• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Can't 3 People Get Married?

What do you think of Trio Marriages?


  • Total voters
    43

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,574
Reaction score
5,085
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'm torn on it. I have no moral issues with polygamy, so that side of things doesn't bother me. What does though, is that we would have to rewrite a LOT of laws to deal with marriages among more than two people. And that would all have to happen at the taxpayers' expense.

Take the trio in the OP's example. The article said that the man married the two women. Does that mean that the two women aren't considered married to each other? Or are they? What if one of them wants out later on. How would the divorce be handled? Would two of them still be considered married? Or would the whole trio be divorced? Our laws can't handle questions like that at the moment because they're only designed with marriages between two people in mind. Almost every law on the subject of marriage that we have would have to be changed.

And I'm just not sure that enough people would want to take advantage of polygamous marriage to justify the effort and expense.
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,154
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
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:

Fine with me. If marriage is going to be in institution of love, then the government has no business deciding whose love is valid and whose isn't. I don't think the government has any business in marriage at all, but if we're going to insist on keeping this a legal concept and strapping it to human love, then the goverment should at least stop telling people which love is ok and which isn't. As long as all involved are consenting and competent adults, it's no one's business.
 
Last edited:

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,453
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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.

I don't like intellectually dishonest people like you.

India is over 80% Hindu, and they are prohibited by law in India from polygamy. The population of India is 1.2 billion, of which 960 million are Hindu. If you subtract the 960 million Hindus who civilly can't enter polygamous marriages then that means 1.44 billion people can enter them civilly. Which means that only about 20% of the world population can civilly enter polygamous marriages. That is half of what he was claiming.

Now unless you are arguing that 1 billion Muslim people were suddenly born between 2010 and 2012, I think you are full of bull crap.
 

DiAnna

Hooter Babe
Moderator
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
51,197
Reaction score
28,466
Location
Northern California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I believe any marriage between consenting adults should be legal. So long as only one spousal deduction is allowed, I don't care how many husbands/wives a person has.

What I do have a big problem with is people making arbitrary definitions about other people, and who they are and are not "allowed" to marry. It's nobody else's business, as long as it's not a cover for tax or welfare fraud.

Honestly, people, get your panties out of a bunch. SSM and polygamy is NOT going to invalidate your own individual marriages. Just worry about your own spouse and get your nose out of everybody else's personal business.
 

melg89

Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
80
Reaction score
45
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
If they are consenting adults, I could give two sh**ts less. Not my business!
 

DiAnna

Hooter Babe
Moderator
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
51,197
Reaction score
28,466
Location
Northern California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't like intellectually dishonest people like you.

India is over 80% Hindu, and they are prohibited by law in India from polygamy. The population of India is 1.2 billion, of which 960 million are Hindu. If you subtract the 960 million Hindus who civilly can't enter polygamous marriages then that means 1.44 billion people can enter them civilly. Which means that only about 20% of the world population can civilly enter polygamous marriages. That is half of what he was claiming.

Now unless you are arguing that 1 billion Muslim people were suddenly born between 2010 and 2012, I think you are full of bull crap.

You do realize, do you not, that it's quite possible to debate an alternative position without being beligerent and insulting? In fact, you would have made your point quite nicely if the bolded portions had been omitted, and others... like myself... would have actually respected your response... and you.
 

tessaesque

Bring us a shrubbery!
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
15,910
Reaction score
12,629
Location
Plano, Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I don't like intellectually dishonest people like you.

India is over 80% Hindu, and they are prohibited by law in India from polygamy. The population of India is 1.2 billion, of which 960 million are Hindu. If you subtract the 960 million Hindus who civilly can't enter polygamous marriages then that means 1.44 billion people can enter them civilly. Which means that only about 20% of the world population can civilly enter polygamous marriages. That is half of what he was claiming.

Now unless you are arguing that 1 billion Muslim people were suddenly born between 2010 and 2012, I think you are full of bull crap.

You're missing 2 very important points, which I've made twice. (1) ALL countries have seen a population increase since mid-2010, and (2) I didn't include every country which allows polygamy in the population totals. "Intellectually dishonest" is hardly a term you can ascribe to me. I'm one of the most objective people here. YOU wanted to entirely discount India, which would eradicate (by your own estimate) at least 1.44 billion people from the list, never mind the fact that (as several articles mentioned) there are multiple converts in India specifically with the intent of entering into a polygamist union.

And, again, you ignored the rest of the point. You can fling stupid, insulting accusations around all day in an effort to discredit other posters. The fact remains that given population increases, negating the portion of India who cannot enter into polygamist marriages, and including the populations of the rest of the countries who allow it (or who recognize polygamists married elsewhere but living within their borders) you're probably still closer to 40% than the 20% you're suggesting.

Further, I'm not the one who made the initial claim. I just pointed out that your immediate attack on his point was without support or evidence...and then I provided evidence to you.

Ultimately, you can sling insults and present rude, counterproductive nonsense....or you can take a huge leap and actually debate honestly...using sources, facts, and legitimate figures...which you did not do until the above post.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,266
Reaction score
14,298
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Marriage is a contractual relationship between two people. Not three, not four, just two.
 

tessaesque

Bring us a shrubbery!
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
15,910
Reaction score
12,629
Location
Plano, Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Marriage is a contractual relationship between two people. Not three, not four, just two.

