NationStates Jolt Archive

The legal right for a man to marry more than one woman?
The legal right for a woman to marry more than one man?

If so, why? If not, why not?

Considering the recent arrest of a prominent polygamist sect leader, do you believe that the state has any overriding interest in preventing more than two people from being involved in a marriage?

The legal right for a man to marry more than one woman?
The legal right for a woman to marry more than one man?

If so, why? If not, why not?

Considering the recent arrest of a prominent polygamist sect leader, do you believe that the state has any overriding interest in preventing more than two people from being involved in a marriage?
I don't believe the government should have any involvement in marriage. I don't believe there should be such a thing as "legal" marriage.

However, IF there is going to be legal marriage that is recognized by the state, then I believe all consenting adults should be free to enter into marriage contracts as they choose. If they wish to enter such contracts with multiple individuals, I see no reason to prohibit them from doing so, as long as all involved parties consent.

I support it. I think the biggest issue they had w/ the guy was the whole underage marriages for him and arranging them for others.

I support it. I think the biggest issue they had w/ the guy was the whole underage marriages for him and arranging them for others.
Indeed. The "polygamy" thing is just a bullshit sidetrack in that case...the actual issue was that the fellow was a rapist. I don't give a shit about polygamy, I just care about little girls being sold like animals and raped at whim.

Polyandry is a subsection of Polygamy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

Polygamy exists in three specific forms, including polygyny (one man having multiple wives), polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands), or group marriage (some combination of polygyny and polyandry).
So, with that cleared up, yes, I support polygamy.

I don't believe the government should have any involvement in marriage. I don't believe there should be such a thing as "legal" marriage.

My longtime position.

The legal right for a man to marry more than one woman?
The legal right for a woman to marry more than one man?

If so, why? If not, why not?

Considering the recent arrest of a prominent polygamist sect leader, do you believe that the state has any overriding interest in preventing more than two people from being involved in a marriage?

I have no trouble with polygamy, but there are valid concerns as to how this would affect taxes, inheritance, visitation rights, etc. If all the rights that belong to the first spouse are also enjoyed by subsequent spouses, it could become a legal quagmire. But those are details. As a moral issue, it is none of my business if all people involved are consenting adults.

By the way, the word polygamy means: having more than one spouse, regardless of sex or gender.

Polygyny is the word to describe having more than one wife.

I'd not practice any (it gets messy even if everyone knows and allows), but I support everyone else's right to do it. However, marrying a child or arranging marriages middle-ages style is something different entirely.

The legal right for a man to marry more than one woman?
The legal right for a woman to marry more than one man?

If so, why? If not, why not?

Any consenting adult should be able to marry as many consenting adults as they wish (as long as all adults involved KNOW about the other consenting adults).

Considering the recent arrest of a prominent polygamist sect leader, do you believe that the state has any overriding interest in preventing more than two people from being involved in a marriage?

Irrelivant. That freak was promoting the marriage of non-consenting children, nice stawman DK.

"Marriage" (if we must use the word) should be a contract between or among the partners. If you want to have it additionally solemnized by your favorite Church, do feel free.

Civil marriage, as it exists in today's government, cannot be applied to multiple people. It is specifically built for two people, and much of what is included cannot simply be extended to a group setting.

However, I do support consenting adults entering into any contract that they wish. It couldn't simply be marrying three different people, because that would end up in legal knots that would make things much more inconvenient for each person involved, as well as for the government, any creditors, etc. However, a construct much like incorporation could certainly be applied to groups of people wishing to marry, and I see no reason why they should not be enter into such contracts.

As for the guy out in Utah, keep in mind that he was forcing underage girls into marriage, and then telling them that they *had* to sexually gratify their new husbands or go to Hell. As far as I am concerned, his crime wasn't polygamy - it was being party to multiple rapes.

Irrelivant. That freak was promoting the marriage of non-consenting children, nice stawman DK.

The strawman is only in your head. Maybe you should read the thread and see my position on marriage.

Unless you can't read, that is.

The problem with polygamy specifically is that it is mostly (or maybe only)practiced in religious sects that abuse women, force them to marry at a young age, and basically have dictatorial control over their marital lives. Polygamy, coupled with a patriarchal social hierarchy is one of the major structures that allows all this to take place. So - while in theory consenting adults should be able to do what they want, in fact polygamy is just a way of enslaving women, and creating serious familial conflict (and has been since biblical times). Basically, I don't think any woman would consent to a polygamous relationship unless she essentially had very little choice. So I'd say that I'm against.

The problem with polygamy specifically is that it is mostly (or maybe only)practiced in religious sects that abuse women, force them to marry at a young age, and basically have dictatorial control over their marital lives. Polygamy, couples with a patriarchal social hierarchy is one of the major structures that allows all this to take place. So - while in theory consenting adults should be able to do what they want, in fact polygamy is just a way of enslaving women, and creating serious familial conflict (and has been since biblical times). So I'd say that I'm against.

Maybe, just maybe, it's possible the problem is with the "religious sects" and not polygamy?

The problem with polygamy specifically is that it is mostly (or maybe only)practiced in religious sects that abuse women, force them to marry at a young age, and basically have dictatorial control over their marital lives. Polygamy, couples with a patriarchal social hierarchy is one of the major structures that allows all this to take place. So - while in theory consenting adults should be able to do what they want, in fact polygamy is just a way of enslaving women, and creating serious familial conflict (and has been since biblical times). So I'd say that I'm against.

Should we ban sex because some people get raped?
Should it be illegal for me to give a friend money, because sometimes people get robbed?

Your argument is essentially, "In some cultures, people get forced into polygamous relationships, therefore we should keep consenting adults from entering into them."

Maybe, just maybe, it's possible the problem is with the "religious sects" and not polygamy?Well, they really are one and the same at this point. Show me an example of a secular polygamous relationship that isn't totally fucked up, abusive, forced, fleeting, or falling appart.

only after wars that changed the man/woman ratio dramatically. Interestingly enough pre-islam arabians had both polygamy and polyandy with different kinds of legal marriages.

Marriage is a two person thing. Having multiple people throws the tax code straight to hell, and we might as well not have the state have nothing to do with it.

Marriage is a two person thing. Having multiple people throws the tax code straight to hell, and we might as well not have the state have nothing to do with it.

I'm not sure...Was that "not" supposed to be there?

if its between consenting adults, sure why not?

It should be legal, but I'm firmly against it in my personal life, and wouldn't advise it to anyone. From friend's testimonies, relationships like that lead to horrific jealousies and infighting, and I don't believe a formalised version would be better.

Legalise it, it falls into the 'allowable, but stupid' category, for me; people are entitled to make their own mistakes or take their own risks in their personal lives. Legality needn't imply approval.

Should we ban sex because some people get raped?
Should it be illegal for me to give a friend money, because sometimes people get robbed?

Your argument is essentially, "In some cultures, people get forced into polygamous relationships, therefore we should keep consenting adults from entering into them."well no. I'm claiming that polygamous (and polyandrous, whatever) arrangements are not sustainable, since they necessarily create humungous tensions and alot of conflict. Historically, and now, polygamous relationships are the direct result of patriarchal opression. I think there is a number of women approaching zero who would choose to live in such a way. So, obviously, people can have whatever sexual relationships they want, but I don't see the point of condoning polygamy by (working within the current system) officially marrying these groups.

The legal right for a man to marry more than one woman?
The legal right for a woman to marry more than one man?

If so, why? If not, why not?

Considering the recent arrest of a prominent polygamist sect leader, do you believe that the state has any overriding interest in preventing more than two people from being involved in a marriage?

I support polygamy. Simply, because people that are mature, consenting individuals should be allowed to make their own decisions about that kind of thing.

Me - I'm quite happy with one partner... but I can easily understand why others might WANT more partners. And - so long as everyone involved is happy, I'd say it should be up to them... they shouldn't be forced to conform to my view...

The 'recent polygamist' issue is not a polygamy issue, any more than monogamy is the issue when brides are kidnapped. The issue there was consent.

Well, they really are one and the same at this point. Show me an example of a secular polygamous relationship that isn't totally fucked up, abusive, forced, fleeting, or falling appart.

Off chance it has something to do with the fact they're currently illegal?

The problem with polygamy specifically is that it is mostly (or maybe only)practiced in religious sects that abuse women, force them to marry at a young age, and basically have dictatorial control over their marital lives. Polygamy, coupled with a patriarchal social hierarchy is one of the major structures that allows all this to take place. So - while in theory consenting adults should be able to do what they want, in fact polygamy is just a way of enslaving women, and creating serious familial conflict (and has been since biblical times). Basically, I don't think any woman would consent to a polygamous relationship unless she essentially had very little choice. So I'd say that I'm against.

how is this any different from monogamy then?

Well, they really are one and the same at this point. Show me an example of a secular polygamous relationship that isn't totally fucked up, abusive, forced, fleeting, or falling appart.

Warren Buffet.

The legal right for a man to marry more than one woman?
The legal right for a woman to marry more than one man?

If so, why? If not, why not?

