snopes.com Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » SLC Central » Soapbox Derby » Polygamists Fight to Be Seen As Part of Mainstream Society (Page 15)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 20 pages: 1  2  3  ...  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20   
Author Topic: Polygamists Fight to Be Seen As Part of Mainstream Society
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseGirl:
Wait, Sal now has a second wife? And he didn't ask me? TGirl goes off to pout....

And a third and fourth, if my two wives count also as his.
Well, my husband doesn't count as his husband and I don't consider either of you as my wife. I'm married to Sal and Mrs. Sal and my other husband, that's it. That's what I want to do, that's what makes me happy so that's the way it is.
Sara, yes, it is complicated. No, it certainly isn't for everybody.

Funny how you want the law to protect your happiness, but seem unwilling to desire the same for others.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MapleLeaf:
quote:
Well, if you can't see the difference, I certainly won't be able to explain it. But if the example was flipped, Mrs. Sal would get custody of my son over my dead body, I don't care how wonderful she is.

Sara, were you using this phrase in sarcasm, or in sincerity. Because there is a very good chance that in the tragic case of your hypothetical death, she WOULD get custody.
But that wasn't the situation under discussion. The situation under discuss was if I decided to divorce Sal and Mrs. Sal and seek custody of Little Sal. Flip that, over my dead body would Mrs. Sal get my son.

But responding to what you said, assuming Sal is the father of all children involved, if I died there would be no issue because my son would have one living parent under any scenario. There would be no reason to have custody awarded to anyone. But let's take a step further: if Mrs. Sal decides to divorce Sal -- obviously because he is too distraught to live with since my death -- what is the law going to say Mrs. Sal's claim is on my son? Does her status as co-wife give her a stronger or weaker claim than that of a stepmother? Is she considered my equal as mother because she is my equal in the marriage? These are issues that will have to be addressed and about which there will be conflict.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:

Funny how you want the law to protect your happiness, but seem unwilling to desire the same for others.

Say what? When did sarcasm get lost on you?

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Brad from Georgia
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Brad from Georgia   Author's Homepage   E-mail Brad from Georgia   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Higgledy-piggledy,
Two women are bigamy,
Piggledy-higgledy,
More are polygamy.

--------------------
"No hard feelin's and HOPpy New Year!"--Walt Kelly
Hear what you're missing: ARTC podcasts! http://artcpodcast.org/

Posts: 7581 | From: Gainesville, Georgia | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
LeaflessMapleTree
The twelve shopping days 'til Christmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for LeaflessMapleTree   E-mail LeaflessMapleTree   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brad from Georgia:
Higgledy-piggledy,
Two women are bigamy,
Piggledy-higgledy,
More are polygamy.

I don't get it. You are factually correct, but what are you trying to say?

--------------------
"For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any."
-Silas Sparkhammer

Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:

Funny how you want the law to protect your happiness, but seem unwilling to desire the same for others.

Say what? When did sarcasm get lost on you?
I think it must've been about 2:47pm CDT.

Sorry!

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
annabohly
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for annabohly   E-mail annabohly   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Not to mention, how are they even going to know who the father is if this is a multiple husband family? would there automaticaly be paternity tests given after birth?

--------------------
And always remember....when life hands you Lemons, ask for tequila and salt and call me over !!!!!

Posts: 521 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ryda Wong, EBfCo.
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ryda Wong, EBfCo.   E-mail Ryda Wong, EBfCo.   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by annabohly:
Not to mention, how are they even going to know who the father is if this is a multiple husband family? would there automaticaly be paternity tests given after birth?

Why on god's green earth would it matter? It would be the family's kid. Just cause you contribute genetic material doesn't mean you own it.

--------------------
So many spankings! It feels so good! But at the same time, I don't care about meeting your family! - I'mNotDedalus:

Posts: 3216 | From: Denver, CO | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
vanilla
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for vanilla     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:
quote:
Originally posted by vanilla:

Courts, law makers and others seem to have no problem dealing with divorces, serial marriages, surrogate mothers, extended families raising children, interracial marriages, inter-religion marriages, foster kids, adopted children, single parents, large families and other families outside the normal "two married never divorced people with two children" format.


It may seem that way to you but that's not the reality. The courts do have problems dealing with all those things, despite the laws that have are in existence and have evolved over hundreds of years based on marriage as a two person contract.

