New York Times weighs in on polygamy

[WinterBorn]

Should polygamy become legal, people would marry multiple spouses for extra income and/or tax considerations. It would completely decimate the tax system. Don't believe me? Just look at the millions of parents who have children for the tax breaks.

In a recent thread about stay-at-home mothers, one of the arguments was that it takes 2 incomes to support a family. Polygamy allows 2 incomes AND a stay-at-home parent.

Also, not all polygamous relationships involve one man with multiple wives. It also involves a woman with more than one husband or even multiples of both men & women.

Why should the gov't decide which is to be given special benefits and which should not?

 

[martybegan]

Right, and next people will be able to marry their dog, people will be able to marry 8 year old children ect ect ect

This sort of nonsense is the lowest form of strawman.

No, after polygamy I see incest laws and age of consent laws to around 14 or so being challenged.

Remember NAMBLA people arent pedophiles, they are pederasts, big difference.

I have asked before, who is harmed by polygamy?

If I ask that of the underage marriage, the answer is easy. It is the child.

But in a polygamous marriage, who is harmed? All of those involved enter into it willingly. If there is abuse it should be treated like we treat any domestic abuse.

Besides, by your logic and since the statistics say 1 in 4 women experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, shouldn't we outlaw marriage completely?

Take a look at the Fundemental mormon communities and see who is harmed. The girls forced to marry older men, the boys forced out of the communities to keep the gender imbalance at the proper level. You can't make a law saying "polygamous marriage is OK for everyone except wierd mormons."

In addition what is the societal benefit of allowing plural marriage?

 

[WinterBorn]

Should polygamy become legal, people would marry multiple spouses for extra income and/or tax considerations. It would completely decimate the tax system. Don't believe me? Just look at the millions of parents who have children for the tax breaks.

You can easily see what the end result will be...and I am not going on the deep end here.
The marital tax breaks will eventually be removed. The tax breaks are there to encourage marriage because it greatly-greatly-greatly stabilizes society and provides infinitely better care for resulting children.
But when marital status' value is marginalized by 'anyone can marry' - then we will see the end of the incentive.

Posted by WinterbornThen remove the tax breaks altogether. The gov't has no business being in the marriage arena anyway.

But if you keep the tax breaks, please explain why they are there? I think using taxes to encourage or punish behavior is so far beyond wrong as to be ridiculous.

But please explain why the tax breaks are given and why those same breaks should not be afforded other, nontraditional marriages.

I rest my case

Your case is far from being made.

If the gov't gives tax incentives for marriage to "...encourage marriage because it greatly-greatly-greatly stabilizes society and provides infinitely better care for resulting children", why would polygamous and gay marriage not qualify?

Gay marriage and polygamous marriage would provide the same stability and the same "...infinitely better care for resulting children" that straight marriages do. In fact, polygamous marriages could provide far better care for the children since it increases the chance that one of the parents will be at home full-time. Thereby negating child-care issues and latchkey kids.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, after polygamy I see incest laws and age of consent laws to around 14 or so being challenged.

Remember NAMBLA people arent pedophiles, they are pederasts, big difference.

I have asked before, who is harmed by polygamy?

If I ask that of the underage marriage, the answer is easy. It is the child.

But in a polygamous marriage, who is harmed? All of those involved enter into it willingly. If there is abuse it should be treated like we treat any domestic abuse.

Besides, by your logic and since the statistics say 1 in 4 women experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, shouldn't we outlaw marriage completely?

Take a look at the Fundemental mormon communities and see who is harmed. The girls forced to marry older men, the boys forced out of the communities to keep the gender imbalance at the proper level. You can't make a law saying "polygamous marriage is OK for everyone except wierd mormons."

In addition what is the societal benefit of allowing plural marriage?

Then don't change the age of consent laws. It is that simple.

One societal benefit would be better care of the children, since it increases the opportunity for a stay-at-home parent. Since one of the big reasons given for the tax incentives to begin with is to encourage the care of the children, this adds even more.

A better question is why we, as a society, have allowed the gov't to interfere in something as private and personal as marriage.

 

[martybegan]

I have asked before, who is harmed by polygamy?

If I ask that of the underage marriage, the answer is easy. It is the child.

But in a polygamous marriage, who is harmed? All of those involved enter into it willingly. If there is abuse it should be treated like we treat any domestic abuse.

Besides, by your logic and since the statistics say 1 in 4 women experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, shouldn't we outlaw marriage completely?

