In your ideal fantasy world, how many wives or husbands would a person be allowed to have? If the law allowed "as many as you wanted", what would that number be?
In your ideal fantasy world, how many wives or husbands would a person be allowed to have?
07/13/2011
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
I'm a monogamous kind of person, so in MY fantasy world, I'd be fine with making marriage between just 2 people. In my view of a perfect world, consenting adults could marry as many people as they wanted (each person agreeing to marrying to every other person in the relationship). That wouldn't be restricted to men marrying women, either...
07/13/2011
I think it becomes far too complicated, legally speaking, with more than 2.
And this post pretty much excludes all of the GLBT community.
And this post pretty much excludes all of the GLBT community.
07/13/2011
Why get married to begin with?
07/13/2011
I think in the world of redefining marriage, polygamy is just as legitimate as any other form of relationship. How many is a question of resources, many will end up on welfare - but you cannot limit the # of children people have, you cannot put a limit on the # of spouses one has.
Load up the bus - pile'm in, the sky's the limit!
Load up the bus - pile'm in, the sky's the limit!
07/13/2011
Quote:
Why not?
Originally posted by
MJ1337
Why get married to begin with?
07/13/2011
Quote:
Many will end up on welfare? That's quite the assumption. The Browns aren't on welfare and couldn't get it now if they tried because they've aired the lifestyle for all to see.
Originally posted by
Gunsmoke
I think in the world of redefining marriage, polygamy is just as legitimate as any other form of relationship. How many is a question of resources, many will end up on welfare - but you cannot limit the # of children people have, you cannot put a
...
more
I think in the world of redefining marriage, polygamy is just as legitimate as any other form of relationship. How many is a question of resources, many will end up on welfare - but you cannot limit the # of children people have, you cannot put a limit on the # of spouses one has.
Load up the bus - pile'm in, the sky's the limit! less
Load up the bus - pile'm in, the sky's the limit! less
Why would you assume that each spouse would not have a job or viable income?
07/13/2011
Quote:
I agree. If a man wants more than one wife, he should be able to prove he can support all the woman AND any children that result from the marriage.
Originally posted by
Gunsmoke
I think in the world of redefining marriage, polygamy is just as legitimate as any other form of relationship. How many is a question of resources, many will end up on welfare - but you cannot limit the # of children people have, you cannot put a
...
more
I think in the world of redefining marriage, polygamy is just as legitimate as any other form of relationship. How many is a question of resources, many will end up on welfare - but you cannot limit the # of children people have, you cannot put a limit on the # of spouses one has.
Load up the bus - pile'm in, the sky's the limit! less
Load up the bus - pile'm in, the sky's the limit! less
Yep, I'm old fashioned when it comes to certain things. Mamas should be home with small children, if at all possible. A lot of women don't want to and can't afford to put babies and small children into Day Care and a lot of good fathers don't want to see their children raised by anyone other than the child's own mother, as well. No mother should be forced to leave a child all day to "work" when there are alternatives. If a man wants more than one wife, he should have to be able to prove he can support the new families.
I have seen some plyg families where the women ARE all on welfare and food stamps; the famous cases in Utah about 10 years ago, where a few "leaders" of these cults were storing women all over the state and robbing the Pubic Aid system blind, with upwards of several dozen to over 100 kids per man, and the men paying for NONE of it, because they weren't "legally married." The men went to jail for child brides and welfare fraud. It is something that happens, and Utah is rife with it. This practice (the getting many wives and putting them on the Public Aid System) has virtually destroyed Utah's Public Aid System at times.
Make it legal and put restrictions on it. I have no moral problems with it, as long as it's consensual and the man can support the families HE chose to have.
07/13/2011
Quote:
Agreed - polygamists as welfare cases is a generalization. But lets be honest, how many men (or women) make enough money to support multiple spouses? Sure the arab emirs do - but not your average Joe.
Originally posted by
Ansley
Many will end up on welfare? That's quite the assumption. The Browns aren't on welfare and couldn't get it now if they tried because they've aired the lifestyle for all to see.
Why would you assume that each spouse would not ... more
Why would you assume that each spouse would not ... more
Many will end up on welfare? That's quite the assumption. The Browns aren't on welfare and couldn't get it now if they tried because they've aired the lifestyle for all to see.