Yes, they do have problems dealing with these issues. But they are dealing with them regardless, aren't they? During the course of time the courts have been able to deal with these issues more easily and more successfully as more cases come before them. Why would poly-marriages be any different? When surrogate mothers wanted joint custody, instead of making surrogate fertility illegal, the courts dealt with the matter and issued rules to handle each issue. Why should poly-marriages not get the same treatment?

quote:
Here's a problem: In PA any children born to a married woman living with her husband is presumed to be his regardless of what the DNA says and is responsible to pay child support for that child if the marriage ends.
The simplistic answer would then be that in a poly-marriage that is ending, a paternity test would ensure that the bio-father would have to pay for child support.

quote:
quote:
Just because someone could get their hands dirty and be caused a few headaches creating laws to incorporate a new definition of mariage is not a reason to not support a change. Besides, tax codes are changed yearly as many existing taxes are changed and new tax laws are added as new types of business and other issues arise. Adding new definitions and new tax codes are really no reason to stop something from happening.
Simplistic answers to complex problems. The yearly changes to the tax code are nothing compared to the havoc multiple person marriages would have on just the definitions of "dependent", "deduction", "head of household" and "joint return".
Really? Why not have them file different forms altogether? Why change the existing from when new ones can be added? Why couldn't a poly-married file as "Head of Household-Married" with spouses listed as dependants? Or as "Married" on a poly specific form? Why do all the answers have to be complex? Why not start simply and add on complexities as they occur instead of assuming that all complexities must be outlined before a law is passed? When has that ever happened with any other type of family law? The gov't is not psychic when it comes to other family law, why make it psychic when it comes to poly-marriages?

--------------------
I swear, it was funnier in my head.
Yeah, I used to be pink. vanilla_pink.

Posts: 2493 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Brad from Georgia
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Brad from Georgia   Author's Homepage   E-mail Brad from Georgia   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MapleLeaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Brad from Georgia:
Higgledy-piggledy,
Two women are bigamy,
Piggledy-higgledy,
More are polygamy.

I don't get it. You are factually correct, but what are you trying to say?
A clerihew does not have to say, but be.

--------------------
"No hard feelin's and HOPpy New Year!"--Walt Kelly
Hear what you're missing: ARTC podcasts! http://artcpodcast.org/

Posts: 7581 | From: Gainesville, Georgia | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Christie
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Christie     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ryda Wong:
quote:
Originally posted by annabohly:
Not to mention, how are they even going to know who the father is if this is a multiple husband family? would there automaticaly be paternity tests given after birth?

Why on god's green earth would it matter? It would be the family's kid. Just cause you contribute genetic material doesn't mean you own it.
Sara has already outlined at least one reason why it would matter.

--------------------
If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr

Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ryda Wong, EBfCo.
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ryda Wong, EBfCo.   E-mail Ryda Wong, EBfCo.   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Christie:
quote:
Originally posted by Ryda Wong:
quote:
Originally posted by annabohly:
Not to mention, how are they even going to know who the father is if this is a multiple husband family? would there automaticaly be paternity tests given after birth?

Why on god's green earth would it matter? It would be the family's kid. Just cause you contribute genetic material doesn't mean you own it.
Sara has already outlined at least one reason why it would matter.
The heredity thing? Baugh. The courts will sort it out one way or another, and, besides, it might give a welcome challenge to the primacy of the bio-parent thing. Who contributed the sperm shouldn't matter when you have a co-family. It's everyone's kid, and everyone has equal rights and responsibilties towards it.

--------------------
So many spankings! It feels so good! But at the same time, I don't care about meeting your family! - I'mNotDedalus:

Posts: 3216 | From: Denver, CO | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ryda Wong:
quote:
Originally posted by annabohly:
Not to mention, how are they even going to know who the father is if this is a multiple husband family? would there automaticaly be paternity tests given after birth?

Why on god's green earth would it matter? It would be the family's kid. Just cause you contribute genetic material doesn't mean you own it.
What if that's not what's going to make you/your family happy? What if the marriage you want to create specifies that individual members do indeed "own" their own biological children? The laws need to reflect all the possible combinations of multi memeber families and the legal division they wish to create.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ryda Wong:
quote:
Originally posted by annabohly:
Not to mention, how are they even going to know who the father is if this is a multiple husband family? would there automaticaly be paternity tests given after birth?

