I don’t doubt that. You have made a lifestyle choice that is atypical, which is not a crime IMO. However, I’m sure you understood what the consequences would be.
Three is a small number of adult mates. What about 9? Or 18? Current laws, cultural traditions etc. are designed for pairings. Two. Changing the law in particular would be a nightmare and would jeopardize protections for monogamous couples, mainly against adultery. And what about spousal support? Insurance benefits? Old Age Pensions? Taxation? Child support? There is a conflict in trying to treat two individuals married to each other as one, and trying to treat many as one.
Assuming polygamy were made legal, being an exception to the rule doesn’t mean your family would have no alternatives to obtain some protections. Domestic contracts exist now that could be more easily adapted to multi-partner unions than current marriage laws. In the event of one partner leaving a polygamous family, mediation allows for flexibility in terms of negotiating separation agreements.
While I appreciate the information you provided through that link, it would have been better had you given it to me when I first showed my ignorance of the acronym, “HYSBYW?”
I gotta be honest with you, I’m confused. You spent 95% of your response attacking my ignorance, treating me with contemptuous disdain, and labeling all of my arguments as fallacious in some way. But then you close with a straight up question asking for my response. You’ve lost me, AZ.
Tell you what. I’m gonna study the page you supplied, and a few others in order to better myself so that next time you and I lock horns perhaps we can have a substantive discussion.
There are no effective legal protections against adultery. This has been explained earlier in this thread. Virtually all divorces in this country are filed under nonfault clauses even when adultery is present, and laws criminalizing adultery are not enforced. This is therefore a nonissue.
Spousal support has been repealed in the majority of states with only very limited exceptions (such as a disabled spouse). Nonissue.
My (former) employer’s insurance plan requires the payment of an additional premium that is (I believe) 90% of their cost if you want your spouse covered. How hard would it be to require the payment of an additional premium for each additional spouse you want covered? Wow. Not hard at all. Nonissue.
This is a fixed benefit; if you have multiple spouses it would be divided equally amongst them. Nonissue.
What about taxation? The tax code currently punishes families with more than one wage earner who get married. We’re already pressuring Congress to rewrite it.
The formula used to compute child support in virtually all states (add up the total income of the parents, compute the amount that it costs to support the child(ren) using a legislatively or judicially established table, and apportion that cost to the parents proportionally to their income) is readily generalizable to the n-parent situation. Nonissue. (In fact, from a public policy standpoint, this would be preferable to the current regime: it decreases the likelihood that any given child will have to go on welfare, because it increases the number of persons that a given child would be able to draw support from.)
Asserted without proof. As far as I can tell, you are reflexively defending monogamy without actually critically considering the arguments you’re trying to raise against polygamy. That’s ok, we’re used to it. :rolleyes: It’s not like you’ve made any arguments here that we haven’t all see a hundred times before.
You’re still missing that there are existing laws in many parts of this nation that make it a crime to be in a polyamorous relationship. These laws appear to be very ineffective in reducing infidelity in relationships where the parties have committed to monogamy, while creating an environment of fear and distrust in those relationships where the parties have not committed to monogamy. Laws that do not accomplish their intended purpose, while acting at cross purposes to others in organizing their lives in the manner that they have freely chosen, should be repealed. As it stands, a “domestic arrangement” contract that contemplates a polyamorous structure stands liable to being held void by the courts because it “violates public policy”. I know that were I asked to argue the case of someone seeking to avoid such a contract, I would make that argument.
Cool. And I’ll look forward to future debates with you.
And you’re right, I was not particularly clear on the presupposition fallacy, and the HYSBYW? acronym - I made a poor assumption, sorry 'bout that.
I respect all the newbies who choose to “cut their teeth” on the SDMB in GD - it can be a rough place.
msklystron, if you don’t find KellyM’s rebuttal to your litany of issues against legal acceptance of polygamy, you may find it useful to review the posts in the thread that actually spurred this one: Polygamy - non-religious objections? Many were dealt with in more detail.
