I have always been of the opinion that polygamy has more tradition and biological standing than same sex marriage. From a child welfare perspective, kids are better off with both male and female parents. Theoretically a child in a family with 1 male and three females (or vise versa) would still get that benefit while a child with only two female or two male parents could not.
Traditional polygamy for religious reasons involves man A and women B, C, D. One husband, multiple wives. The women can marry one man, the man can marry more than one woman, but the women cannot marry other men unless divorced or widowed. Less complicated than your above post.
I agree, and think you’ve hit on a very real problem with legalized polygamy.
Yes, this is the only thing that makes sense. I still don’t get how is totally legal for a married man to have as many affairs as he wants behind his wifes back and not provide for those women…but if he and his wife lovingly bring them into their house and care for them, and all are committed to living together as a family and supporting each other spiritually, emotionally, and financially…well thats illegal! WHAT?
I remember the "good ole days’ when five girls were expeting a baby at high school graduation (May 1965) and not everyone believed in God. The good old days were no
One of my grandmothers could have been called a “cougar” because she was 7 years 4 months older then my grandfather. BTY they were married in 1899.
He was 15 and she was 22? I think the older party needs to be a little longer in the tooth than that to be considered a cougar or a sugar daddy.One of my grandmothers could have been called a “cougar” because she was 7 years 4 months older then my grandfather. BTY they were married in 1899.
That would never be constitutional. You cannot allow one man to have multiple wives but not allow women the same. Besides, if you allow it for certain religious groups be aware that new ones will pop up to exploit the loophole. It’s best to just allow it provided to harm is done. Like another poster said it makes no sense to make this illegal when adultery is fine.Traditional polygamy for religious reasons involves man A and women B, C, D. One husband, multiple wives. The women can marry one man, the man can marry more than one woman, but the women cannot marry other men unless divorced or widowed. Less complicated than your above post.
I would support 1 legal spouse and decriminalizing polygamy if it weren’t for Social Security benefits, inheritance, retirement benefits, etc. At this point in time, a woman can be “spiritually married” to a man as a 2nd wife (for example) for 10 year and bear him children. If he dies unexpectedly, she has nothing but whatever he willed to her if he even had a will. The legal wife gets SS benefits for herself and any children, is entitled to his retirement, the house…everything. Ideally, she would continue to care for the other wives and children, but stuff happens. Jealousies, resentments, greed. 2nd wife could realistically end up destitute with young children.
Now, suppose he has a will with a somewhat equitable division of property and assets. Its well established precedent that wills can be overturned. A legal wife and legitimate children could still end up with everything. If polygamy were legal for religious sects, much like certain drugs are legal for religious sects, this wouldn’t be nearly such a problem.
Well I go back a little farther than you and no one in my school ever even had to get married that I know of. Some married right out of high school but they planned to anyway. And oh yes, they were much better times than today. My mom raised 10 kids. 6 girls and 4 boys and NONE of us had to get married or even thought of divorce after marriage. No drugs, no abortions,no living together, no rudeness, respect for elders and yes even for parents and teachers. We had manners. My gentleman friends walked on the outside of the sidewalk, opened doors etc. Met my parents, became friends with all my siblings. Sure doesn’t sound like today to me. God Bless, MemawI remember the "good ole days’ when five girls were expeting a baby at high school graduation (May 1965) and not everyone believed in God. The good old days were no
different from the ‘bad new days’.
Oh please, the old days weren’t that great, just ask any racial minority, woman who wanted or needed to work outside the home, rape victims, child and domestic abuse victims, and people with disabilities.
Depends. How much money can big business squeeze out of them?
Ask a racial minority if their families were intact back in the “good old days.” They had a lot better chance of living in an intact family than now. Working outside the home? My mom worked outside the home whenever she needed to or wanted to, which was quite often, and stayed home when she wanted to. Out of wedlock pregnancies were not celebrated, but neither were they a big dirty secret, but there were so darned few of them it hardly mattered.
Really? Really? So who cares that blacks were beaten, intimidated, treated like second class citizens, kept out of educational institutions, etc? Things were so much better for them because hey, while they couldn’t even vote their parents were together. As someone who comes from a “broken” family I’ll take my situation over that of a black person’s in 1940. That outlook is extremely offensive and I think most black people would strongly disagree that they were better off then.
I wasn’t recommending beatings, intimidation, and second class citizenship. I am recommending intact families. I don’t know how many would strongly disagree that they were better of then, Maybe a lot. I don’t know how many would recommend growing up in an inner city ghetto even today. The idea is not to trade one evil for another.
That’s precisely the point I’m making. Every era has it’s problems, and often when we look back we only see the good. The fact is that for a great many people “the good old days” were hell. For others, today is hell. But let’s not sweep everything under the rug just because divorce wasn’t as common back then. Let’s face it, people weren’t better spouses back then, it’s just that divorce was so unacceptable that many people felt trapped into staying with abusers, drunks, and adulterers. Actually domestic and child abuse was extremely common, and there were few legal remedies.
This can occur now in some states. Of the top of my head, I can think of one state that has a minimum age of 13. However, marrying someone under the age of 15 is typically difficult in the U.S., and often involves special circumstances, approval by the parents, and especially approval by the court. It should also be noted that the Catholic Church has a lower minimum age than most states and countries.