I support civil recognition of all three versions of polygamy - polygyny, polyandry and group marriage/polygynandry - as long as all participants are consenting adults, are actually married to all other people in the group and share parental responsibility for all children born in it. Otherwise the administration would become way too complex.

I am personally not too fond of the concept of line marriage.

Considering the recent arrest of a prominent polygamist sect leader, do you believe that the state has any overriding interest in preventing more than two people from being involved in a marriage?
No, just in preventing abuse.

gotta go to class - will rebut later

The guy that got busted in Utah was high profile and on the FBI top ten because of the issue of underage marriages and such, but in any case, polygamy is illegal except in very few isolated communities in Utah and Arizona.

Those isolated communities tend to have some very extreme views in terms of equality between men and women. The women frequently have very little, if any, choice in whom they marry and at what age, and you can bet divorce isn't an option no matter the cause.

Personally, I would like to see the laws on polygamy repealed. If a guy wants to have multiple female partners he can legally do it now simply by marrying only one and then having the other ladies move in as girlfriends. What's the difference at that point? At least if there were some way to formalize it then it would clear up a lot of complexities related to property, tax, etc.

I actually agree with Dempublicents1 on this. Maybe it could be handled as some kind of incorporated thing.

"Marriage" (if we must use the word) should be a contract between or among the partners. If you want to have it additionally solemnized by your favorite Church, do feel free.

Absolutely.

'Contracted' relationships, defining what (if any) legal responsibilities are involved on the part of which party (parties), and what conditions are intended to apply. (Example - I personally think pre-agreed 'limited term' contracts would be a very good idea).

If you WANT some kind of ceremony, churches should be allowed to provide that 'service'... but they should have no authority in the matter of the 'contracts'

well no. I'm claiming that polygamous (and polyandrous, whatever) arrangements are not sustainable, since they necessarily create humungous tensions and alot of conflict.

Why is that? How do you know what relationships others can and/or have sustained? Are marriages without conflict?

Historically, and now, polygamous relationships are the direct result of patriarchal opression. I think there is a number of women approaching zero who would choose to live in such a way.

How does a situation in which a woman has multiple husbands fit into this statement?

So, obviously, people can have whatever sexual relationships they want, but I don't see the point of condoning polygamy by (working within the current system) officially marrying these groups.

Civil marriage isn't about sexual relationships (not entirely, anyways). It is about the way people choose to live (mostly financially). If three other people and I wish to live as a single entity, merging our finances, decision making, etc., do you actually have a reason that we should not be able to do so legally?

Golden rule

Freely consenting individuals + does not cause harm= Should be legal

As long as everyone is of legal age and competent to enter a contractual agreement I don't care if you have a group wedding with the entire populace of Montana. It's really none of my business.

DAMN YOU KIMCHI!!!

I wanted to vote "yes to both" in you poll, but how could i refrain from the Dawson option.

damn you damn you damn you:upyours:

As long as everyone is of legal age and competent to enter a contractual agreement I don't care if you have a group wedding with the entire populace of Montana. It's really none of my business.

So since that's two people, how does that relate to this topic? :)

So since that's two people, how does that relate to this topic? :)

I believe he means you and the population of Montana. That makes 3, right?

So since that's two people, how does that relate to this topic? :)

I thought about that, I considered saying the entire population of New York, but Montana had such a nice ring to it.

The legal right for a man to marry more than one woman?
The legal right for a woman to marry more than one man?


If you add the rights of a man to marry more than one man and the rights of a woman to marry more than one woman, sure. As long as all involved are consenting adults, why not?

Personally I think such an arrangement would be a nightmare. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

Off chance it has something to do with the fact they're currently illegal?Other sexual behaviours that are illegal are definately widely practiced (like premarital sex, and sodomy in some states). Polygamy itself is practiced consistently, if not widely, will no enforcement of its illegality. I do not think that people would avoid polygamous relationships on the basis of illigality if it was something that would make them happy.

Warren Buffet
I wikied this guy and found nothing pretaining to polygamy

I don't believe the government should have any involvement in marriage. I don't believe there should be such a thing as "legal" marriage.

However, IF there is going to be legal marriage that is recognized by the state, then I believe all consenting adults should be free to enter into marriage contracts as they choose. If they wish to enter such contracts with multiple individuals, I see no reason to prohibit them from doing so, as long as all involved parties consent.
That's got to be the key--all consenting adults get to make the choice, so if you've got a group marriage and someone wants to join, the decision has to be unanimous. It's got to be an equal partnership in practice as well as name.

Why is that? How do you know what relationships others can and/or have sustained? Are marriages without conflict?Marriages are not without conflict, but at least there is an opportunity for a balance of power between the two parties. That opportunity is severely diminished when people are competeing for the sexual attention of one person, and jockeying for positions of power in a large household. Polygamy isn't a communal-living orgy situation, it one in which one man has a monopoly over the lives of many women. The type of destructive politiking it creates just isn't possible between two people (though plenty of other types of dysfunction are). The information I'm working off of is the following: having listened to, and read accounts of women who have escaped polygamous communities. I have asked for, and have yet to hear accounts of polygamous unions that proceed to the satisfaction of the participants.

How does a situation in which a woman has multiple husbands fit into this statement?Clearly it doesn't. I don't have any historical precedents for that type of situation, so I can't make a positive statement about what sort of trends it displays , though I maintain that those trend would likely be as objectionable as the ones heretofore observed in polygamy.


Civil marriage isn't about sexual relationships (not entirely, anyways). It is about the way people choose to live (mostly financially). If three other people and I wish to live as a single entity, merging our finances, decision making, etc., do you actually have a reason that we should not be able to do so legally?You're attempting to remove the sexual politics out of the equation. If all you want is financial cooperation between a bunch of people, start a corporation, or simply merge your bank accounts, and start a kibutz or whatever. I'm sure there are easier tax loopholes available to you than arbitrarily marrying a whole bunch of people.
I think it is important not to loose sight of the fact that people have the full opportunity to sleep with as many/ as few people as they want, and share a sexual partner with as many/ as few people as they want. But again, a permanent, regimented, living arrangement based on many partners (and particularly many partners of one sex) is synonymous, to date, with abuse, and in my opinion, should not be condoned by law.

That's got to be the key--all consenting adults get to make the choice, so if you've got a group marriage and someone wants to join, the decision has to be unanimous. It's got to be an equal partnership in practice as well as name.I think this is more or less impossible. why bother changing a law to include something that will never take place?

I'm probably going to sound horribly conservative, but no to both.

Society has an interest in the equal distribution of partnership.

I can't think of any past societies that had a good record of polygamy.

I think this is more or less impossible. why bother changing a law to include something that will never take place?

It's impossible for people to agree unanimously?

Society has an interest in the equal distribution of partnership.

How so?

I'm probably going to sound horribly conservative, but no to both.

Society has an interest in the equal distribution of partnership.

I can't think of any past societies that had a good record of polygamy.

There are plenty that are abusive towards the rights of women though.

It's impossible for people to agree unanimously?It's impossible for there to be a balanced, permanent, non-abusive, consentual, romantic/sexual relationship between one man and many women. I don't know about the other permutatuions of poly-whatever, because I don't have information about them, but I imagine those are also impossible.
Now when I say impossible here, I'm saying it in a functional way as opposed to an absolute way -
ie. impossible=rare enough that it isn't worth the govenment's time and effort to do anything about it.

I think this is more or less impossible. why bother changing a law to include something that will never take place?

If it'll never take place anyway, then what's the harm in making it legal in case some folks want to give it a shot?

Oddly enough, though I am polyamorous, I'm not so keen on the concepts of polygamy, polyandry, or group marriage. I see marriage as the joining of two people, and just two people. I'm not strongly for or against it, I just find it a little odd.

I wikied this guy and found nothing pretaining to polygamy

It's not direct polygamy... but it wouldn't be, given the law forbids it:

"Buffett married Susan Thompson in 1952. They had three children, Susie, Howard, and Peter. The couple began living separately in 1977 but remained married until Thompson's death in July 2004. On his 76th birthday Buffett married his longtime companion Astrid Menks. His daughter Susie lives in Omaha and does charitable work through her Susan A. Buffett Foundation and as a national board member of Girls Inc.

Susan Thompson was married to Buffett for 52 years, yet Buffett's relationship with Menks was not a typical adultery-cheaty relationship... it was Susan that introduced Astrid to Warren. Not all marriages are equal... that's pretty much the point I was making... it is entirely possible to have an amicable 'relationship' with more than the 'conventional' two partners.

I'm probably going to sound horribly conservative, but no to both.

Society has an interest in the equal distribution of partnership. How so?

I can't think of any past societies that had a good record of polygamy. Bible is strongly polygamous. There are dozens of references.

It's impossible for there to be a balanced, permanent, non-abusive, consentual, romantic/sexual relationship between one man and many women. I don't know about the other permutatuions of poly-whatever, because I don't have information about them, but I imagine those are also impossible.
Now when I say impossible here, I'm saying it in a functional way as opposed to an absolute way -
ie. impossible=rare enough that it isn't worth the govenment's time and effort to do anything about it.

That is entirely an opinion, though, isn't it....?

One could make similar statements about one-man-one-woman relationship, and it would be equally true.

Indeed - I'd be hard pressed to think of a single married couple I've ever encountered that measured up to ALL of the things you mention.

It's impossible for there to be a balanced, permanent, non-abusive, consentual, romantic/sexual relationship between one man and many women. I don't know about the other permutatuions of poly-whatever, because I don't have information about them, but I imagine those are also impossible.
Now when I say impossible here, I'm saying it in a functional way as opposed to an absolute way -
ie. impossible=rare enough that it isn't worth the govenment's time and effort to do anything about it.

On paper a reasonably balanced group marriage to me seems to be capable of quite some stability. If two people have a problem with eachother they can be kept apart while the rest tries to mediate. Far superior to a two person marriage where finding solace and understanding often results in adultery.
And if one person decides to leave the childrens lifes will be disrupted far less.

I just don't see how my relationships are any of the government's business.

I just don't see how my relationships are any of the government's business.

they aren't until you want legal protection. If you want the government to back you in legal stuff then it's up to them to regulate it.

If it'll never take place anyway, then what's the harm in making it legal in case some folks want to give it a shot?
Because govenment funds are finite, and it isn't their job to think of ways that people might want to carry out their lives and make it conventient to do so.
But it all comes back to what's considered acceptable and essential by society. If something is deemed that, then govenment might get involved. We've deemed as a society that couples wishing to be oficially united should be entitled to recognition by law -since it is prevasively common, and the way most people will settle their lives. Until recently, it was only heterosexual couples that had this "perk" - so clearly these things can change. I'm just saying that polyamorous relationships will never be numerous or functional enough for us to invest anything in them as a society, and furthernmore, that the current situation warrants significant devestment and crackdowns on the ones that do exist due to their negative effects on women.

Marriages are not without conflict, but at least there is an opportunity for a balance of power between the two parties.

And there is an opportunity for balance of power between three parties. Or four. It may be more difficult, but it is certainly there.

Human beings, believe it or not, have managed communal living before.

Polygamy isn't a communal-living orgy situation, it one in which one man has a monopoly over the lives of many women.

That is one possible type of polygamy, but is not the kind under discussion when we talk about consenting adults.

Polygamy could involve one man with multiple wives. It could involve one woman with multiple husbands. It could involve a group of 2 men and 2 women who choose to entwine their lives. It could be a man and two women, or a woman and two men, all of whom are married to each other. And so on....

I have asked for, and have yet to hear accounts of polygamous unions that proceed to the satisfaction of the participants.

I have heard people talk about living in such relationships quite successfully. They cannot, however, actually merge their finances and their legal issues as they would like.

You're attempting to remove the sexual politics out of the equation. If all you want is financial cooperation between a bunch of people, start a corporation, or simply merge your bank accounts, and start a kibutz or whatever. I'm sure there are easier tax loopholes available to you than arbitrarily marrying a whole bunch of people.

The sexual politics have nothing to do with legal marriage, and thus must be removed when discussing legal marriage. As far as the law is concerned, you could marry one person and have sex with others (unless you end up divorcing, in which case it might bite you in the ass). There is nothing in marriage law that defines sexual politics. Only the financial and familial ties are defined by marriage law.

And, if you would bother reading my posts, you would know that I have already stated that polygamy could not be accomodated by simply marrying several people. The law wouldn't work that way. Something based in incorporation, as I already said, would be the way to go for those in a polygamous relationship who wished to live as a single legal entity (which is what legal marriage is).

No way. I can't even find one woman who will go out with me. If we start allowing polygamy, I'll never find someone. :( :headbang: Besides, two women is one too many.

... and argueably two too many.

Because govenment funds are finite, and it isn't their job to think of ways that people might want to carry out their lives and make it conventient to do so.
But it all comes back to what's considered acceptable and essential by society. If something is deemed that, then govenment might get involved. We've deemed as a society that couples wishing to be oficially united should be entitled to recognition by law -since it is prevasively common, and the way most people will settle their lives. Until recently, it was only heterosexual couples that had this "perk" - so clearly these things can change. I'm just saying that polyamorous relationships will never be numerous or functional enough for us to invest anything in them as a society, and furthernmore, that the current situation warrants significant devestment and crackdowns on the ones that do exist due to their negative effects on women.
Dude, it doesn't cost that much to change a law, nor does it cost that much to tweak the protocols surrounding inheritance or the many other issues that marriage impacts.

No way. I can't even find one woman who will go out with me. If we start allowing polygamy, I'll never find someone. :(

Technically, even taken ones would still be availible. :)

So long as everyone involved is a willing participant of legal age of consent I'm fine with both.

How so?
Genetic diversity, general happiness, and financial sense. It would also cause an unbelievably complex legal framework.

I think that polygamy would also cause society to be more heirarchal.

It's not direct polygamy... but it wouldn't be, given the law forbids it:

Susan Thompson was married to Buffett for 52 years, yet Buffett's relationship with Menks was not a typical adultery-cheaty relationship... it was Susan that introduced Astrid to Warren. Not all marriages are equal... that's pretty much the point I was making... it is entirely possible to have an amicable 'relationship' with more than the 'conventional' two partners.Thompson and Buffet were living appart, though still married on paper. Buffet was in a relationship with someone else. That's not a polygamous situation either officially or unnoficially. Poligamy does not refer to 'amicable' relations - it's when more than one woman have spousal/sexual relationships with one man, literally sharing their lives.


Apropos of your next post, the only criteria I had are balanced, permanent, consentual, non-abusive and romantic/sexual. I can think of many couples that meet that.

Bible is strongly polygamous. There are dozens of references.I would not call the examples supplied in the bible functional by any stretch of the imagination. In Sarah's case for example, though she gives hagar to Abraham herself for the express purpose of bearing a child, she ends up being eaten up with jelousy and literally kicking them out to perish in the wilderness.

Technically, even taken ones would still be availible. :)

In that case, I can think of three women off the top of my head that I'd love to be with.

Government has no buisness in marraige. I dont care if two guys or girls want to get married its thier choice, and thier life as long as they dont try to force some one that doesnt want to into thier life style who cares. If you want to make a religious argument about they will go to hell if they do it who cares about that too because they certainly dont and if they go to hell for it its thier choice there too many nosy busy boddies that stick thier noses where not needed esp on that topic.

I'd support group marrages, as long as there were laws to keep things from getting out of hand. I can just imagine old men who are rich and powerful getting married to dozens women, which wouldn't be good. :(

A ratio of men to women would be a good idea, to prevent a man from marrying hundreds of women (or the other way around). I'd say a two to one ratio, a man can marry two women but if he wants to marry a third then he must bring another male into the marriage to even things out (or vice versa). For same sex marriages the ratio would be ignored. Also, I think there should be a limit on how many people could be in a marriage, so things don't get silly. Six seems like a good number to me. :)

We shouldn't need laws like these, but I think they would be necessary so people don't get exploited.

I'd support group marrages, as long as there were laws to keep things from getting out of hand. I can just imagine old men who are rich and powerful getting married to dozens women, which wouldn't be good. :(

Meh, why not? Old geezers who so desperately want to be rid of their money should be allowed to waste it, don't you think? And young dumb women who want the money and will put up with almost everything for it... who are we to say they can't have it?


A ratio of men to women would be a good idea, to prevent a man from marrying hundreds of women (or the other way around). I'd say a two to one ratio, a man can marry two women but if he wants to marry a third then he must bring another male into the marriage to even things out (or vice versa). For same sex marriages the ratio would be ignored. Also, I think there should be a limit on how many people could be in a marriage, so things don't get silly. Six seems like a good number to me. :)

Again, why? If people want their lives complicated, that's their problem, don't you think?

Do You Support Polygamy and Polyandry?

I don't, but don't tell the missus, nor the missus nor the missus and the missus and the missus and don't let Mrs Dorstfeld know I was here.

Meh, why not? Old geezers who so desperately want to be rid of their money should be allowed to waste it, don't you think? And young dumb women who want the money and will put up with almost everything for it... who are we to say they can't have it?
Actually, you're right. There could potentially be a shortage of women if this was allowed, which could lead to problems. But I guess most people would just stick to marriage between two people. Anyway, I suppose it doesn't matter if the average guy can't get a girlfriend because most of the women are taken. After all, it would leave more choice for me. :)

Actually, you're right. There could potentially be a shortage of women if this was allowed, which could lead to problems.

Would you be interested in the type of woman that is willing to marry a much older man just for his money anyway?

Yes, because heh, it's more freedom for people to do what they like!

Would you be interested in the type of woman that is willing to marry a much older man just for his money anyway?

hehe

Peter Gibbons: What would you do if you had a million dollars?
Lawrence: I'll tell you what I'd do, man, two chicks at the same time, man.
Peter Gibbons: That's it? If you had a million dollars, you'd do two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: Damn straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I had a million dollars I could hook that up, cause chicks dig a dude with money.
Peter Gibbons: Well, not all chicks.
Lawrence: Well the kind of chicks that'd double up on a dude like me do.

