NationStates Jolt Archive

There is one issue that I haven't seen debated on NSG for a while, and that is the question of polygamy. What do you all think of polygamy, should it be legalised? Should be kept illegal? Why?

By polygamy, I also mean both forms - that being polyandry and polygyny.

As long as all parties freely consent, I do not see why we should restrict any such relationships.

Men should be allowed as many wife's as they please, but women should only be allowed one husband, otherwise the lovemaking will be too gay.

Polygamy should be banned, unless all the participants are attractive.

One of my sociology teachers in a discussion on polygamy said that a given society could have either polyandry or polygyny, but couldn't allow both, as that would mean the possibility of many-to-many relationships that would be overly complicated in the nature of property laws and family responsibilites. I wonder if this is true, and if so which of polyandry or polygyny should be allowed?

I wonder if this is true, and if so which of polyandry or polygyny should be allowed?

Polygyny, polyandry is too ghey as I said.

I can see certain advantages in having two wives.



*day dreams*
Chop chop, dig dig, chop chop, dig dig

If it doesn't hurt anyone, it should not be illegal.

There are really two possible questions here. One is "Should it be legal?" The other is "Should it be legally recognized?"

I would say that the answer to the former question is absolutely yes. As long as all parties are consenting, I don't think we have any business restricting what relationships they get into or what level of commitment is involved in those relationships.

To the latter, I would also say yes, but I don't think marriage law would really work in most situations. A better system would probably be one based on incorporation - in which the parties entering into the relationship would draw up a contract with the rules for their particular situation (including how another person might be added or someone might leave) and pool their resources. There would need to be laws regulating what types of clauses in such contracts would be allowable (ie. not allowing a clause that kept a person who left from taking any resources at all).

Polygamy should be banned.

else this would become commonplace (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=584921)...

While I don't think I could ever be in a polygamous relationship I don't really think there is anything wrong with them if EVERYONE in the relationship consents. Apparently polygamy was quite prevalent in many of the ancient civilizations....

One of my sociology teachers in a discussion on polygamy said that a given society could have either polyandry or polygyny, but couldn't allow both, as that would mean the possibility of many-to-many relationships that would be overly complicated in the nature of property laws and family responsibilites. I wonder if this is true, and if so which of polyandry or polygyny should be allowed?
That kinda falls down if you take into account the fact that bisexuals exist. A straight man could have a "many-to-many" relationship with several bisexual women. On the other hand, a bi man could have a "one-to-many" relationship with both men and women, provided the other men are exclusively gay and the women are exclusively straight.

On-topic, I personally think it should be legal, but the arguments against it make far more sense to me than the ones against gay marriage.

Edit: And yeah, it's important that everyone consents. If a man wants two wives, even if they both consent to marrying him, if one or both of them isn't so hot on him having another wife he has to respect that.

I can see certain advantages in having two wives.



*day dreams*
Chop chop, dig dig, chop chop, dig dig
You could kill one and bury her in the backyard? Or would you have them cut wood and dig ditches for you?
One of my sociology teachers in a discussion on polygamy said that a given society could have either polyandry or polygyny, but couldn't allow both, as that would mean the possibility of many-to-many relationships that would be overly complicated in the nature of property laws and family responsibilites. I wonder if this is true, and if so which of polyandry or polygyny should be allowed?
I think it would be perfect, with a little bit of effort, we could establish a national Marriage Net, with everyone someone how connected to everyone else in one giant, disgusting orgy of family wholesomeness.
Men should be allowed as many wife's as they please, but women should only be allowed one husband, otherwise the lovemaking will be too gay.
Not a fan of gangbangs? I've never actually been to one myself, but the idea of one amuses me.
All those men standing in line, completely naked and holding their cocks. I wonder what sort of conversations spring up?

All those men standing in line, completely naked and holding their cocks. I wonder what sort of conversations spring up?

"Hey."

"Hey."

"How's it going?"

"Fine."

......

......

**clears throat**
.....


"You, uh...you hear they're coming out with Killzone 2, for the Playstation 3?"

"Yeah? Cool...I liked the first one..."

"Yeah...me too...."

.....