Says who? Some religions? Marriage predates all existing, practiced religions. The "moral majority? On what basis? Some religions? That sends us back to the time line for marriage.
 
Last edited:

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,266
Reaction score
14,298
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Says who? Some religions? Marriage predates all existing, practiced religions. The "moral majority? On what basis? Some religions? That sends us back to the time line for marriage.

It depends on how we define marriage. Marriage is a social thing. Historically society has always defined marriage. Some societies allow for polygamy, others for homosexual marriages, and some allow spontaneous marriages and divorces. My personal definition of marriage comes from the Bible that says it is best that a man have one wife and a woman one husband. In our society as a whole we tend to believe marriage is between two people as a majority. We call it "cheating" when someone has sex outside of their marriage and it's discouraged. Our society says that it's between two people, Saudi society may say that it's between a man and four women. It's relative.
 

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,661
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
And now with this discussion I must wonder if the thoughts are of the people who said: "no gay marriage because it will destroy the institution."

But let me put this in a much more conventional sense. TAXES. Not a chance. Tax dodgers can already do it in 2s, but to add in 3s? Seriously? Not to mention we already have enough problems as it is with divorce, spousal violence, and jealousy, and a host of other general malfuctioning relationship problems. Why add in yet another complication?

AND this is very important:

MARRIAGE IS NOT ABOUT SEX! IF YOU THINK GETTING MARRIED IS ABOUT THE SEX LIFE THEN YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG! I mean do you visit a prostitute for marriage? We need to draw a distinction between the 2.
 

melg89

Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
80
Reaction score
45
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It depends on how we define marriage. Marriage is a social thing. Historically society has always defined marriage. Some societies allow for polygamy, others for homosexual marriages, and some allow spontaneous marriages and divorces. My personal definition of marriage comes from the Bible that says it is best that a man have one wife and a woman one husband. In our society as a whole we tend to believe marriage is between two people as a majority. We call it "cheating" when someone has sex outside of their marriage and it's discouraged. Our society says that it's between two people, Saudi society may say that it's between a man and four women. It's relative.

Just because "society says it", doesn't mean it's right. I remember a time where interracial marriages were looked down upon by society.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,266
Reaction score
14,298
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Just because "society says it", doesn't mean it's right. I remember a time where interracial marriages were looked down upon by society.

I agree, my morals are based off my faith and many times I think what society says is wrong. However, historically society in America has always defined marriage and Americans frowning upon polygamy is why 3 people can't get married.
 

melg89

Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
80
Reaction score
45
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I agree, my morals are based off my faith and many times I think what society says is wrong. However, historically society in America has always defined marriage and Americans frowning upon polygamy is why 3 people can't get married.

You are entitled to your beliefs and your faith, completely. You just can't force it on other people, and the government shouldn't either.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,266
Reaction score
14,298
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You are entitled to your beliefs and your faith, completely. You just can't force it on other people, and the government shouldn't either.

So then why outlaw bestiality? I don't believe in forcing my beliefs upon others. I believe that homosexuality is a sin and homosexual "marriages" are not valid in the eyes of God. However, I still support the right for homosexuals to get married because I don't want to force my religious views on them even when I believe I'm right.

Pretty much all laws are views and morals that society holds that get forced upon the populace. Why would it be ok for certain people to force their views of taxation upon the wealthy and demand that the government take more of their money away? Where do we draw the line as to what's ok for us to force upon society and what isn't? And how can we stay consistent with that line?
 

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,661
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just because "society says it", doesn't mean it's right. I remember a time where interracial marriages were looked down upon by society.

Like theft. What if I am hungry? I should be able to steal if I am hungry. Society is wrong on that.

and

Like murder. Society is all like, "Oh murder is so bad."

(Just in case it is missed by someone that is sarcasm above)

Sometimes society is correct though.
 

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,661
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why would it be ok for certain people to force their views of taxation upon the wealthy and demand that the government take more of their money away? ?
I guess you missed it:



People are selfish. That is why they believe in such things.
 

Cameron

Politically Correct
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
5,443
Reaction score
4,208
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
I have no problem with consensual polygamy, but I do think as a practical matter the rights afforded will have to be different. The situation is a little more complicated than with gay marriage, because adding a whole new person (or more) alters the considerations and balancing that form the basis of much marriage-related legislation in ways that simply changing the gender of one participant does not.

I also don't think legal recognition of polygamy is constitutionally required under equal protection (and certainly not due process). But it should be permitted so long as it doesn't hurt anybody, and the government should take into account the legitimate interests of participants and not make life difficult when it comes to inheritance, hospital visitation, separation, support and custody.

Again, I don't believe recognizing plural marriage is a constitutional requirement. So if it becomes apparent that polygamist families are not as stable or otherwise don't provide as strong of a benefit to families as marriage, we should feel free to take that into account. Not by criminalizing the activity, but by incentivizing monogamous marriage over plural marriage when it comes to things like tax deductions.
 

