Polygamy

[Slytovhand]

Hey gang.

This came up the other day on my radio current affairs slot.

Should polygamy be legal?

This (http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/notes/s2284795.htm) is part of it...

My thoughts are that what a person or persons choose to do in their own homes that has no real effect on anyone else is up to them. So, I think, sure - legalise it, and those who wish to object can just keep their nose out of somebody else's business.

(I've another though, but I'm going to see what the responses are here first...:D)


Slyt

[Greenday]

As long as everybody is willing, and everyone involved knows about each other, and doesn't care, I don't care. You want to be one of 10 spouses competing for the love of your life? Go for it. Not my cup of tea, but it's not my problem.

[BlaqueKatt]

Should polygamy be legal?

yes, but with qualifiers.*

My thoughts are that what a person or persons choose to do in their own homes that has no real effect on anyone else is up to them.

a former coworker of mine had two "wives" one he was legally married to(she was on disability), the other was perfectly healthy. The perfectly healthy one has a child, and since she is not legally married to him, the state says she's a single mother, and even though the three of them can well afford to support the child(the have enough money for MMORPGS(3 accounts each), Cable with all the pay channels(over $150/month) and about 4 different extracurricular activities/lessons, yet the child's mother is on public assistance.
So what they're doing does have an effect on me.

*I'd say the qualifiers should be if you are going to be legally married you should have to prove that you can afford to support yourselves and any children you may have(remember the guy convicted in Utah had 8 wives-all on public assistance, and also "married" several of his step daughters). All the wives/husbands must be of legal age(of course), and they must ot be related to you(no children, stepchildren, cousins, etc.)

[rahmota]

Speaking as someone who has lived in a co-monogamous relationship for the past three years yes it should be legal. A triad (which is what we called what we had) can be more stable, better able to deal with crisis and dealing with the needs of the children and supportive and loving than some "normal" one man-one woman marriages I have seen.

I will agree that it should be restricted, like all marriages should be, to consenting adults, that are not closely related. As for the finincial responsibility thing unless you make that for all marriages as well then there should not be any other restrictions.

I say had because we fell victim to the hatred,intolerance and ignorance of those who dislike seeing someone else have something not "socially acceptable" and the CPS and my exstepson worked together to drive us apart.

[AFPheonix]

Sure, if it includes polyandry in there, too. Hardly ever see that around here.

[rahmota]

Sure, if it includes polyandry in there, too. Hardly ever see that around here.
Today 10:50 AM

Yeah sure why not. Whatever floats your boat.

[IDrinkaRum]

OMG!!! I'd be right there, signing up if I can practice polyandry.

Actually, a friend of mine and I are both fantasizing about up and leaving our current hubs (not going to do it per se, just imagining) and we realized this: We each need a wife & we need at least 3 husbands (1 for the cooking, 1 for the cleaning and at least 1 for the bedroom ;)). The wife would do the errands we don't want to do. *le sigh*

Ahem ... yes, well ... back to reality. :p

[the_std]

Well, technically, polygamy is polyandry AND polygyny, so the OP is inclusive of both.

Yay!

[Seshat]

I would like to see 'civil families' of any number of adults in any configuration. The family thus formed would have the civil rights of a current family, and also the civil responsibilities.

They'd be a family for tax purposes (thus having a bit of tax relief) but also for welfare purposes (thus preventing them from rorting the welfare system as BlaqueKatt mentioned).

They'd be next of kin as a family is, enabling them to be with each other in hospital. And as a family, they would have responsibility for any children of any part of the family unit.

And I don't see a need for these 'civil families' to be based on who is having sex with whom. If a son is carer for his ailing mother, or a mother carer for her disabled son, they may as well have the legal protections of being a family!

I don't have all the bugs worked out, so yes, there are several gaping and obvious holes in the plan.

[BlaqueKatt]

As for the finincial responsibility thing unless you make that for all marriages as well then there should not be any other restrictions.


it's significantly more difficult for a two-person "family" to get any kind of assistance-even when my ex-husband and I were seperated pending divorce, I couldn't work, he wasn't paying support but because I was married my spouse's income was taken into account-so I got nothing to support myself and my child-I had to have my mother's boyfriend take care of us-while my previous coworker in a stable relationship got food stamps, free medical care for herself and her child-while one was on disability, and two worked full time(they're still getting all that plus rent assistance-I had no income and got nothing)

[Saydrah]

I'm "wired that way" so I'm all for it. Let people marry whomever they like in however many quantities they like.

It is natural to me that different needs be met by different people in my life. For others, all their relationship needs can be met by one person, or they simply aren't comfortable with or interested in a polyamorous relationship. That's fine. Neither type of relationship is intrinsically better or worse than the other in any way.

