Legalized Multi-spouse marriages

[Riddick]

After Gay marriage, next to be legalized will be a husband with multiple wives or a wife with several husbands. That will be the next legal trend.

 

[transientlife]

ya think? I dunno.

 

[burrow_owl]

Probably not. One of the first supreme court cases to reject polygamy made copious references to the violence that so often accompanies polygamy. Rationale worked back then, and it works now.

Also, from an economic standpoint, polygamy is stupid. Marriages are good because they simplify property, guardianship, etc.; polygamy just doesn't advance any state interest, because one could easily foresee legal battles breaking out over which wife gets which car when the old man kicks the bucket, etc.

 

[funyun]

After Gay marriage, next to be legalized will be a husband with multiple wives or a wife with several husbands. That will be the next legal trend.

That slope isn't slippery enough.

 

[artofwar]

hmmm more than one wife? there are advantages and disadvantages for this haha

 

[Riddick]

i can see where there were problems previously for gay marriages, but we have neatly looked past those, and what do we have? gay marriage. same thing will happen in a multi-spouse arrangement.

 

[Rae]

Hey, the Bible itself has numerous multi-spouse marriages in it. I'd think the Christians here would be glad to return to those days. I myself see no problem with multiple consenting adult marriages or gay marriages, assuming consent on all parties' part.

 

[flicka]

It's lame to expect polygamy from gay marriage because polygamy has already been around in legal and illegal forms.

Actually, with the cost of living being what it is, it makes more sense for a woman to have two husbands to bring in two incomes so she has the choice to stay home w/the kiddies...

 

[Rae]

Actually, with the cost of living being what it is, it makes more sense for a woman to have two husbands to bring in two incomes so she has the choice to stay home w/the kiddies

Amen, sister! I'd love to stay home with my baby.

 

[trunks2k]

After Gay marriage, next to be legalized will be a husband with multiple wives or a wife with several husbands. That will be the next legal trend.

This is the only thing that I could possible see as coming out of legalized gay marriages. However, I doubt it will ever go through, mainly because it would be incredibly hard to implement it legally, i.e. if three people are married to eachother and the one member dies, how exactly would the property of the deseased be divided up between the remaining two. Or if one member is in the hospital and incapacitated and the two people married to him/her give the doctor conflicting orders (i.e. whether or not to perform a risky surgery), who is the doctor going to listen to? And exactly how would very large communes of people who whish to all marry eachother be handled?

Could all that stuff be worked out? Yeah, but it would take a lot of time and effort on the state's part, which I doubt it would be willing to do. This is much different from monogomous same sex marriages where in you are simply changing the sex of one of the partners, nothing else really changes on at least the most important legal privlidges of the marriage.

Now, do I think that polygamous marriages should be lagalized? If you can work out the legal issues effectively, of course they should. Granted, we don't have a good history in how we go about polygamous marriages (women often are forced intot he marriage, the marriages are often violent, etc). But if you have a group of people who want to be married to eachother, i.e. person A is married to person B, who is married to person C who is also married to person A, instead of person A being married to B and C, but B and C aren't married to eachother.

 

[The Bellman]

i can see where there were problems previously for gay marriages...

No, you can't. You might IMAGINE some problems...there were never any. The ONLY problem is narrow-minded people who don't want it to happen. There are no problems from any other point of view.

 

[CZzyzx41]

I'm not too sure of that. Though it really wouldn't surprise me.

If it were I'd be against it. We should only have one spouse. Being unfaithful to that spouse is a sin and obviously marrying someone else would count as being unfaithful.

 

[Volos]

After Gay marriage, next to be legalized will be a husband with multiple wives or a wife with several husbands. That will be the next legal trend.

Allowing same sex marriage will lead to:

A) Pologamy

B) The destruction of western civilization

C) Incestuous marriage

D) Wide spread practice of bestiality and/or necrophilia

E) Athlete’s foot among elementary school teachers

F) All of the above

There are hundreds of variations to this psudo-argument (technically it is not an argument but a logical fallacy) the prediction of dire results changes so it is not entirely clear exactly what new harms will arise or what old harms will increase if same sex marriage is legally recognized. Slippery slopes can be valid arguments but only if a causal connection between the event being protested (legal recognition of same sex marriages) and the dire results (incest/polygamy/bestiality) Unfortunately for the argument there is no causal relationship between the two. In fact there is evidence for the reverse. Legal recognition of same-sex unions exist in a number of countries, it has been recognized in Sweden for a generation. If this slippery slope were to have validity there should be evidence that the above list of horrors and related consequences are on the rise in these countries. To the best of my knowledge and research ability, there is no Swedish polygamists' rights organization poised to exploit same-sex marriage to return the republic to polygamous abandon.



The argument that legal recognition of same sex marriage leads invariably to polygamy rests on a couple of assumptions. The first is that polygamous impulses are morally and psychologically equivalent to being homosexual, since both are diversions from the heterosexual “norm” it is implied that the government has a role to prevent such activities. Ultimately the two are not equivalent. Even the Catholic Church, which believes that homosexuality is an "objective disorder," concedes that it is a profound element of human identity. It speaks of "homosexual persons," for example, in a way it would never speak of "polygamous persons." Even in the very use of the term "homosexuals" we are embracing this view point that sexual orientation is a part of the personality and that polygamy is an activity.



So where is the logical connection between accepting same-sex marriage and sanctioning polygamy? It is a completely separate question whether or not the government should extend the definition of marriage to include more than one spouse or to allow related individuals to marry and so on.

