Polygamy - why not?

Gurgle

Just wondering what people think of legalizing polygamy.
With gay marriage almost a certainty, seems likely to be the next thing afterwards.

Just as with the gay marriages, I can't think of a single legitimate reason not to allow three people (or more) to all marry each other.

It would even have some advantages, there could be two earning money and a home-maker, more people to share housework, fewer turns as designated driver.

So, without any religious bullshìt, can anyone give a reason why not ?

Capt'n Midnight

Two mother in laws ?

But you would also have to allow women to marry multiple men like they do in that place in India. And what if she marrys a morman/muslim who already has several wives ?

Won't someone think of the children !

If you trace it all back one reason why priests don't marry is because of property rights, most of our laws are about propterty rights. This includes many related to marrige and compensation for rape. Ignoring the morality for a while the legal side would be very complex. And the revenue might loose a few bob too.

Gurgle

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Two mother in laws ?

Good point.
But each would have two son/daughter in laws. Carefull playing off against each other could mean you never had to deal with either.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

But you would also have to allow women to marry multiple men like they do in that place in India. And what if she marrys a morman/muslim who already has several wives ?

Well, they would all have to agree to marry each other.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

If you trace it all back one reason why priests don't marry is because of property rights, most of our laws are about propterty rights.

In the case of the church, the problem was anyone else having rights to their property.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

the legal side would be very complex.

The legal definition of 'complex' says 'see lucrative'.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

And the revenue might loose a few bob too.

One thing can be absolutely certain, the revenue will not lose money.

MorningStar

Just think of the social welfare claims!

Zaph

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

And what if she marrys a morman/muslim who already has several wives ?

Just for the record, Mormons no longer practice polygamy and haven't done so for quite some time.

Sangre

Trust me, it would be a legal nightmare. Just think of the succession rights alone >_<

zenith

I'd have no problem with it if you could guarantee for me that the kids would be no worse off. I don't see how that would be possible, though.

Shabadu

I'm sure it would work for some people, but most people I know would be too jealous to function in a love triangle.

Would it just be too much of a minority to warrant all that legislation?

Are there any people here in a relationship who could forsee having another person in it?

Sangre

In todays society of equality for all I don't think polygamy can work, no one wants to be the subordinate, which is surely needed in a marriage of 2+ persons.

Sleepy

Why does one person have to subordinate?

Xterminator

zaph wrote:

Just for the record, Mormons no longer practice polygamy and haven't done so for quite some time.

Errrm thats not strictly true!

There are a number of fundamentalists that call themselves Mormon, and practice polygamy.

X

Shabadu

Pecking order. Complete equality in a relationship is almost impossible.

Most people in happy relationships that I know seem to have a fairly equal standing, but generally one person's needs are being catered for more.

The person who is 'top dog' changes as the problems the couple face change. This can work quite well for a lot of people, one shoulders the burden when the other needs support and vice versa.

With three people, it would seem more likely that group dynamics would lead to one person being the subordinate constantly. However, this happens in two person relationships as well.

There are also some people who willingly bury their needs and volunteer to be the whipping boy. This can be very unhealthy.

The Corinthian

Gurgle wrote:

Just as with the gay marriages, I can't think of a single legitimate reason not to allow three people (or more) to all marry each other.

If one follows the liberal mantra of allowing consenting adults to do as they wish, you would be quite correct. Sociologically, however, I suspect that incestuous marriages are more likely to become a social issue in the future than polygamous ones.

Sangre wrote:

In todays society of equality for all I don't think polygamy can work, no one wants to be the subordinate, which is surely needed in a marriage of 2+ persons.

As has been pointed out, monogamous relationships involving both a dominant and submissive partner are not unusual. Of course for it to be a truly polygamous union at least two of the parties would have to be fully bisexual - otherwise they would become nothing more than a harem for the third.

Where problems would more likely arise would be with jealousy; in particular where one partner or offspring of one partner are preferred over the other(s).

Jr.Shabadu wrote:

With three people, it would seem more likely that group dynamics would lead to one person being the subordinate constantly. However, this happens in two person relationships as well.

