"Why not polygamous marriage?"

AvalonXQ said:
Because it's a very useful shorthand in inheritence, property, and family laws.

Assuming that most people intend certain consequences to these areas when they decide to get married, registering the marriage and then conveying certain rights and responsibilities to those who register is a relatively easy way to bring about those consequences.
Click to expand...

Why should this be denied people based on gender or numbers of people involved?
 
The Greater Fool said:
Again, tweak. In marriage, a "spouse" cannot be compelled to testify.
Click to expand...
While spousal privilege exists in the USA, as a holdover from the limited status of a married woman, it is limited or non-existent in many, if not most, other countries.
 
MontagK505 said:
Why should this be denied people based on gender or numbers of people involved?
Click to expand...

Well discrimination based on number is not broadly recognized as a major issue. And a right offered to one person per marriage vs a potentially arbitrarily large number is different. How many marriage visas should one US citizen be able to grant?
 
catsmate1 said:
While spousal privilege exists in the USA, as a holdover from the limited status of a married woman, it is limited or non-existent in many, if not most, other countries.
Click to expand...
It reads like a pretzel, but section 80 of the UK's Police and Criminal Evidence Act seems to say that a person can only be compelled to testify for violent or sex offenses.
 
I, for one, am all for polygamy. I'm sick and tired of my aging wife whining about how I don't care about her like I used to, but divorce is a bitch -- the old crowe might actually get something from MY stuff just because she worked for years to earn it as well as taking care of the kids.

With polygamy, hey, no problem! I'll just go and get a younger wife, and spend all my time with her. After a year or two of being ignored and belittled as I spend all my time with the young chick, she'll be begging to leave with the clothes on her back.
 
lomiller said:
It’s established itself in those things, but that doesn’t really answer the question of WHY should this be the case.
Click to expand...

For the same reason that my local Chinese restaurant has the "Famile Feat #2"(sic). So many people want exactly the same thing (or close enough) that making a one-size-fits-all option is the most economical. It saves the couple involved and the government a ton of money and time.

Imagine if it were not the case:
Partners: We wanna get married.
JOP: Ok. You want Right of survivorship with that?
Partners: Yup.
JOP: Ok. You want joint child custody with that?
Partners: Yup.
JOP: Ok. You want joint property ownership with that?
Partners: Yup.
JOP: Ok. You want automatic inheritance with that?
(continue for appx 1000 more federal and state marriage benefits)

Poly groups can (and do) simply write their own contracts, like ordering al-la-carte at the aforementioned eatery with poor spelling (but awesome beef and peppers). Trying to make a one-size-fits-all option that takes multiple partners into account would be too much work for too little benefit.

Marriage would be a lot easier if religion hadn't decided to get caught up in what had been a purely state affair.
 
I like the idea of a polygamous marriage. I don't see why it shouldn't be legal =\
 
Weird Science said:
as I spend all my time with the young chick, she'll be begging to leave
Click to expand...
Assuming that the young chick wants to spend all her time with you, and not with other lovers of her own age, and will not beg to leave at any point.

But young chicks are freely available, just take and you have one?
 
MontagK505 said:
How about a polyandrous marriage? Are you OK with that?:D
It could organized like musical chairs.
Click to expand...

Personally I wouldn't wish marriage on my worst enemy ;) but I think if two people want to get married and let the world know, go for it. What was that line from Spencer Tracy, ""And if it's half of what we felt, that's everything." (talking to Audrey Hepburn obviously)
 
Undesired Walrus said:
When hearing debates about granting marriage to same sex couples (Something I'm firmly in favour of), I often hear "If you are redefining marriage, why not have polygamous ones?" from the conservative side. Now, for the record, I can't say I'm in favour of polygamous marriage, but at present I can't actually answer the above question satisfactorily. What's the answer?
Click to expand...

Despite the theories of equality between the sexes and even anecdotal examples of cases of polygamy with one wife and multiple husbands, in practice polygamy always ends up being dominated by cases of one man with multiple women. And the effects of polygamy when practiced widely are incredibly damaging to society. Men at the top of the social pyramid get multiple women, men at the bottom get nobody. And that leads to all sorts of social pathology, including widespread misogyny. It's no coincidence that polygamy is widespread in so many terribly screwed up societies (like Afghanistan, for example) but absent from basically every first-world country.

The irony here is that the argument for monogamy is actually an incredibly left-wing argument: its biggest function is to equalize sexual status. Not just between men and women, but also between the rich and the poor.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's no coincidence that polygamy is widespread in so many terribly screwed up societies (like Afghanistan, for example) but absent from basically every first-world country.
.
Click to expand...

that might be something to do with it being illegal in every first world country, if you want a better example, use polyamory, thats alive and well, isn't damaging to anyone and has nothing to do with social rank at all
:p
 
Marduk said:
...my relationships have always been too complicated for marriage, who needs it, for what, its just another form of state sponsored oppression imo anyway...the day I need to invite God or state into my sex life is the day I finally go postal;)
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but if you do find yourself in a serious two-person relationship it often does lead to marriage, even among people who previously didn't particularly want to get married.

