NationStates Jolt Archive

There has been a bit of news about polygamy. The muslim faith states that a man can have up to 4 wives.

I was just wondering what are your views about marriage. First some biological definitions that should not be mixed up at all

polygamy (any number of females can marry any number of males ie 3:4)
polyandry (One female to any number of males)
polygyny (one male with many females ie muslim faith)

Please do not mix these terms up. There is an important difference between all of them. Someone may think that polyandry is suitably but never polygyny. Polygamy includes any number of people marrying any others.

I personally think that the traditional marriage is best but allow civil unions. Please dont go too far into the whole gay marriage debate im mainly interested in the opinions about the poly...ies

Considering the old testament is filled with men with multiple wives, I daresay the thing is not limited to the muslim faith ;)

As long as any offspring is well treated and not forced to marry into the "commune" - or allowed to "volunteer" to do so at the age of 8 - I have few problems with it. The familyunit as a whole will be quite stable, even if some members decide to leave it.

However, does the child go with the biological mother when she divorces or does it stay with the rest of the family ? People need to determine that up front.

Thats what i worry about in the poly types of marriage. It complicates things. Biologically you may need a DNA test to tell who it is from. To me keeping things simple is best.

Thats what i worry about in the poly types of marriage. It complicates things. Biologically you may need a DNA test to tell who it is from. To me keeping things simple is best.

Well.. you need a DNA test in "normal" marriages as well to determine if daddy is truly the father ;)

Poly marriages just need to draw up some more complex contracts before the marriage begins. If all participants are willing to do so - hey, let them. Some people simply do not like simple ;)

To each their own. It's not for me, but I don't care how other people share their lives.

I personally think that the traditional marriage is best but allow civil unions. Please dont go too far into the whole gay marriage debate im mainly interested in the opinions about the poly...ies

Things are never what they look, that is, self-evident. For anglo-saxons in general, and Americans in particular, "marriage" means the union of a man and a woman in any kind of religious ceremony.

For Europeans, heirs of the Roman Law, marriage is a contract between two parts -traditionally it was two FAMILIES, not even two people- which may, or may not, be enrichised through a religious ceremony. After centuries of church domination, the French Revolution and its offsprings recovered the old Roman Law philosophy. As a result, in a European continental State, your religious ceremony is a private, optional question, with no legal results whatever. Marriage is ALWAYS a civil union, a contract signed before the State's representative (major, judge, official of the Civic Register, depending of the State). This is the ONLY VALID marriage. Later, if it is your fancy, you may go to the cathedral, chapel, synagogue, mosque, house of prayer, clearing in the forest or pagan temple. This is so even for Royalty. For Example, Belgium's Heir to the Throne married, before Europe's Royalty and national and foreign dinataries, in Brussels City Hall. Only later took he the way to the cathedral, for a religious ceremony. But legally and constituionally, his wife was 'Her Royal Highness' immediately after the civil cremony. The only VALID.
This point may clarify a lot of trouble going on around homosexual marriages. Forget the religious aspect! Marriage is A CONTRACT!

It is not generally known, but the Jewish faith allowed an 'ordinary' man up to four wives and a king could have 18 wives and any number of slaves and concubines. When Jews went to Europe, they were persecuted enough for just being Jews so Ashkenazi Jewish law got rid of multiple wives early. Jews in the Middle East continued to have the option of multiple wives into the 20th century, I know of instances in Yemen and Morocco, both Arab Muslim countries which had substantial Jewish minorities.

Christianity early got a strain of anti- marriage viewpoints, celibacy was preffered, and the attitude of the early saints was 'it is better to marry than to burn'. St. Augustine was openly hostile to the female physical form, saying 'We are born between feces and urine'.

I don't think the arrangement of multiple wives is irresponsible or oppressive so long as everyone agrees and is an adult. It can't be any worse than a guy having mistresses, who then bear children and then the children have no real rights, or a man going out and seeing prostitutes. At least it is at it's best a responsible model.