The changes to the law that would be required to accomodate polygamy would be a nightmare. I'd be able to build a career off of those changes alone.

Actually, you're right. There could potentially be a shortage of women if this was allowed, which could lead to problems. But I guess most people would just stick to marriage between two people. Anyway, I suppose it doesn't matter if the average guy can't get a girlfriend because most of the women are taken. After all, it would leave more choice for me. :)

*lol
So you were asking for those limits for fear that you might get stuck without a girl? I honestly doubt that polygamy would suddenly become such a hype that all eligible girls would marry two or three guys.
And keep in mind, same rights for all, you might find a girl you can share with your best buddy :D

The changes to the law that would be required to accomodate polygamy would be a nightmare. I'd be able to build a career off of those changes alone.

To allow it directly under marriage law, you are correct.

To allow it under contract law, with some of the properties of marriage allowed in what would essentially be an incorporation of assets, probably wouldn't take many changes.

Polygamy is ok, one guy and several women, thats a good party, right?
But on woman with several men? who wants to marry the whore?

Let 'em all do as they please.

Would you be interested in the type of woman that is willing to marry a much older man just for his money anyway?

No, didn't you read my post? I'd be glad if guys could marry several women. It'll mean less women to go around and so I (also a women) would have more single guys to choose from. The example I gave about one old rich man with dozens of wives is an extreme case. But I do think that men are less likely to agree to a group marriage, if this means them marrying another guy. Guys (from my experience anyway) seem to be more homophobic and more jealous.
*lol
So you were asking for those limits for fear that you might get stuck without a girl? I honestly doubt that polygamy would suddenly become such a hype that all eligible girls would marry two or three guys.
And keep in mind, same rights for all, you might find a girl you can share with your best buddy :D
I am a girl. I was just acting a bit unsual there for me (read nice) and thinking how I don't want to see anyone lonely. Group marriages could make things better, or they could make things worse. I don't know.

:confused:
Polygamy is ok, one guy and several women, thats a good party, right?
But on woman with several men? who wants to marry the whore?
Thank you. I predicted that it would be more common for men to have multiple wives than the other way around, and you agree with me. :)

they aren't until you want legal protection. If you want the government to back you in legal stuff then it's up to them to regulate it.
That legal protection is only necessary due to estate taxes. Everything else you can handle yourself.

No, a marriage/ civil partnership is that, a partnership. Anything with more then two people is something else, you can have that something else if you want but its not a marriage.

Not to mention how much it would fuck up tax and all that.

To allow it directly under marriage law, you are correct.

To allow it under contract law, with some of the properties of marriage allowed in what would essentially be an incorporation of assets, probably wouldn't take many changes.

Yeah, well, I'd want the changes under marriage law. That would be a nice, easy area in which to focus after law school then.

No, a marriage/ civil partnership is that, a partnership. Anything with more then two people is something else, you can have that something else if you want but its not a marriage.

Not to mention how much it would fuck up tax and all that.

Partners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership) are not necesarilly two (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/partner).

That legal protection is only necessary due to estate taxes. Everything else you can handle yourself.

Really?

So you can get spousal immunity without marriage?

You can continue to get pension benefits paid to your spouse if your spouse dies without marriage?

You can inherit without a will without marriage?

You can share custody of your child with a non-biological parent without marriage?

Without marriage, you can have an unrelated person counted as a member of your immediate family?

Without marriage, you can extend your health insurance ocverage to your partner?

And so on and so on....

The legal protections associated with marriage (and sometimes, only with marriage) extend well beyond issues of estate tax. On top of that, marriage allows you to obtain all of these protections at once. Even to obtain the marriage protections that can be obtained in other manners would end up costing hundreds of dollars.

Partners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership) are not necesarilly two (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/partner).

Still, that doesn't change what a marriage actually is. It always has been between 2 people.

It shouldn't be a problem, as long as:

a) all parties are fully aware of all other parties
and
b) there is no coercion involved and everybody is fine with it.

Why not?

Still, that doesn't change what a marriage actually is. It always has been between 2 people.

Uhhh, says who? Always is a loaded word.

Behold! The power of wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Polygamy_worldwide

Still, that doesn't change what a marriage actually is. It always has been between 2 people.

On which planet ? Definately not earth...

I might become one...so yes.

I might become one...so yes.

Become a what? A person with more than one spouse? Tell us about it!

Really?
Yes. Especially if I get to fix the rest of the legal system while I'm at it.
So you can get spousal immunity without marriage?
I don't think I approve of spousal immunity.
You can continue to get pension benefits paid to your spouse if your spouse dies without marriage?
You can if it's a private pension, which all pensions should be.
You can inherit without a will without marriage?
A will would be handling it yourself, which was my standard.
You can share custody of your child with a non-biological parent without marriage?
That's what adoption is for.
Without marriage, you can have an unrelated person counted as a member of your immediate family?
Why would you need to? The government's not concerned with your relationships, remember?
Without marriage, you can extend your health insurance coverage to your partner?
I can. In fact, I just did. I just had to fill out some forms.
On top of that, marriage allows you to obtain all of these protections at once.
But doesn't allow you to pick and choose. It's all or nothing.
Even to obtain the marriage protections that can be obtained in other manners would end up costing hundreds of dollars.
Signing contracts shouldn't cost money.

I don't think I approve of spousal immunity.

Why not?

You can if it's a private pension, which all pensions should be.

No, you can't. At best, with a private retirement fund, you can leave a percentage of the money to someone, but it will not pay out like it does while you are living.

With most pensions, which are either offered by a company or through social security, benefits end immediately upon the death of the person getting them, unless they have a surviving spouse.

A will would be handling it yourself, which was my standard.

Are you going to make will-writing free and somehow automatically updateable?

That's what adoption is for.

The only way a non-biological parent can adopt the child of their spouse is to be married to that person. It is legally impossible otherwise.

Why would you need to? The government's not concerned with your relationships, remember?

It has to be, in certain cases. For instance, to avoid certain types of fraud, the government has to be aware of your relationships to the people involved. In order to avoid civil servants abusing their power to help those close to them, the government has placed restrictions.

I can. In fact, I just did. I just had to fill out some forms.

Ah, lucky you. Your company happens to provide some sort of partnership benefits unrelated to marriage. Most do not.

But doesn't allow you to pick and choose. It's all or nothing.

You could pick and choose - just as you are suggesting - if that is your choice. However, the only way to get all of these protections at once is to get married.

It's kind of like the difference between a package deal and an a la carte one.

Signing contracts shouldn't cost money.

Signing them doesn't (except possibly paying the notary public who witnesses the signing). Getting them written in such a way that they are legally sufficient does - it involves paying a lawyer.

I can. In fact, I just did. I just had to fill out some forms.

Good for you, I couldn't add my fiance' before we were married. It is dependent on too many things.

Signing contracts shouldn't cost money.

But filling the paperwork to make the equivelent of most of the marrage protection cost hundreds of dollar in fees.

Can you imagine a 7 sided case with both husbands and all five wives because they've all just HAD IT with Monday being meatloaf night and everyone else being an ingrate?

On a goverment (and thus, voting) level, I believe that it's none of the goverment's business if there are marriages of 200 people.

On a personal/ethical level, I find the very idea of polygamy in any kind to be absolutely appalling and disgusting. I'd never even consider taking part in it, nor would I ever give my blessing to any friends/family who were considering it. But I'm not going to try to forbid consenting adults from taking part in marriages of 3+ people, just because of my beliefs.

Why not?
You're giving special benefits to some people based on their marital status.
No, you can't. At best, with a private retirement fund, you can leave a percentage of the money to someone, but it will not pay out like it does while you are living.

With most pensions, which are either offered by a company or through social security, benefits end immediately upon the death of the person getting them, unless they have a surviving spouse.
Again, that's marital status-based discrimination, which should be against the law.
Are you going to make will-writing free and somehow automatically updateable?
Will writing is free. Are you saying that wills aren't enforceable where you are if they aren't somehow officially certified?
The only way a non-biological parent can adopt the child of their spouse is to be married to that person. It is legally impossible otherwise.
That's a stupid law, and one that's dependent on the legal recognition of marriage, the very thing I'm suggesting we abolish.
It has to be, in certain cases. For instance, to avoid certain types of fraud, the government has to be aware of your relationships to the people involved. In order to avoid civil servants abusing their power to help those close to them, the government has placed restrictions.
Arbitrary restrictions take the place of due process. And this is somehow a good thing?
Ah, lucky you. Your company happens to provide some sort of partnership benefits unrelated to marriage. Most do not.
Because they're not expected to, and they rely on the legal definition. I'm saying we should remove that crutch.
You could pick and choose - just as you are suggesting - if that is your choice. However, the only way to get all of these protections at once is to get married.
It's not worth it. I won't invite the government into my life just so they can impose systematic discrimination.
Getting them written in such a way that they are legally sufficient does - it involves paying a lawyer.
Anyone can learn how to write a legally binding contract. It's not hard.

