Yes, and I want to marry my dog then get more puppies and get a per puppy tax creidt as long as they live with us and subsidies for dog healthcare too.

The problem is that government has insidiously inserted itself into the lives of ordinary citizens to the point that anything it does anymore sends a kaleidoscope of regulatory effects spinning out of control, and hey can't just simply butt out (even if they wanted to) without causing negative outcomes. And this, to their way of thinking, requires more new, unwanted intrusions.

I think the government should just back off and let the man do what he wants, period. What's someone that goes both ways today supposed to do? Would it not be better for them to have one of each? If there was no opposition to polygamy and it was legal I really doubt there would be very many that would actually go through with it. Could you imagine dealing with two wives or two husbands, hell one's more than enough. Just because we don't believe in something doesn't mean we should ban it, especially if it doesn't effect us. Let those that want to experiment suffer in their own misery, or reap the benefits of their desires. I only ask, please don't do it in public, and not in my house.

And...? We still shouldn't have to pay for it.

No... WE do.

It's a package deal. And none of it should be funded by others.

I would first suggest looking at how private insurers deal with polygamous marriages in, say, India or in Hong Kong. (I remember in Hong Kong there was a big luxury building that had a separate floor for each of the man's wives.)

The problem of how to solve insurance for plural marriages has probably already been dealt with by insurance companies.

Jan

Well...at least he's marrying within his species. So, what's the problem?

Plural Marriage (aka polygamy) has been going on in Montana (and a LOT of other states, BTW) for well over a century. Other than they want to live openly - which is about damn time the dotgov got out of the "family reguation business" - it shouldn't even be news.

Drives me CRAZY that people have to live their lives according to the PC notion that we must all bend to the lowest common denominator of they which get their panties in a bunch!! ANd that people get in an uproar when someone follows their own sensibilities rather than that of those in the uproar.

That's a separate issue, one that should be fixed.

And that's an issue that would need to be resolved.

Why on earth should polygamy be illegal anyway. Who cares. 2 men/1woman. Or 2 women and 1 man. What about 3 men? So what

Yes! Get gov't out of all that.

"is your State next?"

I hope so.

the insurance industry, having been nationalized, has

nothing but good news for him::: he gets to pay a Big

Premium and a Monster Deductible for all of that family!!! -- j

.

and that is precisely the point, Zen! . we are celebrating

that fact as we converse here, feeling free to do so!!! -- j

.

I guess if this guy likes having TWO women pissed off at him versus only one then more power to him. Personally, hell no.

One is a enough: one woman, one marriage and if things don't work out in the end, one divorce.

LOL

ACA has already seen to rate increases by insurers...in any event, it would still be vastly cheaper than getting insurance outright. As to the wives: the penalty for bigamy is two mothers-in-law.

The company's insurance carrier adjusts the mans rates based on the number of dependants he has. I would bet that a 10 fold increase would get his attention. Oh, does the mill worker now have carnal rights with all 9 new wifes?

So long as it is between consenting adults and not female children and old farts( like me LOL), it is no ones business but the consenting adults. It is especially Not the business of the nanny state.

That didn't take long now, did it.

Now, let's consider a scenario. Let's say there are ten bar buddies. One works down at the mill, the rest are self employed. Over a few beers one night, they decide that they and their current wives will all get married to each other. The next morning, the one guy walks into the personnel office down at the mill and announces that the company now has an obligation regarding health insurance for his family.

What now?

Why would an Objectivist society place restrictions on consensual contracts between individuals, either legal, moral, or societal?

Considering such or criticizing others' decisions is not Objectivist. It's being nosy and puritanical.

Interpersonal relations in an Objectivist society are none of my business, other than my own, and society has no rights.

sooooo many of those are single-mom households. -- j

.

are we not exploring and enjoying the parameters

of interpersonal relations in an objectivist society?

this seems healthy and free, to me!!! -- j

.

I don't care who marries who, what I care about is the cost to tax payers. They are funded by the gov because they end up having 40-11 kids to feed.