Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 02:49:29 +0300 (EEST) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Larry Sica <lomion@mac.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Senator Santorum Message-ID: <20030510024104.N40030-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <4AC876C5-8161-11D7-86C4-000393A335A2@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > This would mean you first have to explain why bi- or polygamy are > > or should be illegal. Its even trickier in the US, where 'unmarried > > cohabitation' is still a crime in many states... > > > > Well it comes down to, i think, legal and economic issues. From a > taxation issue i can see it, imagine a guy claiming 3 wives and 2 kids > from each as exemptions. Or dealing with the implications of the whole > family breaking up from a legal, economic and social standpoint. I for > one would not want to be married to more than one woman, I don't think > I would survive it ;). > Well, the correct question is 'what and how can the wives claim benefits on'. But its a simple matter of amending the tax code. Where it gets tricky is if any of the wives are intermarried or married to somebody else and you get (possibly long) cycles. > Also there was the fact that a woman could not have multiple husbands, > so I guess it becomes an equality issue as well? > The 'woman could not have multiple husbands' is only true if that situation gets handled separately under clauses banning ployandry, which I don't think is the case. > > --Larry >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030510024104.N40030-100000>