|
|
|
|
airehead
Oompa Loofah
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 11/16/04 - 17:40 Post subject: Polygamy
Aside from Biblical standards, which some don't hold with anyhow, why is Polygamy not allowed by our legal system?
|
|
|
|
|
kristin31
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 8045
Location: Caught in the crossfire of childhood and stardom
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/16/04 - 17:42 Post subject:
Good Question, but I can tell you one thing;
If polyandry were allowed I'd want NO part of it. Picking up after one guy is enough!!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
airehead
Oompa Loofah
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/16/04 - 17:47 Post subject:
| kristin31 wrote: | Good Question, but I can tell you one thing;
If polyandry were allowed I'd want NO part of it. Picking up after one guy is enough!!!! |
Funny how Polyandry just hasn't been as popular over the years...
|
|
|
|
|
BamBam
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 05 Sep 2002
Posts: 2974
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/16/04 - 17:47 Post subject:
I once supported (2) wives......it was really big-a'-me
|
|
|
|
|
Laurie Ellen
Queenie
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 11286
Location: The Dark Side of the Moon
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/16/04 - 18:02 Post subject:
| BamBam wrote: | | I once supported (2) wives......it was really big-a'-me |
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/16/04 - 20:06 Post subject: Re: Polygamy
| airehead wrote: | | Aside from Biblical standards, which some don't hold with anyhow, why is Polygamy not allowed by our legal system? |
I imagine it's because we usually recognize a claim of rights on one person by one person only. Imagine what the claim would be on the husband who died. Nine women dividing up the estate leaves them all with $4.97.
But if you're asking why the law doesn't recognize it even if someone knowingly goes into it, I'm guessing it's about something the law is really concerned about: floodgates. Whenever there's a proposed change in the law, there's a fear that it will open up the floodgates of litigation.
|
|
|
|
|
airehead
Oompa Loofah
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/16/04 - 20:26 Post subject: Re: Polygamy
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
I imagine it's because we usually recognize a claim of rights on one person by one person only. Imagine what the claim would be on the husband who died. Nine women dividing up the estate leaves them all with $4.97.
But if you're asking why the law doesn't recognize it even if someone knowingly goes into it, I'm guessing it's about something the law is really concerned about: floodgates. Whenever there's a proposed change in the law, there's a fear that it will open up the floodgates of litigation. |
Mainly I was asking why is it considered wrong. As America is redefining marriage--why isn't this up for consideration?
*And for the record, I would sooner go for polyandry than polygamy...
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Jenn
Fresh, Hot & Wild
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 7935
Location: Suite 550
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/16/04 - 21:56 Post subject: Re: Polygamy
| airehead wrote: |
Mainly I was asking why is it considered wrong. |
Many people believe it's sinful because God's intention of marriage was for the joining of two people into oneness (Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh).
Like it or not, many of our laws are based on directives from the Bible.
I wish I could give you a better reason.
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 09:52 Post subject:
maybe if it was made legal, we wouldn't have all these "wives" and children in UT on social programs. Since we don't recognize them as legal marriages, we see them as single, nonworking parents. I saw a special a few years ago about a polygamist in UT and heck, he didn't have it so bad. He didn't work. At least one wife had a high powered job (I want to saw she was a lawyer), the other wives maintained the home and watched the working wives kids----they also received welfare benefits because the husband could only claim the first wife. The rest were all single moms. Of course after the show, I believe the guy was arrested for polygamy . I guess they usually don't go after them in UT, but they felt that this guy was making the law look bad.
|
|
|
|
|
kristin31
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 8045
Location: Caught in the crossfire of childhood and stardom
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 10:28 Post subject:
| runaroundsue wrote: | | maybe if it was made legal, we wouldn't have all these "wives" and children in UT on social programs. Since we don't recognize them as legal marriages, we see them as single, nonworking parents. I saw a special a few years ago about a polygamist in UT and heck, he didn't have it so bad. He didn't work. At least one wife had a high powered job (I want to saw she was a lawyer), the other wives maintained the home and watched the working wives kids----they also received welfare benefits because the husband could only claim the first wife. The rest were all single moms. Of course after the show, I believe the guy was arrested for polygamy . I guess they usually don't go after them in UT, but they felt that this guy was making the law look bad. |
 That's all. Just
|
|
|
|
|
Sahara
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 3345
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 10:46 Post subject: Re: Polygamy
| airehead wrote: |
Mainly I was asking why is it considered wrong. As America is redefining marriage--why isn't this up for consideration?
|
I had heard some rumblings a while ago about this issue being tied to the same-sex marriage issue in a legal sense. In that light, I suppose Ggg's explanation of it, in fact, being a financial issue is well stated. I also think that same sex marriages are opposed by many because of the financial repercussions to companies and the government.
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 11:00 Post subject: Re: Polygamy
| Sahara wrote: | | I had heard some rumblings a while ago about this issue being tied to the same-sex marriage issue in a legal sense. In that light, I suppose Ggg's explanation of it, in fact, being a financial issue is well stated. I also think that same sex marriages are opposed by many because of the financial repercussions to companies and the government. |
I still don't see "financial repercussions" as a legitimate excuse against same sex marriages. we're talking about %10 of the population, and not all of them are ready to get married.
polygamy (to remain on topic) is certainly a biblical concept that runs through the old testament. to use the bible to defend marriage as being the union of one man and one woman doesn't hold water. there are plenty of examples of polygamy, as well as examples of daughters being "sold" as wives. women were considered property in much of the biblical culture. is that the kind of society we wish to have?
|
|
|
|
|
Sahara
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 3345
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 11:05 Post subject: Re: Polygamy
| keltic63 wrote: |
I still don't see "financial repercussions" as a legitimate excuse against same sex marriages. we're talking about %10 of the population, and not all of them are ready to get married.
|
I consider the cost of benefits a significant financial repercussion. I agree that it's not a legitimate excuse. Frankly, it would be easier for the companies that already have benefits for same sex partners easier to track who should receive them. I'm aware of one very large, local company for which only a bank account in both parties' names is necessary for proof of "partnership" to receive health benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 11:41 Post subject: Re: Polygamy
| Sahara wrote: | | I consider the cost of benefits a significant financial repercussion. I agree that it's not a legitimate excuse. Frankly, it would be easier for the companies that already have benefits for same sex partners easier to track who should receive them. I'm aware of one very large, local company for which only a bank account in both parties' names is necessary for proof of "partnership" to receive health benefits. |
I'm thinking that the cost of benefits for the additional people from same-sex marriages would be no more than that of the general population. I may be thinking about this incorrectly, but if a company offers benefits that include spouses, they have a number of employees who are single and not costing the company the added expense of the spousal benefits. Any of them could get married at some point and cost the company for those benefits. What difference would it make if the employee married in the "traditional" sense, or married a person of the same sex.
and from the example you mention, it would benefit that company to have same-sex marriages legalized so they could contain costs. the proof of marriage would be the license instead of the bank account with both names.
|
|
|
|
|
airehead
Oompa Loofah
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 11:54 Post subject:
I am fully aware that it is a Biblical precept. I have no problem with it at all--but since there are some in our country who would rather not have ties with Biblical foundations at all, I was just curious as to why.
And for the record, I am very much against polygamy and fail to understand the psychological reasons that would lead a woman to that choice, religion aside.
|
|
|
|
