Why Can't 3 People Get Married?

[CriticalThought]

If they are consenting adults, why should anyone care?

I only care because people keep trying to compare it to same sex relationships.

 

[AGENT J]

Since marriage is, from my pov, being twisted, why can't 3 people get married, instead of 2?

Here's an interesting article I've found on the first trio "married" in the Netherlands:



First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands | The Brussels Journal

So, what do you think about trio marriages? Obviously we can make the rules on marriage, so we can make it any way we want. Trio marriages will probably happen in America in the future, I think. :shrug:

Couple things, civil unions and marriage differ by more than name thats one of the reason civil unions is BS and a coupe out to further discriminate. It reminds me of segragation, we arent saying blacks cant drink out of fountains they just cant drink out of THESE fountians, total BS.

Anyway on to polygamy.

Currently nobody had the ring in the US to marry multiple partners so this is a separate issue from same sex marriage.

Personally again I feel its none of my business and Im all for it as long as it follows the other rules I have outlined for same sex marriage. I have no place deciding if a human consenting adult can marry another human consenting adult. I would never be so arrogant, ignorant and hypocritical to ever think its my business.

SO as long as the people involved are consenting adults that love each other and want it whatever :shrug:

I think pologamy has 2 large obstacles.

One is the laws that need wrote to define it. Like who has the most power if the husband dies and its a single husband multiple wife relationship. Are the all equal? is it the first wife, is it the wives with kids? etc etc etc. Writing the law will be extensive BUT thats not a reason to not do it.

Two I think a lot of people think of polygamy as FORCED marriage and the marring of minors. So until people realize that this is only a sub-part of polygamy just like physical abuse/cheating etc is a sub-part of hetero marriage it will have a negative view to some.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I can't answer the poll because I believe that government absolutely has a legitimate interest in marriage, but that polygamous marriage under reasonable conditions is perfectly morally acceptable.

 

[joko104]

Countries where polygamy is legal or permissible:

Afghanistan Algeria Bahrain Bangladesh Brunei Burkina Faso Cameroon Chad CAR Comoros Congo Djibouti Egypt Ethiopia Gabon The Gambia India[SUP]1[/SUP] Indonesia Iran Iraq Jordan Kuwait Libya Malaysia Maldives Mali Mauritania Morocco Myanmar Niger Oman Pakistan Palestine Qatar Saudi Arabia Senegal Singapore[SUP]1[/SUP] Somalia South Africa Sri Lanka[SUP]1[/SUP] Sudan Syria Tanzania Togo Uganda UAE Western Sahara Yemen Zambia

Recognized in some regions

Eritrea[SUP]2[/SUP] Nigeria (BA, BO, GO, JI, KD, KA, KT, KE, NI, SO, YO, ZA)

Foreign marriages recognized

Australia (welfare only) United Kingdom (welfare only)

Botswana Equatorial Guinea Lesotho Liberia Kenya Malawi Mozambique Namibia Nigeria Sierra Leone South Africa Swaziland Zimbabwe

Angola Benin Bhutan Burundi Canada Côte d'Ivoire DR Congo Ethiopia Ghana Iraqi Kurdistan Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Laos Mayotte (FR) Mauritius Mongolia Niue Russia Rwanda Tajikistan Thailand Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan United States Uzbekistan Vietnam Nigeria (IM, KW, LA, NA, OY, PL)

Legal status of polygamy
Recognized under civil law
Recognized under customary law
Status in other jurisdictions

 

[Justice For All]

Personally I think it defeats the meaning of marriage if more than 2 people are involved. Marriage is about a commitment to each other and loving each other as soul mates. Also the legal side of it would be a disaster in both taxes and inheritance. Not to mention if there was kids involved it might really get confusing and mess with their minds as well as kids making fun of them at school.

Anyways if people are going to have multiple partners why do they need the word marriage anyways? I never got that, the same with gay marriage. Why do they need the word marriage why not a union because they are clearly not religious. Marriage to me has always been a religious thing in which two people vow to love each other in the name of god. Clearly most people besides mormons who are in multiple relationships or who are gay arent religious anyways.