Take a look at the Fundemental mormon communities and see who is harmed. The girls forced to marry older men, the boys forced out of the communities to keep the gender imbalance at the proper level. You can't make a law saying "polygamous marriage is OK for everyone except wierd mormons."

In addition what is the societal benefit of allowing plural marriage?

Then don't change the age of consent laws. It is that simple.

One societal benefit would be better care of the children, since it increases the opportunity for a stay-at-home parent. Since one of the big reasons given for the tax incentives to begin with is to encourage the care of the children, this adds even more.

A better question is why we, as a society, have allowed the gov't to interfere in something as private and personal as marriage.

As I said before, thats going to be the next one people push for.

And the "better care for children" thing is a stretch. Ask the ones that get kicked out of said communities how that worked for them.

Polygamy as practiced by the Mormons is patriarchal in nature, and requires subservience of women to work. I would propose that removing that one source of power, and looking at say a more hippy dippy plural marriage among equals, that childcare would be far worse, as relationships like that have a tendency of exploding due to the inherent nature of people, coupling, and the reality that "3 or more is a crowd"

 

[WinterBorn]

Take a look at the Fundemental mormon communities and see who is harmed. The girls forced to marry older men, the boys forced out of the communities to keep the gender imbalance at the proper level. You can't make a law saying "polygamous marriage is OK for everyone except wierd mormons."

In addition what is the societal benefit of allowing plural marriage?

Then don't change the age of consent laws. It is that simple.

One societal benefit would be better care of the children, since it increases the opportunity for a stay-at-home parent. Since one of the big reasons given for the tax incentives to begin with is to encourage the care of the children, this adds even more.

A better question is why we, as a society, have allowed the gov't to interfere in something as private and personal as marriage.

As I said before, thats going to be the next one people push for.

And the "better care for children" thing is a stretch. Ask the ones that get kicked out of said communities how that worked for them.

Polygamy as practiced by the Mormons is patriarchal in nature, and requires subservience of women to work. I would propose that removing that one source of power, and looking at say a more hippy dippy plural marriage among equals, that childcare would be far worse, as relationships like that have a tendency of exploding due to the inherent nature of people, coupling, and the reality that "3 or more is a crowd"

And if people push for something that victimizes a child or allows abuse, we do not allow it. Polygamy does neither.

As for those who were kicked out of a community, isn't that them simply obeying a religious leader? Would you outlaw that?

And we are not talking about frivolous threesomes. We are discussing whether consenting adults should be refused gov't benefits for doing the same thing standard married people do.

The simple fact is that polygamous marriages provide the same benefits to society that standard marriages provide. Therefore, they should be given the same gov't benefits.

But again, I believe that the gov't should not be in the marriage business in the first place.

 

[martybegan]

Then don't change the age of consent laws. It is that simple.

One societal benefit would be better care of the children, since it increases the opportunity for a stay-at-home parent. Since one of the big reasons given for the tax incentives to begin with is to encourage the care of the children, this adds even more.

A better question is why we, as a society, have allowed the gov't to interfere in something as private and personal as marriage.

As I said before, thats going to be the next one people push for.

And the "better care for children" thing is a stretch. Ask the ones that get kicked out of said communities how that worked for them.

Polygamy as practiced by the Mormons is patriarchal in nature, and requires subservience of women to work. I would propose that removing that one source of power, and looking at say a more hippy dippy plural marriage among equals, that childcare would be far worse, as relationships like that have a tendency of exploding due to the inherent nature of people, coupling, and the reality that "3 or more is a crowd"

And if people push for something that victimizes a child or allows abuse, we do not allow it. Polygamy does neither.

As for those who were kicked out of a community, isn't that them simply obeying a religious leader? Would you outlaw that?

And we are not talking about frivolous threesomes. We are discussing whether consenting adults should be refused gov't benefits for doing the same thing standard married people do.

The simple fact is that polygamous marriages provide the same benefits to society that standard marriages provide. Therefore, they should be given the same gov't benefits.

But again, I believe that the gov't should not be in the marriage business in the first place.

No, its them being forced to leave thier families so old men can "marry" multiple young girls.

Polygamous marriage does not provide the same benefits monogamous marriage does, it creates all sorts of issues above and beyond those encountered legally and practically in monogamous marriages.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Next is incest. Congrats libs!

Better outlaw monogamous heterosexual marriage then.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The sanctity of marriage is falling apart all on it's own yes - obvious. But this is due to the continuance of amorality and the decline of the family in America. All terrible. This is just another crack in the foundation.

This amorality is due to monogamous heterosexual marriage.

 

[Vox]

Next is incest. Congrats libs!

and pedo or oephebophilia

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Should polygamy become legal, people would marry multiple spouses for extra income and/or tax considerations. It would completely decimate the tax system. Don't believe me? Just look at the millions of parents who have children for the tax breaks.

You can easily see what the end result will be...and I am not going on the deep end here.
The marital tax breaks will eventually be removed. The tax breaks are there to encourage marriage because it greatly-greatly-greatly stabilizes society and provides infinitely better care for resulting children.
But when marital status' value is marginalized by 'anyone can marry' - then we will see the end of the incentive.

Posted by WinterbornThen remove the tax breaks altogether. The gov't has no business being in the marriage arena anyway.

But if you keep the tax breaks, please explain why they are there? I think using taxes to encourage or punish behavior is so far beyond wrong as to be ridiculous.

But please explain why the tax breaks are given and why those same breaks should not be afforded other, nontraditional marriages.

I rest my case

Your case is far from being made.

If the gov't gives tax incentives for marriage to "...encourage marriage because it greatly-greatly-greatly stabilizes society and provides infinitely better care for resulting children", why would polygamous and gay marriage not qualify?

Gay marriage and polygamous marriage would provide the same stability and the same "...infinitely better care for resulting children" that straight marriages do. In fact, polygamous marriages could provide far better care for the children since it increases the chance that one of the parents will be at home full-time. Thereby negating child-care issues and latchkey kids.

My "case" was we would see the end of the marital tax incentives. Wasn't so much commenting on your other points.
But now that you made them...what you are not looking at is the marginalization of marriage in general. People staying together in one household has many societal and economic benefits to society - I am sure you would not argue that. So he government provides a financial incentive and other legal rights to encourage people to do so. If/when marriage as a legal status is removed - then people will naturally become more nomadic and abandon each other which will have the opposite effect.
My concern is not so much gay marriage, which I don't really have an issue with - but the continuance of the erosion of marriage in our society as a whole. If anybody and everybody can "get married" - then the value is lost.
We will also soon see "couple marriages"...in which one couple can marry another couple.

 

[WinterBorn]

You can easily see what the end result will be...and I am not going on the deep end here.
The marital tax breaks will eventually be removed. The tax breaks are there to encourage marriage because it greatly-greatly-greatly stabilizes society and provides infinitely better care for resulting children.
But when marital status' value is marginalized by 'anyone can marry' - then we will see the end of the incentive.


I rest my case

Your case is far from being made.

If the gov't gives tax incentives for marriage to "...encourage marriage because it greatly-greatly-greatly stabilizes society and provides infinitely better care for resulting children", why would polygamous and gay marriage not qualify?

Gay marriage and polygamous marriage would provide the same stability and the same "...infinitely better care for resulting children" that straight marriages do. In fact, polygamous marriages could provide far better care for the children since it increases the chance that one of the parents will be at home full-time. Thereby negating child-care issues and latchkey kids.

My "case" was we would see the end of the marital tax incentives. Wasn't so much commenting on your other points.
But now that you made them...what you are not looking at is the marginalization of marriage in general. People staying together in one household has many societal and economic benefits to society - I am sure you would not argue that. So he government provides a financial incentive and other legal rights to encourage people to do so. If/when marriage as a legal status is removed - then people will naturally become more nomadic and abandon each other which will have the opposite effect.
My concern is not so much gay marriage, which I don't really have an issue with - but the continuance of the erosion of marriage in our society as a whole. If anybody and everybody can "get married" - then the value is lost.
We will also soon see "couple marriages"...in which one couple can marry another couple.

Marriage has existed for thousands of years. Are you suggesting that if the gov't stops essentially paying people to be married, the institution will evaporate?

Why not give tax breaks to families with children on the honor roll? Why not give tax breaks to people who stay employed? To people who perform civil services?

Why not impose extra taxes on those who spend unwisely, or gamble, or eat too much red meat? Why not add more taxes to those who are on Wall Street for their effects on the economy?

Taxation is to provide funding for the gov't, nothing more. To use taxation as a form of social engineering or to somehow promote or reward morality is wrong on so many levels.

 

[WinterBorn]

As I said before, thats going to be the next one people push for.

And the "better care for children" thing is a stretch. Ask the ones that get kicked out of said communities how that worked for them.