Why would you assume that each spouse would not have a job or viable income? less
Why would you assume that each spouse would not have a job or viable income? less
But leaving bias aside, one of the pit falls of sanctioning polygamy will be it's effect on welfare. Those who choose plural marriage are under huge financial pressure. Those that fail to provide will become legitimate welfare recipients because it will no longer be fraud - once its legal.
If plural marriages end up looking like families today with multiple incomes, that's fine - in fact that's what we would hope would be the outcome.
07/13/2011
Quote:
Gun, I agreed with you until your last sentence. I can see, very easily, some of these plyg men (and it's happened, but with welfare, and at times with the women working and the men not) sitting back and NOT working themselves and letting the women bring in all the income. That, at least in my book would be a problem. We're not lions.
Originally posted by
Gunsmoke
Agreed - polygamists as welfare cases is a generalization. But lets be honest, how many men (or women) make enough money to support multiple spouses? Sure the arab emirs do - but not your average Joe.
But leaving bias aside, one of the pit ... more
But leaving bias aside, one of the pit ... more
Agreed - polygamists as welfare cases is a generalization. But lets be honest, how many men (or women) make enough money to support multiple spouses? Sure the arab emirs do - but not your average Joe.
But leaving bias aside, one of the pit falls of sanctioning polygamy will be it's effect on welfare. Those who choose plural marriage are under huge financial pressure. Those that fail to provide will become legitimate welfare recipients because it will no longer be fraud - once its legal.
If plural marriages end up looking like families today with multiple incomes, that's fine - in fact that's what we would hope would be the outcome. less
But leaving bias aside, one of the pit falls of sanctioning polygamy will be it's effect on welfare. Those who choose plural marriage are under huge financial pressure. Those that fail to provide will become legitimate welfare recipients because it will no longer be fraud - once its legal.
If plural marriages end up looking like families today with multiple incomes, that's fine - in fact that's what we would hope would be the outcome. less
07/13/2011
Quote:
If everyone in the household works as they would if they were living on their own, it's more than a reasonable income. Polygamy does not necessarily equate 17 children. Unless you're a Mormon. The majority of Americans are not Mormons.
Originally posted by
Gunsmoke
Agreed - polygamists as welfare cases is a generalization. But lets be honest, how many men (or women) make enough money to support multiple spouses? Sure the arab emirs do - but not your average Joe.
But leaving bias aside, one of the pit ... more
But leaving bias aside, one of the pit ... more
Agreed - polygamists as welfare cases is a generalization. But lets be honest, how many men (or women) make enough money to support multiple spouses? Sure the arab emirs do - but not your average Joe.
But leaving bias aside, one of the pit falls of sanctioning polygamy will be it's effect on welfare. Those who choose plural marriage are under huge financial pressure. Those that fail to provide will become legitimate welfare recipients because it will no longer be fraud - once its legal.
If plural marriages end up looking like families today with multiple incomes, that's fine - in fact that's what we would hope would be the outcome. less
But leaving bias aside, one of the pit falls of sanctioning polygamy will be it's effect on welfare. Those who choose plural marriage are under huge financial pressure. Those that fail to provide will become legitimate welfare recipients because it will no longer be fraud - once its legal.
If plural marriages end up looking like families today with multiple incomes, that's fine - in fact that's what we would hope would be the outcome. less
I'm not saying you don't have a valid point. You do. This is one of the reasons why it will continue to be illegal and lawmakers don't even want to go near the hornet's nest of logistics it would take to make sure families don't end up being small corporations or another protected class with huge tax breaks. It's just simply too difficult to figure out who gets what, you know?
Aside from social programs and taxes being at risk, there are always civil laws that would need to be reformed for divorce proceedings, child custody and other issues regarding parental rights and property division.
07/13/2011
I admit, the custody agreements alone, if any of the group were to divorce, would be a nightmare.
07/13/2011
Quote:
I've given this a lot of thought, recently.
Originally posted by
P'Gell
I admit, the custody agreements alone, if any of the group were to divorce, would be a nightmare.
Say that John, Lisa and Emily are in a triad. John wants to marry both girls, both girls want to marry John and each other.
John marries Lisa and their union is between just John and Lisa.
Emily marries Lisa and their union is between just Emily and Lisa.
John marries Emily and their union is between just John and Emily.
If John and Lisa have a child or children, only they have consideration for the children as the bio-parents. Any rights Emily would have would need to be mutually agreed upon during their divorce.
Same with if Emily and John have a child or children.