Why on god's green earth would it matter? It would be the family's kid. Just cause you contribute genetic material doesn't mean you own it.
I think that these reforms must be a bit more gradual than that. For the time being, the genetic parents should have a greater claim for custody than the co-parents. As group marriages become legal, and case law develops, such issues can be worked out.

I can see how, in the ideal case, you are correct. However, the same is true for communism. As we are now, we just aren't ready to take quite that large a step.

(Which brings up a possible new thread...evolution vs. revolution...)

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by vanilla:

Yes, they do have problems dealing with these issues. But they are dealing with them regardless, aren't they? During the course of time the courts have been able to deal with these issues more easily and more successfully as more cases come before them. Why would poly-marriages be any different? When surrogate mothers wanted joint custody, instead of making surrogate fertility illegal, the courts dealt with the matter and issued rules to handle each issue. Why should poly-marriages not get the same treatment?


The courts don't have the ability to make surrogate mothering illegal. However, nineteen states passed surrogacy laws, including total bans in Arizona, Kentucky, Utah and Washington DC. Read all about it.

quote:
quote:
Here's a problem: In PA any children born to a married woman living with her husband is presumed to be his regardless of what the DNA says and is responsible to pay child support for that child if the marriage ends.
The simplistic answer would then be that in a poly-marriage that is ending, a paternity test would ensure that the bio-father would have to pay for child support.

Well, there's one law that has been reexamined and a change is proposed. But suppose that law doesn't suit the definition of marriage and family that some families adopted? Remember, we can't have laws that define marriage and family in ways that aren't acceptable to everyone.

quote:
quote:
Simplistic answers to complex problems. The yearly changes to the tax code are nothing compared to the havoc multiple person marriages would have on just the definitions of "dependent", "deduction", "head of household" and "joint return".
Really? Why not have them file different forms altogether? Why change the existing from when new ones can be added? Why couldn't a poly-married file as "Head of Household-Married" with spouses listed as dependants? Or as "Married" on a poly specific form? Why do all the answers have to be complex? Why not start simply and add on complexities as they occur instead of assuming that all complexities must be outlined before a law is passed? When has that ever happened with any other type of family law? The gov't is not psychic when it comes to other family law, why make it psychic when it comes to poly-marriages?
Go down to H&R Block and sign up for their beginners tax course. Or go to irs.gov and do some research into determining dependents, exemptions, deductions, who can file as what. You might want to start with Pub 17. Then come back and we can talk.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ryda Wong:
The heredity thing? Baugh. The courts will sort it out one way or another, and, besides, it might give a welcome challenge to the primacy of the bio-parent thing. Who contributed the sperm shouldn't matter when you have a co-family. It's everyone's kid, and everyone has equal rights and responsibilties towards it.

So who gave you the right to determine the structure of other people's marriage?

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Salamander
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Salamander   E-mail Salamander   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
As for the custody issues, I don't see a lot of difference between a poly marriage and serial mono marriages.

I must admit I'm just a little shocked to find that I've gained multiple partners overnight. Mrs Sal will not be happy... we've only just moved into a new place and there is no way we'll fit in all these co-wives & co-husbands.

--------------------
"victory thru self-deception"

Posts: 2211 | From: Western Australia | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Rhiandmoi
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Rhiandmoi   E-mail Rhiandmoi   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:
quote:
quote:
Simplistic answers to complex problems. The yearly changes to the tax code are nothing compared to the havoc multiple person marriages would have on just the definitions of "dependent", "deduction", "head of household" and "joint return".
Really? Why not have them file different forms altogether? Why change the existing from when new ones can be added? Why couldn't a poly-married file as "Head of Household-Married" with spouses listed as dependants? Or as "Married" on a poly specific form? Why do all the answers have to be complex? Why not start simply and add on complexities as they occur instead of assuming that all complexities must be outlined before a law is passed? When has that ever happened with any other type of family law? The gov't is not psychic when it comes to other family law, why make it psychic when it comes to poly-marriages?
Go down to H&R Block and sign up for their beginners tax course. Or go to irs.gov and do some research into determining dependents, exemptions, deductions, who can file as what. You might want to start with Pub 17. Then come back and we can talk.
Um, you may have missed it. But vanilla is an accountant.

--------------------
I think that hyperbole is the single greatest factor contributing to the decline of society. - My friend Pat.

What is .02 worth?

Posts: 8745 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhiandmoi:
Um, you may have missed it. But vanilla is an accountant.