[Flyndaran]

I think my views might not be the norm.
I don't think polygamy should be legal...
Because I think laws should have nothing to do with marriage.
Marriage is a personal and religious issue. It began as a kind of coporate merger system and a way to legitimize offspring.
Consenting adults should have no one intruding into their bedrooms end of sentence. We may find adult incest icky, but it's sill not any of our business.
I find man on man action icky, but it's not any of my business.

[BlaqueKatt]

Marriage is a personal and religious issue.

the definition of marriage disagrees with you:

Marriage

1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.

wed·ding

1.
1. The act of marrying.
2. The ceremony or celebration of a marriage.


A marriage is a civil contract, a wedding is a religious construct.

[Seshat]

it's significantly more difficult for a two-person "family" to get any kind of assistance
. . . <snippage> . . .
while my previous coworker in a stable relationship got food stamps, free medical care for herself and her child-while one was on disability, and two worked full time(they're still getting all that plus rent assistance-I had no income and got nothing)

In the system I envisage, all of that is handled. Families are families, and are treated as such by the welfare system, health insurances, the law, the child support/child care system, and so on. Non-families are not families, and are considered so as well.

I just don't know how you tell that group A are just a bunch of people living in the same house because of ridiculously high rents, and group B are a poly family.

But then, it looks like our welfare system can't really tell either, even with only couples being considered possible families.

[Scamper]

I'd tell you I think, but that's a felony (MCL 750.441) j/k
I think it should be legal, that all parties should be aware of all others, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Not sure I'd try it tho', I seem to have a hard enough time finding *one* person to marry let alone multiple.
hmm, I seem to have committed a felony on the internet. oh well.

[PepperElf]

I would like to see 'civil families' of any number of adults in any configuration.
of course... that could be stretched to include relationships that are still illegal (aka relations between people too closely related to be married)


but back on topic, personally... with all the divorces and issues people are having with just a marriage to one person, i honestly think that bringing in multiple-partner marriages are just going to create even more trouble, especially if the multimarriage fails.

[Greenday]

Well, in that case, I can think of a good way to eliminate those problems. Stop recognizing them. People should get tax breaks because they are married. When it comes to important decisions, such as if you are incapacitated, you should just have a list of people, in order of who gets to make the decision, starting from the top, and working downward if the first person is unreachable. This country still has awhile to go to separate Church & State.

[Gerrinson]

I'm of the opinion that what two (or more) consenting adults want to do should be fine so long as it does not hurt others. Polygamy seems to fall under that heading, so far as I'm concerned. What I don't like is when people say you can do A, B, or C, but D is just wrong! So, a man & woman can marry, but man & man or woman & woman is immoral. Yeah, right.

However, the problem with legalizing it, in America anyway, is that democracy is majority rule. When you're in the minority, you're not going to win the vote. And while you can convince people one at a time, it takes a long time to promote an overall change in a nationwide viewpoint. Especially when your viewpoint is contrary to the teachings of the most common religion in that country.

Also, regardless of the intellectual argument, people vote in numbers. I'm a believer that when dealing with numbers greater than say...4 (possibly less!) the average IQ of the group is actually inverse to the size of the group. If you don't believe me, take 100 D&D nerds and cram them into the same room. See the insanity and stupidity reign when they try to come to a mutual decision.

And, please, I am a D&D nerd, so don't feel I'm disrespecting my peeps.

I'm nerd and I'm proud! :cool:

[Boozy]

The same arguments against polygamy can be applied to argue against the legalization of prostitution.

That is, concerns about consent and balance of power. There are certainly some empowered women out there who are interested in living in a polygamous marriage with several women married to one man. There are also empowered women who want to earn a living by providing sexual services to men. But we hear mostly about the 50 year-old man with 16 year-old wives who had no real choice in the matter. Or women forced into prostitution by unscrupulous pimps. And so we find it easiest to criminalize both practices for everyone, regardless of the circumstances.

I think that's the easy way out. I no more understand the appeal of polygamous marriages than I do the appeal of prostitution, but who am I to force my preferences on others? Prostitution would likely be safer for women, regardless of their circumstances, if made legal. I don't know if that's the case for polygamy, especially within closed religious communities, but it doesn't seem right to rob others of choices that make them happy just because others may abuse that right. It seems to me that raising the age that one can legally wed may go further to protect girls in these communities than anything else.

[Seshat]

of course... that could be stretched to include relationships that are still illegal (aka relations between people too closely related to be married)

My idea of civil families includes people who are not having a sexual relationship, but are caring for each other. Such as a child caring for an aged parent.

The benefits & responsibilities of my concept of civil families include any tax and welfare benefits for being a 'family group', and mutual responsibility for any children of the relationship.