Thanks. I’m going to wing it for the moment, but I will look them up. Problem is, Canadian laws are somewhat different and that’s all I know.
Here’s an atheism link (I’m not trying to convert you) that covers the common logical fallacies quite well in case you want to bone up for your discussions with Wrenchslinger.
Marriage is defined by exclusivity, which hardly makes adultery a non-issue. Most, not all divorces are granted in Canada due to irreconcilable differences (no-fault). Mental/ physical cruelty and adultery grounds remain on the books and are sought very occasionally.
Spousal support is commonly granted in Canada, especially when there is a large gap between the husband’s and wife’s incomes and when one spouse has stayed at home to raise children full- or part-time. Equalizing income ensures that the lower income spouse and particularly the children of the union maintain a similar standard of living as that enjoyed before the break up.
Multi-partner spouses are free to pay full premiums like singles or anyone else. Employers often pay a portion of certain insurance benefits. They ain’t gonna want to pay towards dental work on 9 wives. Would benefits, support inheritance, assets & property at time of divorce etc. be divided equally? What if one spouse has contributed to the marital finances or home for much longer? Divorce laws in Canada would recognize length of contribution, while insurance/ death benefits would not. That’s unfair.
[Quote]
What about taxation? The tax code currently punishes families with more than one wage earner who get married. We’re already pressuring Congress to rewrite it.
I can tell you how it works in Canada. Single income family earning $100,000 is taxed at 29%. Double income couple earning $50,000 each are taxed at 26% and the double income family is not subject to certain surtaxes and doesn’t qualify of other tax reductions. Three spouses earning each $33,000, would each be taxed at 17%. If they had varied incomes, the amount would be lumped together to caluculate certain deductions. Large polygamous families with several wage earners would lose out. And I wonder doubt the gov’t would want to foot the bill for claims of the ‘married’ beyond one. With 9 spouses, the designated head of the household (if that was clear???) would reduce his/ her tax owed substantially. Anyway, it was relatively very easy change Canadian tax laws, forms etc. to count same-sex couples as married, but it would be really tricky and costly to do the same for polygamists.
We have a similar table to caluculate child support in Canada. I was thinking of a case where the head of a polygamous household has children with several spouses. His whole income would be used to calculate what he would pay, when he still has to support the children of spouses remaining in the marriage. They’d be eating a lot of Kraft dinner… tightening the belt. This is unlikely to change. As it stands now, children from a former marriage are paid the same support regardless of the birth of children born to a new relationship.
I realize polygamy is considered a crime. I have stated that polygamy should be legalized. Period.
I think most intelligent people know the difference between infidelity and a mult-partnered relationship. It is consent. Plain and simple. Any fear or distrust of polygamy comes from fear of the other, that which is different, closed mindedness or ignorance.
You’d have to repeal a whole mess of laws by this logic. Many bi-laws and laws on the books represent the nature, expectations or properties of behaviour or agreements, and yet they cannot be enforced every time. For example, date rape is often based on one party’s word against the other, ‘No’ nothwithstanding, cases are thrown out if corroberating evidence is not available.
Kelly, I can come up with a host of reasons why polygamy should be legal. That is what I would focus on. Educate people. Lobby to legalize it. However, tryingto fit it into a set of laws etc. designed specifically for a fundamentally different adult relationship – monogamy-- is not the way to go. Polygamy can stand on it’s own as a lifestyle choice for a small minority, with it’s own laws and contracts.
I just sat through a divorce seminar. Divorce between two parties is messy, complicated business. It would likely be moreso for polygamists, especially since it’s considered a crime. This is what must be addressed first. Fight to make polygamy legal and domestic contracts would provide some protection.
I think people should get three year marriage licences and when they expire they are divorced but free to get married again if they want to for another three years.
What about a yearly performance review? Don’t you think there should be a yearly performance review? If you get a bad review, you have to attend mandatory marriage counseling.
