(September 21, 2023 at 10:39 am)GrandizerII Wrote:

(September 21, 2023 at 5:40 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: Why is it illegal to be a bigamist/polyandrist etc?

Traditionally, marriage isn't about love. It's about partnership, benefits, agreements between the two wider families marrying the couple, fulfilling religious duties, having kids.

You get married to two or more people for what? Just because you love them?

I'm thinking the opposite way. Besides legal benefits, what's even the point of marriage from a secular perspective?

There are certain efficiencies that emerge.  You can heat only one bedroom at night.  Hers and hers sock drawers.  One bank account.  File taxes jointly. Grow old together with someone.

(September 21, 2023 at 10:39 am)GrandizerII Wrote:

(September 21, 2023 at 5:40 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: Why is it illegal to be a bigamist/polyandrist etc?

Traditionally, marriage isn't about love. It's about partnership, benefits, agreements between the two wider families marrying the couple, fulfilling religious duties, having kids.

You get married to two or more people for what? Just because you love them?

I'm thinking the opposite way. Besides legal benefits, what's even the point of marriage from a secular perspective?

It's is a larger commitment than just living together, so it offers some assurance of a stable life to both partners... Until it doesn't.
A hundred years ago and before, it offered the man the knowledge that the kids were his offspring (for the most part).


Concerning the multiple partners detail, maybe look at societies where multiple partners marriages exist(ed)... ever heard of a harem? Where the rich and powerful guy gets to have many women under his care, while many men of lesser status go partnerless. Where the women in the harem are mostly jealous of each other and also fight for their place in the ladies' hierarchy.
It becomes a mess.
One woman with several men would lead to a similar outcome, I guess... Not sure there is any society-wide precedent for such a thing.

And also, we know that the birthrate of men and women is roughly 50/50, so it makes sense to have some incentive to keep people mating in that proportion.

The rich and powerful would love for polygamy to be legal. I guess it's mostly religious morality that is keeping it illegal nowadays... in my non-rich status (along with the remaining 99%), I am forced to appreciate and welcome the influence of religion on this subject.

The bureaucratic and administrative hurdles to currently non-sanctioned unions (in the us) all have historic antecedents here or there.

OFC religious influences created the shape of the contemporary paperwork problem. However, the reason that we're still running with dual pairings, today, really boils down to complexity at scale. If we, firstly, understand that the state's compelling interest in sanctioning particular kinds of marriage is the creation and maintenance of brand new (future)taxpayers - then a solution to each special interest groups problems ought to be easy to derive.

Any marriage, of any kind, from any authority, ought to automatically initiate every property based legal structure that exists in this country.

Any marriage (of any kind, from any authority) that can produce or -is- caring for children ought to automatically initiate every property based and child welfare based legal structure that exists in this country.

We already have a system for dealing with cases of complex ownership. Let everyone marry anyone they want in front of anyone they want to get married by ...and.....on the process end, deal with each type of marriage arrangement according to the interests of the state.

Problem...solved.

You wanna marry 40 girls. Awesome. So long as they're each satisfied with 1/40th of the estate.
You're a boy who who wants to marry a boy and adopt a kid, or a girl who wants to marry a girl and adopt a kid? Great. The legal structure ought to be based on the fact that you have a kid and not what your gender happens to be. Because the kid-as-future-taxpayer is the states compelling interest. Easy.

You wanna marry 40 boys -or- girls -and- not have kids? Good for you too. No need to extend child benefits. Less paperwork. Property ownership, inheritance, medical, and insurance. Handled.

Honestly, the state getting wholly the fuck out of sanctioning marriages and into sanctioning contractual arrangements whether theyre called marriage or something else is the ideal. If your cousin who smokes dope and talks to magpies is your religious leader he ought to be able to marry you, but whether or not that marriage comes with other state sanctioned benefits is another matter entirely.

Ultimately, we're just asking them to do more (and more complex) paperwork. Fine by me. We really ought to get something from them for the taxes we pay. They can stamp forms. They can stamp forms for days. We're already paying them to stamp forms. Who wants to tell me that we have needless social division on this issue because we don't wanna buy ink or because we don't wanna pay low level functionaries minimum wage?

Simple solutions to simple problems. Now, mind you, none of this is going to happen because the maintenance of longstanding problems is crucial to the status quo which is otherwise useful to the powers that be.

(September 21, 2023 at 10:13 pm)LinuxGal Wrote:

(September 21, 2023 at 10:39 am)GrandizerII Wrote: Traditionally, marriage isn't about love. It's about partnership, benefits, agreements between the two wider families marrying the couple, fulfilling religious duties, having kids.

You get married to two or more people for what? Just because you love them?

I'm thinking the opposite way. Besides legal benefits, what's even the point of marriage from a secular perspective?

There are certain efficiencies that emerge.  You can heat only one bedroom at night.  Hers and hers sock drawers.  One bank account.  File taxes jointly. Grow old together with someone.

Besides perhaps the joint tax filing, I get to do all that with my partner without being married.

I think there should at least be an exception for immigrants who already have more than one spouse. Under current law, 'excess spouses' must be divorced; and it is particularly common among refugees fleeing war to get a divorce to qualify for living in the USA. That can be a hardship for the divorced spouses. They were part of a household, and were entitled to an inheritance. They might get left behind while the rest of their family goes to America. They might arrive and be in the position of a single parent trying to navigate a new country. I saw this sort of thing with the Somali Bantu refugees we got back around 2004.

I've been married four times, but I've never been so stupid as to double up.

(September 22, 2023 at 3:00 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: I've been married four times, but I've never been so stupid as to double up.

Was just thinking the same.  I have had three spouses...just not at the same time.

I can imagine myself having a harem of gorgeous gay men.

(September 22, 2023 at 3:05 pm)Foxaèr Wrote: I can imagine myself having a harem of gorgeous gay men.

Fanning you with palm fronds and feeding you grapes?

(September 22, 2023 at 3:05 pm)Foxaèr Wrote: I can imagine myself having a harem of gorgeous gay men.