[dadipentak]

If two (or more) legally adult people of any gender who aren't related to the point of actually being immediate family want to marry legally then yes, it's perfectly fine by me. I do draw the line at people marrying their own children, grandchildren, sisters or brothers, maybe even first cousins depending upon how closely they've been raised, but other than that if they're consenting adults then legally speaking it's simply none of my business. It's a matter of a license and whatever type of joining ceremony they would prefer. That's it.

And, don't forget, more opportunities for wedding photographers ;~)

[GeneV]

Oh I agree plygamy is a much harder to manage situation, and it would certainly take a lot of legislative safeguards to insure it was functional. For those reasons I don't think it will ever gain acceptence in our society... However from an ethical standpoint it is just as "valid" as any other form of marriage.

I agree that from an ethical standpoint. There are more people than you think doing some kind of group relationship right now without legal marriage. I encountered a group in one of my cases earlier this summer. They weren't mormons, either.

[Phil1]

Just a small point on the modern day offshoot Morman and I suppose other poly practitioners; the families frequently end up with large families because "God told them to screw like rabbits" and end up all on welfare. They also frequently end up leading isolated lives not to speak of the cult aspects and child-young adult abuse in these situations. There are plenty of examples of escapees from these situations. Do I want to pay for this, hell no.

The sheep on the hill are looking very worried.

[GeneV]

Just a small point on the modern day offshoot Morman and I suppose other poly practitioners; the families frequently end up with large families because "God told them to screw like rabbits" and end up all on welfare. They also frequently end up leading isolated lives not to speak of the cult aspects and child-young adult abuse in these situations. There are plenty of examples of escapees from these situations. Do I want to pay for this, hell no.

The sheep on the hill are looking very worried.

So, is that intended as an argument for or against legalized polygamy?

To the extent this is happening right now, it is because the later "wives" aren't legal, and they can collect welfare as single mothers. If the marriage were recognized, then the husband's (and wives') incomes could be attributed to all of the wives. In any case, welfare reform is a completely different topic.

[jeffkrol]

I agree that from an ethical standpoint. There are more people than you think doing some kind of group relationship right now without legal marriage. I encountered a group in one of my cases earlier this summer. They weren't mormons, either.

Almost always boils down to family economics.. I expect to see more of this soon...

[GeneV]

Almost always boils down to family economics.. I expect to see more of this soon...

I can see that happening, but in this case, no. The person in question was renting my client's house for one woman and the house next door for another. Both were sizeable houses, so this guy was paying about $4k to rent two very large houses for the two families.

[jeffkrol]

I can see that happening, but in this case, no. The person in question was renting my client's house for one woman and the house next door for another. Both were sizeable houses, so this guy was paying about $4k to rent two very large houses for the two families.

Female economics......

[mikemike]

I can see that happening, but in this case, no. The person in question was renting my client's house for one woman and the house next door for another. Both were sizeable houses, so this guy was paying about $4k to rent two very large houses for the two families.

Step 1. Get the 'wives' on section 8 housing
Step 2. Buy or build a 4-plex
Step 3. Profit

[Ash]

And, don't forget, more opportunities for wedding photographers ;~)

Excellent point!
But that's just support for mutual gain...

Polygamy even in the simplest societies complicates matters and causes more harm than good - and that's from considerable personal experience (not me, my in-laws )

All I could say is 'everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial'.

[jeffkrol]

The Big Question: What's the history of polygamy, and how serious a problem is it in Africa? - Africa, World - The Independent

Having more than one husband or wife, though technically when there are more women to one man that is properly called polygyny. When a woman has more than one husband that is polyandry.

In 1998 the University of Wisconsin surveyed more than a thousand societies. Of these just 186 were monogamous. Some 453 had occasional polygyny and in 588 more it was quite common. Just four featured polyandry

[Phil1]

'So, is that intended as an argument for or against legalized polygamy?'

I refuse to pay for other peoples so called optional freedoms. Do your freedoms on your own dime and be responsible. I view this type of welfare as a reward for irresponsible behavior. I understand the stats on this in Utah are heavily biased for these families to be on welfare. A friend was a school teacher and related that all the families she was in contact with through the school were on the dole. No I am not in favor of it being legal. If you are a Saudi prince, knock yourself out.

[GeneV]

'So, is that intended as an argument for or against legalized polygamy?'

I refuse to pay for other peoples so called optional freedoms. Do your freedoms on your own dime and be responsible. I view this type of welfare as a reward for irresponsible behavior. I understand the stats on this in Utah are heavily biased for these families to be on welfare. A friend was a school teacher and related that all the families she was in contact with through the school were on the dole. No I am not in favor of it being legal. If you are a Saudi prince, knock yourself out.