You're giving special benefits to some people based on their marital status.

Again, that's marital status-based discrimination, which should be against the law.

I'm not allowed to drive a car without a driver's license. Is that "driver's status based discrimination"?

Will writing is free. Are you saying that wills aren't enforceable where you are if they aren't somehow officially certified?

Yes, actually. It doesn't take much at all to contest a will that isn't, at the very least, witnessed by a notary public. And your average person doesn't know legalese, which means that the will they write may or may not be legally binding because they may or may not know the laws related to inheritance, and how to use them.

That's a stupid law, and one that's dependent on the legal recognition of marriage, the very thing I'm suggesting we abolish.

I don't think it's stupid at all. It would certainly not be in the best interest of a child if every new boyfriend of a single mother or every new girlfriend of a single father could adopt a child. I don't think it's crazy to expect some sort of long-term committment to be made before the government recognizes joint custody and guardianship of a child.

Arbitrary restrictions take the place of due process. And this is somehow a good thing?

They aren't arbitrary. If a person is using his government position to help his family, he is using it to help himself - misusing his power. Recognition of that isn't arbitrary at all.

Because they're not expected to, and they rely on the legal definition. I'm saying we should remove that crutch.

Without some sort of legal regulation, most companies wouldn't offer it at all.

It's not worth it. I won't invite the government into my life just so they can impose systematic discrimination.

You are the one advocating making it completely a la carte, rather than having a set legal marriage license. Now you are saying that going through and getting the protections you want isn't worth it?

Do make up your mind.

Anyone can learn how to write a legally binding contract. It's not hard.

Anyone can learn. Most people don't have the time - that's why we have legal experts.

Anyone can learn how to speak Spanish as well, given enough time, but most people who need something translated hire a translator.

Polygamy isn't really an issue, in my mind. Marriage is an obselete institution the way that it is defined by the church. And under the state, marriage is only a property rights agreement. You can get a property rights agreement very similar to a polygamist marriage for a couple thousand dollars in legal fees (if there are more than three people entering this relationship, i guess it would be easily affordable.)

...
I don't think it's stupid at all. It would certainly not be in the best interest of a child if every new boyfriend of a single mother or every new girlfriend of a single father could adopt a child. I don't think it's crazy to expect some sort of long-term committment to be made before the government recognizes joint custody and guardianship of a child.
...

*Shocked you actually said it!?!?!*

You know, back in the day, society as a group and governments as well, came to the same conclusion as you just did and thought of that, and they decided it would be a good idea as well, back then they called this institutional recognition of child rearing "Marriage." But what would you like to call it today, now that Marriage doesn't mean marriage anymore?

I support real polygamy.

However, I don’t support the various religiously backed versions of polygamy currently found in some Mormon and Islamic sects, as those are, in reality little more than institutions of slavery, binding young women to much older men into households where abuse is common, both sexual and otherwise.

*Shocked you actually said it!?!?!*

You know, back in the day, society as a group and governments as well, came to the same conclusion as you just did and thought of that, and they decided it would be a good idea as well, back then they called this institutional recognition of child rearing "Marriage." But what would you like to call it today, now that Marriage doesn't mean marriage anymore?

Your dishonesty has no bounds, does it?

Nowhere in that post did I suggest that the sole reason for marriage is child-rearing. In fact, the large list of other marriage protections I listed would clearly deny that idea.

This PARTICULAR restriction associated with marriage has to do with child-rearing. I never denied that some marriage protections deal with children, just that the vast majority of them do not. That has not changed.

Can you imagine a 7 sided case with both husbands and all five wives because they've all just HAD IT with Monday being meatloaf night and everyone else being an ingrate?

It would finally make Divorce Court interesting.

It would finally make Divorce Court interesting.

Nah, it'd just make the lawyers richer.

*Shocked you actually said it!?!?!*

You know, back in the day, society as a group and governments as well, came to the same conclusion as you just did and thought of that, and they decided it would be a good idea as well, back then they called this institutional recognition of child rearing "Marriage." But what would you like to call it today, now that Marriage doesn't mean marriage anymore?

So the purpose of marriage is to protect single parents and their children? Wow. That's an interesting and ignorant position.

Weren't you just claiming that the purpose of marriage was for procreation? Adopting children isn't procreating, it's childrearing. And gay couples are equally capable of doing it. I guess if marriage is just to position available parents for adoption then we better starting signing up gay couples because there are a LOT of children needing adoption.

My longtime position.
But your God doesn't agree with you?

So the purpose of marriage is to protect single parents and their children? Wow. That's an interesting and ignorant position.

Weren't you just claiming that the purpose of marriage was for procreation? Adopting children isn't procreating, it's childrearing. And gay couples are equally capable of doing it. I guess if marriage is just to position available parents for adoption then we better starting signing up gay couples because there are a LOT of children needing adoption.

That there are ... yet some people want these kids to grow up in orphanages and foster care facilities rather then allowing qualified couples to adopt them

The last option gave me the giggles.

I don't believe in any type of state recognized marriage, in any form. I only recognize certain civil relationships, including espousement, for legal matters, but nothing such as marriage, which is originally a religious, and should exclusively be a religious, term.

That said, I only support polygyny. Call me a cheauvenist, but there is one reason that polygyny is better than polyandry: Males can have multiple children per year, women only 6 in every five years. Thus, multiple husbands serves no biological purpose, since all the males will be forced to go without for extended periods of time. Polygyny, on the other hand, does not preclude one side of the marriage from procreation simply because the one member of the other side is expecting a child. Biologically, polygyny has a logistical reason to it, polyandry does not. However, I do think both deserve to be outlawed to prevent childhood rape and divvying up the youngsters amongst the powerful elders. Also, I believe that financially, ethically, and socially, one spouse is all that should be allowed. I could go into faith here, but I won't.

I don't believe in any type of state recognized marriage, in any form. I only recognize certain civil relationships, including espousement, for legal matters, but nothing such as marriage, which is originally a religious, and should exclusively be a religious, term.

Kind of like "confession"? After all, a confession is when you tell your sins to a priest and he gives you penance and absolves you. It certainly CANNOT be a signed statement you give to legal officials detailing a crime you committed.

well no. I'm claiming that polygamous (and polyandrous, whatever) arrangements are not sustainable, since they necessarily create humungous tensions and alot of conflict. Historically, and now, polygamous relationships are the direct result of patriarchal opression. I think there is a number of women approaching zero who would choose to live in such a way. So, obviously, people can have whatever sexual relationships they want, but I don't see the point of condoning polygamy by (working within the current system) officially marrying these groups.

I think you should stop making grand comments about what you 'assume' women think.

I know three polygamous couples - two are boy-girl-girl, and one is girl-boy-boy. I personally am considering pursuing a girl-boy-boy relationship myself, and wouldn't be adverse to a boy-girl-girl relationship if the right girl came along.

Just because you are here to support your view, where others are not, does not mean your view is the only one held by anyone, anywhere.

Also, I find it far more insulting and 'patriarchal' of you to continuously imply that women are stupid and weak, and that ANY woman in a polyagmous relationship MUST be brainwashed, stupid, or there against her will. It's simply not true.

And if we want to talk about relationships being stable, how about we discuss monagamous divorce rates, hmm? Or domestic abuse cases where women in monagamous relationships are too 'brainwashed' or 'scared' to leave their partners. Is this a flaw in the institution of marriage, or a flaw in the arsehole partners that abuse their spouses?

Polygamy is ok, one guy and several women, thats a good party, right?
But on woman with several men? who wants to marry the whore?

Well, apparently the multiple men she's with would. Maybe they (SHOCK HORROR) like each other, not just the one girl?

And one girl with multiple guys is still a party... just not the sort of party you'd get invited to, one would assume.

Can you imagine a 7 sided case with both husbands and all five wives because they've all just HAD IT with Monday being meatloaf night and everyone else being an ingrate?

Which is why you draw up the 'contract' before anyone gets involved.

If a 'divorce' situation then arises, all one has to do is 'apply' the divorce clauses of the contract... rather than starting a pissing contest once all the chips are down.

Which is why you draw up the 'contract' before anyone gets involved.

If a 'divorce' situation then arises, all one has to do is 'apply' the divorce clauses of the contract... rather than starting a pissing contest once all the chips are down.

Only one problem with that - even if you have a contract, you still can get a pissing contest.

Still, that doesn't change what a marriage actually is. It always has been between 2 people.

How incredibly not-even-vaguely true.

Only one problem with that - even if you have a contract, you still can get a pissing contest.

Oh yes... I'm not going to see it would be an absolute cure... but pre-nup should be the law of the land. Sure - fusses can still evolve, but the 'playing field' is already determined, to a large extent.

I don't see how that is a 'problem' with what I said, anyway. It IS better to arrange things up front, than to START fighting about it once passions are elevated.

Oh yes... I'm not going to see it would be an absolute cure... but pre-nup should be the law of the land. Sure - fusses can still evolve, but the 'playing field' is already determined, to a large extent.

I don't see how that is a 'problem' with what I said, anyway. It IS better to arrange things up front, than to START fighting about it once passions are elevated.

