Should People Be Allowed To Be Married To More Than One Person

catallus

Well? I think it's an archaic and unjust idea that marriage is between two people.

Sure why not

SV

If they're all consenting then sure. I don't really see the point, though

Timmyctc

I think there was a guy who preached those ideals and as far as I remember. He got on quite well as a result
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Joseph_Smith

Chucken

Jesus no. One is enough.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

adults consenting to weird **** is more important than other people finding that **** weird or offensive

greenflash

Any man who willingly has more than one mother in law should be sectioned.

sonny jim bob jones

Why do they need to marry?

IM0

ah youve been watching neet the polygamists havent you

theblaqueguy

Yes if someone.wants 6 wives then let him have as many as he wants I don't see any problem with it

Talib Fiasco

Won't somebody please think of the children?

marshbaboon

Absolutely not. Think of the tax credits they'd receive.

delthedriver

Whatever you are into I guess?:)

catallus

marshbaboon wrote: »

Absolutely not. Think of the tax credits they'd receive.

Exactly! I'd be all over that!

IM0

I love the way people think you can only love one person at a time, they obviously have no birth family. I mean ffs why is that so hard to get your head around selfish ***** the lot of them

Liamario

Government and general public should in no way be involved in the personal lives of consenting adults. Marriage is a human construction and should have no tangible effect on others.

The Big Smoke

I don't even..

pharmaton

sure if a woman wants to have six husbands why not, I'd say she would be great fun making six dinners every day. and sandwiches, don't forget the sandwiches.

IM0

there should be a disclaimer for this thread. you cant post if your wife is standing behind you with a rolling pin

miss tickle

greenflash wrote: »

Any man who willingly has more than one mother in law should be sectioned.

but think of all the sisters in law.:D

IM0

The Big Smoke wrote: »

I don't even..

I do, in church while bashing the bishop.. no thats not a euphamism

Too Tough To Die

Why not? The sanctity of marriage is already well on its way to being erased.

SV

pharmaton wrote: »

sure if a woman wants to have six husbands why not, I'd say she would be great fun making six dinners every day. and sandwiches, don't forget the sandwiches.

You're single aren't you? Very..very single

pharmaton

SV wrote: »

You're single aren't you? Very..very single

yep

BonkeyDonker

miss tickle wrote: »

but think of all the sisters in law.:D

Who you could marry as well.

canadianwoman

marshbaboon wrote: »

Absolutely not. Think of the tax credits they'd receive.

You must be a politician.

hansfrei

No voters have a slight lead. AH is.obviously full of Religeous fuddy-duddies and is way out of touch with the common people.


*sigh*

bnt

No. Not for any "moral" reasons (I don't have Morals, only Ethics), but because it's a throwback to some of the worst periods of history, before modern civilisation. Look at the parts of the world where it's still practiced: those are the parts of the world where might makes right, where the "big man" gets his way, women are subjugated and abused, and the common man has no chance of improving his status in life.

bnt

bnt wrote: »

No. Not for any "moral" reasons (I don't have Morals, only Ethics), but because it's a throwback to some of the worst periods of history, before modern civilisation. Look at the parts of the world where it's still practiced: those are the parts of the world where might makes right, where the "big man" gets his way, women are subjugated and abused, and the common man has no chance of improving his status in life.

Eh?
I heard a hammer was used to kill someone once, ban all hammers?

Jezek

Should be allowed but would be a logistical nightmare. Might as well do away with legal privileges of marriage and let people do whatever the **** they please.

clairefontaine

You have a legal mess and a half.

You'd have to strip spousal citizesnship and visa entitlements.

You'd have to strip next of kin rights.

You'd have to strip any automatic insurance benefits.

You'd have an absolute chaos in the family courts between paternity testing and custody fights as well as child support.

Its bad enough people set up new families before divorcing a previous spouse due to stringent divorce laws.

Come to think of it in Ireland, it kind of already is ok to be married to more than one person.

B.A._Baracus

hansfrei wrote: »

No voters have a slight lead. AH is.obviously full of Religeous fuddy-duddies and is way out of touch with the common people.


*sigh*

... :pac:

Judging from alot of threads on after hours in the last 12 months it seems that there are more athiests who post than religious people.

and secondly... you know even an athiest might only like the idea of marrying one person. So your religious/out of touch comment is rather silly.

seenitall

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

you know even an athiest might only like the idea of marrying one person. So your religious/out of touch comment is rather silly.

