very reasonable replies from kalbear:

--"Polygamy would wreck a whole lot of other things, too, like the power-of-attorney privilege and the right to make life-and-death decisions, as cited upthread. Because if the Schiavo case taught us anything, it's that not everybody gets around to making that living will before tragedy strikes. If Bill has an incapacitating stroke, and Nicki and Barb want to let him die while Marge insists on keeping that feeding tube hooked up come hell or high water, how do we decide? Majority vote? (And a coin flip in case of a tie?)"--

In the case of a disagreement, the eldest wife wins. Or they sue. The legal system already exists for dealing with these kinds of situations. An analogous situation exists for children of a parent as the only living primary relatives, and the legal system didn't break down and die because of it. One big strength of the legal system is the ability to adapt to new situations. It's not that bad.

--"It would be a clusterfuck. Simply wouldn't work."--

It doesn't work as things are now, that's true - because there is no need for laws to deal with the results of illegal activities. That these things couldn't be dealt with is like saying it's impossible to regulate cars because we only have horses or it's impossible to regulate or deal with the internet because we haven't had one before. In this case, it's even easier; we have marriage laws aplenty, we have contract law aplenty, and we have family law aplenty. It's not impossible. It's not even difficult.

--I like this, reminder that society can change (currently: the smoking ban) when I tend twd despair of changing anything that ~? is a system -? It's not that bad. the law can be changed.