Firstly, I don’t know if that is true. Secondly, there are quite a few happy relationships out there where one party is happy to be constantly subordinate.

pretty-in-pink

I think that polygamy would be/is a bad idea. It's essentially a 24/7 threesome for the guy(not many guys are going to agree on having another guy on their turf).

Gay marriage is 2 people in love, and sometimes a 3+relationship could work (case study:hugh heffner!) but I think that would be a rare case

But with people being pretty territorial and dont want a threat on them and their world. Have you ever tried introducing a new cat (for example) to a set group of cats? People aren't all that different.

One member would be more loved, there would be one set winner, and fights would end up with someone feeling ganged up on. The idea only works where women are treated badly anyway and have no rights. In our western world it would not work. Since when is "the muslims in their muslim run countries still do it" a reason? In that case bring back the laws that a man owns his wife/daughter/sister and can do whatever he likes to them because they are meerly his property. Doing what backwards countries do is not the way forwards.......

I agree with the corinthian, incestous marriage will be an issue first, because some people want that(more people then actually want polygamy at any rate). There are far more bad points about polygamy then good. For it to work we would need a major reversal in society, or perhaps a large time machine..........

Eoghan-psych

Gurgle wrote:

Just wondering what people think of legalizing polygamy.
With gay marriage almost a certainty, seems likely to be the next thing afterwards.

Hmm, while I agree with the sentiments expressed here - that polygamous marriage [or whatever society decides to call marriage in the future] is, in theory at least, a viable option for some people.

What I *don't* see however, is the link between same sex marriage and polygamy. Maybe the issue was raised purely to illustrate society's changing attitudes to marriage, but if not could someone clarify?

Sleepy

naughty_girl wrote:

I think that polygamy would be/is a bad idea. It's essentially a 24/7 threesome for the guy(not many guys are going to agree on having another guy on their turf).

I think you'd probably be surprised, an awful lot (most in my experience) of the cases you'd see featured in interviews with polygamous trios are of the mmf variety.

The Corinthian

Eoghan-psych wrote:

What I *don't* see however, is the link between same sex marriage and polygamy. Maybe the issue was raised purely to illustrate society's changing attitudes to marriage, but if not could someone clarify?

The primary liberal argument in favour homosexual relationships is that it is a consenting sexual and emotional relationship between consenting individuals. Marriage is simply a legal recognition of this relationship. The same criteria may be applied to numerous types of relationships, many of which are as taboo today as homosexuality was a century ago.

Gurgle

Eoghan-psych wrote:

What I *don't* see however, is the link between same sex marriage and polygamy.

Choose any 3 people. You will generally find that at least two of them are of the same gender.

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Maybe the issue was raised purely to illustrate society's changing attitudes to marriage, but if not could someone clarify?

Partly, yes. Its also a civil rights question.

solo1

I could handle being married to two ... or three .. or ... Holy mother of Jesus - FIVE WOMEN!

pickarooney

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was polygamy not legalised/encouraged in many countries in the past as a way of redressing the population imbalance after wars, when large sections of the male populace were killed, leaving nobody to father the next generation?

DadaKopf

So... countries in the West with negative birth-rates should legalise polygamy?

Sleepy

As with most things, as long as it's between consenting adults and no-one else gets hurt, I've no problems with it.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

So... countries in the West with negative birth-rates should legalise polygamy?

Bigamy is having a wife too many. Monogamy is much the same thing.

Sleepy wrote:

As with most things, as long as it's between consenting adults and no-one else gets hurt, I've no problems with it.

So you favour consenting incest?

Sleepy

As long as both parties are over 18, I don't have any issue assuming that contraceptive measures are taken. Not my thing but then neither are gang bangs, soap operas or religion.

Gurgle

The Corinthian wrote:

So you favour consenting incest?

Its a long way from 'favour' to 'right to choose'.

The Corinthian

Gurgle wrote:

Its a long way from 'favour' to 'right to choose'.

I stand corrected; I should have asked "so you favour the right to consenting incest?"

Lemming

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't incest illegal on grounds of DNA mixing and trying to avoid mutation among off-spring?

The Corinthian

Lemming wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't incest illegal on grounds of DNA mixing and trying to avoid mutation among off-spring?

