You can't live long enough to make them all yourself. Canadian study recommends legalizing polygamy : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
|||||
|
3
|
4 |
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
31
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
But it would have to be done very delicately because the religious groups would see themselves as persecuted if they are somehow banned from practiced there model of polygamy while it is legalized. And when there is perceived persecution, there is perceived martyrs and rallying around a cause and you get the big picture.
(no subject)
politics makes such a simple thing much more complex.
frankly, if i were legalising polygamy, i'd be clear about it being an extension of the current framework. the same-gender process would be a matter of removing the references to the genders of the persons marrying.
i would impose clear rules regarding the circumstances when it would be permissible to marry a second or subsequent person. i would provide a set of presumptions regarding property and children that extends from the current monogamous arrangements - essentially relaxing the rules regarding the number of persons and their genders.
but i would be clear about a couple of things. marriage for economic gain would not be permitted. marriage of minors would face the same scrutiny as now - only parental consent would definately be replaced with court scruitiny - including the interest of the child, and a followup process (for all minors in any form of marriage).
i would be encouraging the creation of property trusts, or other arrangements that make it clear who owns what or has an interest in what. ditto regarding any children. i'd be making clearer profcesses for people to consider the what and why of assests and of children during relationships rather than leaving it to any potential messy end.
this might seemlike a big impost, but in light of the way some people operate in relationships, considering the tax arrangementsand so forth people already entertain, and the way children can muddy things - i'd be going for a more upfront process.
marriage - especially de jure marriage is not to be lightly entered into. certainly not as casually as many people do. it should also not be so complicated to extract from - binding people into relationships they don't want is just stupidand cruel. governments are trying to make it harder for people to get out if they've gotten into marriage. to me, it ought to be a more formal process to get in, and less obstruction to getting out. divorce is messy, for all manner of reasons - but a lot more could be done before and during methinks.
and de facto relationships are no less messy either.