So was my sister-in-law. I did her taxes. Being an accountant doesn't guarentee that one knows about taxes. It isn't about the forms, it's about the laws.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Rhiandmoi
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Rhiandmoi   E-mail Rhiandmoi   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
So are you saying that you know about forms or laws?

--------------------
I think that hyperbole is the single greatest factor contributing to the decline of society. - My friend Pat.

What is .02 worth?

Posts: 8745 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
No. Why? Are you asking?

My comment about forms was in response to the flippant comment that implies alls ya gotta do is make a new form.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
vanilla
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for vanilla     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:
quote:
Originally posted by Rhiandmoi:
Um, you may have missed it. But vanilla is an accountant.

So was my sister-in-law. I did her taxes. Being an accountant doesn't guarentee that one knows about taxes. It isn't about the forms, it's about the laws.
I am not only an accountant, but I am a tax accountant. And not at H&R Block. I do corporate taxes, partnership taxes, and individual taxes and all the forms required for each type of taxable and non-taxable entity. Perhaps you should try reading up on all of the forms that the IRS publishes, the many languages they print them in and the fact that not only are new tax laws and codes created yearly, but so are new forms.

There are many more forms available to indivduall tax payers than the popular ten or so that the majority of taxpayers file. Many of these that are not used by the majority are specialized forms that were created for a minority of the public. Farmers have forms that are specialized for them, retired railroad workers have a form, US departing aliens have their own 1040. You would be amazed at the number of forms the IRS has for all types of entities (IRS.gov has a form page you can look through). Hell, the IRS issued a new publication specifically for victims of the Katrina hurricaine - how more specialized can you get? The IRS adding a form for poly-marriages was not a flippant response and is not an unimaginable solution to any poly-marriage tax issues.

--------------------
I swear, it was funnier in my head.
Yeah, I used to be pink. vanilla_pink.

Posts: 2493 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
erwins
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for erwins   E-mail erwins   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Adding a new form may not be that hard. Deciding what to have on the form, and how everyone in the marriage will be treated is hard, and would lead to disagreement even among those on this board that are advocating legalizing plural marriage.

That is what the advocates of plural marriage here have yet to grapple with. There have been lots of posts saying "why not plural marriage" and "the courts will work it out".

But, when it comes down to specifying how specific issues will be dealt with, one person's solution is another person's problem.

As for the "courts will work it out" crowd -- much as we rely on the common law tradition to deal with gap filling, this is a nation of positive law. Courts cannot, and should not, be making up the law whole cloth. There are times when courts will rightfully extend laws to situations that didn't occur to lawmakers when the laws were created. But, courts are not, and should not be, tasked with creating entirely new social structures, with no legislative guidance.

erwins

Posts: 238 | From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by vanilla:
The IRS adding a form for poly-marriages was not a flippant response and is not an unimaginable solution to any poly-marriage tax issues.

Of course it's flippant when you imply, as I said, that a new form is alls ya gotta do to make it work. Are you suggesting that a new category for filing be created? You didn't say that, you just said a new form. It there is a new category, there will have to be explicit instuctions to figure out who falls into that new category. Poly-marriage? Will there be a worksheet to figure out who can take dependents, exemptions, deductions like there are for standard marriages? There will be new pubs to explain how to fill out all those forms.

Since you state that you do know something about taxes, I'm rather shocked at your belief that this could "start out simple" and that it doesn't have to be made complex until later. The tax situation for some divorced and separated couples is complex enough without the addition of more legal spouses and exspouses to the mix. Not only would every issue that exists for two person marriages -- divorces, separtations and children -- have to be covered the day the first poly marriage form was printed, any conceivable variation which might occur with a poly marriage would also have to be covered. And all that would have to be covered by January 1st of the year after poly marriages were first legalized, not only for the federal government but for each state that has an income tax. How else will people file their taxes?

No, it's going to take a lot more than another form.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Doug4.7
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 205 posted      Profile for Doug4.7   E-mail Doug4.7   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Why not get around it on the tax and legal end by treating the poly marriage like a business partnership (that three or more ADULT members enter into willingly)? [Confused]

--------------------
And now for something completely different...

Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug4.7:
Why not get around it on the tax and legal end by treating the poly marriage like a business partnership (that three or more ADULT members enter into willingly)? [Confused]

Because a marriage is not a business.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Our taxes, which include a sole proprietorship, a step-child whose exemption alternates each year, some tax-exempt income (this will be the last year for that), and some cool deductions for state sales tax, have yet to take more than 4 hours for my husband and I to do.

