Exactly. You know that "social conservatives" will raise hell over the issue...but they are going to have to come up with a whole new set of arguments.
Yes, if it's between consenting adults, I don't see any particular reason why polygamy is wrong or harmful.
I see no problem with polygamy from a state standpoint. From a practical standpoint I don't see it succeeding often. But it's not my business (or the governments) to decide which marriages are going to succeed. Hell, over 50% of marriages currently fail.
You see a lot of people like that down here too, I think it is indeed because we're isolated and don't see a lot of different kinds of people. Funny story, in high school we had a 6 foot 5 black guy from the Ivory Coast as a substitute teacher, you should have seen all of the white kids that had never seen a tall black man before, they couldn't stop staring at the poor guy. Actually they don't like Mexicans and Indians either, and there's plenty of those around here too.
No, polygamy should never be legal. Too many legal problems. When married your spouse has the ability to make medical decisions for you if you're incapacitated. What happens if one spouse wants to pull the cord and the other spouse doesn't? What happens during divorce? Do 2 spouses play alimony to the divorced spouse? What if 2 spouses want a divorce? Does 1 spouse pay alimony to the 2 ex's? What about children? Should the 2 remaining spouses get more visitation than the one who is leaving the marriage?
who does this all if you're not married? there should be no such thing as alimony or "visitation rights"
Your mommy and daddy have the right to pull the cord if your incapacitated. If they're not around that pleasure goes to a brother or sister. If you don't have any brothers or sisters then I will gladly tell doctors to terminate you.
I saw that CNN blunder. I am absolutely certain some tea party or conspiracy buff site will now claim proof that gays are actually terrorists based on flying the ISIS flag. Because we know ISIS (like Hitler! like the Dred Scott decision!) is all about gay people getting married and health insurance. Since they can't come up with one single way in which same sex couples getting married (and two women are both referred to as brides, and wedding is not bizarre) hurts them or hurts the country, or hurts children, or hurts straight married couples, they have to somehow compare it to ISIS, Hitler, slavery or some other evil. What they really mean is what the Westboro Baptist Church says in so many words. They hate gay people and want us all dead, preferably by slow torture, so they can feel superior. Because Jesus. Apple does a lot of despicable things - exploit labor in developing countries, recently barred people with felony convictions from working a contractors, resulting in firing of a construction worker, etc. but discrimination against heterosexuals is not among them. Also saw NBA trophy at the parade. It sure is pretty! Would look good in Portland...
I'm not particularly passionate about the right to polygamous marriage, but I think you're conceptualizing such a marriage under the current laws and make-up of society. If polygamy actually became so popular as to become a national movement, society would adapt, rules and laws could evolve, etc. I don't think such procedural issues such as how to decide if a cord gets pulled or how to divide visitation rights would be worth standing between a love arrangement that wouldn't be harming anyone.
Very interesting, I haven't thought of those issues before. However, the question becomes 'do the legal pitfalls pose a big enough hurdle to hinder personal freedoms'. Some might say yes, but at first glance I say No. These are all issues that can be managed with proper guidelines and procedures.
This bit of semantics is left up to the couple in my experience. I know two married women with one having been a groom, and she now considers herself the husband. Although two brides are more common.
I think SPD was trying to be funny. Two things. First, you are guilty of polygamy (and violate the laws) if you are married and then live with another person as if married. Like if your marriage is on the rocks and you move out and find another significant other and don't bother to get divorced. I know a few people whose marriages are basically long over, who live separate and date other people for past decades, and don't get divorced for legal/benefits reasons. Second: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/fe...-law-against-polygamy-or-at-least-part-of-it/
No I wasn't. Polygamy wouldn't work. There would be two options on how one would create a polygamous marriage. 1. All three people would get married to each other at the same time. or 2. Two people are married and decide to add a third to their marriage. Either way it would require 3 marriages to have a true polygamous marriage. A marries B, A marries C and C marries B.
This is not racism, it is more accurately class discrimination against the middle class. The problem here is nobody is taking into account the undeniably devastating impact that government-subsidized housing has on land and home values, no matter where you build it. Whatever variety of neighborhoods you have in a community, the ones with government-subsidized housing will eventually be the lowest in value, and it has very little to do with race and far more to do with crime and ugly, shoddily-built houses that receive no upkeep. All government-subsidized housing brings crime, community separation, and decay. Property values instantly drop to a fraction of their current value. It is the easiest way to wipe out an entire middle-class neighborhood's life savings in one quick sweep. In Bend affordable housing means $250,000 homes for people who can't afford a $100,000 home on their own. Meanwhile, Bend has roughly 5,000 homeless people camping and in shelters.