07/13/2011
Quote:
In most plyg marriages, the sister wives consider all the kids "theirs." It might be simple on paper, but when emotions and babies get involved, it gets very very complicated.
Originally posted by
Ansley
I've given this a lot of thought, recently.
Say that John, Lisa and Emily are in a triad. John wants to marry both girls, both girls want to marry John and each other.
John marries Lisa and their union is between just John and ... more
Say that John, Lisa and Emily are in a triad. John wants to marry both girls, both girls want to marry John and each other.
John marries Lisa and their union is between just John and ... more
I've given this a lot of thought, recently.
Say that John, Lisa and Emily are in a triad. John wants to marry both girls, both girls want to marry John and each other.
John marries Lisa and their union is between just John and Lisa.
Emily marries Lisa and their union is between just Emily and Lisa.
John marries Emily and their union is between just John and Emily.
If John and Lisa have a child or children, only they have consideration for the children as the bio-parents. Any rights Emily would have would need to be mutually agreed upon during their divorce.
Same with if Emily and John have a child or children. less
Say that John, Lisa and Emily are in a triad. John wants to marry both girls, both girls want to marry John and each other.
John marries Lisa and their union is between just John and Lisa.
Emily marries Lisa and their union is between just Emily and Lisa.
John marries Emily and their union is between just John and Emily.
If John and Lisa have a child or children, only they have consideration for the children as the bio-parents. Any rights Emily would have would need to be mutually agreed upon during their divorce.
Same with if Emily and John have a child or children. less
07/13/2011
Quote:
The law does not deal in emotions. It deals in facts and existing laws.
Originally posted by
P'Gell
In most plyg marriages, the sister wives consider all the kids "theirs." It might be simple on paper, but when emotions and babies get involved, it gets very very complicated.
I don't think the arrangment typical of Mormon polygamy is what would happen in the home of your average polyamouros person.
Given that it would be so incredibly complicated, there is an increased likelihood the parties involved are mature well beyond your average person and would already have discussed these things before entering into any union, whether bound by law or not.
07/13/2011
For me, personally, 3 would be a good number, but I think you should be able to have as many partners or wives or husbands as you want - so long as everyone in the relationship is OK with that.
07/13/2011
Quote:
I'm not going to assume anybody discussing anything before getting involved in something like this. I Know human nature. I don't think we'll see "more mature" plygs than there are more mature people in the general population.
Originally posted by
Ansley
The law does not deal in emotions. It deals in facts and existing laws.
I don't think the arrangment typical of Mormon polygamy is what would happen in the home of your average polyamouros person.
Given that it would be so ... more
I don't think the arrangment typical of Mormon polygamy is what would happen in the home of your average polyamouros person.
Given that it would be so ... more
The law does not deal in emotions. It deals in facts and existing laws.
I don't think the arrangment typical of Mormon polygamy is what would happen in the home of your average polyamouros person.
Given that it would be so incredibly complicated, there is an increased likelihood the parties involved are mature well beyond your average person and would already have discussed these things before entering into any union, whether bound by law or not. less
I don't think the arrangment typical of Mormon polygamy is what would happen in the home of your average polyamouros person.
Given that it would be so incredibly complicated, there is an increased likelihood the parties involved are mature well beyond your average person and would already have discussed these things before entering into any union, whether bound by law or not. less
Although the law doesn't actually deal with emotions etc. law are often made and changed based on people who want laws changed, because of emotions. For instance, newer laws regarding letting victims of violent crimes influence sentencing. That is law in many places (and a good one imo) and it is based on emotion. Most changes in custody etc are initially emotionally based. So, while the law says it's blind, when people work for laws, usually emotions are involved.
I doubt plyg sister wives are going to easily give up kids from sister marriages without a fight.
07/13/2011
Marriage is a social/legal contract that states recognize that bestows rights and responsibilities on parties involved concerning property, dependent children, etc. I think that it's ridiculous when people live in configurations of every kind to allow the state to turn a blind eye to the needs/rights/responsib ilities of these families and their children.
Someone might be less anxious to enter a polygamous contract if they understood they would share a lifetime responsibility to child support, expenses, and division of property.
Someone might be less anxious to enter a polygamous contract if they understood they would share a lifetime responsibility to child support, expenses, and division of property.
07/13/2011
Quote:
True, laws are changed based on emotion.
Originally posted by
P'Gell
I'm not going to assume anybody discussing anything before getting involved in something like this. I Know human nature. I don't think we'll see "more mature" plygs than there are more mature people in the general population.