 

[CriticalThought]

Afghanistan Algeria Bahrain Bangladesh Brunei Burkina Faso Cameroon Chad CAR Comoros Congo Djibouti Egypt Ethiopia Gabon The Gambia India[SUP]1[/SUP] Indonesia Iran Iraq Jordan Kuwait Libya Malaysia Maldives Mali Mauritania Morocco Myanmar Niger Oman Pakistan Palestine Qatar Saudi Arabia Senegal Singapore[SUP]1[/SUP] Somalia South Africa Sri Lanka[SUP]1[/SUP] Sudan Syria Tanzania Togo Uganda UAE Western Sahara Yemen Zambia

Recognized in some regions

Eritrea[SUP]2[/SUP] Nigeria (BA, BO, GO, JI, KD, KA, KT, KE, NI, SO, YO, ZA)

Foreign marriages recognized

Australia (welfare only) United Kingdom (welfare only)

Botswana Equatorial Guinea Lesotho Liberia Kenya Malawi Mozambique Namibia Nigeria Sierra Leone South Africa Swaziland Zimbabwe

Angola Benin Bhutan Burundi Canada Côte d'Ivoire DR Congo Ethiopia Ghana Iraqi Kurdistan Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Laos Mayotte (FR) Mauritius Mongolia Niue Russia Rwanda Tajikistan Thailand Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan United States Uzbekistan Vietnam Nigeria (IM, KW, LA, NA, OY, PL)

Legal status of polygamy
Recognized under civil law
Recognized under customary law
Status in other jurisdictions

1. That disproves your earlier claim that polygamy is legal for 40% of the world's population. Those countries do not add up anywhere near 40%.
2. What does the legality of polygamous marriages have to do with my argument that there is more scientific evidence to support the benefits of same sex relationships than polygamous relationships?

 

[iliveonramen]

Why do you care? Why is it the Government role to tell you how to live your personal live or to moralize things like sexuality or how you want to live your life?

Why don't you mind your business and live your own life instead of wanting to use government power to tell others how to live theirs?

 

[tessaesque]

Personally I think it defeats the meaning of marriage if more than 2 people are involved. Marriage is about a commitment to each other and loving each other as soul mates. Also the legal side of it would be a disaster in both taxes and inheritance. Not to mention if there was kids involved it might really get confusing and mess with their minds as well as kids making fun of them at school.

Anyways if people are going to have multiple partners why do they need the word marriage anyways? I never got that, the same with gay marriage. Why do they need the word marriage why not a union because they are clearly not religious. Marriage to me has always been a religious thing in which two people vow to love each other in the name of god. Clearly most people besides mormons who are in multiple relationships or who are gay arent religious anyways.

Whose meaning of marriage? Yours? Christianity's? Obviously the "meaning of marriage" differs from culture to culture, so who has the ultimate right to dictate which meaning applies?

 

[Hatuey]

Oh come now. It's harmless. :roll:

Why is it that homosexual marriage is routinely defended as utterly harmless, yet some who argue that, upon seeing emerging polyamorous marriage, suddenly are oh-so-efficient at finding negative things about it?

Hopefully you got it.

 

[joko104]

1. That disproves your earlier claim that polygamy is legal for 40% of the world's population. Those countries do not add up anywhere near 40%.
2. What does the legality of polygamous marriages have to do with my argument that there is more scientific evidence to support the benefits of same sex relationships than polygamous relationships?

What do you think the collective population is of India, and nearly all of Africa and nearly all of the Muslim world is? Certainly higher than the gay community.

What scientific evidence is there that you should have any civil or human rights whatsoever? The burden of proof is on you, not a presumption against individual and human rights unless they can be shown beneficial.

Other than you, I haven't actually read anyone claiming that same gender monogamous relationships are superior to all others. But, since it is your standard, provide "scientific evidence" that monogamous same gender marriage is superior to heterosexual relationships?

Besides, your claim is absurd. There has only been legal same gender marriages - even then minimally and only in state regards - in the USA for a few years. There are NO scientific studies of the long term benefits of same gender MARRIAGES in the USA. Are you relying on other countries? Which ones?

The issue is NOT polygamous relationships, it is legalizing polygamous marriages.