 

[seebs]

After Gay marriage, next to be legalized will be a husband with multiple wives or a wife with several husbands. That will be the next legal trend.

And God forbid that Solomon and half the other Hebrew patriarchs should set a precedent!

I frankly don't see the problem here. There is no purely Biblical argument here; the Catholic argument is fairly strong if you accept their premises (which I personally don't), but the Bible itself clearly condones and sets terms for polygamous marriages. Don't like it? Tough. As I am reminded daily by people advocating societal stability, God doesn't change. If He once not merely condoned, but commanded, a practice, it is obviously not wrong now.

 

[seebs]

hmmm more than one wife? there are advantages and disadvantages for this haha

Ambrose Bierce said it best:

bigamy n. A mistake in taste for which the wisdom of the future will adjudge a punishment called trigamy.

Another person I know once observed that to have two wives is to have two mothers-in-law. Boy.

 

[seebs]

This is the only thing that I could possible see as coming out of legalized gay marriages. However, I doubt it will ever go through, mainly because it would be incredibly hard to implement it legally, i.e. if three people are married to eachother and the one member dies, how exactly would the property of the deseased be divided up between the remaining two.

Well, presumably according to will, or by general probate law; I'd assume they'd split it evenly, much like multiple surviving children of a parent.

I don't see this as "incredibly hard". Maybe "incredibly easy".

Or if one member is in the hospital and incapacitated and the two people married to him/her give the doctor conflicting orders (i.e. whether or not to perform a risky surgery), who is the doctor going to listen to? And exactly how would very large communes of people who whish to all marry eachother be handled?

Good questions. What do we do when the two legal guardians of a single person don't agree? This is not a new question.

Large groups? Good question. Maybe we should set a reasonable limit... But consider the line marriages Heinlein proposed in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I see no obvious societal problems with allowing such arrangements.

Perhaps we should simply make "marital rights" a term of art which can be assigned by contracts like any others, and the state should get out of the business entirely.

Now, do I think that polygamous marriages should be lagalized? If you can work out the legal issues effectively, of course they should.

Woot! Please do this soon, I found a cute girl.

Granted, we don't have a good history in how we go about polygamous marriages (women often are forced intot he marriage, the marriages are often violent, etc).

Yes; these are problems which, it seems to be, result partially from the lack of societal checks and balances. When you criminalize something, you make it more dangerous. Note also issues with lack of education and women's rights in some parts of the world...

But if you have a group of people who want to be married to eachother, i.e. person A is married to person B, who is married to person C who is also married to person A, instead of person A being married to B and C, but B and C aren't married to eachother.

An interesting distinction, and probably relevant. In "healthy" polygamous societies (those which aren't practicing the above-mentioned abuses), the deal seems to be that everyone has to agree on someone before adding them to a relationship. There's a wonderful story of an anthropologist interviewing a man with several wives; after she'd been studying their culture for some time, he asked her to marry him - with enthusiastic and vocal support from three of his existing wives, who thought an anthropologist would make a wonderful partner.

Sweet dreams are made of this
Who am I to disagree
You travel the world and the seven seas
Everybody's looking for something...

 

[keithylishus]

So... Let me understand this... Heterosexual marriage leads to gay marriage, which leads to polygamy and animal marriage. Therefore heterosexual marriage leads to polygamy!

Who votes we should ban heterosexual marriage if it leads to people having hundereds of spouses, and cats walking down the aisle in wedding dresses?

 

[seebs]

So... Let me understand this... Heterosexual marriage leads to gay marriage, which leads to polygamy and animal marriage. Therefore heterosexual marriage leads to polygamy!

Who votes we should ban heterosexual marriage if it leads to people having hundereds of spouses, and cats walking down the aisle in wedding dresses?

Hmm.

Given the choice, I'd rather put up with a few people whose cats will be taken away by the ASPCA presently, than lose the entire institution of marriage.

 

[burrow_owl]

Well, presumably according to will, or by general probate law; I'd assume they'd split it evenly, much like multiple surviving children of a parent.

One of the reasons for marriage, though, is to avoid the messiness and expense of probate court.

Ya think people will just be happy with splitting the estate evenly? Why? No one is ever happy with that, regardless of how rational it may be - that's why probate court sucks up so much government money.

Marriage is useful because everything transfers by operation of law from one person to one other person - no fuss, no muss. With polygamy, there'd be a lot of fuss, and a lot of muss.

 

[seebs]

One of the reasons for marriage, though, is to avoid the messiness and expense of probate court.

As I understand it, if you die intestate, the probate court gets involved - marriage just tells them what to do.

Ya think people will just be happy with splitting the estate evenly? Why? No one is ever happy with that, regardless of how rational it may be - that's why probate court sucks up so much government money.

So? People other than the surviving spouse don't have to be happy that the spouse gets all the stuff; that's just what happens, by fiat.

Marriage is useful because everything transfers by operation of law from one person to one other person - no fuss, no muss. With polygamy, there'd be a lot of fuss, and a lot of muss.

I don't believe this to be really the case, any more than it is already. Consider what happens in cases with alimony and other rights, pensions from previous jobs, and so on. When my dad died, what happened to his retirement pension; did it go to my mom, or my stepmom? Did it get split? Turns out we already have these problems.

If anything, this would simplify some cases. Or, if all else fails, just require people to have a valid will before they get a second wife.