, and two or more surviving siblings (the answer: any of them, with no preference). The “added” complexity that multiple marriage would create in this area is no greater, and likely to be less because marriage relations, unlike kinship ties, are voluntary (unlike siblings).
That aside, I challenge the validity of your position. Restrictive law cannot be supported by stating that there is no demand for the absence of the restriction. Restrictions must be supported by positive evidence that the restriction is necessary, and necessary enough to justify the loss of liberty imposed. You haven’t given a good reason why liberty should be restricted (just “it would be complicated” which is not a very good reason). Freedom isn’t just about doing the things you want to do, but also ensuring that everyone can do the things they want to do, or at least as much as is possible without endangering the liberty and safety of others.
OK. Two or more, then. That’s fine with me.
Oops, that should be three or more. Whatever.
The lack of support for polygamy is only based on the assumption that it’s “wrong”, and there’s no objective reason, apart our own cultural and religious traditions, which back this assumption. It’s so much ingrained that you’ll quite never heard/read someone bothering to explain why polygamy is wrong. I’d vote to allow it any day.
You may not have Clairo, but I’ve heard a number of reasons.
In any event, the day this law gets passed, I’m startign a revolution to destroy the country its enacted in.
You conveniently neglect to set forth any justification for your call to arms. IMO, anyone who is going to assert that legalizing polygamy (or any other practice, really) is grounds for overthrowing a government needs to work a lot harder than you have to justify that assertion. “Reasons I’ve heard of but don’t feel like sharing with you” doesn’t cut it.
BTW, before you assert that polygamy leads to child abuse, spousal abuse, incest, or welfare fraud, I suggest you read through the previous threads on this issue. You may find them here, here, here, here, and here (along with possibly others; the search function is your friend). Some of us are tired of refuting the same old tired arguments over and over again.
Such as? (On preview, I see Kelly M has already covered this, but I’ll leave it in anyway)
To step away from the polygamy tangent for a bit, what about a type of “life contract” between two people that was lesser or in addition to marriage? A woman moves in with her cousin’s wife after he passes away in order to help raise the kids. There is no romantic relationship between the two women, but they do share a common bond. Shouldn’t they benefit from tax breaks and such as now, for all intents and purposes, they are part of the same family unit? Perhaps a type of contract could be developed that didn’t replace marriages, offered less benefits than marriages, but still aided non-traditional families. I’m thinking of a social instituion that was a commitment to another person, but a lesser commitment than marriage. Any ideas how this could work?