"Baby daddies" v polygamists... which is worse?

Again, we are talking about CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES, as stated in the OP. Please stay on topic.

- - - Updated - - -

It's called compartmentalism--we conveniently ignore that which does not fit our narrative. We all do it to some extent.

 

If you don't pay Child support you go to jail.

 

If you're a broke-ass baby daddy there is no child support to be paid--except by the taxpayers.. And we are not talking about going to jail for neglecting child support: We are talking about going to jail for the practice of having more than one wife. Please stay on topic.

 

Why should additional partners in a polygamous relationship be denied the same rights? What purpose then would the legal relationship serve?

 

Family law in all 50 states would disagree with that.

 

I think it is reasonable to recognize the special relationship between biological parents and their offspring.

Whatever purpose the consenting adults participating in said relationship deem appropriate--in a nation of free men, anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Please explain.

 

That would be discriminatory against the other partners in the marriage.

Then they're free to do as they wish - on the flip side, the state isn't in anyway obligated to provide a service for someone simply because said person unilaterally declares it their 'right'

A 'free man' doesn't need a state to 'subsidize his freedom for him' - no one's stopping him from moving in with a group of swingers if that's his thing (which isn't illegal) - that doesn't mean he's in anyway 'obligated' to have the state provide a special service for him.

 

I'm not in any way suggesting that the state is 'obliged to provide a service.' Please stick to the topic.

 

Providing legal marriage benefits to polygamous relationships is providing a service

 

I have not in any way suggested that is my position, nor have I suggested it is THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD. Please stick to the topic.

 

It's not "their babies" - it's her fetus/embryo - no one stopped her from having an abortion now did they? No reason to hold a man responsible for what she does with her own body.

 

I have to agree with the OP. A person who sticks around to take care of the children they create and the woman they made them with is always going to be better than the person who abandons them and their mother(s).

It's worth saying that I don't specifically have a problem with polygamy in the first place, it's just that polygamy tends to get lumped in with the kooky cults that end up marrying off underage girls. I'm not okay with that. If the polygamy is honestly between consenting adults, then I'm completely fine with it.

 

You said, "The only people who have any legal claim to the custody of a child--or any responsibility thereto--are the man and woman who created it."

Under the law (your state may vary), the father in the legal sense is the presumed husband at the time of the marriage, and no, a DNA test doesn't get you out of the responsibilities of fatherhood, like child support. So if a woman is married to multiple husbands at the same time, all of them will be the legal fathers. And there is some fairness to that too. If you helped raise a child and they thought of you as some sort of parent (however it works in polygamous households) would you wanted to be denied contact with your child just because maybe one or two of the spouses decide to split?

That's why I have no patience with the dirtfoot hippie types who say to just get the government out of marriage... they don't realize that makes family law issues a hundred times worse. The last thing that will happen if government "gets out" of marriage is that they will get out of your family.

 

You've gone way off topic here. Thank you for an interesting discussion.