No, but usually, fighting about it requires the money to pay lawyers. If you don't have money, it's hard to fight in court.

Polygamy is ok, one guy and several women, thats a good party, right?
But on woman with several men? who wants to marry the whore?
Not you, obviously, which I'm sure will make lots of women cry. Women long to marry the kind of man who assumes a woman is a whore if she has multiple partners...we find that kind of insecure rage so very very appealing, you see.

[/snark]
:D

Not you, obviously, which I'm sure will make lots of women cry. Women long to marry the kind of man who assumes a woman is a whore if she has multiple partners...we find that kind of insecure rage so very very appealing, you see.

[/snark]
:D
My wife and I both have multiple partners, and we haven't had any problems. In fact, it seems that we have the opposite - a good time with friends on a regular basis.

No, but usually, fighting about it requires the money to pay lawyers. If you don't have money, it's hard to fight in court.

All the more reason to get the paperwork done up front, it seems to me.

My wife and I both have multiple partners, and we haven't had any problems. In fact, it seems that we have the opposite - a good time with friends on a regular basis.
I've had absolutely no trouble finding great guys who are eager to spend time with me, and I've always been honest about my own sexual history.

The only guys who use words like "whore" and "slut" are guys who aren't worth fucking anyhow, so I'm delighted if my "whorishness" runs them off...saves me the trouble of pouring my drink over their heads. :)

I support neither, simply because the extended family could get ridiculous.

I personally prefer monogamy, as it means devotion to one other person. The more people you're devoting yourself to, the more likely it is that some will get 'left out'. I mean, it could work if a) you have enough money and time to help support a large family including all your spouses, and are able to care for and love each and every one individually. But the majority of people would find that difficult if not impossible.

I don't believe the government should have any involvement in marriage. I don't believe there should be such a thing as "legal" marriage.

However, IF there is going to be legal marriage that is recognized by the state, then I believe all consenting adults should be free to enter into marriage contracts as they choose. If they wish to enter such contracts with multiple individuals, I see no reason to prohibit them from doing so, as long as all involved parties consent.

Once again I completely agree with you.
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
You're awesome, did you know that?

Once again I completely agree with you.
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
You're awesome, did you know that?


I just had to reply so I could type the word Bumboat!:eek:

I support neither, simply because the extended family could get ridiculous.

I personally prefer monogamy, as it means devotion to one other person. The more people you're devoting yourself to, the more likely it is that some will get 'left out'. I mean, it could work if a) you have enough money and time to help support a large family including all your spouses, and are able to care for and love each and every one individually. But the majority of people would find that difficult if not impossible.

Well if you'd rather not thats ok but I think people should have the option.

Once again I completely agree with you.
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
You're awesome, did you know that?
Wow, I've been trippled-fluffled and it's not even lunchtime!

Life is good.

I support neither, simply because the extended family could get ridiculous.

I personally prefer monogamy, as it means devotion to one other person. The more people you're devoting yourself to, the more likely it is that some will get 'left out'.

Therefore I am sure you oppose people having more than one child, right? Having more than one child will mean that it's more likely someone will get "left out." Right?

Hell, having kids at all is going to be more strain on a two-person marriage than adding a third adult would be! Kids are very stress-producing, no matter how wonderful they are, and plenty of marriages fail because the spouses end up not having enough time for each other after the kids come into the picture.

monogamy is an unnatural act. love knows no boundries.
legislating morality is an imoral one. the avoidance of causing suffering, which is the only real morality, needs no perverting, whether democraticly or hierarchicly.

welfare and infrastructure are the only good reasons for governments of any sort to exist. they have no bussiness in anyone's bedroom.

=^^=
.../\...

I think that if their denomination (polygamy in america originated from the LDS church) denounced and outlawed polygamy hundreds of years ago, then I think these polygamists need to stfu. Other than that, I really don't care what people do as long as it's between two or more consenting adults.

Dude, it doesn't cost that much to change a law, nor does it cost that much to tweak the protocols surrounding inheritance or the many other issues that marriage impacts.dude, you don't know how beurocracy works

The sexual politics have nothing to do with legal marriage, and thus must be removed when discussing legal marriage. As far as the law is concerned, you could marry one person and have sex with others (unless you end up divorcing, in which case it might bite you in the ass). There is nothing in marriage law that defines sexual politics. Only the financial and familial ties are defined by marriage law.

And, if you would bother reading my posts, you would know that I have already stated that polygamy could not be accomodated by simply marrying several people. The law wouldn't work that way. Something based in incorporation, as I already said, would be the way to go for those in a polygamous relationship who wished to live as a single legal entity (which is what legal marriage is).In so doing, you would lose one of the only tools we have to extricate thousands of women from abusive relationships, and enable a number of people you could probably count on your fingers and toes to live in some sort of a joint marriage.
Also, I think you're not distinguishing as you should between living in a communal situation (something many communities around the world do) and living in a marriage. One defines family, and romantic relationships, and the other pretains only to finances and lifestyle. Lets not forget that marriage is forever.

Lets not forget that marriage is forever.

*coughcough* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce)

In so doing, you would lose one of the only tools we have to extricate thousands of women from abusive relationships, and enable a number of people you could probably count on your fingers and toes to live in some sort of a joint marriage.

Wait, what "tool" is this? Why would allowing legal polygamy make women less able to leave abusive relationships? And really, considering that 1 in 3 women will be battered by her partner in our existing system, are you sure that whatever "tool" we have is really an effective one?


Also, I think you're not distinguishing as you should between living in a communal situation (something many communities around the world do) and living in a marriage. One defines family, and romantic relationships, and the other pretains only to finances and lifestyle.

People living in communal situations have finances and lifestyles too, you know.


Lets not forget that marriage is forever.
Which is why divorce is illegal in America, and why we certainly don't have 50% of marriages ending within the lifetimes of the involved parties. :P

Lets not forget that marriage is forever.

Only the polygamous form known as "line marriage" has the potential to be forever, since it continues to add younger blood.

As long as it doesnt affect me or cause people to be taxed at a lower rate than me I dont really care who marries what.

I do not support it in way of actively seeking a change of laws or living it. But i dont care what any amount of loving people chose for their life-style.

And now, let me express who shocked is was how little people agree that "Dawson's Creek is a rotten show". If i ever had kids who behave like that mutated freaks i'd drown them in the next lake.

Wait, what "tool" is this? Why would allowing legal polygamy make women less able to leave abusive relationships? And really, considering that 1 in 3 women will be battered by her partner in our existing system, are you sure that whatever "tool" we have is really an effective one?
I don't know about the U.S. actually, but here in canada, there's a huge polygamous comunity called Bountiful - the women who have been able to leave/escape are able to get help from authorities, start new lives, and remarry easily since their marriages were in fact illegal.
I'm not claiming that it's a too lthat's being userd effectively, becaue there is no active initiative to get women out of these places, but if they take the innitiative themselves, then there is somehting to be done. Imagine an abused woman from bountiful, the fourth or fifth wife, with no money, no friends outside the closed community having to go through the expensive hassle of grounds for divorce and so forth.
People living in communal situations have finances and lifestyles too, you know. I'm not sure what you're saying here
Which is why divorce is illegal in America, and why we certainly don't have 50% of marriages ending within the lifetimes of the involved parties. :PClearly I was reffering to the idea of a marriage - a lifelong binding commitment to one another. If something goes wrong, there's an option to get out, but that should not be taken as the normative frame of reference for any new decisions about marriage.
Only the polygamous form known as "line marriage" has the potential to be forever, since it continues to add younger blood.could you explain this?

It's impossible for there to be a balanced, permanent, non-abusive, consentual, romantic/sexual relationship between one man and many women. I don't know about the other permutatuions of poly-whatever, because I don't have information about them, but I imagine those are also impossible.
Now when I say impossible here, I'm saying it in a functional way as opposed to an absolute way -
ie. impossible=rare enough that it isn't worth the govenment's time and effort to do anything about it.


You're going to back that agument up with some facts right?

I don't know about the U.S. actually, but here in canada, there's a huge polygamous comunity called Bountiful - the women who have been able to leave/escape are able to get help from authorities, start new lives, and remarry easily since their marriages were in fact illegal.

Sounds to me like that doesn't involve consenting adults does it? :headbang:

could you explain this?

A line marriage is a form of polygamy where one keeps adding new and younger spouses of both genders to the marriage over time. While spouses may die (especially of old age), the line of marriage and as such the marriage itself can continue forever.
I do not believe this type of marriage is found outside novels. Heinleins "The Moon is a harsh mistress" explains the workings in extreme detail.

Mmmmmmm...I just ate a bowl of tuna salad, and, I think it's safe to say that I've come back around to the "what the hell is the state doing being involved in the matter of marriage anyways."

I think people should be allowed to marry whomever they want, provided:

A) The people in question are old enough;
B) The people in question are HUMAN;
C) The people in question are not too closely related;
D) No one is being married against their will

If those three conditions are met, they should be able to marry whomever the hell they want, and as many people as they want.