Both Jewish law and Muslim law required a contract before marriage. Christians used to have contracts too. Hence the expression in English of 'contracting a marriage'. I do not hold with how multiple wives works with the so called 'fundamentalist Mormons' That is totally against ANY Old Testament rules of the past.

I think socially there has been a lot of damage from not being real about male tenancies to stray.

I am for some form of gay marriage, Actually civil union should not just be a 'gay thing', the State should not be involved at all in the religious side of marriage. The State needs to know who is married to whom for a variety of perfectly good reasons, such as making sure no one under age is being forced into an unwanted marriage, or any marriage, and for tax and inheritance purposes, but beyond that, there is no reason for the State to be involved.

I favor everyone having a contract that states what will or will not be happening in any given marriage and that spells out what happens with custody if there is a divorce. I also think that abuse ought to be an automatic no custody for that particular parent.

already there is a slight difference between peoples beliefs of polyandry and polygyny. If a man can have multiple wives why not vice versa. Isnt it sexist?

Or is there some kind of harm that multiple husbands can have but not multiple wives? I dont see any.

As for the mans nature to stray I would claim its just as likely for the female. I would also question the amount of love the individuals really have for each other when they sleep with other people.

If you wanna be single and sleep all around the go ahead. But as for marriage I really dont think it fits the kind of relationship of love that is desired to raise a child.

Also what about the increased chance of STD's

Among consenting adults, I think polygamy should probably be allowed. It'll make complicated messes, legally, but oh well.

Only if it is equal between the sexes should it be legal. That is, to say, that polygyny should not be legal unless polyandry is as well. Usually polygamy is talked about in the context of polygyny, that is, one man having multiple wives. Unless one woman having multiple husbands is made legal as well, I am absolutely opposed to legalization of polygyny. All or nothing, I would say.

Also a case in polygamy that is often overlooked, is a large group marriage. That is, say, five or so people all married to every other person in the group. This also should be legal, complicated as it is. And of course, it should almost go without saying that homosexual polygamy should be legal if straight polygamy is.

Basically, my opinion is all or nothing on this one. Legalize all forms of polygamy (between consenting adults), or legalize none of them.

For the record, polygamy is one of those things that gives me an icky feeling inside, but that I have no rational reason to oppose.

As for identifying who is whose father... to me, that title always belongs with the one who raises the child, or the ones, plural, as the case may be.

in my opinion a person should be allowed only one marriage at a time.

meaning that if there are more than 2 people invovled, everyone is married to each other. its not one man being seperately married to each of several women who are not legally bound to each other so that if he dies the marriage is dissolved. (please excuse the sexist assumption that it would be one man with several wives)

each spouse should have equal rights to any assets, any children, any debt, just like a 2 person marriage. every person should have to consent and participate in the marriage ceremony for each additional person.


and every spouse should have to be 18 or older. no child brides/grooms allowed.

if it works that way, i dont care how many people are involved and what genders they might be.

I suppose if they managed to work out the legalities of it I wouldn't mind.

Hmm, what happens if I decided to found a new religion? theres some little law un the states about the freedom of religion after all.

The Church of Unscientiology, we were Created by aliens who dropped geneticly modified slime on earth from flying saucers so we would evolve and create StarGate SG1 so their king could star as Thor. every member of the church must give me all their money, all their cars, and the pretty women must go around naked, ugly slags are to be thrown into volcanos and all church members must vote for the candidate I nominate, Every man should have 5 wives and 4 other husbands and as well as this you must marry your daughters on their 10th birthdays and have orgies with your dogs...


There, that's just as logical than the Church of Scientology.

Im scared about how many people dont seem to believe in the current system of marriage is working at all. Then again this is an internet poll where there is beastiality as an avaliable option. Prehaps I shouldnt be too surprised.

Now on to something completely different.

Do thoes in favour of polyandry and polygyny believe that these marriages will occur at about equal rates. Even if both are allowed do you believe that there will be an equal number of each type of marriage.

I would think that there would be more cases of polygyny then polyandry. Thus this would create an inbalance in the number of single men.