Polygamy as practiced by the Mormons is patriarchal in nature, and requires subservience of women to work. I would propose that removing that one source of power, and looking at say a more hippy dippy plural marriage among equals, that childcare would be far worse, as relationships like that have a tendency of exploding due to the inherent nature of people, coupling, and the reality that "3 or more is a crowd"

And if people push for something that victimizes a child or allows abuse, we do not allow it. Polygamy does neither.

As for those who were kicked out of a community, isn't that them simply obeying a religious leader? Would you outlaw that?

And we are not talking about frivolous threesomes. We are discussing whether consenting adults should be refused gov't benefits for doing the same thing standard married people do.

The simple fact is that polygamous marriages provide the same benefits to society that standard marriages provide. Therefore, they should be given the same gov't benefits.

But again, I believe that the gov't should not be in the marriage business in the first place.

No, its them being forced to leave thier families so old men can "marry" multiple young girls.

Polygamous marriage does not provide the same benefits monogamous marriage does, it creates all sorts of issues above and beyond those encountered legally and practically in monogamous marriages.

Who is forcing them? Is it a state or federal law? No, it is them listening to their religious leaders.

What benefits does a monogamous marriage provide for society that a polygamous marriage would not?

 

[martybegan]

And if people push for something that victimizes a child or allows abuse, we do not allow it. Polygamy does neither.

As for those who were kicked out of a community, isn't that them simply obeying a religious leader? Would you outlaw that?

And we are not talking about frivolous threesomes. We are discussing whether consenting adults should be refused gov't benefits for doing the same thing standard married people do.

The simple fact is that polygamous marriages provide the same benefits to society that standard marriages provide. Therefore, they should be given the same gov't benefits.

But again, I believe that the gov't should not be in the marriage business in the first place.

No, its them being forced to leave thier families so old men can "marry" multiple young girls.

Polygamous marriage does not provide the same benefits monogamous marriage does, it creates all sorts of issues above and beyond those encountered legally and practically in monogamous marriages.

Who is forcing them? Is it a state or federal law? No, it is them listening to their religious leaders.

What benefits does a monogamous marriage provide for society that a polygamous marriage would not?

Far more stability, and far more recognition.

As a background, I dont see a consitutional right to gay marriage, if a state wants to vote for it (or against it), I have no issue, and in NY would probably vote for it myself. same as plural marriage, however it is not a consitutional right, and courts should not be able to say it is.

This is a State legislative issue, not a federal one, or a judical one.

 

[Plasmaball]

What legal adults do is none of my concern.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Your case is far from being made.

If the gov't gives tax incentives for marriage to "...encourage marriage because it greatly-greatly-greatly stabilizes society and provides infinitely better care for resulting children", why would polygamous and gay marriage not qualify?

Gay marriage and polygamous marriage would provide the same stability and the same "...infinitely better care for resulting children" that straight marriages do. In fact, polygamous marriages could provide far better care for the children since it increases the chance that one of the parents will be at home full-time. Thereby negating child-care issues and latchkey kids.

My "case" was we would see the end of the marital tax incentives. Wasn't so much commenting on your other points.
But now that you made them...what you are not looking at is the marginalization of marriage in general. People staying together in one household has many societal and economic benefits to society - I am sure you would not argue that. So he government provides a financial incentive and other legal rights to encourage people to do so. If/when marriage as a legal status is removed - then people will naturally become more nomadic and abandon each other which will have the opposite effect.
My concern is not so much gay marriage, which I don't really have an issue with - but the continuance of the erosion of marriage in our society as a whole. If anybody and everybody can "get married" - then the value is lost.
We will also soon see "couple marriages"...in which one couple can marry another couple.

Marriage has existed for thousands of years. Are you suggesting that if the gov't stops essentially paying people to be married, the institution will evaporate?

Why not give tax breaks to families with children on the honor roll? Why not give tax breaks to people who stay employed? To people who perform civil services?

Why not impose extra taxes on those who spend unwisely, or gamble, or eat too much red meat? Why not add more taxes to those who are on Wall Street for their effects on the economy?

Taxation is to provide funding for the gov't, nothing more. To use taxation as a form of social engineering or to somehow promote or reward morality is wrong on so many levels.

