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.