Plural marriages

[Washington]

Polygamy. Why should it be against the law?

 

[cantata]

They shouldn't, really. Although it would be tricky to sort out exactly how it would work.

By the way, technically, "polygyny" is the female version of "polyandry". "Polygamy" is genderless. Which is just as well, because maybe I'd quite like to marry a man and a woman one day.

 

[Washington]

They shouldn't, really. Although it would be tricky to sort out exactly how it would work.

By the way, technically, "polygyny" is the female version of "polyandry". "Polygamy" is genderless. Which is just as well, because maybe I'd quite like to marry a man and a woman one day.

Thank you. I'm changing my quesion to reflect this.

 

[gwenmead]

I can't think of why it should be, either. Although it might be kind of tricky to figure out how inheritance laws work out.

One thing about the "two partners only" model is that it does simplify that sort of thing.

 

[jcook922]

They shouldn't, really. Although it would be tricky to sort out exactly how it would work.

By the way, technically, "polygyny" is the female version of "polyandry". "Polygamy" is genderless. Which is just as well, because maybe I'd quite like to marry a man and a woman one day.

I smell a sitcom!

 

[cantata]

I smell a sitcom!

Awesome!

 

[gwenmead]

I smell a sitcom!

Ooh! Or maybe a reality show...

 

[cantata]

Ooh! Or maybe a reality show...

You can count me out of that one!

 

[QuakerOats]

Polygamy. Why should it be against the law?

I don't think it should be, though as others have said, it would require some thought concerning how everything would, or should work out legally.

Speaking of related sitcoms...anyone here watch 'Big Love?' I haven't actually sat down and watched it before, so I'm just curious.

 

[feral]

Provided it is a matter of individual choice, not coerced or required by church doctrine, then I don't have any problem with it at all.

 

[wanderingone]

It shouldn't be, and perhaps if it wasn't those who believe in it as a religious rite wouldn't be able to manipulate and abuse the members of their community as they do now in communities like the FLDS.

As long as people are all free to enter into or leave a marriage of their own decision (and that doesn't include 12 year olds in "pre marriage placements" ) it's nobody else's business.

 

[1TrueDisciple]

Polygamy. Why should it be against the law?

Do the math. The human population consists of roughly 51% female and 49% male. Those figures allow for monogamy just fine.

Now, suppose that polygamy is accepted and that a man is permitted to have 10 wives. That would mean that only 1 in 10 of the males would be able to have wives and children.

What do you think those other 9 men are going to do, stay childless and celibate their entire lives? Not likely!

The most likely scenario would be a return to some kind of murderous competition among the adolescent male population with the survivors claiming the women as wives.

Moreover, what happens to the gene pool inside polygamous communities? Such communities would certainly produce the terrible genetic defects that result from inbreeding and the surfacing of recessive genes.

Making polygamy illegal just makes good sense.

 

[Washington]

Do the math. The human population consists of roughly 51% female and 49% male. Those figures allow for monogamy just fine.

Now, suppose that polygamy is accepted and that a man is permitted to have 10 wives. That would mean that only 1 in 10 of the males would be able to have wives and children.

What do you think those other 9 men are going to do, stay childless and celibate their entire lives? Not likely!.

As long as we're supposin' here, why not suppose the ratio changes? Women out number men 10 to 1. Such a supposin' is really no less ridiculous than your scenario in which all women want to share their husband with nine other women, or even one other woman, for that matter. If your going to start supposin' stuff like this why not suppose that we all wake up next morning with the ability to fly. Now that would be a good supposin'.

 

[Andreusz]

In South Africa, polygyny is legal .. if you get married according to 'African tradition'. The man most likely to be our next president, Jacob Zuma, has six wives. I am surprised that SOuth African Mormons who wish to practice polygamy haven't asserted their right to do so ... I'm sure the constitution could be interpreted to allow them to marry multiple wives.

 

[cantata]

That's okay, 1TrueDisciple, because women will be able to marry 10 men if they want to.

 

[1TrueDisciple]

As long as we're supposin' here, why not suppose the ratio changes? Women out number men 10 to 1. Such a supposin' is really no less ridiculous than your scenario in which all women want to share their husband with nine other women, or even one other woman, for that matter. If your going to start supposin' stuff like this why not suppose that we all wake up next morning with the ability to fly. Now that would be a good supposin'.

An amusing post having nothing to do with the subject, but, nevertheless good for a laugh. Thanks. A little humor is good for the soul.

 

[quatona]

Polygamy. Why should it be against the law?

I don´t really see how that could be dealt with practically. So far societies that had polygamy allowed either men or women to have multiple marriages. That´s not an option for us, for obvious reasons.
Allowing both, women and men, to have multiple marriages (and in a country where gay marriage is already an institution this would even also mean: marriages with persons of both genders) would result in a very complex net of marriages.
Andy is married to Ken, Carrie, Paul and Petra, each of whom are themselves married to multiple partners, each of which...

I´m not a great fan of the institution marriage, anyways, but in this scenario I can´t really think of any reasonable purpose of this institution anymore.
So what meaning and what implications, duties and rights would the institution marriage have and come with in this scenario?
It certainly wouldn´t have much in common with marriage as we currently understand it. What would the idea be behind this new instititution?

 

[Axioma]

We already allow plural marriages, just stretched over time. There's nothing stopping a man from marrying a woman, and then divorcing her and marrying another, etc etc. This way, a man can be married to ten women over the course of his lifetime. And there's no guarantee that those ten women will ever remarry.

OH THE HUMANITY. THE RATIO IS [cleanse my mouth with holy flame][cleanse my mouth with holy flame][cleanse my mouth with holy flame]!

 

[wanderingone]

Do the math. The human population consists of roughly 51% female and 49% male. Those figures allow for monogamy just fine.

Now, suppose that polygamy is accepted and that a man is permitted to have 10 wives. That would mean that only 1 in 10 of the males would be able to have wives and children.

What do you think those other 9 men are going to do, stay childless and celibate their entire lives? Not likely!

The most likely scenario would be a return to some kind of murderous competition among the adolescent male population with the survivors claiming the women as wives.

Moreover, what happens to the gene pool inside polygamous communities? Such communities would certainly produce the terrible genetic defects that result from inbreeding and the surfacing of recessive genes.

Making polygamy illegal just makes good sense.

You do realize "legal" doesn't mean "required"? The majority of people are not going to opt for polygamy. The entire nation does not become a larger FLDS community when polygamy is legal.. of course in my opinion all forms of polygamy would have to be allowed not just polygyny. Countries that currently allow polygyny don't have the problems you mention - (although most have a variety of other issues when it comes to the rights of women)

 

[Axioma]

Of course, you'd still have to work out how the polygamous marriage would work. I mean, if I marry a guy, and he marries a girl, does he need my consent? And am I married to her now as well?

That's the only way I actually see polygamy as working - whenever you want to add another person to the marriage, you must get the consent of everyone already in the marriage, because everyone in a marriage is married to everyone. So it's harder to get really big chains of marriage links together, because each time you have to convince more people to say yes, and it also prevents people who don't want a polygamous marriage from having one forced upon them.