Polygamy

[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.

[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??

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

[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??

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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.