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
In reply to the discussion: Should plural marriage (more than one partner) be legalized? [View all]kelly1mm
(4,749 posts)135. You seem to be saying that men only work (or more men work) when they are married than
if they are single. I will assume that you are statistically correct. However, isn't they reverse also true in that LESS women work if they are married than single? Since father's are increasingly likely to get custody, is that also a problem? Should we be discouraging marriage so that father's can get child support when it is awarded to them?
But more to the point, is that not an economic problem and/or a CS enforcement problem rather than a 'marriage' problem? Correlation is not causality ......
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
156 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
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