 

[Removable Mind]

After watching the HBO series "BIG LOVE"....forget it. It's not a lifestyle I would embark on, but what the hell. As long as polygamist don't infringe on my rights...do it to it.

 

[ChuckBerry]

I'd like to pivot off of Viktyr's comment with my own, and note that people should not conflate what consenting adults can do in privacy with what they approach government to endorse publicly. Three or more people can have whatever sort of relationship they want right now without government interference.

ADDED: sorry joko104 hadn't read your comment, it covers mine.

 

[tessaesque]

1. That disproves your earlier claim that polygamy is legal for 40% of the world's population. Those countries do not add up anywhere near 40%.
2. What does the legality of polygamous marriages have to do with my argument that there is more scientific evidence to support the benefits of same sex relationships than polygamous relationships?

Afghanistan: 34,385,068
Algeria: 35,468,208
Bahrain: 1,261,835
Bangladesh: 148,692,130
Brunei: 398,920
Egypt: 81,121,077
Ethiopia: 82,949,541
India: 1,170,938,000
Indonesia: 239,870,940
Iran: 73,973,630
Iraq: 32,030,823
Jordan: 6,047,000
Kuwait: 2,736,732
Libya: 6,355,112
Malaysia: 28,401,017
Morroco: 31,951,412
Niger: 15,511,953
Pakistan: 173,593,380
Palestine: 4,152,102
Saudi Arabia: 27,448,086
Singapore: 5,076,700
Somalia: 9,330,872
South Africa: 49,991,300
Sudan: 43,551,941
Syria: 20,446,609
Uganda: 33,424,683
UAE: 7,511,690
Yemen: 24,052,514

Total: 2,390,673,275
World Population: 6,989,797,329
Percentage: 34.2

Keeping in mind that the population numbers acquired for individual countries are from 2010 while the world population number came from the "real time" world clock website, I'd say we're actually much closer to the 40% the poster referenced....and that doesn't include ALL of the countries listed above, but rather just the largest.

 

[Redress]

Oh come now. It's harmless. :roll:

Why is it that homosexual marriage is routinely defended as utterly harmless, yet some who argue that, upon seeing emerging polyamorous marriage, suddenly are oh-so-efficient at finding negative things about it?

This is one of the most common arguments made in SSM debates, and it is an entirely false one. HINT: SSM and polygamy are different. Note that very complex technical term: different. It means they are not the same. The reason SSM advocates are for SSM is not because they are the same as OSM, but that there are solid, positive arguments in favor of SSM.

 

[grip]

Why Can't 3 People Get Married?

Probably because 50% of two people marriages end up in divorce. Would three end up in 75% failure rate?

 

[CriticalThought]

What do you think the collective population is of India, and nearly all of Africa and nearly all of the Muslim world is? Certainly higher than the gay community.

Polygamy is legal in India only for Muslims. It is illegal for Hindus and other religious groups. The point still stands. Your claim that it was legal for 40% of the world's population is incorrect.

What scientific evidence is there that you should have any civil or human rights whatsoever? The burden of proof is on you, not a presumption against individual and human rights unless they can be shown beneficial.

No, if you read back in this thread, I said I don't care if polygamy is legalized or not. My issue is with comparing it to same sex marriage. There is strong scientific evidence to support same sex relationships and there is very little to support polygamous.

Other than you, I haven't actually read anyone claiming that same gender monogamous relationships are superior to all others. But, since it is your standard, provide "scientific evidence" that monogamous same gender marriage is superior to heterosexual relationships?

I never argued that same gender relationships are superior. If you read back, I said they were equivalent to heterosexual relationships in the area of parenting. I said there is very little evidence that polygamous relationships provide good homes for children. Please actually know what I am arguing if you are going to try to debate me.

Besides, your claim is absurd. There has only been legal same gender marriages - even then minimally and only in state regards - in the USA for a few years. There are NO scientific studies of the long term benefits of same gender MARRIAGES in the USA. Are you relying on other countries? Which ones?

My argument was same sex couples make good parents and the children of same sex couples would benefit from marriage. Here is good study to support my argument.

The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children

Once again, you should actually take the time to read what a person is arguing instead of getting all hyper defensive.