I think he was being sarcastic...

B.A._Baracus

seenitall wrote: »

I think he was being sarcastic...

then I am a fool

... I shall pity myself.

KKkitty

Imagine the poor husband forgetting the anniversaries. Bad enough forgetting one but multiple anniversaries would be brutal.

Timmyctc

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

You have a legal mess and a half.

While not against the idea in principle - clearly - I am fully with you as regards the above. Actually implementing it would not be easy by any stretch.

Of course if one believes it is the right thing to do then clearly one should not be dissuade solely by it being difficult. But difficult it would be.

As somone who actually lives that life – we had to sit at great length with our solicitor and sign endless documents in order to ensure our relationship had all the legal entitlements – from inheritance to next of kin rights to medical proxy to guardianship over our shared children to much much more – that the average married couple get as part of the standard package.

My mental faculties – let alone my political, economic and legal knowledge – simply are not equipped to even begin to imagine how one would implement all those things as standard in a way that is society wide.

greenflash wrote: »

Any man who willingly has more than one mother in law should be sectioned.

Don't knock it. Having an extra set of Parents in law / Grandparents has meant for us - extra presents and cash on birthday and Christmas. And extra baby sitter options when required. And all kinds of other extra supports here and there in many ways over recent years.

Then again my two "mothers in law" are quite tolerable - perhaps my opinion would be tainted were one or both of them to be a bit more like "Mrs. Bucket".

Czarcasm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

While not against the idea in principle - clearly - I am fully with you as regards the above. Actually implementing it would not be easy by any stretch.

Of course if one believes it is the right thing to do then clearly one should not be dissuade solely by it being difficult. But difficult it would be.

As somone who actually lives that life – we had to sit at great length with our solicitor and sign endless documents in order to ensure our relationship had all the legal entitlements – from inheritance to next of kin rights to medical proxy to guardianship over our shared children to much much more – that the average married couple get as part of the standard package.

My mental faculties – let alone my political, economic and legal knowledge – simply are not equipped to even begin to imagine how one would implement all those things as standard in a way that is society wide.



Don't knock it. Having an extra set of Parents in law / Grandparents has meant for us - extra presents and cash on birthday and Christmas. And extra baby sitter options when required. And all kinds of other extra supports here and there in many ways over recent years.

Then again my two "mothers in law" are quite tolerable - perhaps my opinion would be tainted were one or both of them to be a bit more like "Mrs. Bucket".

A surprisingly reasoned and practical approach post from you tax tbh! I have to admit when I saw you were the last poster in a thread like this I imagined you'd be giving it welly purely about the sexual aspects to a polygamous marriage.

For many posters though, the sexual aspect IS all they think about when they hear about polygamous or the less common polyandrous marriage, hence you get phrases bandied about like "consenting adults", "nobody else's business", etc, and all practical concerns seem to go out the window.

I would see no reason why polygamous or polyandrous marriages or unions should be prohibited, a person doesn't enter into a union or contract with the idea of dissolving that contract, same as any form of marriage.

It can be a legal nightmare if it goes wrong, certainly, but the same could be said of any relationship, but when a relationship is working, it can be an example to many that such relationships are possible and beneficial to humanity and society, rather than detracting from it.

seamus

Yeah don't see any good reason why not tbh.

What typically comes to mind when one thinks of polygamy is a one-to-many relationship, usually one man and many wives or less commonly a woman with many husbands.
But usually people think of the man every so often bringing home a new wife and slotting her into the house.

However, what if the marriage contract required the agreement of all parties? So a third person in a marriage isn't a man and his new wife, it's a man and a woman and their new wife. Or their new husband. Either way it's all-way consensual and all parties have to provide their consent in order to marry.

I don't see the problem with that. There'll probably be a few weird legal issues to sort out, children being the big one, but most others are easily sorted - it's an all-way contract so inheritance, insurance, etc are divisible by N-1, where N is the numbers of parties in the marriage.

Czarcasm

Czarcasm wrote: »

A surprisingly reasoned and practical approach post from you tax tbh! I have to admit when I saw you were the last poster in a thread like this I imagined you'd be giving it welly purely about the sexual aspects to a polygamous marriage.

Thanks. I think. I am not sure where you got that expectation about my posts though I rarely - if ever - discuss the sexual side of our relationship.

Heartily agree though that "sex" is where the minds of most go when a subject like this comes up. Yet marriage has not got much to do with sex. In fact - this being after hours - there are those who will tell you marriage is one sure way of ensuring you get a lot less sex.

So as I said - I am all for it in principle - clearly given I am living that kind of life myself - but actually implementing it would be horrifically complex. But I would also hate to see complexity or difficulty being used as a reason for not doing the right thing either. So I am firmly an observe on debates and issues on these lines with very little useful to add.

my teapot is orange

I think you might need two different kinds of marriage, people opting for either monogamous marriage or polygamous marriage. This would be so that both parties know where they stand starting off. If A commits solely to B for life, on the understanding that all their time, emotional, physical and financial efforts will go into that marriage, and assuming B will do the same, there can't be a surprise situation where A is suddenly only getting 1/3 of B's commitment which they divide between their two other spouses. A would have to know what they were getting into in advance.

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

Well? I think it's an archaic and unjust idea that marriage is between two people.

On their heads be it. Any shower who can keep a threesome or foursome on the road for 20 years can then be eligible to chair the UN.

keeponhurling

Yes, I support marriage to more than one person.

Anybody who opposes it is a bible-bashing redneck, who is a slave to the Catholic church.

What does it matter to them what goes on in other people's houses?

Wacker The Attacker

No.

What they should do is not get married. Then they can bang whoever they want and f*ck off whenever they feel like it.

clairefontaine

keeponhurling wrote: »

Yes, I support marriage to more than one person.

Anybody who opposes it is a bible-bashing redneck, who is a slave to the Catholic church.

What does it matter to them what goes on in other people's houses?

Some people don't support marriage at all. In that why should the state have any role whatsoever in your sex or family life? In other words, abolish state backed marriage altogether.

Wacker The Attacker

keeponhurling wrote: »

Yes, I support marriage to more than one person.

Anybody who opposes it is a bible-bashing redneck, who is a slave to the Catholic church.

What does it matter to them what goes on in other people's houses?

Then why do you support marriage?

Czarcasm

keeponhurling wrote: »

Yes, I support marriage to more than one person.

Anybody who opposes it is a bible-bashing redneck, who is a slave to the Catholic church.

What does it matter to them what goes on in other people's houses?

You do realise that Catholicism is not the only religion in the world, right? There are many non-religious people who are opposed to polyamory for numerous reasons.


I'm Roman Catholic and I support polyamory - shoots a gaping hole in your theory.

ScumLord

I think marriage should be abolished and replaced with an 18 year child rearing license. If it had an end date of completion I think many people would go their separate ways once the contracts up, happy in achieving what they set out to achieve.

As long as you could fulfil the original contract without breaking the terms there's no reason why any person couldn't have more than one contract with different people.

Czarcasm

ScumLord wrote: »

I think marriage should be abolished and replaced with an 18 year child rearing license. If it had an end date of completion I think many people would go their separate ways once the contracts up, happy in achieving what they set out to achieve.

As long as you could fulfil the original contract without breaking the terms there's no reason why any person couldn't have more than one contract with different people.

How would such a contract work for those who didn't want, nor had any intentions of having children, yet still wanted to be married?

I know where you're coming from with the whole "need a licence for a dog", but you can't own people, so there will never be any such thing as a licence to bear or rear children.

Never understood the licence argument anyway tbh, look at all the shìte drivers on the road with licences to drive!

Wacker The Attacker

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

No. What they should do is not get married. Then they can bang whoever they want and f*ck off whenever they feel like it.

Not sure what the thread has to do with "banging whoever they want". The fact they want to marry means they are as likely as committed to fidelty within their own relationship as any "couple" are.

I think you may be mixing this thread up with one about swingers who want to sleep around with multiple people alone and/or together. Or open relationships. Or things like that.

Whereas I think the thread is more about people - like myself - who are in a relationship that differs only from the "average couple" in the number of people committed to that relationship.

The Corinthian

We actually already have legal polygamy of a sort; it's just that we can't be married to more than one spouse at a time.

Depending upon legal jurisdiction, ex spouses enjoy many of the rights of current spouses, including maintenance, future assets, pension and inheritance - I know one chap who's supporting three ex-wives.

That we don't allow simultaneous marriage to more than one person is a cultural thing, coupled with the presumption that it's synonymous with Shira law, child brides and the like.

TBH, whatever about polygamy, marriage in general needs a serious reformation in modern society.