In so doing, you would lose one of the only tools we have to extricate thousands of women from abusive relationships,

How so? Allowing people to use their assets as they please, and enter contracts as they please would somehow make it impossible to get women out of abusive relationships?

Once again, your argument uses the same logic as, "Some people get raped, so we should outlaw all sex."

Also, I think you're not distinguishing as you should between living in a communal situation (something many communities around the world do) and living in a marriage. One defines family, and romantic relationships, and the other pretains only to finances and lifestyle. Lets not forget that marriage is forever.

Marriage, as a legal construct, defines finances and the legally recognized relationships of family.

And people who share a romantic relationship in a group may wish to merge their finances and live as a family. Why would you deny them that?

Do whatever you feel like doing. Just don't force it into any child's head... which is unfortunately what happens these days.

The legal right for a man to marry more than one woman?
The legal right for a woman to marry more than one man?

If so, why? If not, why not?

Considering the recent arrest of a prominent polygamist sect leader, do you believe that the state has any overriding interest in preventing more than two people from being involved in a marriage?

No. Relationships between people are none of the state's business. ( Reference the "Freedom of Association" portion of the US Constitution. ) Either polyandry or polygamy are problems only when people, particularly children ( under 18 ) are affected adversely, as appears to be the case in the arrest you mention.

I support people doing whatever makes them happy, and if seven women want to marry one man, or seven men marry one woman, that's their own business. Why they would want to do such a thing is a bit beyond me, but it's also none of MY business.

Yeah, I've changed my mind on the matter. I don't give a damn about Polygamy or Polyandry. Folks ought to be allowed to do whatever.

Although I'm still a bit confused about why the state has anything to do with marriage in the first place.

Although I'm still a bit confused about why the state has anything to do with marriage in the first place.

People who live their lives together in marriage generally don't just move in together and still keep completely separate lives. They merge their finances. They both put equal work and money into keeping a home/car/etc. that only one person's name may be on. They plan for retirement together, rather than apart. And so on....

This sort of merging necessitates recognition from the government, as the couple is no longer living as two separate legal entities for most purposes. They are living as a single legal entity, and this sort of union requires protections (for the couple, for the government, for any creditors the couple owes, and so on...) that would not be otherwise needed.

Although I'm still a bit confused about why the state has anything to do with marriage in the first place.

Join the club!

I don't know about the U.S. actually, but here in canada, there's a huge polygamous comunity called Bountiful - the women who have been able to leave/escape are able to get help from authorities, start new lives, and remarry easily since their marriages were in fact illegal.
I'm not claiming that it's a too lthat's being userd effectively, becaue there is no active initiative to get women out of these places, but if they take the innitiative themselves, then there is somehting to be done. Imagine an abused woman from bountiful, the fourth or fifth wife, with no money, no friends outside the closed community having to go through the expensive hassle of grounds for divorce and so forth.


1) Hence 'consenting'.

2) If the state allows divorce for the simple fact of not wanting to be married any more (which, let's face it - is the only logical approach), the issue of 'grounds' is irrelevent.

I don't know about the U.S. actually, but here in canada, there's a huge polygamous comunity called Bountiful - the women who have been able to leave/escape are able to get help from authorities, start new lives, and remarry easily since their marriages were in fact illegal.

The problem with those women's marriages wasn't that they were polygamous, it's that they were controlling and abusive. It is (sadly) quite common to see controlling and abusive monogamous unions, yet you don't seem to be proposing that we make all marriages illegal.


I'm not claiming that it's a too lthat's being userd effectively, becaue there is no active initiative to get women out of these places, but if they take the innitiative themselves, then there is somehting to be done. Imagine an abused woman from bountiful, the fourth or fifth wife, with no money, no friends outside the closed community having to go through the expensive hassle of grounds for divorce and so forth.

Again, the problem is NOT the polygamous nature of the marriage in this case. It's the fact that these women are abused and devalued and stripped of fundamental freedoms and rights. It's that their husbands are jackasses who show zero respect for their wives. THAT is the problem that needs solving.


I'm not sure what you're saying here

You said that marriage is about finances and lifestyle, which is somehow supposed to be separate from "communal" groups or family. I don't see why you choose to draw that line where you do. A family can be a set of monogamous partners, or it could be a trio of domestic partners. It could be one couple with two kids, or it could be two couples rearing one kid altogether. I don't see why monogamous pair bonds are so special that they require a whole separate set of laws that are only for them. If the goal is to help provide stability and security for families, why shouldn't we provide this stability for ALL families?


Clearly I was reffering to the idea of a marriage - a lifelong binding commitment to one another.

The concept of marriage as "life-long" originated during a time when the average human life expectancy was about 25 years. Our current concept of marriage includes the idea that a great many marriages will end before either partner dies, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

You may feel that marriage means "forever." I have personally informed my mate that if he seriously uses the word "forever" in reference to our relationship I will break up with him on the spot. Guess what? We can both be right. Marriage doesn't have to mean the same thing to me as it does to you...because that's how our laws work. I am legally allowed to marry somebody with the understanding that our union will only last 10 years, or I can marry them with the understanding that we are mates for life.


If something goes wrong, there's an option to get out, but that should not be taken as the normative frame of reference for any new decisions about marriage.

I don't think divorce necessarily represents any failure in a marriage. I think it is normal for people to change over time, and it is perfectly reasonable to assume that some mated pairs will change in ways that render them no longer compatible. That doesn't necessarily mean they did anything wrong, since they had no way of knowing what the future would hold for them. If a union was once happy and healthy but is no longer so, it is responsible and wise to end that union before anybody gets seriously hurt (emotionally or physically). It is particularly important to consider this if children are involved, since there are many cases where staying in an unhappy marriage is much worse for the kids than divorce would be.

Maybe it would be nice to live in a world where 100% of couples could be happily married for life. I don't know. But I know we do not live in that world. In the world we've got, divorce is often a healthy conclusion to what has been a successful marriage.

Sounds to me like that doesn't involve consenting adults does it? :headbang:
He also appears to be totally unaware of the number of women trapped in MONOGAMOUS unions that have exactly those same problems. So I guess ALL marriage should be illegal, so that these women can better escape, right?

Or hey, maybe we should address the problem of domestic abuse itself! Wait, no, that would be far too sane...

Yeah, I've changed my mind on the matter. I don't give a damn about Polygamy or Polyandry. Folks ought to be allowed to do whatever.

Although I'm still a bit confused about why the state has anything to do with marriage in the first place.
Well.... because it offers a lot of rights and cash benefits to married people. Course, it only does that because its involved in marriage... a bit of a self-perpetuating cycle.

Well.... because it offers a lot of rights and cash benefits to married people. Course, it only does that because its involved in marriage... a bit of a self-perpetuating cycle.

It isn't really "benefits" so much as "protections." People who are married end up in financial situations that wouldn't happen otherwise. The lines of ownership, debt, etc. get blurred pretty much beyond recognition. Most everything ceases to be "mine" and "yours", but instead becomes "ours."

My fiance and I aren't even married yet, but I couldn't split most of our possessions up that way. There is very little in our lives that one of us has exclusively paid for. There is little debt that comes to one of us exclusively. Our lives are meshed to the point that those lines are pretty much gone.

The difference between he and I and a couple that is legally married is that the government doesn't currently recognize that fact, leaving us open to all sorts of financial problems that two single people simply wouldn't have.

Yeah, I've changed my mind on the matter. I don't give a damn about Polygamy or Polyandry. Folks ought to be allowed to do whatever.

And they say NationStates never changes anybody's mind! :D


Although I'm still a bit confused about why the state has anything to do with marriage in the first place.
Me too.

I'm not allowed to drive a car without a driver's license. Is that "driver's status based discrimination"?
Are you arguing that marriage is as relevant to sheltering fugitives or earning extra benefits as being licensed is to driving?

Think about that. If benefits (of any sort - pension, heathcare, whatever) only cover another person if you happen to be married, then you're being handed a huge financial edge simply on the basis of being married. That's a huge government sponsored disadvantage to single people.
Yes, actually. It doesn't take much at all to contest a will that isn't, at the very least, witnessed by a notary public. And your average person doesn't know legalese, which means that the will they write may or may not be legally binding because they may or may not know the laws related to inheritance, and how to use them.
Well that's their own fault.
I don't think it's stupid at all. It would certainly not be in the best interest of a child if every new boyfriend of a single mother or every new girlfriend of a single father could adopt a child.
It wouldn't be in the best interests of the boyfriend, either. Adoption carries with it significant resposibility. Going around adopting children willy-nilly would be idiotic. Guys who do that deserve the never-ending support payments that would result.
I don't think it's crazy to expect some sort of long-term committment to be made before the government recognizes joint custody and guardianship of a child.
I don't see how child rearing is the government's business either, to be honest.
They aren't arbitrary. If a person is using his government position to help his family, he is using it to help himself - misusing his power. Recognition of that isn't arbitrary at all.
The arbitrary restrictions to which I refered was the prohibition against helping his family. Who is he supposed to help? There must be some standard that determines whether someone warrants government assistance - apply that consistently and the problem goes away.
Without some sort of legal regulation, most companies wouldn't offer it at all.
And maybe they shouldn't.
You are the one advocating making it completely a la carte, rather than having a set legal marriage license. Now you are saying that going through and getting the protections you want isn't worth it?
All I'm asking the government to do here is enforce contracts. They have no reason to know why I've written such contracts, or what my home life is like. It's not their business, and if they don't know about it they can't screw it up.
Anyone can learn. Most people don't have the time - that's why we have legal experts.