...
more
I'm not going to assume anybody discussing anything before getting involved in something like this. I Know human nature. I don't think we'll see "more mature" plygs than there are more mature people in the general population.
Although the law doesn't actually deal with emotions etc. law are often made and changed based on people who want laws changed, because of emotions. For instance, newer laws regarding letting victims of violent crimes influence sentencing. That is law in many places (and a good one imo) and it is based on emotion. Most changes in custody etc are initially emotionally based. So, while the law says it's blind, when people work for laws, usually emotions are involved.
I doubt plyg sister wives are going to easily give up kids from sister marriages without a fight. less
Although the law doesn't actually deal with emotions etc. law are often made and changed based on people who want laws changed, because of emotions. For instance, newer laws regarding letting victims of violent crimes influence sentencing. That is law in many places (and a good one imo) and it is based on emotion. Most changes in custody etc are initially emotionally based. So, while the law says it's blind, when people work for laws, usually emotions are involved.
I doubt plyg sister wives are going to easily give up kids from sister marriages without a fight. less
I guess from the poly people I've met and run with, there's generally a very good understanding about whose children belong to whom and how things would be settled should things end.
I don't want to drag an unsuspecting person into this, but I'm fairly certain Airen and her partners have things well figured out. I would like for her to share her opinion on this if she's up for it.
07/13/2011
Quote:
What comes in mind when I picked the answers are how much fun that would be for me (I know that's selfish thinking), and KIDS are not in the equation.
Originally posted by
Gunsmoke
I think in the world of redefining marriage, polygamy is just as legitimate as any other form of relationship. How many is a question of resources, many will end up on welfare - but you cannot limit the # of children people have, you cannot put a
...
more
I think in the world of redefining marriage, polygamy is just as legitimate as any other form of relationship. How many is a question of resources, many will end up on welfare - but you cannot limit the # of children people have, you cannot put a limit on the # of spouses one has.
Load up the bus - pile'm in, the sky's the limit! less
Load up the bus - pile'm in, the sky's the limit! less
But then, the choices I've picked are just for amusement, situations like that will never occur in my real life!
About the number of children and welfare (putting the original polygamy topic aside) I wish some couples with normal marriages understand the word "enough", have some conscience and stop popping out a bunch of babies just to cheat more from the welfare system!
07/13/2011
Quote:
lol... Pile 'em in! I'm going to remember that.
Originally posted by
Gunsmoke
I think in the world of redefining marriage, polygamy is just as legitimate as any other form of relationship. How many is a question of resources, many will end up on welfare - but you cannot limit the # of children people have, you cannot put a
...
more
I think in the world of redefining marriage, polygamy is just as legitimate as any other form of relationship. How many is a question of resources, many will end up on welfare - but you cannot limit the # of children people have, you cannot put a limit on the # of spouses one has.
Load up the bus - pile'm in, the sky's the limit! less
Load up the bus - pile'm in, the sky's the limit! less
07/13/2011
lol oh dear, i can barely cope with one relationship, how could i do five? i would be content with one hubby, but i would love lots of sexual extras on the side. but that's just me. some people would do wonderfully with many spouses
07/13/2011
Quote:
I know right? Hubby is very demanding! (And I like it that way.)
Originally posted by
Ms. Spice
lol oh dear, i can barely cope with one relationship, how could i do five? i would be content with one hubby, but i would love lots of sexual extras on the side. but that's just me. some people would do wonderfully with many spouses
07/13/2011
one partner is enough
07/13/2011
I'm a person who loves lots of playmates when I'm single but when I'm in a relationship I want nothing but my partner. Everything is about them, so one husband and one wife is my pick.
07/13/2011
Quote:
For the amount of sex that I want I should have 2 husbands!!!!
Originally posted by
Bignuf
In your ideal fantasy world, how many wives or husbands would a person be allowed to have? If the law allowed "as many as you wanted", what would that number be?
07/13/2011
People should be allowed group marriages if that's what everyone involved wants, but I think most people aren't able to deal with them. I certainly wouldn't be able to.
07/13/2011
i did not vote cuz my fantasy world i would have one wife and one husband and dont think that marriage should be limited to only men and women getting married
07/16/2011
Monogamy all the way
07/16/2011
One is just fine for me.
07/16/2011
Total posts: 49
Unique posters: 33
-
1
- 2