Bigamy and Polygamy

[Josie]

Should it be legal to marry more than one person if you choose to?

I think it should be. It shouldn't be up to the government to decide who or how many people you can marry.

 

[Orion]

Marriage is about child-rearing and I have read nothing to suggest that children who grow up in polygamist environments are better off. I don't care if people do it but it should not receive government sanction or benefits if it is not conducive to healthier families.

My understanding of Bigamy (and I could be wrong) is that it's mostly a legal term to describe people who illegally marry someone while already legally married to someone else. That is deceit, not polygamy. Polygamous relationships require awareness of all parties involved.

 

[joe six-pack]

Should it be legal to marry more than one person if you choose to?

I think it should be. It shouldn't be up to the government to decide who or how many people you can marry.

I agree. Marriage is a word that means "union" and it's a commitment.

If a group of women want to marry each other, great. If a group of men want to marry each other, great. If a group of men want to marry one woman, great. If a group of woman want to marry one man, great. All Lawful Marriage is is a status change, that allows the joint ownership of credit, dept and property.

Let people do what they want to who they want.

Marriage is about child-rearing and I have read nothing to suggest that children who grow up in polygamist environments are better off. I don't care if people do it but it should not receive government sanction or benefits if it is not conducive to healthier families.

My understanding of Bigamy (and I could be wrong) is that it's mostly a legal term to describe people who illegally marry someone while already legally married to someone else. That is deceit, not polygamy. Polygamous relationships require awareness of all parties involved.

I have never heard that children raised by more than two people are "worse" off. Besides, Lawful Marriage is mainly about credit, dept and property. Very little of the legal language in Lawful Marriage deals with child custody. So, I disagree with your disagreement.

But I agree that Bigamy is a legal term. I never want to be in a Polygamous relationship, but have no issue with a group of people sharing credit and dept. I also have no issues with people holding ceremonies they call "Marriage." I know my marriage will be special, regardless of who is or is not in a similar marriage somewhere in the US.

Just this morning I preformed a marriage ceremony between my cat and dog. No more living in sin for those two.

 

[rathi]

I think the government should get out the marriage business entirely, although it should offer legal contracts for various domestic arrangements. Having domestic contracts between more than 2 people should be allowed, but certain safeguards are needed to prevent abuse. For example, gaining citizenship through domestic contracts should have stricter requirements to avoid it being used to get people across the border. Personally I have no problem polygamy from a theoretical standpoint, but practically it tends towards treating women like second class citizens.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

In theory, I'm okay with it.

In practice, it usually winds up devaluing women (as Rathi was kind enough to point out), and sounds like it would be an administrative nightmare.

 

[RightinNYC]

Marriage is about child-rearing...

This is one of the main arguments advanced by the crowd who would prefer to ban gay marriage. It's been disputed by many on this board.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

My understanding of Bigamy (and I could be wrong) is that it's mostly a legal term to describe people who illegally marry someone while already legally married to someone else. That is deceit, not polygamy. Polygamous relationships require awareness of all parties involved.

I am a strong advocate of polygamy, but I believe the traditional form of bigamy should be retained as a criminal offense-- marital fraud. Legal polygamy should require the written consent of all spouses.

 

[Hoplite]

Being polyamorous, my opinion is pretty evident

I dont see a reason why monogamous marriages should have the benefit of being recognized.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I dont see a reason why monogamous marriages should have the benefit of being recognized.

Marriage forms natural political and financial alliances between families and provides the most stable social environment for the rearing of children. The State has a vested interest in promoting it.

 

[Hoplite]

Marriage forms natural political and financial alliances between families and provides the most stable social environment for the rearing of children. The State has a vested interest in promoting it.

In a largely aristocratic society where you have prominent families running most of your society, then yes that is certainly true. However we have far more social mobility and we have a middle class that dwarfs the aristocracy, as such marriage for resources (social or fiscal) is far less important.

As for children, children can thrive in many different kinds of parenting environments. This has been demonstrated time and time again both in our society and in others.

 

[rathi]

I am a strong advocate of polygamy, but I believe the traditional form of bigamy should be retained as a criminal offense-- marital fraud. Legal polygamy should require the written consent of all spouses.

I am curious what makes you advocate polygamy. It most societies where it exists, rich old men tend to have multiple wives, leading to a bunch of pissed off sexually frustrated young men. Angry young men trend to vent their frustrations in ways that de-stabilize society.

 

[Hoplite]

I am curious what makes you advocate polygamy. It most societies where it exists, rich old men tend to have multiple wives, leading to a bunch of pissed off sexually frustrated young men. Angry young men trend to vent their frustrations in ways that de-stabilize society.

Are you sure you aren't missing other influences on that society?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

In a largely aristocratic society where you have prominent families running most of your society, then yes that is certainly true. However we have far more social mobility and we have a middle class that dwarfs the aristocracy, as such marriage for resources (social or fiscal) is far less important.

Spoken like a man without in-laws. Extended family is important in any society, including one as alienated as ours-- perhaps especially in an atomized society.

As for children, children can thrive in many different kinds of parenting environments. This has been demonstrated time and time again both in our society and in others.

They can. Statistically, they are considerably less likely to. One married couple with all of their own children is the parenting environment most conducive to success. The addition of a strong support network in the form of the extended family improves the odds.

I am curious what makes you advocate polygamy. It most societies where it exists, rich old men tend to have multiple wives, leading to a bunch of pissed off sexually frustrated young men. Angry young men trend to vent their frustrations in ways that de-stabilize society.

That anger can be channeled into productive ends and forcing men to compete for mating privileges helps improve the species.

 

[tacomancer]

I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed, but with a few caveats

1. All existing people in the marriage have to unanimously consent to the new person. This consent should be before a judge.
2. I think a pre-nup should be required. Jeez, talk about a messy divorce.

 

[RosieS]

There really is a hair's-breadth worth of difference between growing up with more than one mom and growing up with Grandma and an aunt or two living in the same household. Same with Grandpa and uncles living with you as you grow up.

Society also benefits from polygamy after the kids are grown and gone. Having other polygamous relations care for you in your old age, and caring for them as well, beats the hell outta nursing homes.

Regards from Rosie

 

[cpwill]

This is one of the main arguments advanced by the crowd who would prefer to ban gay marriage. It's been disputed by many on this board.

it also appears to be the opinion of the vast majority of Americans in this representative society.

 

[rathi]

That anger can be channeled into productive ends and forcing men to compete for mating privileges helps improve the species.

What useful ends can you channel the anger towards behind war? Relying on war as an outlet would be extremely risky, as you cannot count on the geopolitical circumstances that make war a good idea to coincide with the moment that you need to deal with your angry populace.

 

[Hoplite]

Spoken like a man without in-laws. Extended family is important in any society, including one as alienated as ours-- perhaps especially in an atomized society.

What makes you think I dont have in-laws? It's more than extended family, we see where children are raised by large families and groups that include close friends or neighbors they tend to be much more socially adjusted because they have such interaction with so many other people from such a young age.

They can. Statistically, they are considerably less likely to. One married couple with all of their own children is the parenting environment most conducive to success. The addition of a strong support network in the form of the extended family improves the odds.

Is that because of the surroundings or because of the relationship itself?

That seems somewhat like the argument that being gay is bad because more gay people commit suicide than straight people so OBVIOUSLY being gay must be miserable, this point missing the fact that aspects of our society are not yet very accepting of being gay and there is a lot more stress involved with being part of a minority that is actively disliked or even hated by many people.

Similarly, we tend to positively reinforce the concept of a nuclear family because we see that as "the best" scenario (though that is becoming increasingly less so). That sort of encouragement of what we see as the best does result in a societally dim view of anything OTHER than the ideal.

 

[hallam]

In theory, I'm okay with it.

In practice, it usually winds up devaluing women (as Rathi was kind enough to point out), and sounds like it would be an administrative nightmare.

I would say that this is an incorrect conclusion. Almost all of the examples we have so far or recently come out of certain societies that devalue women whether those women are in a monogamous marriage or a polygamous marriage. To then extend that culture to a a life style is wrong. There is nothing intrinsic about polyandry or polygamy when it comes to valuing partners. If we were to legalize it, there is no reason to think that poly marriages wouldn't fall in line with normal gender norms of our society (whatever those norms are now).

 

[digsbe]

I think polygamy should remain illegal.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Should it be legal to marry more than one person if you choose to?

I think it should be. It shouldn't be up to the government to decide who or how many people you can marry.

Yeah, this.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Marriage is about child-rearing and I have read nothing to suggest that children who grow up in polygamist environments are better off.

Why do they have to be "better off" than children growing up in "traditional" homes for society to stay the heck out of the private business of the individual (beyond giving them treatment equal to the "traditional" home)?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I am a strong advocate of polygamy, but I believe the traditional form of bigamy should be retained as a criminal offense-- marital fraud. Legal polygamy should require the written consent of all spouses.

TED,
Didn't realize that bigamy was marital fraud. You learn something new every day!

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I think polygamy should remain illegal.

Any particular reason?

 

[Goshin]

I am relatively indifferent.


Being married to two or three women at once sounds kinda hellish to me, but... :mrgreen:


Polygamy, unlike gay marriage, at least has significant historical precedents.