Taxes are no necessarily difficult.

But, again, just because something is complicated doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
erwins
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for erwins   E-mail erwins   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug4.7:
Why not get around it on the tax and legal end by treating the poly marriage like a business partnership (that three or more ADULT members enter into willingly)? [Confused]

You could treat some versions of plural marriage that way. Do you think that everyone here that is advocating plural marriage has that in mind when they say they are in favor?

Are children then assets of the partnership that get liquidated when the partnership is dissolved?

If one person wants out, but the others don't, what then?

What about a plural marriage where there are multiple nodes, and not everyone is married to everyone else? Could a person be a dependent of one spouse, but the head of another household? If not, why not?

erwins

Posts: 238 | From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Salamander
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Salamander   E-mail Salamander   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug4.7:
Why not get around it on the tax and legal end by treating the poly marriage like a business partnership (that three or more ADULT members enter into willingly)? [Confused]

Because a marriage is not a business.
like != as

Treating something like a business isn't the same as treating it as a business. Doug will have to clarify for himself but as I interpret his comment, why not borrow some of the legal framework used to establish a business partnership and convert it into something suitable for a domestic partnership?

This isn't my line of reasoning, so I'm not defending the statement made by Doug.

--------------------
"victory thru self-deception"

Posts: 2211 | From: Western Australia | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
Our taxes, which include a sole proprietorship, a step-child whose exemption alternates each year, some tax-exempt income (this will be the last year for that), and some cool deductions for state sales tax, have yet to take more than 4 hours for my husband and I to do.

Taxes are no necessarily difficult.

But, again, just because something is complicated doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

It isn't about how difficult the final tax form makes preparing one's taxes, it's the complicated matter of making a new form, category, defining and making rules for every possible situation.

But there is no real reason to do it in the first place.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The only reason you have for not doing it is because it is hard.

And I have, in fact, given you real reasons to do it in the first place (survivorship and custody of minor children issues). You have chosen to ignore them.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The laws that might be put in place that address survivorship and custody within poly marriages may not reflect the wishes of the people within a poly marriage. There are different types of poly marriages, different structures and different expectations. You are being extraordinarily optomistic to assume that any resulting laws would address those issues to the satifaction of the people involved in all poly marriages.

Those issues are much easier addressed through individual legal documents which spell out the parents' wishes.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jason Threadslayer
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jason Threadslayer     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug4.7:
Why not get around it on the tax and legal end by treating the poly marriage like a business partnership (that three or more ADULT members enter into willingly)? [Confused]

Marriage proposal: Why not privatize? Partnerships could be tailored to fit

--------------------
All posts foretold by Nostradamus.

Turing test failures: 6

Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:
The laws that might be put in place that address survivorship and custody within poly marriages may not reflect the wishes of the people within a poly marriage. There are different types of poly marriages, different structures and different expectations. You are being extraordinarily optomistic to assume that any resulting laws would address those issues to the satifaction of the people involved in all poly marriages.


Such as?

quote:
Those issues are much easier addressed through individual legal documents which spell out the parents' wishes.
Because this is working so well already for children of homosexual parents, huh?

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Doug4.7
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 205 posted      Profile for Doug4.7   E-mail Doug4.7   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jason Threadslayer:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug4.7:
Why not get around it on the tax and legal end by treating the poly marriage like a business partnership (that three or more ADULT members enter into willingly)? [Confused]

Marriage proposal: Why not privatize? Partnerships could be tailored to fit
That is more or less what I was thinking of. Now at times, it did get a bit silly (Tiffany marriages?), but the general idea of different groups setting up "model" marriages for others to use is not a bad idea.

You set up general rules about how to deal with human assets (such as children, other partners, the disolution of a marriage is not exactly like the desolution of a partnership, but it should be close enough to use as a basic model), and let it go. The idea is to first adopt the partnership idea (with full liability, NOT the limited liability versions) and go from there. Write laws that protect the humans (disallow slavery positions and such), but beyond that, see what happens.

From a legal societal standpoint, I don't see a downside. However, I am not a lawyer or accountant.

Of course, this begs the question: why do we even have a "legal" definition of marriage? [Confused] What state interests are served by defining a marriage as anything?

--------------------
And now for something completely different...

Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 20 pages: 1  2  3  ...  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2