But I guess it dosnt matter if you allow homosexual marriage. They would still end up getting hitched :p

I wouldn't be interested in a woman who wants to be in such a relationship anyway. And I don't really care if such marriages are allowed or not as long as we're talking about consenting adults.

To each their own. It's not for me, but I don't care how other people share their lives.
This. It's none of my business how other people want to organise their relationships. People should be allowed to do these things in whatever way works for them.

I don't see why not if we allow gay marriage I don't see why we can't allow people to marry multiple people at once. Maybe if they had a bigger voice they might get these changes.

Polygamy in its true sense would be the most interesting if legal. If the group gets big enough it almost borders on everyone being single.

Just sleep around and raise children as a society irrespective of the parent. is their any number limit that you would have. ie less then 1000.

If you dont I could forsee some of the strangest goals forming such as the largest marriage.

And imagine the divorce procedure if it breaks down suppenly. The leaver wanting 1/1000 of the net assets. Prehaps all the children should be DNA tested just incase.

Then the next generation in a town may have a school made up entierly of their "family"

In real polygamous families (ie not the polygynous ones the press calls polygamous like the mormons) there is a far greater degree of equality and stability and lower occurances of abuse and molestation, since more parents equates to more checks and balances and less chance for sneaking around or intimidation. Also polygamous families stay together longer, individuals may leave with the same frequency as with monogamous families but the removal of an individual in a polygamous family doesn't have the same effect as in a monogamous one; same applies if a parent dies, it has less impact on the family structure than in a monogamous family.

As far as the whole DNA testing argument that is coming from a monogamous mindset; the child is a member of the entire family, not just the biological parents.

We could make it random like a game show. Contestant A marries a man, Contestant B marries three women and Contestant C marries a burro as a consolation prize. :)

To be honest, marriage is becoming more of a formality these days. I think that it may become obsolete within a few generations, or possibly relegated to pure "ceremony" status.

We could make it random like a game show. Contestant A marries a man, Contestant B marries three women and Contestant C marries a burro as a consolation prize. :)

i was yelling at the screen not to take door #3!

the poor bastard.

isn't there all that bitching about having close families and all...

I see no problem with it myself hell the idea of just two adults sharing a house is still quite scary to me

I would think that there would be more cases of polygyny then polyandry. Thus this would create an inbalance in the number of single men.

like thats not the case already :p

To be honest, marriage is becoming more of a formality these days. I think that it may become obsolete within a few generations, or possibly relegated to pure "ceremony" status.

you mean it isn't already?

you mean it isn't already?
That's why I said a few generations. In the fifties, it would be unheard of. Now it is heard of. I'd suspect that in fifty years it's all we will hear.

Polygamy, polyandry, polygyny, and monagamy are all fine by me, with no gender biases.

Legally, I'm of the mind that the term "marriage" should not be used, due to it's loadedness. "Civil Unions" or some other like term should replace "marriage" in the legal codes.

Pre-sexual beings and those otherwise* unable to give consent should be left out. No kiddy marriages or beastiality.

*Noting that pre-sexual beings and those unable to consent may or may not overlap.

I see no problem with it myself hell the idea of just two adults sharing a house is still quite scary to me

Any two adults? In any form of relationship sexual or otherwise?

Any two consenting adults.

I don't know if I could support a polygamist marriage. Because I feel that everyone is a polygamist. Everyone has the potential to love multiple people.

Why do we insist that the Government recognize marriage of all sorts? How about get the Government out of marriage and leave it between the people. What this argument boils down to is that one group isn't getting the same rights as another. If we stop giving special rights to married people, then this issue will go away. Let gays be together, someone with his cousin, it's none of our business. If NO ONE benefited from marriage it would be a non-issue. Want ways to share property? Make a contract. Getting married? Draft up an agreement that makes you happy. Legal contracts are a viable way to gain the standard rights that go with marriage. No one's stopping a gay couple from getting married, it's just not recognized by the Government at this point and they don't get the benefits ..i.e..tax breaks, that go with it. That's what this is all about, money. IMO of course. I'm just sick of everyone thinking that they have to tell everyone else how to live their life, and more than that I'm sick of everyone insisting that everyone else accept their life style as normal. I don't care what you do but every step we take to allow the Government to tell us what's right and wrong is a step further from freedom.