 

[CriticalThought]

Afghanistan: 34,385,068
Algeria: 35,468,208
Bahrain: 1,261,835
Bangladesh: 148,692,130
Brunei: 398,920
Egypt: 81,121,077
Ethiopia: 82,949,541
India: 1,170,938,000
Indonesia: 239,870,940
Iran: 73,973,630
Iraq: 32,030,823
Jordan: 6,047,000
Kuwait: 2,736,732
Libya: 6,355,112
Malaysia: 28,401,017
Morroco: 31,951,412
Niger: 15,511,953
Pakistan: 173,593,380
Palestine: 4,152,102
Saudi Arabia: 27,448,086
Singapore: 5,076,700
Somalia: 9,330,872
South Africa: 49,991,300
Sudan: 43,551,941
Syria: 20,446,609
Uganda: 33,424,683
UAE: 7,511,690
Yemen: 24,052,514

Total: 2,390,673,275
World Population: 6,989,797,329
Percentage: 34.2

Keeping in mind that the population numbers acquired for individual countries are from 2010 while the world population number came from the "real time" world clock website, I'd say we're actually much closer to the 40% the poster referenced....and that doesn't include ALL of the countries listed above, but rather just the largest.

Please remove India from your calculations. It should not be on the list. Polygamy is illegal for Hindus in India. It is only legal for Muslims. In fact, if you remove India, then you will find quite a significant drop in that percentage.

 

[tessaesque]

Please remove India from your calculations. It should not be on the list. Polygamy is illegal for Hindus in India. It is only legal for Muslims. In fact, if you remove India, then you will find quite a significant drop in that percentage.

You can't remove India entirely, and again, these are 2010 numbers and do not include all of the countries listed. Joko was still fairly close with his estimation.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I'd like to pivot off of Viktyr's comment with my own, and note that people should not conflate what consenting adults can do in privacy with what they approach government to endorse publicly.

Yes. People say that the government has no business in the bedrooms of private citizens, and use this as an argument in favor of allowing homosexuals to marry, but they forget that people don't get married in their bedrooms. My support for gay marriage has nothing to do with what they do in their bedrooms; it has to do with protecting their families in courtrooms and in their own living rooms.

 

[Tucker Case]

Why Can't 3 People Get Married?

Probably because 50% of two people marriages end up in divorce. Would three end up in 75% failure rate?

66.6666666666666%

 

[grip]

66.6666666666666%

Fuss pot.... lol

 

[Tucker Case]

Fuss pot.... lol

No ****. I actually took it out to 13 or so decimal places. :lol:

 

[Redress]

66.6666666666666%

 

[roguenuke]

I am only against multiple partner marriage for how the rules of marriage are written right now. Multiple partners cannot fit into the logistics of the legal terms of the current US marriage contract. Much more would need to be changed than the clerical issue of the sex of the two involved, as is the only real thing needed to change marriage contracts for legal same sex marriage.

There is the huge issue that our marriage laws pertaining to rights and benefits of marriage are based on only two people being in the contract. This is something that should be addressed before any more than two people are allowed to legally marry. And there would have to be limitations put in place for the number of partners in each marriage that could get legal benefits.

There is the smaller, but still important issue, that many of the current people/groups that want multiple partner marriage to be legally recognized also want to marry young women who would also need their parents' permission to be involved in such a marriage. Many states are addressing this by setting the age of legal marriage and only allowing exceptions, if any allowed at all, with a court order. This is good and definitely something, if done everywhere, that would open up for legitimate multiple marriages between adult partners.

At the least though, I do think there should be some legal means for adults to bestow legal kinship upon other adults besides marriage.

Also, I would like to point out that legal marriage is not about sexual activity, as is suggested by the second option of the poll. The government currently does not regulate how many people a person can claim as their spouse in the bedroom (with a few limited exceptions that, besides in the military, have not been enforced criminally in years). Legal marriage, whether OSM, SSM, or multiple partner marriage, involves granting legal kinship and particularly primary kinship between those involved in the contract.

 

[rathi]

The primary argument against polygamy is purely legal, as the current marriage laws would be unworkable and easily abused. Assuming the laws could be re-written to handle issues like tax dodging, multiple way divorce and obtaining citizenship, I wouldn't legally object to it.