Of course you're wrong. To begin with the laws that prohibit incest predate the discovery of DNA and in the west originate from the same place that the laws against homosexuality came from - the Bible, principally the book of Leviticus.

As for inbreeding, there is plenty of evidence that points to it being a danger, but nowhere as big as is popularly thought in modern Society due to population size.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course you're wrong. To begin with the laws that prohibit incest predate the discovery of DNA and in the west originate from the same place that the laws against homosexuality came from - the Bible, principally the book of Leviticus.

As for inbreeding, there is plenty of evidence that points to it being a danger, but nowhere as big as is popularly thought in modern Society due to population size.

He is right and the potential confusion with multi partner relationships can be weighed on several levels.

There will have to be a change in laws (to suit californian law) about blood tests.

The complexitity of divorce law will be like trying to grasp the diference between division and long division. For example; there are three people two men and a woman engaged in a relationship. She has children from both relationships. Is the child support she deserves equal from both partners towards all children? What if one man is a poor artist, the other a millonare, is it fair that the millonare pay child support comparible to his earnings if the dead beat dad pays non existant child support beased on his earnings? If it's not fair, is it fair for the mother to use some of money specifically paid by the weathly partner to their child to divert it to their underpriviledged child? Is that legal? Is it just for a mother to send her child from one partner to a sh*tty school because the dad can't afford it, and send her other kids to a nice private school? And what will that mean for the development of both children?

I'm aware that these issues arrive in current divorce law, it's just if polygamy exists the potential of a premartial prenup (or lack there off) will add to confusion.

To compare polygamy to homosexuality is unjust to a safe sane sexual relationship. Polygamy is a incredibly complex issue. To legislate for such complexity, and the issues what it will raise is impossibility. To avoid asking the most basic logistics of the issue (what if one partner isn't biologically related to, but feels a empathatic bond to a child, I mean, for example, if a couple as part of polygamist relationship decides to make this a monogomy relationship can they try to gain sole custody of the children of one side of the triangles relationship, whats going to stop them?) does a injustice to the children of the relationship?

Theres the authour Alan Moore he's lived in a polgamist relationship for years, it's failed. Theres no reason to suggest successful relationships warrant a law.

Wherein, as it stands the divorce laws are complex, remarried, child custody are complex issues. A Polgamy law can't to imply a single law to deal with complex issues. I'd prefer to allow judges to apply specific judgements to specific cases. The instants of polygamy are, as is, so rare that, a single law cannot to used on complex cases.

I'm sorry Gurgle this is once again you boiling down an incredibly complex issue into a simple one. legalised Plogamy does not = homosexual marriage. In fact its more dangerous the genetic imperfections that occur during incest are expotentially increased when a society justifies or ignores incest, or the potential of said occurance.

Jekell

Ok, I want 2 husband, and they each want 2 wives etc etc - where does everyone live?!!

Would anyone here really want another partner? Could you see your self living with 2+ people? Do you think it would work? If this was made legal, how long would it be before we see the first "crime of passion"

Victor

The Corinthian wrote:

As for inbreeding, there is plenty of evidence that points to it being a danger, but nowhere as big as is popularly thought in modern Society due to population size.

Of course incest and consequent inbreeding tend to be problems within particular families, not societies as a whole.

While Darwin may forgive a single generation of inbreeding, subsequent generations become more and more susceptible to a variety of congenital diseases.

Xterminator

The whole bias against polgamy seems to be a western culture/society thing.

Those who say it cant work etc, are ignoring the fact they are seeing this from a certain perspective, as it has worked in the past for many!

One instance in the bible that comes to mind would be Abraham, having a child with his wifes maid. There were other too, as Jewish society allowed this practice. So too was it common practice in Africa, India Japan etc.

It was common practice in a different time, and i think most of the problems or arguements against, are societal in orgin e.g. Settlements of Assets, Role of each partner.

There is no reason i can see to associate it with incestious relationships, are there have been no shortage of such relationships, in enlightened modern Irish society!

X

ionapaul

Incestuous relationships have also 'worked in the past for many' - whole dynasties had such relationships at their heart for hundreds or thousands of years, on different continents in different eras.

mycroft

Xterminator wrote:

The whole bias against polgamy seems to be a western culture/society thing.