Any two consenting adults.

Why just two? Several cultures recognise multiple arrangements.

Any two adults? In any form of relationship sexual or otherwise?

pretty much I mean can you imagine having to talk to the same person and constantly deal with them?!

For the record, polygamy is one of those things that gives me an icky feeling inside, but that I have no rational reason to oppose.

I feel the same way. Was actually discussing this with my mom last night after watching an episode of "30 Days" where a woman opposed to gay couples adopting children lived with, well, a gay couple who'd adopted children. Very frustrating episode, for me.

Anyway, the thing we talked about is how there are lots of things in the world I find personally distasteful but think should be legal. There are all sorts of fetishes that make me go "eww", but laws are not made on the basis of things that squick me out. Just an example of how you can certainly have your own feelings and opinions about something and stay true to them and not legislate other people's lives.

I also believe in the right to marry multiple inanimate objects. As long as you have their consent of course.

I also believe in the right to marry multiple inanimate objects. As long as you have their consent of course.

Thats where I stop, because its just a waste of time, unless the "marriage" is truly ceremonial and no rights are bestowed upon the object (inheritance, etc.), I suppose the same thing could be said of cross-species marriages, so that would go for them too.

I also believe in the right to marry multiple inanimate objects. As long as you have their consent of course.

Even if you had a little Hello World program output "I do", would that really count as informed consent?

Oh my... one of these threads again...:rolleyes:

As long as everyone involved consents, and everyone involve in the relationship does not have monogamous expectations, then I don't see any valid argument for restricting it.

Thats what i worry about in the poly types of marriage. It complicates things. Biologically you may need a DNA test to tell who it is from. To me keeping things simple is best.

Not if children are raised by the entire community/family. You have a right to prefer it that way for yourself, but not everyone has the same expectations for marriage that you do.

Polyamory: "Swinging" with lofty ideals and pretty language.

Soyut if people can marry objects then what point does any marriage have at all? That is just ridiculous. I look forward to seeing a kitchen table inherit the car if that kind of thing proceeds.

Marriage is a goal for many people in life. Whatever happens the value of marriage should not be downgraded to a joke.

I look forward to seeing a kitchen table inherit the car.


well Old farts are leaving everything to the pussycat, so whats wrong with an old widower leaving it all to the plastic pussy that did more for him after his wife died than any of his kids ever did?

Soyut if people can marry objects then what point does any marriage have at all? That is just ridiculous. I look forward to seeing a kitchen table inherit the car if that kind of thing proceeds.

Marriage is a goal for many people in life. Whatever happens the value of marriage should not be downgraded to a joke.

NOW you're getting it....

Marriage is already a joke in its current state.

As for marriage being a joke, I suppose it depends on the marriage.

Polyamory: "Swinging" with lofty ideals and pretty language.

Again, I suppose it depends :D

Whether you call it swinging or polyamory, I don't think there's anything inherently 'lofty' or 'pretty' about either.

There is however something very appealing to me in being completely swept up in one person...a particular denizen of Montreal, to just throw out a random example...and still being able to show my, or our affection for others, even if that affection manifests itself sexually. So am I on the 'polyamory' side of things, with such lofty ideals? Or on the slummy 'swinging' side cuz I likes me some sexing with more than one person?

*Cites references from past threads, the utility of a limited marriage, the purpose of marriage (no, it has nothing to do with children, stfu), the nature of the institution and the social costs of polygamy, natural tendencies, etc*

I don't feel like rehashing that which I have already been over, but there are significant sociological and legal challenges that cannot simply be worked out through the institution of government underwritten polygamy. I feel that the arguments that make gender-blind marriage acceptable, do not, under any circumstances, make polygamy acceptable.