Ahh...your a liberatrian. You and I would likely agree on many things that surround getting the government out of our lives etc.
But back to the point...marriage is suffering like never before at this point. Divorce rates in some states are actually dropping. Not because people are staying married - but because people aren't getting married in the first place.
So removing the significant financial and legal benefits of marriage is "just another reason not to hassle with it" - and perhaps finally enough to altogether reduce marriage to those doing it for religious reasons.
That is just my concern. That the sancity/valuation of marriage as an institution becomes lost and therefore the benefits of it goes out with it.
But as always - i could be wrong.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, its them being forced to leave thier families so old men can "marry" multiple young girls.

Polygamous marriage does not provide the same benefits monogamous marriage does, it creates all sorts of issues above and beyond those encountered legally and practically in monogamous marriages.

Who is forcing them? Is it a state or federal law? No, it is them listening to their religious leaders.

What benefits does a monogamous marriage provide for society that a polygamous marriage would not?

Far more stability, and far more recognition.

As a background, I dont see a consitutional right to gay marriage, if a state wants to vote for it (or against it), I have no issue, and in NY would probably vote for it myself. same as plural marriage, however it is not a consitutional right, and courts should not be able to say it is.

This is a State legislative issue, not a federal one, or a judical one.

Recognition is hardly a benefit to society. And since one is common and the other illegal, it is difficult to claim one brings far more stability. But since one ends in divorce about 50% of the time, your definition of "stability" must be different from mine.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, its them being forced to leave thier families so old men can "marry" multiple young girls.

Polygamous marriage does not provide the same benefits monogamous marriage does, it creates all sorts of issues above and beyond those encountered legally and practically in monogamous marriages.

Who is forcing them? Is it a state or federal law? No, it is them listening to their religious leaders.

What benefits does a monogamous marriage provide for society that a polygamous marriage would not?

Far more stability, and far more recognition.

As a background, I dont see a consitutional right to gay marriage, if a state wants to vote for it (or against it), I have no issue, and in NY would probably vote for it myself. same as plural marriage, however it is not a consitutional right, and courts should not be able to say it is.

This is a State legislative issue, not a federal one, or a judical one.

Since that is true, why don't we remove the federal income tax benefits for married couples? After all, it is a state issue.

 

[WinterBorn]

My "case" was we would see the end of the marital tax incentives. Wasn't so much commenting on your other points.
But now that you made them...what you are not looking at is the marginalization of marriage in general. People staying together in one household has many societal and economic benefits to society - I am sure you would not argue that. So he government provides a financial incentive and other legal rights to encourage people to do so. If/when marriage as a legal status is removed - then people will naturally become more nomadic and abandon each other which will have the opposite effect.
My concern is not so much gay marriage, which I don't really have an issue with - but the continuance of the erosion of marriage in our society as a whole. If anybody and everybody can "get married" - then the value is lost.
We will also soon see "couple marriages"...in which one couple can marry another couple.

Marriage has existed for thousands of years. Are you suggesting that if the gov't stops essentially paying people to be married, the institution will evaporate?

Why not give tax breaks to families with children on the honor roll? Why not give tax breaks to people who stay employed? To people who perform civil services?

Why not impose extra taxes on those who spend unwisely, or gamble, or eat too much red meat? Why not add more taxes to those who are on Wall Street for their effects on the economy?

Taxation is to provide funding for the gov't, nothing more. To use taxation as a form of social engineering or to somehow promote or reward morality is wrong on so many levels.

Ahh...your a liberatrian. You and I would likely agree on many things that surround getting the government out of our lives etc.
But back to the point...marriage is suffering like never before at this point. Divorce rates in some states are actually dropping. Not because people are staying married - but because people aren't getting married in the first place.
So removing the significant financial and legal benefits of marriage is "just another reason not to hassle with it" - and perhaps finally enough to altogether reduce marriage to those doing it for religious reasons.
That is just my concern. That the sancity/valuation of marriage as an institution becomes lost and therefore the benefits of it goes out with it.
But as always - i could be wrong.

Indeed I am a Libertarian. Which is why I think our citizens should have the liberty to form whatever committed legal relationships they decide as consenting adults.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think it's far less terrible for a man to marry multiple women and take care of them and his children than it is for a man to knock up multiple women and abandon them and his children.

And plural marriage has always made more sense than so called same sex marriage. Because plural marriage provides opportunities to create and raise children.

Abuse and incest are wrong regardless of whether it's involved in plural marriage or any other type of relationship.

And quite frankly I can't imagine wanting to be married to more than one woman unless God specifically commanded it. It's tough enough to be married to one. Even one as amazing as my wife.