Those who say it cant work etc, are ignoring the fact they are seeing this from a certain perspective, as it has worked in the past for many!

One instance in the bible that comes to mind would be Abraham, having a child with his wifes maid. There were other too, as Jewish society allowed this practice. So too was it common practice in Africa, India Japan etc.

It was common practice in a different time, and i think most of the problems or arguements against, are societal in orgin e.g. Settlements of Assets, Role of each partner.

There is no reason i can see to associate it with incestious relationships, are there have been no shortage of such relationships, in enlightened modern Irish society!

X

Correct, but the OP is talking about legalised polgamy, so we need to look at it the framework of our current society.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

He is right and the potential confusion with multi partner relationships can be weighed on several levels.

Err... actually he’s not, he stated two points, one of which was completely wrong and the other was exaggerated.

I'm aware that these issues arrive in current divorce law, it's just if polygamy exists the potential of a premartial prenup (or lack there off) will add to confusion.

To compare polygamy to homosexuality is unjust to a safe sane sexual relationship. Polygamy is a incredibly complex issue.

How so? You only seem to say that polygamy is an incredibly complex subject then fail to explain how homosexuality is not or how if it were more complex, how this changes the basic principle of allowing consenting individuals to pursue the form of relationship they wish to have.

In fact its more dangerous the genetic imperfections that occur during incest are expotentially increased when a society justifies or ignores incest, or the potential of said occurance.

There are potential health and biological issues in all relationships, in particular what would be classified as abnormal ones. You assume that incest would be encouraged in multiple generations; which is what would be needed to generate such genetic aberrations in a large population, or that such a union would even voluntarily produce offspring in the first place.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

How so? You only seem to say that polygamy is an incredibly complex subject then fail to explain how homosexuality is not or how if it were more complex, how this changes the basic principle of allowing consenting individuals to pursue the form of relationship they wish to have.

I think I have. Homosexuality is a safe sane consenting relationship between two adults. Instants of polygamy are rarer and should be handled on a case by case basis rather then creating complex legalisation that cannot concieve of all eventualites.

As for how is homosexual relations aren't more complex. Basic maths. The problems of a relationship is exopentially increased when an additional partner is included.

There are potential health and biological issues in all relationships, in particular what would be classified as abnormal ones. You assume that incest would be encouraged in multiple generations; which is what would be needed to generate such genetic aberrations in a large population, or that such a union would even voluntarily produce offspring in the first place.

I never said voluntarily. Its the likelyhood that a potential incestous relationship could occur is increased if children are uncertain who exactly is their parents

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

I think I have. Homosexuality is a safe sane consenting relationship between two adults. Instants of polygamy are rarer and should be handled on a case by case basis rather then creating complex legalisation that cannot concieve of all eventualites.

As for how is homosexual relations aren't more complex. Basic maths. The problems of a relationship is exopentially increased when an additional partner is included.

And again how does this change the basic principle of allowing consenting individuals to pursue the form of relationship they wish to have?

I never said voluntarily. Its the likelyhood that a potential incestous relationship could occur is increased if children are uncertain who exactly is their parents

But we’re not discussing accidental incestuous unions, but consensual ones.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

And again how does this change the basic principle of allowing consenting individuals to pursue the form of relationship they wish to have?

You misunderstand me, I'm not forbidding polygamy, I'm not suggesting we outlaw it, I'm saying we shouldn't creat legalisation to enshrine it.

But we’re not discussing accidental incestuous unions, but consensual ones.

You were, I wasn't.

Gurgle

mycroft wrote:

You misunderstand me, I'm not forbidding polygamy, I'm not suggesting we outlaw it, I'm saying we shouldn't creat legalisation to enshrine it.

Without the legislation, it is outlawed.
Everybody is banging on about relationships, escaping the original point.

The state has no say on relationships between consenting adults. I'm sure incest is probably still illegal but how often do the gardai show up in your house to make sure you're not sleeping with your sister ?

The state can only legislate for the legal union known as marriage.

The point is the state should allow unions of any type and size between consenting adults. Its taken as read that all the legal issues between any couple could and would be legislated for.

