Polygamy, right or wrong?

[GhostWriter16]

If it was good enough for the Old Testament, it's good enough for us now, amirite?

I assume your kidding, right? I do know the Mormon Church is anti-polygamy now, and that you're a Mormon...

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Why not simply give the privileges of marriage only to those who actually fulfill the alleged purpose of marriage (which is the upbringing of children, I assume).

Tax benefits only for those who bring up children, period. No matter in which form (as long as the well-being of the child is guaranteed).

The legislator can then stop worrying about what marriage is and what forms it extends to at all. Leave that up for the religious institutions for those who care about it.

Honestly, why does marriage confer tax benefits at all? What's so special about a married couple that an unmarried, but living-together couple doesn't have? Is it really that they stood together in front of a guy in a robe and said "I do" to each other? Is that really enough to get so many benefits?

 

[kochman]

If it was good enough for the Old Testament, it's good enough for us now, amirite?

I don't think that is a good line of thinking...

That being said, can women have more than one husband as well? I assume so.

If people can deal with it, all are consenting, then, well... have fun with that.
It will backfire, but that doesn't mean we should try to legislate "morality".

 

[kochman]

Honestly, why does marriage confer tax benefits at all? What's so special about a married couple that an unmarried, but living-together couple doesn't have? Is it really that they stood together in front of a guy in a robe and said "I do" to each other? Is that really enough to get so many benefits?

It's a form of social engineering.
The government wants whatever it takes to get a broader tax base... so, tax credits that lead to higher revenue are seen as a necessary evil... I suppose.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

It's a form of social engineering.
The government wants whatever it takes to get a broader tax base... so, tax credits that lead to higher revenue are seen as a necessary evil... I suppose.

Perhaps. I think we might be better off if we just eliminated the "benefits" of marriage, or made it so that you could apply for them just as well if you were living together as unmarried. I mean, really. Religious ceremonies are nice and good and all, but our government shouldn't be giving benefits from them!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Consenting adults, check. No harm to anyone, check. Hesitant about exploitation risks as was mentioned in thread though. But no moral objections.

 

[Core Imposter]

Given the state of moral decay in America today, polygamy might be an improvement. It would make for some interesting reality shows in which Oprah and her seven husbands work out their issues.

I can see Oprah assigning various menfolk to various adopted waifs.

For all intents and purposes we have worse than polygamy now with the whole babymama thing.

 

[Leoreth]

Honestly, why does marriage confer tax benefits at all? What's so special about a married couple that an unmarried, but living-together couple doesn't have? Is it really that they stood together in front of a guy in a robe and said "I do" to each other? Is that really enough to get so many benefits?

The usual argument is that it provides a stable environment to bring up children and that's beneficial for society which should be supported by others. That's why I proposed to give this benefit only to those who actually do this, no matter if they undergo some ritual first.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

For all intents and purposes we have worse than polygamy now with the whole babymama thing.

Wow , another string to your bow.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Well it defeats the purpose of marriage since it is meant to be a lifelong partnership with one person, normally the opposite sex to you, but as we "expand" this definition we will see that we are basically destroying the purpose of marriage.

Why do you feel you have to have an opinion on how others are involved in marriage though? Why not live and let live?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Why do you feel you have to have an opinion on how others are involved in marriage though? Why not live and let live?

He has a book that says he can't do that. And he does everything the book says -- except for all that stuff it says that he doesn't do.

 

[say1988]

Honestly, why does marriage confer tax benefits at all? What's so special about a married couple that an unmarried, but living-together couple doesn't have? Is it really that they stood together in front of a guy in a robe and said "I do" to each other? Is that really enough to get so many benefits?

All tax benefits are obtained by common law partners.

The main benefit is the ability to transfer/combine deductions/credits and use both of their allotment for each braket. This is based on the idea that one partner is the primary income source and the other provides support that is generally not compensated for. Yes, it is somewhat outdated with teh idea that the wife would stay at home and do the cooking and cleaning, but that doesn't eman it is wrong.

In the US, if the husband or wife, as the sole providerm earns $15,000 he would enter the second bracket and pay $1,815 in taxes. If both of them earn $7,500 they would both be in the bottom bracket and be taxed $1,500. By filing jointly these situations are equalas the bottom bracket is doubled.
I would also note, that as you enter higher tax brackets there is a small advantage to singles over married.
In Canada, joint filing does not exist, but the majority of deductions are transferable between spouses, so if only one works, then that partner can claim a base personal exemption and an equal spousal amount (if the spouse has income, then only what is not needed to reduce that partner's taxes to nil is transferred). This applies to other credits as well.

All of this makes perfect logical sense from the perspective that finances are combines and all income attributed to one party is provided for both and if one party isn't employed they are providing support at home. While it is somewhat outdated, I don't think we want to incentivize couples to hold two full time obs if it is not necessary (nor should it be disincentivized, just held balanced).

 

[Formaldehyde]

As Wanda Sipes pointed out:

That's what they want: two women. Fellas, I think that's a bit lofty. Because, come on, think about it -- if you can't satisfy that one woman, why do you want to piss off another one? Why have two angry women in the bed with you at the same time? And think about it -- you know how much you hate to talk after sex, imagine having two women just nagging you to death.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Why do you feel you have to have an opinion on how others are involved in marriage though? Why not live and let live?

Although I am also in disagreement with CH in regards to such restrictions on marriage, I doubt any of us truly "live and let live", we just vary to the degree to which we apply this.

He has a book that says he can't do that. And he does everything the book says -- except for all that stuff it says that he doesn't do.

We all have some morals rooted in "Well it's just plain wrong" that can fail logical examination, not just people who's morals are based around a book.

 

[emzie]

That being said, can women have more than one husband as well? I assume so.

Well, that's not polygamy It's polyandry and it's pretty rare. Though obviously that would be legal as well.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Well, that's not polygamy It's polyandry and it's pretty rare. Though obviously that would be legal as well.

It's polygamy. It's not polygyny.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Leoreth
You are absolutely right. The beauty is your simple logic and the sensation is the obvious merit of your suggestion after one has heard it.

But I wonder if there is any chance in hell that a party could dare to do that. Well maybe, because focusing on children will give people with children greater benefits and unmarried people a lesser burden. And as the number of unmarried people increases, so should the general potential for popular support.

 

[Leonel]

I really don't care if a guy wants multiple wives or a woman wants multiple husbands. Whatever consenting adults want to do, that's their business, not the state's.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Well it defeats the purpose of marriage since it is meant to be a lifelong partnership with one person, normally the opposite sex to you, but as we "expand" this definition we will see that we are basically destroying the purpose of marriage.

Wouldn't polygamy be just two or more marriages, two or more lifelong partnerships with a person?

 

[vypernight]

It fit were legal, it needs to be equal. If a man can have a two wives, then a woman can have two husbands. None of this Mormon B.S. where everything is only legal for the male.

I kind of think the whole purpose of it originally was so some guys had an excuse to have multiple women without being accused of cheating. Then again, we men are scum when it comes to religion.