In a relationship which doesn't include sexuality, it is unlikely there will be children, so it's a moot point.

(The issue of children of partners who are not in a civil family is one I haven't yet worked through. Perhaps the people involved would be deemed mutually responsible, and any civil family either party is in could choose to adopt the child.)

For me, it's a matter of next-of-kin rights (hospital visitation, emergency contacts), inheritance, and child responsibility.

Welfare and tax ... I'm undecided whether it's fairer to make such decisions on a per-person basis or a per-family basis. Either way, it should be consistent.

But I'd love to see the civil system acknowledge all forms of multi-adult family.

but back on topic, personally... with all the divorces and issues people are having with just a marriage to one person, i honestly think that bringing in multiple-partner marriages are just going to create even more trouble, especially if the multimarriage fails.[/color]


Is it going to be any different than the current situation, with multimarriages that currently do happen but are unacknowledged legally? I think it'll be better because these arrangements will be under the umbrella of family law.


But we hear mostly about the 50 year-old man with 16 year-old wives who had no real choice in the matter. Or women forced into prostitution by unscrupulous pimps.


Both situations should be dealt with in the criminal code, IMO.

The issue of civil families is one for the civil code, and concerns such matters as next-of-kin rights, inheritance, and responsibility for offspring. Optionally, it can also concern welfare and tax.

The criminal code should be handling coercion: though I'd be strongly in favour of the civil code requiring judicial oversight of situations where coercion is likely: such as a high age discrepancy between civil family members.
Many of those cases will be fine, but some of those cases will be 16 year olds forced into marriage unwilling. Catching them early will save those kids a lot of trouble.

[Slytovhand]

Especially when your viewpoint is contrary to the teachings of the most common religion in that country.

I didn't think JC had any sort of issue (or even comment) on the subject... other than 'love your neighbour'.... did he elaborate on that?? :p

[anriana]

I didn't think JC had any sort of issue (or even comment) on the subject... other than 'love your neighbour'.... did he elaborate on that?? :p

Jesus said that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

[AFPheonix]

Care quoting which passage? The only one I recall him mentioning marriage in any depth was in Matthew 19, and that was more of a case against frivolous divorce than gender of the people getting married.

[Flyndaran]

Huh, strangely, as a born atheist, I don't care what some specific hypothetical religion founder may have said.

If one can't defend a governmental limitation of freedom in non-religious terms and has real beneficial effects on the public at large, then it has no business in law.

[Boozy]

I'm pretty sure Anriana was not saying that the Bible should be considered when creating laws. It doesn't sound like something she'd say. I think she just had some information that answered Slyt's question.

So let's not get too side-tracked with this line of debate.

[anriana]

Care quoting which passage? The only one I recall him mentioning marriage in any depth was in Matthew 19, and that was more of a case against frivolous divorce than gender of the people getting married.

I was referring to Matthew 19: 4-6 where he quotes the Genesis description of man and woman leaving home and mutating into one person. I've always read it as very specifically gendered and limited to two people.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=MATT%2019:4-6&version=50;


And I only care about this because xtians care about it, not because I think it's important. If you're going to debate people who insist on bringing their religion into everything you have to debate on their terms if you want to have any effect.

[Sylvia727]

Excessively religious people generally want the USA's laws to be founded on Judeo-Christian traditions. When confronted with "separation of church and state", they claim that they don't want religion in the law, they just want morality in the law. There are people out there who honestly can't tell the difference between outlawing homosexuality or polygamy and outlawing child molestion or rape. As if they're based on the same foundation. With these people, one has to prove that they are not on the same grounds, that they are fundamentally different. One involves consenting adults and the other does not, which I personally would think is glaringly obvious but apparently isn't to some folk. :rolleyes:

[Flyndaran]

...
And I only care about this because xtians care about it, not because I think it's important. If you're going to debate people who insist on bringing their religion into everything you have to debate on their terms if you want to have any affect.

That is lowering yourself to their level and trying to win playing their own game. I may laugh at super religious people that know less than casual reader atheist I do. But I don't let myself get caught in their web of self-delusion. I argue my non-religious points.

[Slytovhand]

That is lowering yourself to their level and trying to win playing their own game. I may laugh at super religious people that know less than casual reader atheist I do. But I don't let myself get caught in their web of self-delusion. I argue my non-religious points.

While that's all well and good for a straight debate with people willing to listen, and perhaps even admit they may be wrong, not going to happen when it comes to religion.

I agree with Anriana - if you want to debate religion (or really anything), best starting point is something the other person can agree with.. then lead them to the conclusion you want. It's not getting caught in their self-delusion, but trying to find the chink in the wall to let the light in on them..