And, no. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Why anyone would want to inflict more than one wife on themselves is beyond me, but to each his own I suppose.

Again, I suppose it depends :D

Whether you call it swinging or polyamory, I don't think there's anything inherently 'lofty' or 'pretty' about either.

There is however something very appealing to me in being completely swept up in one person...a particular denizen of Montreal, to just throw out a random example...and still being able to show my, or our affection for others, even if that affection manifests itself sexually. So am I on the 'polyamory' side of things, with such lofty ideals? Or on the slummy 'swinging' side cuz I likes me some sexing with more than one person?

You misread me, Sin.

All I'm saying is that those who wish to "swing" try to make it sound somehow more palatable to -- well, themselves, I'm thinking, but honestly I don't know whom. When I ask my friends who are poly (and I have a few) what the difference is, they get VERY defensive and start expounding on how they have the capacity to love more than one person at a time.

I usually think that's fine, but if that's the case, what was the point of getting married? Honestly, they use terms like "geometry" to describe who they're fucking, and again, I don't care about that at all. However, it's blatantly disingenuous to be married, get the mutual sanction to cheat and then call it something lofty (polyamory) instead of what it really is: getting mutual permission to fuck others.

They insist to me that it's not about sex, and then proceed to break up and go out with other poly people or couples with the same irregularity of someone who is single. Seems to me that if you're "in love" with more than one person, and everyone's on the same page, your extra relationships would last longer.

Once more -- I have no problem with the actions, but the sorry attempt to make it more highbrow than it really is strikes me as somehow unnecessary at best and really petty at worst.

As for marriage being a joke, I suppose it depends on the marriage.

Well, yeah, but that was my point. The post I responded to was using "marriage" as a concept. I think the concept, as it's portrayed by those attempting to ascribe some kind of specialness to it or those trying to "save" it, is a joke when it's made to seem so precious. Sorry, but anything you can do in Vegas at a drive-thru window is no longer special.

You misread me, Sin.

All I'm saying is that those who wish to "swing" try to make it sound somehow more palatable to -- well, themselves, I'm thinking, but honestly I don't know whom. When I ask my friends who are poly (and I have a few) what the difference is, they get VERY defensive and start expounding on how they have the capacity to love more than one person at a time.

I usually think that's fine, but if that's the case, what was the point of getting married? Honestly, they use terms like "geometry" to describe who they're fucking, and again, I don't care about that at all. However, it's blatantly disingenuous to be married, get the mutual sanction to cheat and then call it something lofty (polyamory) instead of what it really is: getting mutual permission to fuck others.

They insist to me that it's not about sex, and then proceed to break up and go out with other poly people or couples with the same irregularity of someone who is single. Seems to me that if you're "in love" with more than one person, and everyone's on the same page, your extra relationships would last longer.

Once more -- I have no problem with the actions, but the sorry attempt to make it more highbrow than it really is strikes me as somehow unnecessary at best and really petty at worst.

don't even get me started on my love/commitment/marriage rant.

As far as poly...whatever. They should all be intermarried otherwise it's even more legally confusing. One man with 4 seperate marriages or one woman with 4 is.........confusing legally to me, 4 people married, notsomuch. However, I haven't put much thought into it so meh.

I don't think marriage is "sacred" anymore, or if it ever was, outside of personal choice. I do think it's often entered into by people who have no business doing so. I'm kinda a stick with it girl though, I mean I have a friend who bought a house she knew she was going to sell in 6 months.......it seemed stupid to me.

The problem of polygamy is it's nature to perpetuate existing gender inequality. It is easy to see how this objectifies woman since marrying multiple partners is only practical for males with financial/social power. Let's face it, todays culture will never allow a women to abuse her marriage power even if it's legal. To call this equality you might as well legalize rape and claim that women can rape men too.

Homosexuality, no comment. If they happen to have the right to marriage I don't care, but on the other hand I won't particularly support them either.

