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

B.A._Baracus · 28-10-2013 01:00AM

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 · 28-10-2013 01:01AM

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 · 28-10-2013 01:03AM

seenitall wrote: »

I think he was being sarcastic...

then I am a fool

... I shall pity myself.

KKkitty · 28-10-2013 01:33AM

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

Timmyctc · 28-10-2013 02:51AM

28-10-2013 10:04AM

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 · 28-10-2013 12:02PM

[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 · 28-10-2013 12:37PM

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.

28-10-2013 03:27PM

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 · 28-10-2013 04:09PM

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 · 28-10-2013 04:46PM

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 · 28-10-2013 05:45PM

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 · 28-10-2013 05:47PM

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 · 28-10-2013 05:48PM

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 · 28-10-2013 05:48PM

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 · 28-10-2013 05:51PM

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 · 28-10-2013 05:57PM

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 · 28-10-2013 06:09PM

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!

29-10-2013 09:33AM

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 · 29-10-2013 10:05AM

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.

Timmehhh · 01-06-2014 07:29PM

Well, that would depend on the people.

While good normal decent people would only marry one, have have the one person in their life.

But other strange people may think its OK to cheat once you don't get caught, and those people in my opinion; well like maybe its best not to get close to them, and of course they are the only ones who may want to marry more than one person.

humbert · 01-06-2014 07:50PM

Brings to mind Weakest Link or Apprentice style divorces.

UCDVet · 01-06-2014 08:38PM

I don't think the government should have it's nose in people's private lives. We shouldn't give tax breaks to people for being married. That's private business, between adults.

Being married should be like 'dating'. People should be free to decide what that means, on their own. The idea that there should be laws against things like adultery is insane to me - there are married people who LIKE adultery. That's their own business.

If you take away the silly tax breaks for being married, suddenly it doesn't matter. Marry five people, who cares?

You can go to a solicitor and fill out whatever paperwork you like to give someone legal rights or control over what you earn, if you are so inclined.

--LOS-- · 01-06-2014 09:05PM

Ye why not, I'm not against polyamory, wouldn't be for me, works for some people though

ScumLord · 01-06-2014 09:11PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

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 don't see any reason to get married unless you're raising a family.

Sauve · 01-06-2014 09:29PM

Ah yeah sure if all people involved are ok with it then why would you want to stop it?
Wouldn't be into it personally, unless of course I could have a few husbands but they could only have me.
That'd be sound

Pwindedd · 01-06-2014 09:50PM

I'm feeling my age, I come from a time when everyone would have thought this was just plain weird. But apparently half of you seem ok with it, so what do I know.

seamus · 01-06-2014 10:13PM

Pwindedd wrote: »

I'm feeling my age, I come from a time when everyone would have thought this was just plain weird. But apparently half of you seem ok with it, so what do I know.

We've undergone a very rapid change in this country. We came from a place where the Catholic Church was the moral centre of society, and if the pope said something was wrong we should probably make it illegal. In the space of about ten years in the 90s it became abundantly clear that the church had no business making moral decrees as it was corrupt to the core with amoral and downright evil individuals, so Irish society practically overnight came to the realisation that everyone is the keeper of their own morality and provided what I do harms no one else, I should be permitted to do it.

Politicians unfortunately are much slower to catch up.

Pwindedd · 01-06-2014 10:58PM

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.

I don't think it should be abolished. I didn't marry my husband to rear children. I married him for love and companionship. Why abolish something that's totally optional.

bb1234567 · 01-06-2014 11:08PM

Imagine a woman had 6 husbands tho

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

Comments