Why should polygamy be illegal?

[Holler Hoojer]

If they are indeed married as opposed to living with each other it *does* affect you, since that turns them into close relatives of one another which may e.g. impact how you can do business with them.



None. But if it didn't affect anybody else we wouldn't even have something like a marriage.



Yes. If. But there's no guarantee that this will be so. (Not sure about the US, but health insurance in Germany *does* cover spouses, e.g. So it would cost you if I married 3 or 5 women rather than just one.)

Well, somebody was gonna marry them. So they were gonna get covered anyway. But, you ignored by qualifier about this issue not costing me.

However, I've spent my life in science and technology and I've come very close to becoming an empirical reductionist - not quite, but close. If I cannot measure something, it has no reality for me, save in a metaphysical realm. Now, if I drive past an apartment building in Bethesda, Maryland, there is no test, no instrument, no sense that will tell me whether there are polygamists living there. Ergo, to me, it does not exist. If I see two people walking down the street holding hands, I cannot detect by any means whether they have other wives or husbands. Again, it has no meaning for me. So, I butt out.

 

[Lonewulf]

I think the question in the OP is phrased badly. The more appropriate question is, "Why should polygamy be legal?" I don't think there's a good answer. In the U.S. at least, it's not exactly in high demand, and there are no constitutional issues which would mandate it. The state has seen fit not to enter into a contract with groups of more than two people and, absent any reasons why it should be compelled to, that's the end of the story.

Indeed. Much like the government should not be compelled to allow two homosexuals to marry. It's not in high demand (homosexuals are the minority), there are no constitutional issues that would mandate it (that I know of), and the state has seen fit not to enter into a contract with a bond between two people of the same sex and, absent any reasons why it should be compelled to, that's the end of the story.

...Or is it? Is majority rule and "argument by laziness" really enough?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Indeed. Much like the government should not be compelled to allow two homosexuals to marry. It's not in high demand (homosexuals are the minority), there are no constitutional issues that would mandate it (that I know of), and the state has seen fit not to enter into a contract with a bond between two people of the same sex and, absent any reasons why it should be compelled to, that's the end of the story.

Actually, it's exactly like that. If there was no compelling case for legalising homosexual marriage, we shouldn't do it. I believe (and I think, though I am not certain, todd believes, as well) that there is.

What I have not seen, though am open to seeing, is the compelling case for legal recognition of polygamy.

 

[Lonewulf]

I believe (and I think, though I am not certain, todd believes, as well) that there is.

Outside of human rights (though not recognized in the constitution) and "fairness", what reason is there?

Society will not benefit from allowing homosexuals to marry. Perhaps it would make your homosexual neighbor much happier, but who cares? I'd be much happier if I got free beer on Friday, and I doubt the Gubmint will provide that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Outside of human rights (though not recognized in the constitution) and "fairness", what reason is there?

The problem is that part of the modern definition of marriage is that it marks the person who is most important and closest to you. It gives them primacy. How does this work with two people?

When marriage moved from being how men owned women to how to people recognize each is the most important one to the other, it made poly marriage somewhat harder to determine the effects of legaly.

So how do you mark that Husband A is more important to Wife C than Husband B? Who has that primacy?

I am not moraly against poly marriage, but unlike gay marriage it must have some impact on dual heterosexual marriage.

So until someone can put forward some presentation about how to make things just, you can yell about injustice all you want, I will not care. You need to make proposals and not just say it is unjust. It is rather like paternity payments for a child a man never wanted in that way. It might be an unjust situation, but it is the least unjust situation that I can come up with.

 

[GreNME]

Outside of human rights (though not recognized in the constitution) and "fairness", what reason is there?

Society will not benefit from allowing homosexuals to marry. Perhaps it would make your homosexual neighbor much happier, but who cares? I'd be much happier if I got free beer on Friday, and I doubt the Gubmint will provide that.

There was a Prop-8-related video with a bunch of Hollywood-types that actually gave the best reason in favor of it: there's money to be made. Increasing the number of marriages, anniversaries, and related activities would definitely give a slight boost to the marriage-as-an-industry types of businesses.

 

[Lonewulf]

There was a Prop-8-related video with a bunch of Hollywood-types that actually gave the best reason in favor of it: there's money to be made. Increasing the number of marriages, anniversaries, and related activities would definitely give a slight boost to the marriage-as-an-industry types of businesses.

The same argument could be made of polygamy; it increases the number of weddings.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Outside of human rights (though not recognized in the constitution) and "fairness", what reason is there?

You (or someone who agrees with you) needs to make the case that legally recognised polygamy should be a human right and that the absence of that legal recognition is unfair. Just throwing out buzzwords doesn't help anything.

 

[Lonewulf]

The problem is that part of the modern definition of marriage is that it marks the person who is most important and closest to you. It gives them primacy. How does this work with two people?

So because you can't imagine loving two people equally, it ergo cannot happen?