Beastiality, or animal rights associated with pets, is something that I find the most hypocritical. Last I check people have not check for consent when we decided to grow them in industrial farm, mass murder, and eat them. It was completely alright to stuff a cow with 120 days worth of corn in containment while constantly injecting them with antibiotics to bring them to the marketing weight. It was completely alright to put them in a lab while injecting them with chemicals/cut off their body parts until they die. Are we saying rape is a bigger crime than torture and mass murder? What moral does a person have to talk about animal consent when eating their grill steak? Not saying I support beastiality but this is got to be one of the biggest double standards there is. So I don't believe the act should be illegal until animal products becomes illegal first, although at the same time don't think a legal marriage is practical lawfully.

don't even get me started on my love/commitment/marriage rant.

As far as poly...whatever. They should all be intermarried otherwise it's even more legally confusing. One man with 4 seperate marriages or one woman with 4 is.........confusing legally to me, 4 people married, notsomuch. However, I haven't put much thought into it so meh.

I don't think marriage is "sacred" anymore, or if it ever was, outside of personal choice. I do think it's often entered into by people who have no business doing so. I'm kinda a stick with it girl though, I mean I have a friend who bought a house she knew she was going to sell in 6 months.......it seemed stupid to me.

I'd rather be committed to a woman without a wedding/marriage than married to someone who has a more flexible notion of commitment than I do. The threat/hassle of divorce shouldn't be what keeps people together.

Well, yeah, but that was my point. The post I responded to was using "marriage" as a concept. I think the concept, as it's portrayed by those attempting to ascribe some kind of specialness to it or those trying to "save" it, is a joke when it's made to seem so precious. Sorry, but anything you can do in Vegas at a drive-thru window is no longer special.

My concern is not about some sort of mystical, built-in sanctity of marriage, but rather, the legal intent of marriage, something which can be defined fairly objectively. Things such as powers of attorney, child custody, debt responsibility, legal representation when other spouse is incapacitated, visitation (when one is in prison or hospitalized) and so on, are the cornerstones of legality for marriage.

I'm concerned about what polygamy, true polygamy, would do to these already difficult questions.

Further, my sociological concerns still exist, specifically those that indicate that a polygamous society will rapidly trend towards polygyny without any direction from the state.

Further questions exist about what "marrying in" does to a marriage group, and how to handle objections that are certain to arise in larger groups.

As long as theyre all consenting, Hey, thats their business...

Let em do what the hell they want...

As long as theyre all consenting, Hey, thats their business...

Let em do what the hell they want...

I agree, but marriage is a state institution with a specific legal purpose. Gay marriage does not alter this purpose, polygamous marriage would.

I agree, but marriage is a state institution with a specific legal purpose. Gay marriage does not alter this purpose, polygamous marriage would.

yeah, i think we should do away with the Financial Aspects of Marriage, itd end the problem...

then the Legal Aspects would be just be a formality, and the Churches could do it anyway they want without the need to impose it on others(though they would anyway)

It seems to me that legal restrictions being lifted from gay marriage must ultimately result in the lifting of 1-1 marriages as well. The reason being that upon close inspection ALL of these restrictions are essentially ones based on someone's-but not everyone's-morality.

I think that would be a good thing. When you consider the isolated Mormon-fundamentalist communities that are so isolated and insular that they've begun inbreeding and in at least one case (in TX) arranging marriages with underage brides, maybe lifting the restrictions on multiple marriages will enable these communities to come out of isolation, at least a little, and maybe mitigate these problems.

I support a traditional marriage, but I also believe that the government needs to keep its nose out of such religious institutions.

I agree with Thomas Jefferson's belief in separation of Church and State, and as a Catholic, I view marriage as a sacred religious institution between a man and a woman.

Based on that, I feel that the government has no business deciding whether two people can be married.

I would like to see our government eliminate marriage laws, grant everyone a civil union, then make it the responsibility of churches to marry people.

It would eliminate the whole debate over what is right, and give the churches control over what, in my opinion, is a religious matter.

All it would do is shift the focus on what should be church or religion. If people want to marry someone/thing they could just form their own church to do it.

The government will just be pressured to restrict that