And official marriage does provide certain useful protections* in the event of divorce. Those protections* can only be provided by the state.

* There's a more suitable word but the caffeine hasn't kicked in
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
The irony here is that the argument for monogamy is actually an incredibly left-wing argument: its biggest function is to equalize sexual status. Not just between men and women, but also between the rich and the poor.
Click to expand...

Sexual status will always been unequal: women (eggs) are biologically more valuable than men (sperm). Supply and demand. Generally speaking. Super-high status men will always be more valuable than women. The main effect of monogamy is to equalize men: You only get one mate at a time (officially anyway).

Polygamy -- or, a free-market in marriage -- arguably benefits the majority of females, but harms the most desirable women in that now they have to share a partner. It undeniably benefits the studs but hurts a lot of men further down the totem pole.

Strawberry said:
And quite apart from the legal issues, how many people would actually accept their wife/husband having a second spouse? I think for most it would be an automatic deal breaker.
Click to expand...

It's easy to imagine that now, but as bargaining position changes, it's not impossible to see norms rapidly shift after several generations. In the sixties, people with this laid back attitude said that birth control would not really affect the rate of out of wedlock births.

This is why monogamy is egalitarian and conservative: changing an institution like marriage could lead to all kinds of other unintended problems.
 
megaresp said:
That's all well and good, but if you do find yourself in a serious two-person relationship it often does lead to marriage, even among people who previously didn't particularly want to get married.
Click to expand...
I'm currently in a MFf poly relationship, the chances of me having a serious two-person relationship are slim to none

megaresp said:
And official marriage does provide certain useful protections* in the event of divorce. Those protections* can only be provided by the state.

* There's a more suitable word but the caffeine hasn't kicked in
Click to expand...

how in any way would marriage afford me protection that I don't already have from being unmarried ?
How about my non existant children, in what way would they benefit
oh of course, you mean my right to pay alimony in the event of a divorce
I'll pass if thats ok
so you're alleging that I'll have more rights if I get divorced and you're telling me this on Valentines day because you either have terrible sense of timing or because you didn't realise it was valentines day, if I were you, I'd be worried about my impending divorce
:D
 
Last edited:
Strawberry said:
Yes, it is. The government gives tax breaks to married couples, and pays for the courts to regulate the dissolution of marriages. That makes it their business.
Click to expand...

Strawberry.

Beerina is, actually, on the right track. If you accept the notion that the legal status of marriage is predicated on tax and immigration law then marriage becomes just another government privilege and not a right. Why? Because the government, not the principals of the relationship, end up defining the relationship.

I find nothing in Article I, Sec. 8 of the US Constitution that enumerates the power of the Federal Government to intercede and arbitrarily define what a marriage is. Believe it or not, the Constitution is not a "living and breathing document" subject to the whim of changing times, politics and opinions. If that were the case there would be no need for Article 5 or the 18 enumerated powers in Article 1, Sec.8. We could simply rename the document from "The Constitution" to "The Suggestion of the Church of What's Happenin' Now". Elect a new government every 2, 4 and 6 years and wait to see what your rights are by about April (Congress can act quickly when properly motivated). Your "guaranteed" rights would not be quite so guaranteed.

I do, on the other hand, find that the 9th Amendment instructs the Federal Government not to enact laws in such a manner as to deny the people of other non-enumerated rights. Though not a part of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence states that we are "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." That statement indicates that we have other unalienable rights in addition to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The 9th Amendment, which is rarely called upon, clarifies that phraes in the Declaration. The 10th Amendment further supports the position. If the Constitution does not specifically enumerate a power to the Federal Government or deny it to the State government is it the sole power of the State or The People to decide. If the recent New York marriage law is correct in stating that marriage is a fundamental right then neither the Federal or State government has authority to deny or abridge the right of the people.

Does polygamous marriage create problems? Of course it does. As a strictly moral position I'm opposed to it. My moral position does not trump the Constitution. People make choices and have to live with the expected or even unexpected results. You want to contract for a polygamous marriage, go fo it.

All that I ask is that if it doesn't work out as planned please don't ask me to pony up and pay the cab fair to make it right. It's not my problem and it's not the government's problem. In general, asking the government to step in and solve a problem is similar to using an atomic bomb to rid your house of mice. Effective but somewhat messy - not to mention that it might cause a problem or two for your neighbors. But that's how government generally "solves" problems.
 
Last edited:
Strawberry said:
Yes, it is. The government gives tax breaks to married couples, and pays for the courts to regulate the dissolution of marriages. That makes it their business.
Click to expand...

maybe thats true in the U.S.
here in the UK there are no tax breaks to getting married and divorce is a civil matter
then again we don't get all fundamental over religion either, maybe thats the real difference here, not the beliefs on marriage, but the beliefs about Gods holy law
shouldn't we know better already ?
did I really hear several people claim that marriage between two people is morally superior than any alternative
what a big pile of religious crap that is, if thats true, why are people opposed to marriage between teh gays
;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom