Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Should plural marriage (more than one partner) be legalized? [View all]
Please add your thoughts.
45 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
1: No, government recognizes only a single first partner but taking subsequent partners should not be a criminal act | |
5 (11%) |
|
2: No, taking a subsequent partner is a breach of the commitment to the first partner | |
9 (20%) |
|
3: Yes, choice of the number of partners should be up to those involved | |
29 (64%) |
|
4: Yes, but only women may have multiple partners | |
2 (4%) |
|
5: Yes, but only men may have multiple partners | |
0 (0%) |
|
2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
156 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Should plural marriage (more than one partner) be legalized? [View all]
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Dec 2014
OP
I went to a clerk, paid for one document, and signed it in front of witnesses at the church
Algernon Moncrieff
Dec 2014
#102
The life insurance and retirement actuaries would have a nightmare though.
TexasTowelie
Dec 2014
#27
How is that? Almost 50% of all births are to unmarried partners already. The CS system in
kelly1mm
Jan 2015
#126
No, it is not much harder to establish child support without a marriage, at least in MD,
kelly1mm
Jan 2015
#132
You seem to be saying that men only work (or more men work) when they are married than
kelly1mm
Jan 2015
#135
In Maryland, in 2013, fathers received primary custody in 52% of all contested child custody cases.
kelly1mm
Jan 2015
#137
Futher, why do you think if the mother is fit, she gets the kids? 1) that is not the law in ANY
kelly1mm
Jan 2015
#138
I think you may have missed the 23% of ALL cases in MD for 2013 where fathers get primary custody.
kelly1mm
Jan 2015
#144
It would be an ethical, logistical, and legal nightmare... fix those problems then we'll talk (nt)
LostOne4Ever
Dec 2014
#5
Some people like it some don't. If you don't Ill make sure to reply to you using normal formatting.
LostOne4Ever
Dec 2014
#53
If you don't like it let me know and I will make my replies to you in normal text
LostOne4Ever
Dec 2014
#54
Gay marriage used to be an ethical, logistical, and legal nightmare and we still fought for their
liberal_at_heart
Jan 2015
#149
Just because someone says a thing is complicated doesn't mean it isn't complicated.
Nuclear Unicorn
Dec 2014
#20
I think it should be legal for people to live in whatever arrangement they choose, if everyone is a
Warren DeMontague
Dec 2014
#14
This represents a dramatic enforced change in laws, so it's nothing the government should recognize.
Yo_Mama
Dec 2014
#18
Somewhere, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are laughing their asses off.
cherokeeprogressive
Dec 2014
#28
What happens and who pays whom when the inevitable STD gets passed around?
TexasTowelie
Dec 2014
#29
A look into ENDOGAMY, the practice of marrying within a specific ethnic group, class or social group
appalachiablue
Dec 2014
#70
Until railroads most people never traveled much beyond 20 miles from their communities. The links
appalachiablue
Dec 2014
#75
That seems plausible for Eliz. At least she lived and was pretty healthy unlike her younger bro.
appalachiablue
Dec 2014
#82
Having been involved in a polyamorous relationship before for quite some time
Blue_Adept
Dec 2014
#38
I feel the same way about this that I do about drugs and other similar 'sin' issues
stevenleser
Dec 2014
#43
They can do that now, without marriage. If you have an unrelated SO and you pay for their
kelly1mm
Jan 2015
#127
I passed because I do not care about the marriage part. What I do care about is that the extra
jwirr
Dec 2014
#55
Do you mean that married couples get a break that singles do not get? I do not know enough
jwirr
Dec 2014
#66
I am sure that the Texas thing really ended up costing the taxpayers a fortune and did not change
jwirr
Dec 2014
#69
There is a MASSIVE marriage penalty in the ACA (Obamacare). Two single people
kelly1mm
Jan 2015
#128
I would not be willing to strip women (or men) of agency due to the fact that some are taken
kelly1mm
Jan 2015
#129
Head of household is not temporary (so long as you qualify) You are thinking of qualifying widow(er)
kelly1mm
Jan 2015
#130
I can't think of a single case in modern history where this type of situation
underahedgerow
Dec 2014
#90
All one has to do is research the very sad stories of women who endure polygamy
TexasMommaWithAHat
Dec 2014
#99
So if we make all tax consequences of marriage neutral, then you'd be satisfied
CreekDog
Dec 2014
#109
Inheritace taxes between spouses are $0. You could give your spouse 5 trillion dollars
kelly1mm
Jan 2015
#133
Why is the government involved with an individual's interpersonal relationships anyway?
PowerToThePeople
Jan 2015
#121
Then we would have to outlaw all marriage because domestic abuse is a huge problem in marriage
liberal_at_heart
Jan 2015
#151
I just do not get the willingness of some progressives to strip others of agency. Paternalism
kelly1mm
Jan 2015
#152
Yes! Why not? If people are happy to be in a polygamous relationship, why should we care?
BlueCaliDem
Jan 2015
#153