They are on the dole because the extra "wives" are not considered married and therefore don't have the income from the other spouse attributed to them. Legalizing it will mean you are LESS likely to pay for it.

For other legal reasons I have stated, I'm not advocating changing the law to legalize polygamy, but welfare fraud is more likely to be reduced if these relationships become overt.

[jsherman999]

... well, gee, I thought it had something to do with all those young unmarried Scandinavian blonds the Mormons recruited to come out to Utah... after Brigham saw a few of these he had a message from God to the effect that he needed to marry a couple of them

It was a pretty convenient bolt from the blue for Old Brigham, there, wasn't it?

[jeffkrol]

Maybe we should demand our "hired help" pitch in to help eliminate the welfare state..........

Officials Suggest Legislators Wed Single Mothers

by admin on October 29, 2009

KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) – Malaysian legislators in the poor conservative Muslim northeastern state of Kelantan should marry single mothers to help care for their children, a state representative suggested.

The state’s family and health committee chairwoman Wan Ubaidah Omar said that legislators should be awarded prizes for increasing their “quota” of wives.

“What I mean by quota is adding to the number of wives,” Wan Ubaidah, a female legislator said, according to Thursday’s Star newspaper.

Polygamy is legal in Malaysia for Muslims, who account for 55 percent of the 28 million population.

According to the Star there are 16,500 single mothers under 60 years of age

http://www.polygamy.com/index.php/resources-and-education/islam-and-muslim/o...ingle-mothers/
http://www.polygamy.com/

Why We Don’t Need To Make Polygamy A Crime

by admin on February 15, 2010

A man can have sex with as many women as he likes. But he can’t marry more than one. If we don’t have a good reason to discriminate, then we probably shouldn’t.

http://www.pro-polygamy.com/
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0077

Summarizing in totality, the three marriage-control-reversing challenges determine a number of concepts. Marriage is a fundamental right of the Individual. The federal government must treat all citizens equally. The federal government is prohibited from being involved in marriage. And not even a majoritarian collective is authorized to over-ride the fundamental right of the Individual to consenting-adult marriage.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment challenges raise serious questions for debate about the validity of "anti-discrimination" laws, especially in regard to "Due Process" and "Equal Protection" clauses. Even so, the Tenth Amendment challenge is not only the most straight-forward but if the challenge succeeds, it could also be a tool for either side to use if they lose other cases.

If the Supreme Court agrees that the Tenth Amendment does prohibit federal involvement in marriage control (to thereby reverse DOMA), liberals and conservatives would each get a "win." In "losing" this challenge, conservatives would "win" this specific precedent which they want in other political battles (e.g., Missouri's "Proposition C" against federal mandated health insurance), while "losing" the ability to use federal government to legislatively stop same sex marriage laws throughout the individual States. In "winning" this challenge, liberals would "lose" in other political battles by this precedent, while "winning" this precedent to prevent another re-written DOMA in the future. In whichever way the Supreme Court decides the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment challenges, the consequence of this Tenth Amendment challenge succeeding before the Supreme Court actually provides a tool for both sides, whether conservative or liberal.

Namely, as either side loses battles in the marriage control debate, they will realize that this Tenth Amendment precedent can help either "losing" side to abolish all marriage control for unrelated consenting adults - that is, the Polygamy Rights Win-Win Solution. Regardless of who uses this tool, everyone saves face. No one re-defines marriage. And everyone wins.

But for now, all three challenges proceed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

up your ally GeneV......
An aside:
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0069

Quoting Mark Henkel, founder of the Christian Polygamy organization, TruthBearer.org, "Polygamous marriage dates as far back as the Biblical book of Genesis - written by polygamist Moses. Christian Polygamy generally involves Bible-studying Christians from any denomination. We have no similarity and no history with Mormonism whatsoever, whether mainstream 'Institutional' Latter Day Saints (my term, 'ILDS') or Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS). Rather, Christian Polygamists simply believe that the Bible is true, that it never prohibited polygamy, and that husbands should have a deep compassion, maturity, and emotional intimacy for loving wives as selflessly as Christ loves the churches."

[MRRiley]

... well, gee, I thought it had something to do with all those young unmarried Scandinavian blonds the Mormons recruited to come out to Utah... after Brigham saw a few of these he had a message from God to the effect that he needed to marry a couple of them

Yeah, aint bein' a prophet wonderful??? Want something a bit wild? Just act like you are listening to someone who isn't there and maybe drool a little and bang... a vision which your followers are bound by their faith to honor... what a racket.