[AFPheonix]

I was referring to Matthew 19: 4-6 where he quotes the Genesis description of man and woman leaving home and mutating into one person. I've always read it as very specifically gendered and limited to two people.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=MATT%2019:4-6&version=50;


And I only care about this because xtians care about it, not because I think it's important. If you're going to debate people who insist on bringing their religion into everything you have to debate on their terms if you want to have any affect.

I always considered that to be less that Jesus was mandating specific genders for marriage and more that if you're gonna marry somebody, it's going to be a bond that should not be sundered. He says man and woman because, well, there really wasn't sanctioned same sex relationships in that part of the world (with the exception of ancient Greece, but they were pretty much over their heyday by then).
I can see how someone could twist that into saying that Jesus said marriage is only between a man and a woman, but when they do that they've lost sight of what the whole passage is about, which is about a far greater threat to the idea of matrimony than same sex marriage.

[fireheart17]

My points on the view.

-If it's made legal, then a set age for the wives/husband needs to be set across the board. In Australia, the minimum age for both partners needs to be 18 unless the judge consents to someone under 18 marrying someone who is over 18. In those cases, the parent and I think the child also needs to consent. Hearing of some polygamous marriages where one of the wives is under 18 is just sick.
-Religion is not used as a point for allowing marriages of people under 18. The main problem is the stigma of having a polygamous marriage in a society that's used to monogamou marriages.

Some African communities I know do allow polygamy, but even then not completely out of the water. Just as long as they're not marrying "anyone to anything" (thinking of that Simpsons episode again...) I don't care.

[Ele]

I think that polygamous marriages should be legally recognised so that the wives, other than the "first wife", can have a legal claim to their share of the estate of the deceased husband and not have to live on the public purse. That's the way things are going in Australia - for example, with recent changes to some laws in some ways to recognise same sex relationships for superannuation, inheritence, welfare and tax purposes.

[fireheart17]

I think that polygamous marriages should be legally recognised so that the wives, other than the "first wife", can have a legal claim to their share of the estate of the deceased husband and not have to live on the public purse. That's the way things are going in Australia - for example, with recent changes to some laws in some ways to recognise same sex relationships for superannuation, inheritence, welfare and tax purposes.

Then you get the homophobic crowd chanting "Why do we need to give "pedophiles" benefits?! What else do they want, they're already recognised for these purposes RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!"

[Ele]

Then you get the homophobic crowd chanting "Why do we need to give "pedophiles" benefits?! What else do they want, they're already recognised for these purposes RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!"

lol... well, I guess there'll always be the short sighted moral crusaders who will never be happy with whatever changes are made for social justice and tax equity... but fortunately those crowds don't seem to RABBLE so loudly here in Australia, or Australians find them easier to ignore
:)

[suchislife2]

personally, if that's what you want in your life than go for it. If you want to share your partner with another woman/man whatever. As long as you don't screw the system and so on I don't care.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I don't see how anyone could have the patience to deal with more than one husband/wife. I mean, my boyf-soon to be fiance drives me up the wall sometimes; I can't even imagine having to deal with two or three of him. O_o

[jackfaire]

I think that polygamous marriages should be legally recognised so that the wives, other than the "first wife", can have a legal claim to their share of the estate of the deceased husband and not have to live on the public purse.

Take a long time to work out the laws on that. For one does every wife have an equal share? If a wife is deceased do her kids get her share, for example if a person dies and left everything to her kids there is a type of inheritance the term escapes me where the money is split evenly among her offspring if one of her offspring is deceased but they had children then the children divide that offspring's share. If they left no offspring then it is divided among the remaining offspring.


There are a lot of laws that would need to be looked at in polygamous relationships that aren't an issue in same sex marriage due to the fact that current marriage law does not cover multiple partners.

[infinitemonkies]

personally, I don't see any problem with polygamy as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.

I saw a good stand up comic recently, I forget her name, who said: "The problem with polygamy is the ones you always hear about are some crackpot who's married to 4 12-year olds. Find me a man who wants to be married to 4 university educated women in their 40s and sign me up as one of them."

Ultimately, it's the exact same issue as same-sex marriage. The objections are religious in nature. Any country that allows freedom of religion should not allow any religion, even if the majority of the population are members, to dictate what can and cannot be legal for all.

Star Trek: Enterprise had an interesting idea: The doctor's race, forget what they were called, had an incredibly complex yet close-knit social structure based around each male being able to have 3 wives, and each female being able to have 3 husbands.

It's kinda like a love pyramid-scheme.

[jackfaire]

Star Trek: Enterprise had an interesting idea: The doctor's race, forget what they were called, had an incredibly complex yet close-knit social structure based around each male being able to have 3 wives, and each female being able to have 3 husbands.

It's kinda like a love pyramid-scheme.


His race was Denobulan