Homosexuality comes into it on two points:
- Homosexual couples will probably soon be allowed marry all over the wertern world.
- At least two of any three people will be of the same gender

Incest has absolutely nothing to do with polygamy.
Bigamy has absolutely nothing to do with polygamy.

Xterminator wrote:

The whole bias against polgamy seems to be a western culture/society thing.

Exactly, and so to outlaw it is to discriminate (without good cause - for the terminally pedantic) against other cultures and societies.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

You misunderstand me, I'm not forbidding polygamy, I'm not suggesting we outlaw it, I'm saying we shouldn't creat legalisation to enshrine it.

So if a polygamous relationship wants to be recognised as a legal union, you would deny this because you consider it too complicated? I’d love to hear what gay rights groups would say if you tried pulling that one on them?

And what of incestuous unions - I'm sure you'll agree that inheritance issues would proably be more straightforward in there?

You were, I wasn't.

Really? Where?

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

So if a polygamous relationship wants to be recognised as a legal union, you would deny this because you consider it too complicated? I’d love to hear what gay rights groups would say if you tried pulling that one on them?

But I'm not saying gay marriage is wrong. Nor am I saying polgymist relationships are wrong. Don't misrepresent me. I'm suggesting that any legalisation could not possible be flexible enough to cope with every variantion and crisis and situation. I'd suggest that the complications should be handled on a case by case basis.

And what of incestuous unions - I'm sure you'll agree that inheritance issues would proably be more straightforward in there?

And I never condoned incestuous unions. Quit mispresenting my point of view.

Really? Where?

In fact its more dangerous the genetic imperfections that occur during incest are expotentially increased when a society justifies or ignores incest, or the potential of said occurance.

The potential being accidental incest.

Without the legislation, it is outlawed.

Thats a profound ignorance of the law. You have to legislate something to make it illegal for example I design a new pyschotropic drug in my back yard, made from commonly available and legally aquired drugs. It is not a controlled substance until they legalise aganist it. Polygamist relationships exist across the world and in this country, they're not illegal, theres just no legalisation governing them.

The state can only legislate for the legal union known as marriage.

Um common law partnership? We're getting that.

Exactly, and so to outlaw it is to discriminate (without good cause - for the terminally pedantic) against other cultures and societies.

But it's not outlaw. Theres just no legalisation governing it.

Gurgle

mycroft wrote:

The potential being accidental incest.

If anything, allowing polygamy would reduce the chances. If you're Dad's bit on the side married your parents and lived in the same house, you would know your half-siblings pretty well.

mycroft wrote:

Um common law partnership? We're getting that.

And thats got what to do with polygamy ?

mycroft wrote:

But it's not outlaw. Theres just no legalisation governing it.

Marriage is a legal contract. If theres no legislation governing it then it can't be done.

mycroft

Gurgle wrote:

If anything, allowing polygamy would reduce the chances. If you're Dad's bit on the side married your parents and lived in the same house, you would know your half-siblings pretty well.

And if the relationship fell apart and you never knew which one was your dad? The potential for confusion over parentage increases, and this can lead to confusion. Furthermore the chances of a polygamist relationship lasting longer than a traditional marriage are naturally smaller.

And thats got what to do with polygamy ?

This gem of yours;

Gurgle wrote:

The state can only legislate for the legal union known as marriage.

The state can legalisate for relationships outside of marriage.

Marriage is a legal contract. If theres no legislation governing it then it can't be done.

It is being done. It does occur. Its just rare.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

But I'm not saying gay marriage is wrong. Nor am I saying polgymist relationships are wrong. Don't misrepresent me. I'm suggesting that any legalisation could not possible be flexible enough to cope with every variantion and crisis and situation. I'd suggest that the complications should be handled on a case by case basis.

I’m not misrepresenting you. I asked if you not whether you thought it right or wrong but whether you would deny polygamous (or other abnormal unions) the legal recognition of marriage on the basis that it’s too complicated to legislate for - and apparently the answer is yes.

And I never condoned incestuous unions. Quit mispresenting my point of view.

I never implied you did. Quite the opposite - I implied that you condoned one and not the other, which would be inconsistent because it would apply the principle of allowing consenting individuals to pursue the form of relationship they wish to have in one case and not the other.

The potential being accidental incest.

Where did you make that jump in logic? The biological probability of inbreeding occurring is related to the initial and subsequent unions. In a large population exogamy would automatically exist, decreasing he chances of inbreeding in a consensual incestuous union, while smaller communities would have an existing degree of endogamy (where genetic diversity would be lower due to inter-‘clan’ marriage), resulting in a greater probability of inbreeding. Put simply, if a consensual incestuous couple come from a city they have a much smaller chance of inbreeding than if they came from a remote village. And even then inbreeding often takes multiple generations to take place.

As you can see accidental incest was not mentioned.

Gurgle

mycroft wrote:

And if the relationship fell apart and you never knew which one was your dad?

Not the point. Not relevant. Nothing to do with how many people were in your parents marriage.

mycroft wrote:

The potential for confusion over parentage increases, and this can lead to confusion.

How?

mycroft wrote:

Furthermore the chances of a polygamist relationship lasting longer than a traditional marriage are naturally smaller.

Why?
A large proportion of marriages fail due to infidelity. If a husband got laid at home twice as often, surely he's much less likely to cheat ?

mycroft wrote:

The state can legalisate for relationships outside of marriage.

I honestly don't know what you mean by this. Can you please give an example ?

mycroft wrote:

It is being done. It does occur. Its just rare.

No it isn't and no it doesn't.

I'm sure there are plenty of 3 people relationships, even some where all 3 live together in a marriage-like arrangement but they are not married.

They don't have the property/inheritance/tax rights that are the legal side of marriage.

mycroft

Gurgle wrote:

Not the point. Not relevant. Nothing to do with how many people were in your parents marriage.

Yes it does if a woman is having regular sex with two men, how are you going to know for sure which is the dad? Seen any jerry springer lately?

How?

See above

Why?
A large proportion of marriages fail due to infidelity. If a husband got laid at home twice as often, surely he's much less likely to cheat ?

I'm not sure what to do. I'm pretty sure, I need to pick my jaw off the floor and burst into hysterics laughing.

Infidelity is not the only cause of a relationship to fall apart.

Have you ever been in a long term relationship?

What if the third party or how did you put it "the bit on the side" longs to have their own meaniful relationship where they are not the bit of side fluff. The chance of a polygamist relationship falling apart are exopentially greater than a ordinary relationship.

I honestly don't know what you mean by this. Can you please give an example ?

You said the state can only legalise for the legal union of marriage, I pointed out that the state (in the uk at least) is legally enshrining the rights of a partnership that have lived together for over five years with legal rights. an example of the state legalislating for a relationship outside marriage

No it isn't and no it doesn't.
I'm sure there are plenty of 3 people relationships, even some where all 3 live together in a marriage-like arrangement but they are not married.

They don't have the property/inheritance/tax rights that are the legal side of marriage

And as I pointed out the legalislation for such a complex issue does not make sense when there is such a small demand, and the legalisation could not cover every concievable variant and issue.

Show me a polygamist rights march, and we'll start talking.

Until then if three people choose to embark on such an unusual relationship then it is beholden on them to draw up the necessary legal documentation to arrange rights of each party, and for each to draw up specific wills.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

Yes it does if a woman is having regular sex with two men, how are you going to know for sure which is the dad? Seen any springer lately?

Ignoring for a moment that there are medical tests to determine this, you will find that in those few societies that have practiced polygamy (in Polynesia) the identity of parenthood became shared. After all, even in monogamous relationships biological parenthood is not a prerequisite to actually be a parent.

And as I pointed out the legalisation for such a complex issue does not make sense when there is no demand, and the legalisation could not cover every concievable variant and issue.

Popular demand is hardly necessary for legislation a lot of the time - most of the most complex laws are actually remarkably boring and of little interest to the vast majority of the population.

You really are trying to pass the buck on this one.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

I’m not misrepresenting you. I asked if you not whether you thought it right or wrong but whether you would deny polygamous (or other abnormal unions) the legal recognition of marriage on the basis that it’s too complicated to legislate for - and apparently the answer is yes.

