Time to recognize polyamorous marriage?

Yes and I'll say it a third time if you like, of course it's not the only reason but it's a fundamental part of the problems in the ME.

As for a direct causation link, look no further than Osama bin laden, the product of a polygamous marriage where his father was a very wealthy guy who could afford to have many wives. Unfortunately he didn't have much time for his many children so then you have the likes of Osama vying with his many other children for attention. Of course Osama went on to a polygamous marriage himself and the process repeats as some of his sons then followed him into terrorism.

In the real world it is women that consent to this being shared, hardly any man would consent to sharing his wife with another man. That's where the problems for society as a whole would result as seen in the ME. Society should not be encouraging this practice because it is not good.

That's a correlation, not a causation - which is a classic logical fallacy.

That last paragraph is again assumption (and factually incorrect, if you've every actually been in a polycule) - men wouldn't last five minutes with an attitude like that.

So yeah - you cleary have no idea who the concept of polyamory works, you're guessing, telling us what you want us to hear and getting it completly wrong. Leaving you here at this point.

It wasn't legal in Utah even before it was admitted as a state, though it was widely practised. The US federal government banned polygamy in all US territories (which included Utah at the time) in 1862. For a long time the Utah Territory authorities were reluctant to enforce the ban — meaning, they didn't prosecute bigamists, but bigamous marriages were still unlawful and were unrecognised for all legal purposes.

That changed in the late 1880s — not only were bigamists prosecuted, but the authorities also began to seize the asset of the Mormon church. In 1890 the church prohibited new plural marriages (though it continued to assert the validity of existing plural marriages) and a few years later its assets were returned to it.

In 1896 Utah was admitted to the Union as a State, one of the conditions of admission being that the State Constitution would include a ban on polygamy. The constitutional prohibition is still in force.

(Polygamy wasn't the only issue that delayed Utah's admission to the Union. Because the white settlement of the territory had been organised and conducted by the Mormon church, the church owned a huge part of the Territory's land area. That gave it enormous political influence which was felt to be in appropriate for a US state. The seizure of the church's assets in 1893 was partly a measure to punish its complicity in conducting polygamous marriages, but partly also a way of reducing its land ownership and redesignating much church land as public land.

I don't hear Dil Wickremasinghe going on about her "throuple" much lately, maybe they are just back to a couple again. Maybe she frightened away the +2 person with all the adverse publicity associated with this "lifestyle". I doubt it will become a thing

Do they have a spreadsheet on who's turn it is or what?

She seems happy anyway.

She shouldnt always be bleeding.

But that never happens, 2 men and 1 woman, its always 1 man and several women like in the ME not a stable situation because then you have many angry men that cannot get a woman the fundamental reason why so much violence in the ME and Africa. Therefore in order to maintain the stable societies we have in the developed world these types of relationships should never be accepted or legalised

How does the tin of beans sign the contract?

That's a bit like me saying I never signed the contract - the ink is liable!

This is the type of mental stuff that seems mental now but media/NGO/activists will attempt to make it normal over the next decade or so.

Has she elaborated how the Tax Credits work?

Polyamoury is simply a "woke" term for promiscuity. Marriage is an institution based on fidelity and mutual respect. Having multiple shag partners is not. A polyamourous marriage, therefore, is a contradiction in terms.

that would make rational sense but then feminists would be aligning themselves 100% with conservatives and against the groups they like to associate themselves with

the same rationale with regard to mandatory religious face coverings for women, feminist stay very quite on this issue

It would have to be fundamentally different terms. One of the defining characteristics of marriage as we currently have it it that it's exclusive — if I marry A, then I cannot marry anyone else. And much about the nature of marriage flows from that - presumption of paternity, inheritance rights, rights to maintenance and support, etc. So it's not simply a question of extending existing rules to an additional person as devising a new set of rules appropriate to a different set of relationships between a larger group of people.

A related point is that marriage, the legal institution, isn't the foundation for marriage, the social reality — it's the other way around. People have been marrying, and have been recognised and treated as married by their families and neighours and communities, long before the state got involved and started recognising and regulating marriage. Even now, the state's capacity to regulate marriage ultimately has to give way to the social reality of marriage — e.g. this state's attempt to ban divorce ultimately had to give way to the reality of relationships ending, and the legal and regulatory regime simply had to deal with that.

Which means that there is no point in the state recognising polyamorous marriage if polyamorous marriages aren't an established social reality. I pointed above to some questions that would have to be asked about polyamorous marriage - e.g. how would the inheritance rights of my various spouses be reconciled on my death? But in fact there are much more fundamental questions that would need to be settled - e.g. if I am married to A can I go ahead and marry B, or is this only possible if both I and A marry B, so that A and B will also be spouses of one another?

If polyamorous marriage were a social reality in Ireland, we would already know the answers to questions like this, because we would point to the reality of polyamorous marriage as lived by those in them, and to the shared understanding of polyamorous marriages and their consequence by the wider community within which people enter into polyamorous marriages. We can't point to to these things because they don't exist yet; polyamorous marriage is just an abstract idea and, if we're honest, a not very well developed one.

In short, the state can't recognise polyamorous marriages because there aren't any polyamorous marriages to recognise. Only when the community starts practising, accepting and supporting polyamorous marriage can the the question of legal recognition arise.