 

[Lonewulf]

You (or someone who agrees with you) needs to make the case that legally recognised polygamy should be a human right and that the absence of that legal recognition is unfair.

Okay. Do the same for homosexual marriage.

Just throwing out buzzwords doesn't help anything.

I'm just using the buzzwords that have been used throughout the whole debate of homosexual marriage. Since we're tossing them out the window...

 

[Rasmus]

Outside of human rights (though not recognized in the constitution) and "fairness", what reason is there?

Society will not benefit from allowing homosexuals to marry. Perhaps it would make your homosexual neighbor much happier, but who cares? I'd be much happier if I got free beer on Friday, and I doubt the Gubmint will provide that.

Gender equality.

If I as a man am allowed to marry a woman it is gender-based discrimination to not also grant that right to a woman.

Unless, of course, you were to assume that "separate but equal" would be a permissible stance here, i.e. you would have to agree that it is not discriminatory per se to grant evceryone the right to marry a partner of the same skin colour the same religion the same caste the opposite gender.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Okay. Do the same for homosexual marriage.

Start your own derail. Don't expect me to do it for you.

I'm just using the buzzwords that have been used throughout the whole debate of homosexual marriage. Since we're tossing them out the window...

This isn't a debate about homosexual marriage, but about polygamous marriage. If you think the same arguments apply, then in lieu of creating a separate compelling argument, at least show why they apply.

 

[Lonewulf]

Gender equality.

Men and women can marry equally, as long as it's with each other. This sounds a bit of a stretch to me.

 

[Lonewulf]

Start your own derail. Don't expect me to do it for you.

I'm just making the argument based on the premises I started.

This isn't a debate about homosexual marriage, but about polygamous marriage. If you think the same arguments apply, then in lieu of creating a separate compelling argument, at least show why they apply.

Sure. I consider both restrictions to be arbitrary and meaningless. I don't see any reason to set the line down and say "You CANNOT marry more than one person". Which was a restriction that was imposed on others, and now people are just too lazy to retract it.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

[snipe removed in light of further elaboration]

ETA:

I don't see any reason to set the line down and say "You CANNOT marry more than one person". Which was a restriction that was imposed on others, and now people are just too lazy to retract it.

I'm not certain that, were I starting my own little society, I would see any reason to draw that particular line, either. That said, removing an existing line is something which should be done only after careful consideration of the possible consequences. Maybe the ramifications are neutral or even benign, and we should go ahead with the change. But I would like to be shown that that is likely so before agreeing.

 

[Lonewulf]

<Edited>

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

And here I thought I respected you.

You're right. 'Twas a childish jab. Please read the edit.

 

[AWPrime]

The same argument could be made of polygamy; it increases the number of weddings.

Actually its more likely to reduce the number, as a man can marry multiple women at the same time. And many other men don't have women to marry.

But as we see with the 'lost boys' a society with lots of polygamy is far less stable then the current one. The only solution to that is to reduce the number of born males.

 

[Lonewulf]

Edited my post as well.

Don't worry, I'd be a hypocrite if I said much bad about childish jabs...

I'm not certain that, were I starting my own little society, I would see any reason to draw that particular line, either. That said, removing an existing line is something which should be done only after careful consideration of the possible consequences. Maybe the ramifications are neutral or even benign, and we should go ahead with the change. But I would like to be shown that that is likely so before agreeing.

Okay, I can honestly see that viewpoint. The benefit isn't immediately obvious, although I do have personally one friend (that I know of) that's poly amorous, and in a lasting relationship with two females, all of whom enjoy their relationship and find it closer than a monogamous one. Of course, even with this anecdote, he'd still be in the minority, so benefits are minor.

The costs would be the same as any cost for a new bill being proposed (and they're proposed almost all the time), but of course, the "moral majority" would shoot it down, so pushing it would be next to impossible anyways. Even if you did get it through the door, there would be some complicated procedures that would need to be re-written on inheritance and the like.

So, pretty much, the argument is that we go with the procedure we have; a married couple can still be poly amorous, just that any "extra" lovers, no matter how static, get no entitlement to any property whatsoever, unless a will is written out. And no tax breaks, either.

Is this fair, overall? Perhaps. Maybe it is the "most fair" decision there is (according to another's argument). I'm not too convinced on that point, but I can accept its possibility.

 

[Lonewulf]

Actually its more likely to reduce the number, as a man can marry multiple women at the same time. And many other men don't have women to marry.

True. So some insurance rates go down.

But as we see with the 'lost boys' a society with lots of polygamy is far less stable then the current one. The only solution to that is to reduce the number of born males.

Which of course, assumes that only men are marrying multiple women. Sounds rather sexist to me. (Where was the gender equality argument earlier...?)

If we assume "several generations in the future", as we have at least 2-3 generations that won't be as open to polygamy in mainstream, I'm pretty sure society would be open-minded enough, if accepting multiple women for one man (the women would have to agree to this as well, remember?), to accept multiple men for one woman.