It's too complicated and there is scant demand

I never implied you did. Quite the opposite - I implied that you condoned one and not the other, which would be inconsistent because it would apply the principle of allowing consenting individuals to pursue the form of relationship they wish to have in one case and not the other.

And I'm not stopping them. I'm suggesting that if they want to engage in this kind of relationship, they could draw up a legally binding contract.

Where did you make that jump in logic? The biological probability of inbreeding occurring is related to the initial and subsequent unions. In a large population exogamy would automatically exist, decreasing he chances of inbreeding in a consensual incestuous union, while smaller communities would have an existing degree of endogamy (where genetic diversity would be lower due to inter-‘clan’ marriage), resulting in a greater probability of inbreeding. Put simply, if a consensual incestuous couple come from a city they have a much smaller chance of inbreeding than if they came from a remote village. And even then inbreeding often takes multiple generations to take place.

But you admit the possibility. Theres a psychological issue here as well many people would be uncomfortable marrying someone they're related to. Several states in the US still have blood tests before marriage for this and other reasons.

As you can see accidental incest was not mentioned.

Thats what I was refering to. Sorry if you were confused.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

Show me a polygamist rights march, and we'll start talking.

I'd love to see this question asked in relation to homosexuality in 1905.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

Ignoring for a moment that there are medical tests to determine this, you will find that in those few societies that have practiced polygamy (in Polynesia) the identity of parenthood became shared. After all, even in monogamous relationships biological parenthood is not a prerequisite to actually be a parent.

We're not in polynesia anymore toto. And I'm pretty sure if a polynesian relationship feel apart there wasn't court ordered child support.

Popular demand is hardly necessary for legislation a lot of the time - most of the most complex laws are actually remarkably boring and of little interest to the vast majority of the population.

You really are trying to pass the buck on this one.

Nope I'm sorry there are different kinds of legislation. One has to only look at the turn out and close tie the divorce referendum to see marriage is an emotive issue. Comparing legalised polygamy to some obscure bill is once again twisting my point.

I'd love to see this question asked in relation to homosexuality in 1905.

Care to show me a polygamist subculture in 1905? The rights march comment was a glib turn of phrase about the lack of demand.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

It's too complicated and there is scant demand

So we should ignore it. Sounds like lesbianism a century ago.

And I'm not stopping them. I'm suggesting that if they want to engage in this kind of relationship, they could draw up a legally binding contract.

Then why should consensual homosexual unions be blessed will a legal recognition of this contract (i.e. marriage) and polygamous or incestuous unions not? Apparently the reasons you’ve given are medical, lack of demand and complexity; all of which are highly superficial.

But you admit the possibility.

Of course there are possibilities, as there are possibilities of medical problems with homosexual, heterosexual, monogamous or polygamous couples.

Theres a psychological issue here as well many people would be uncomfortable marrying someone they're related to.

You’ll find that most people would be uncomfortable marrying someone of the same gender too. Your point?

Several states in the US still have blood tests before marriage for this and other reasons.

Several states in the US criminalize homosexuality too. Your point?

Thats what I was refering to. Sorry if you were confused.

I wasn’t confused, it was that you didn’t know what I was talking about and assumed that I was referring to accidental incest in small populations, which I was not.

We're not in polynesia anymore toto. And I'm pretty sure if a polynesian relationship feel apart there wasn't court ordered child support.

I suspect that a tribe that practices monogamy is not great on child support either – so what is your point?

Nope I'm sorry there are different kinds of legislation. One has to only look at the turn out and close tie the divorce referendum to see marriage is an emotive issue. Comparing legalised polygamy to some obscure bill is once again twisting my point.

How is it twisting your point? You’ve repeatedly said that it was too complicated to legislate for, I’ve pointed out that it’s not and now you’re trying tow squirm out of it by saying that it lack popular support.

The rights march comment was a glib turn of phrase about the lack of demand.

Yet it betrays your feelings as a fashionable liberal - you are ready to support one civil rights issue on the basis of personal freedoms, yet when the same criteria are applied to an unpopular cause you go to pains to explain how it’s somehow ‘different’.