.....

"You ever do gay porn?"

"What?"

Not a fan of gangbangs? I've never actually been to one myself, but the idea of one amuses me.
All those men standing in line, completely naked and holding their cocks. I wonder what sort of conversations spring up?

Well, if the line starts to become more rounded, and they start masturbating with each other a bit, then it will probably be quite similar to the stuff we talk about here.

as long as it is me with a bunch of teenage girls it is fine.

I see some problems, but legal ones only. How the hell are divorces going to work?

I see some problems, but legal ones only. How the hell are divorces going to work?
By recall vote.
"Hands up everyone who wants to divorce Clair."
"Ok, that's 7 spouses for divorce, and 8 against. Clair, you can remain in the family."

"Ok, that's 7 spouses for divorce, and 8 against. Clair, you can remain in the family."

Sigged.:tongue:

There is one issue that I haven't seen debated on NSG for a while, and that is the question of polygamy. What do you all think of polygamy, should it be legalised? Should be kept illegal? Why?

By polygamy, I also mean both forms - that being polyandry and polygyny.

Legalized.

Also, not my cup of tea, and I don't think it'd be very popular at all. I just happen to think it's stupid to make illegal anything consenting adults does. They're quite old and wise enough to manage their life as they please.

I don't think it should be legalized for the same reason we have labor laws.

How's that for enigmatic?

You could kill one and bury her in the backyard? Or would you have them cut wood and dig ditches for you? Really? I thought it was they killed him... and with there being two of em, they could dig his grave much faster...

If all parties consent, then fine, but as someone (I think it was CM) said, how would divorces work?

I see some problems, but legal ones only. How the hell are divorces going to work?

presumably, you need it so anybody could opt out whenever they wanted, and something approaching consensus to kick somebody out. unless we are doing it patriarchy style, of course.

presumably, you need it so anybody could opt out whenever they wanted, and something approaching consensus to kick somebody out. unless we are doing it patriarchy style, of course.

sorry sarah, the tribe has spoken, please bring your torch and you must leave the house immediately...

I see some problems, but legal ones only. How the hell are divorces going to work?I suppose you'd get marriage-graphs. So A can be married to B and C without B being married to C. That way you can still unilaterally sever marriage links.
It'd be hell to work out the contract-negotiations though.

I see some problems, but legal ones only. How the hell are divorces going to work?

Depends on what kind of marriage you have.

A "harem" system, where A is married to B, C, D, E etc., but B and onwards are not married to the other letters is easy. In essence each divorce only involves 2 people after all.

A "group" marriage, where all are in fact married to eachother will require some democracy. Or perhaps one has to see it as a collection of harem marriages.
Say: A wants to divorce B,C and D but not E & F. That would be possible then. I would just vote against that because it would be an administrative nightmare. So a group marriage should be an all or nothing deal imo.

A "line" marriage... hmm. Let me ponder. One assumes the elders decide.

Depends on what kind of marriage you have.

A "harem" system, where A is married to B, C, D, E etc., but B and onwards are not married to the other letters is easy. In essence each divorce only involves 2 people after all.

This really isn't strictly true. A big part of legal marriage is pooling of resources. If only A and B marry, they legally share all resources and, outside of an agreement to the contrary, are to receive an equal share of said resources in the event of a divorce.

If, on the other hand, A is married to B, C, D, and E, how does one determine how much of A's resources are shared with each of them? Since A would technically co-own all of the resources of B, C, etc., would B get half of A's total assets (and thus part of C, D, and E's resources as well) when leaving? Or just half of 1/5?

This sort of thing is exactly the reason that, in some way, each of the participants in polygamy would have to enter into a contract together, even if they didn't see each of the other members as spouses. It is also an example of the reason that I don't think there's a "one size fits all" approach would work for legal recognition of polygamy. There are too many variables - which would most likely lead us to a system in which each group marriage would draw up their own contract (within certain rules) for these things.

If you can handle that sort of chaos, I say "go for it." No legal recognition, though.

O fcourse I have my prejudice reactions.. like WTF are those women thinking. and WTF .. that guy is the ultimate prick.

That's about it for now.