Anyone can learn how to speak Spanish as well, given enough time, but most people who need something translated hire a translator.
Spanish is entirely unimportant to my life. The only Spanish speaker I know just moved to England.

But knowing the laws that govern the society in which I live. I should think that would be important to anyone. Else, how could I know with any certainty whether I'm breaking any laws when I do anything all?

Which is why you draw up the 'contract' before anyone gets involved.

If a 'divorce' situation then arises, all one has to do is 'apply' the divorce clauses of the contract... rather than starting a pissing contest once all the chips are down.

hehehehehehe. Oh, if only.
Have you ever spoken with someone who's been through a divorce in (say) Connecticut? :eek:
My buddy hired the lawyer that took his co-worker to the cleaners. She was barely able to save him his 401k. Never mind the house, alimony, and full child support even though he has half custody and actually has the kids 75% of the time.

No it's not a good thing from what I've seen. Plus I'm not a fan of the idea, so that's a no from me.


EDIT: Wow.. It looks as if we have some sick f***s here. (5th poll choice.)

Are you arguing that marriage is as relevant to sheltering fugitives or earning extra benefits as being licensed is to driving?

Huh? What does sheltering fugitives or "extra" benefits have to do with the price of eggs in China?

Think about that. If benefits (of any sort - pension, heathcare, whatever) only cover another person if you happen to be married, then you're being handed a huge financial edge simply on the basis of being married. That's a huge government sponsored disadvantage to single people.

It isn't really a disadvantage, as single people (who aren't living as married, anyways) don't enter into financial situations in which they need these protections. A married couple lives as a single legal entity - and are therefore at a disadvantage if they are not treated as such by the law.

In the case of a single person paying into a pension, that person is paying only their own money. In the case of a married couple, a person paying into a pension is pulling from shared assets. It only makes sense that the repayment is also shared.

Single people are not being put at any type of disadvantage, because they are not in the types of situations that necessitate such protections. Unmarried people who live as married, if heterosexual, might be at a disadvantage, but it is by choice. Unmarried homosexual couples are certainly at a disadvantage - and unfair one - and that should be corrected.

Well that's their own fault.

Yes, your average workaday person should go out and get a legal degree so that they can live their lives. If they don't, it's just their own fault.

Should every person become an MD too? And a computer scientist? And a mechanic? Or is it ok that people specialize in these things?

It wouldn't be in the best interests of the boyfriend, either. Adoption carries with it significant resposibility. Going around adopting children willy-nilly would be idiotic. Guys who do that deserve the never-ending support payments that would result.

But children don't deserve the instability that would result - and I think avoiding that is much more important than punishing idiots.

I don't see how child rearing is the government's business either, to be honest.

What exactly is the purpose of the government, in your eyes? If it isn't to protect its people, what use does it have?

The arbitrary restrictions to which I refered was the prohibition against helping his family. Who is he supposed to help? There must be some standard that determines whether someone warrants government assistance - apply that consistently and the problem goes away.

You are building a strawman here. The prohibitions are specifically to keep him from abusing his position. If his family warrants government aid or something along those lines, they can go through the proper channels and get it.

This is more along the lines of a lawmaker who knows that a law is being passed that will affect, say, the stocks of some company. It is already illegal for him to sell or buy stocks based on that information. In fact, many lawmakers are not even allowed to know where there money is invested, for that very reason. However, if I happen to sell or buy stock just before this happens, there is no reason for anyone to come after me. Of course, if I am the senator's wife, things suddenly look a little more suspicious...

It's along the same principles as many other companies restricting things to immediate family. An radio employee cannot win contests from a radio station and neither can any of their immediate family. Most companies have policies like this.

All I'm asking the government to do here is enforce contracts. They have no reason to know why I've written such contracts, or what my home life is like. It's not their business, and if they don't know about it they can't screw it up.

You contradict yourself here. You cannot simultaneously say that contracts are none of the government's business and that they should enforce said contracts. If the government is going to have to enforce contracts, then it has a vested interest in knowing what is involved.

But knowing the laws that govern the society in which I live. I should think that would be important to anyone. Else, how could I know with any certainty whether I'm breaking any laws when I do anything all?

You don't. Hence the reason that most people end up breaking some law or other every day.

Yes, your average workaday person should go out and get a legal degree so that they can live their lives. If they don't, it's just their own fault.
It is enough that one lawyer writes a foolproof contract once for each form of marriage. Then other couples (or whatever groups) can just copy it, change the names and sign it. Voila. Valid marriage contract for free.

It is enough that one lawyer writes a foolproof contract once for each form of marriage. Then other couples (or whatever groups) can just copy it, change the names and sign it. Voila. Valid marriage contract for free.

Foolproof contract. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Anyways, you have basically just described what marriage licensing basically is. The legal and contractual issues have basically been taken care of and packaged. All that it takes is for both members of the couple to sign a marriage license, and all of it is taken care of. Valid marriage contract basically for free. Your statement basically supports the idea of a set legal marriage contract, rather than arguing against it.

For polygamous marriages, something similar could be devised, but does not currently exist. It would probably be much, much harder to devise something that would universally cover polygamous marriage, as it can take so many different forms, but a basic framework could be devised.

I don't support it, nor do I protest it. I'm neutral because it's none of my business what others do.

It isn't really a disadvantage, as single people (who aren't living as married, anyways) don't enter into financial situations in which they need these protections.
How very communist of you. They don't need the benefits, so they're not allowed to get them.
In the case of a single person paying into a pension, that person is paying only their own money. In the case of a married couple, a person paying into a pension is pulling from shared assets. It only makes sense that the repayment is also shared.
Assuming the married couple is sharing assets. Oh wait, that's part of the package deal.
Single people are not being put at any type of disadvantage, because they are not in the types of situations that necessitate such protections. Unmarried people who live as married, if heterosexual, might be at a disadvantage, but it is by choice.
Yeah. The choice is between inviting the government into your personal life or being denied rights. It's extortion.
You are building a strawman here. The prohibitions are specifically to keep him from abusing his position. If his family warrants government aid or something along those lines, they can go through the proper channels and get it.
If the regulations are enforced, he is the proper channel.
This is more along the lines of a lawmaker who knows that a law is being passed that will affect, say, the stocks of some company. It is already illegal for him to sell or buy stocks based on that information. In fact, many lawmakers are not even allowed to know where there money is invested, for that very reason. However, if I happen to sell or buy stock just before this happens, there is no reason for anyone to come after me. Of course, if I am the senator's wife, things suddenly look a little more suspicious...

It's along the same principles as many other companies restricting things to immediate family. An radio employee cannot win contests from a radio station and neither can any of their immediate family. Most companies have policies like this.
Because it's so much more difficult for two friends to work out a scam like that...
You contradict yourself here. You cannot simultaneously say that contracts are none of the government's business and that they should enforce said contracts. If the government is going to have to enforce contracts, then it has a vested interest in knowing what is involved.
But they don't. The wording of the contract is all that need matter to the government. Why I've chosen to sign this contract is irrelevant.

That's akin to trying to divine the intentions of lawmakers. I don't care what they intended - what does the law say?
You don't. Hence the reason that most people end up breaking some law or other every day.
Who wants to live in that society? If you're unknowingly breaking laws every day, then you could be apprehended at any moment and you'd have no idea why. That would be terrifying.

I want to be able to make informed decisions about my actions. I can't do that if I'm unfamiliar with the law that governs them.

Anyways, you have basically just described what marriage licensing basically is. The legal and contractual issues have basically been taken care of and packaged. All that it takes is for both members of the couple to sign a marriage license, and all of it is taken care of. Valid marriage contract basically for free. Your statement basically supports the idea of a set legal marriage contract, rather than arguing against it.
Yes. Except that you could choose from a number of different contract templates. And anyone (couple, group, whatever) who could afford a lawyer could make a new contract, so it would give you much more freedom in the marriage market.

And it would also avoid all the stupid arguments about gay marriage, polygamy etc (because polyamorous people could marry like they want to, while at the same time the religious nuts could have their exclusive marriage which is not available for people they consider immoral).

Who wants to live in that society? If you're unknowingly breaking laws every day, then you could be apprehended at any moment and you'd have no idea why. That would be terrifying.

I want to be able to make informed decisions about my actions. I can't do that if I'm unfamiliar with the law that governs them.
You live in that society right now. All the laws that are on the books fill a whole bookshelf, and I don't think anyone has even read them all, let alone learned them. (Even lawyers learn only a selection of legislation and cases that their teachers think is useful.) And since you don't know the law you can't know when you are breaking it.