Connery

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2012
Messages
5,134
Reaction score
6,122
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I do not see any problems with such a union with multiple partners. The rights and liabilities of the parties within the relationship including survivor benefits can be settled prior to the inception of the relationship, death or during the relationship. Many relationships have settled who gets what at death with a "Will"; married or not. For those who die intestate(without a Will) state laws would be triggered and such would be divided according to statute.


For example:
"In New Jersey, the general rules are as follows:

A. If spouse survives, no children:

If no parents, all to spouse.
If parents, the first $50,000.00 to spouse, then 50% to spouse and 50% to parents.

B. If spouse survives, also children:

If spouse is parent of all the children, then the first $50,000.00 to spouse, the balance 50% to spouse and 50% to children.
If spouse is not the parent of all the children, then 50% to spouse and 50% to children.

C. If children survive, no spouse: all to children, equally, with issue of deceased children to take by representation.

D. If neither spouse nor children survive:

To parents, if any.
If no parents, then to issue of parents (brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, etc.) by representation.
If no issue of parent, then to grandparents or issue of grandparents.
If none of the above, to the State of New Jersey.

Please note that "non-probate" property is not controlled by these rules. Joint property will pass to the surviving joint owner. Life insurance and pension will go to the designated beneficiary."

Intestacy Laws
 

nota bene

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
66,028
Reaction score
37,534
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I guess it all depends on how "elastic" the term "marriage" is. At least some citizens regard polygamous and polyandrous unions, as well as homosexual unions, as part of the definition.

If one accepts the definition of "marriage" as understood by our "Western" forebears as "one man/one woman," there's no real argument here. If one insists, however, on expanding the definition to mean more than this, I don't see any reason to expand it further than just two mates.

Is excluding a third mate or more somehow wrong? Why? Who are you to think this? Who are you to think that marriage should be exclusively two people? Or even exclusively human-to-human?
 

melg89

Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
80
Reaction score
45
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
So then why outlaw bestiality? I don't believe in forcing my beliefs upon others. I believe that homosexuality is a sin and homosexual "marriages" are not valid in the eyes of God. However, I still support the right for homosexuals to get married because I don't want to force my religious views on them even when I believe I'm right.

Pretty much all laws are views and morals that society holds that get forced upon the populace. Why would it be ok for certain people to force their views of taxation upon the wealthy and demand that the government take more of their money away? Where do we draw the line as to what's ok for us to force upon society and what isn't? And how can we stay consistent with that line?

Animals can't consent. And just as a side note: why do people *always* go back to stuff like bestiality when talking about gay marriage?

My point is simple: if they are consenting adults, who cares. I really don't understand. If you don't mind me asking, are you Christian? Isn't salvation up to the individual? I know you already said that even though you think it's wrong, you still think it's ok for them to get married, but I don't understand others who use the whole religion excuse.

 

joko104

Banned
Suspended
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,403
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So then why outlaw bestiality? I don't believe in forcing my beliefs upon others. I believe that homosexuality is a sin and homosexual "marriages" are not valid in the eyes of God. However, I still support the right for homosexuals to get married because I don't want to force my religious views on them even when I believe I'm right.

That is entirely legitimate. A person can have his/her own values and religion.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,266
Reaction score
14,298
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Animals can't consent. And just as a side note: why do people *always* go back to stuff like bestiality when talking about gay marriage?

My point is simple: if they are consenting adults, who cares. I really don't understand. If you don't mind me asking, are you Christian? Isn't salvation up to the individual? I know you already said that even though you think it's wrong, you still think it's ok for them to get married, but I don't understand others who use the whole religion excuse.


We aren't talking about gay marriage, we are talking about polygamy. And I go back to bestiality because you say it's wrong for people to force their views upon others. We say it's wrong to have sex with animals. They may "consent" but who are we to say it's wrong? Why is it wrong? Why is it ok to say humans should not have sex with animals?

And yes, I am a Christian and I do believe that salvation is the choice of the individual. I wouldn't say others use their religion as an "excuse," they just adhere to their religious values and support what they believe to be right just like everyone else. If someone wants to have an open marriage that allows for a 3rd partner then that's their choice. However, the state does not have to allow a man or a woman to legally form a marriage contract with multiple people. No one is stopping them from having sex or saying that they are married or even having a ceremony, but the state and society are under no legal obligation to extend to them marriage rights and recognize polygamy as a valid institution for marriage.
 

joko104

Banned
Suspended
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,403
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Animals can't consent. And just as a side note: why do people *always* go back to stuff like bestiality when talking about gay marriage?

My point is simple: if they are consenting adults, who cares. I really don't understand. If you don't mind me asking, are you Christian? Isn't salvation up to the individual? I know you already said that even though you think it's wrong, you still think it's ok for them to get married, but I don't understand others who use the whole religion excuse.


The Bible does not condemn polygamy.
 

melg89

Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
80
Reaction score
45
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
LMAO. I was posting in a gay marriage thread as well and got mixed up. I apologize :lamo Let me clarify: I meant to say polygamy. People always bring it up when talking about gay marriage or polygamy. And ignore my bible question.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom