Imagine the way the taxes and such benefits would have to re-worked in order to accomodate this. Not to mention the will, who is entitled to what after a death sort of thing. The pension fights between spouses after a death. A whole new bureaucracy would be needed to do it, then you would be back on here, socialist, socialist, socialist. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but just pointing out that you righties would be back saying the same things.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else get your way.

"There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" - Pierre Trudeau

“No one is more enslaved than a slave who doesn't think they're enslaved.” - Kate Beckinsale

With health care costs increasing at the current rate, it would not be difficult to imagine polygamist marriages taking place just to take advantage of health care benefits. Not impossible but would definitely take some changes.

However, when you speak of wills in regard to inheritance, this would be no different than today- a mess. The difference would be inheritance WITHOUT a will because your spouse currently is your default heir and then children (per stirpes), if no spouse, etc... If there was more than one spouse, then I guess we could make the default beneficiar(ies) per stirpes too. This means split evenly between them.

What would be really odd would be creditors recovering money owed from a legal polygamist union. I wonder if it would be easier or more difficult. How many paychecks could be garnished?

If one person wants out of a polygamist union, should the entire union be void and re-established?

What of the children? Who is responsible? Who would get custody. What a mess.
Lots of questions.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

For sure, that's what I mean. New laws would need to be written and new bureacracy just to protect the children, and other wives/husbands. So then it would be worse government interference and then everyone would cry scoialism/communism again.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else get your way.

"There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" - Pierre Trudeau

“No one is more enslaved than a slave who doesn't think they're enslaved.” - Kate Beckinsale

I see no reason to license a multi party union. Unless of course, we're into social engineering which is the common argument in regard to marriage of any kind. If you look at the laws created to ban polygamy, they have everything to do with social engineering! It makes it difficult to raise a more legitimate and practical argument.

I could give a rats ass if a man wants to marry a man or a woman wants to marry a woman. I really don't care one way or the other if people want to participate in polygamist relationships.

Because the polygamy argument was originally raised as a social one, it should probably be struck down as a law.
In fact, polygamy laws not only spoke of societies marriage ideals but against the Mormon church! They were pointed directly at a religion. No one was concerned about religion being under attack THEN, because these particular Mormon's were the minority.
Let them be, I say.

But I think it would be foolhardy to involve more than two people in a marriage license.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

So, you would recognize any combination of individuals for a marriage license then? You don't value marriage at all. I am unsure why you even post.

__________________
United We Stand.

perhaps to counter individuals like you.

Perhaps he doesn't hold the same spiritual regard for a marriage license that you do. This does not mean he values marriage less than yourself - 'rather judgemental thing to say I think, don't you?

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

I don't care if someone marries a goat. It's none of my buisness.

Like Dogs, they can be with whichever Bruce is in Heat at the Time, and stay hidden and never tell us about the Backporch boogie the Bi's and Homo's do!!

Nothing I have said was countered, ever. Dismissed? Disregarded? Bashed? Name-calling? Worse? Yes, yes, yes.

However, once marriage laws are thrown out, the institution will become anarchy with threesomes of the same sex, foursomes, family members and you name it. It will be a free-for-all where anyone can make it up however they desire, willy nilly and helter skelter.

The biological design of the human species supports only one-woman one-man couples for marriage.

__________________
United We Stand.

???????? I have absolutely NO idea of what you are trying to say.

Watch the Red Bouncing Ball!
Gays remind me of Dogs in Heat!
Bruce is popular name for Gays it appears
Bi's and Gays participate in what we used to call Backporch sex, Rear Door, Greek style, Doggie style etc!
Further explanation should be handled by Daddy or a Sex Educator!

I am in favor of granting the right for "bisexual" unions as well as Gay and/or plural marriages, with equal weight to the participants of each form of union (note the INTENTIONAL reversal of terms)

but I highly disagree that there would be any great problems with implementing ANY of the procedures you state above. It would be basically Samo samo. The Only change I can see would be in plural marriages in that a primary spouse would have to be designated as next of kin.

Check your dictionary for the word Counter Nearly everyone who responds to your posts is countering you and your comments. You can call it what you wish. You have every right to be wrong.

Marriage is just not a sacred institution. I can have the exact same thing a married couple has without all the paperwork, without the cost, and without the government or church involved.

I dont see anything in marriage itself that is of any value. Marriage in itself is not valuable, the relationship people have to one another is where all the value is contained, in spite of the official designation. Marriage cannot make me love someone, nor can it make me a good husband, nor can it make me a good parent. I see plenty of value in two consenting adults who love each other and teach genuine love to their children, be they gay or straight makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever, just as if they are married makes no difference whatsoever.


Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown