Plural marriages

[The Nihilist]

Polygamy should be legal, but only as punishment.

 

[1TrueDisciple]

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)

Have you considered the idea that one of the root causes of women's rights problems in polygamous societies (such as Islam) might be polygamy itself which reduces women from equal partners in a relationship to junior partners subject to the whims of the male, and in some cases (again as in Islam) the system reduces women to the role of chattels belonging either to a father or a husband?

 

[Washington]

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.

Sorry, but I fail to see the obvious reason.

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.

It would, which I think would necessitate a law saying that any married person who shares a spouse with another cannot themselves have more than one spouse.

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.

Only the legal ramifications that society wishes to attach to marriage, such as tax benefits perhaps.

So what meaning and what implications, duties and rights would the institution marriage have and come with in this scenario?

Haven't given it any thought. All I'm looking for are sound reasons for disallowing plural marriages.

 

[Braunwyn]

I think it should be legal in the US. From what I've seen on the news there are a number of families that wrongfully use welfare even though they are religously married. That's not cool.


Aside from not wanting to, I don't know if I could handle another husband. One seems to keep me plenty busy.

 

[wanderingone]

Have you considered the idea that one of the root causes of women's rights problems in polygamous societies (such as Islam) might be polygamy itself which reduces women from equal partners in a relationship to junior partners subject to the whims of the male, and in some cases (again as in Islam) the system reduces women to the role of chattels belonging either to a father or a husband?

No I don't consider polygamy to be the cause, I consider the way polygamy is practiced to be a symptom of a human rights problem when people are forced into it. I believe marriage of various types can be a symptom -- child marriage, arranged marriage, etc..

Polygamy being illegal has not succeeded in stopping the FLDS from exploiting and abusing young girls within a polygamous culture. I think decisions made by adults outside the context of a religious/cultural requirement should be respected and allowed by the state when the state claims a say in providing marriage rights.

As for belonging to father or husband... we maintain that notion right here when we have men "give" their daughters away to their husband... and when we have father daughter dances and ceremonies where daughters promise to their fathers to remain virgins until they are given to their husbands.. (kind of creepy if you ask me)

 

[wanderingone]

I think it should be legal in the US. From what I've seen on the news there are a number of families that wrongfully use welfare even though they are religously married. That's not cool.

It's a huge problem for those counties that are stuck with FLDS and similar communities. Of course it's fraud, and the social services agencies should be more carefully investigating... because married or not your baby's daddy is legally responsible for his offspring. Of course when daddy had 5 wives and 35 kids chances are you end up eligible for food stamps anyway..... still not cool

Aside from not wanting to, I don't know if I could handle another husband. One seems to keep me plenty busy.

Polygamy certainly isn't something I'd be interested in. Although honestly I could see its appeal when you are having babies and there's no close family or friends to help with all the work of it.. I do have friends in a polyamorous family... they find it soooo much easier to pursue their individual interests because there are 2 or 3 out of the bunch working full time to support a household that doesn't cost much more (except for food) than a family with fewer adults.

I couldn't deal with it.. but sometimes I think it would be awfully nice to still have 2 incomes in the household while you start a new business or go back to school for the Phd

 

[wanderingone]

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.

I do think that all the difficulties when it comes to the logistics is why most won't choose such a marriage even if it is legal. Even in nations where polygamy is legal it's not often the majority of marriages.

 

[quatona]

Sorry, but I fail to see the obvious reason.

Allowing only one gender to have multiple marriage partners would violate the paradigm of equality that is held highly in our societies.

It would, which I think would necessitate a law saying that any married person who shares a spouse with another cannot themselves have more than one spouse.

Ok, if that´s what you meant.
Personally, I find that a little unjust, but if everyone involved agrees with it...

Only the legal ramifications that society wishes to attach to marriage, such as tax benefits perhaps.

But I think that this is the core question: Why (for which purposes) wishes society to have a legal institution marriage, which legal ramifications does it therefore attach to it, and does plural marriage fit those purposes in the same or similar way marriage of couples does?
(Personally, e.g. I don´t even understand why married couples get tax benefits.)

Haven't given it any thought. All I'm looking for are sound reasons for disallowing plural marriages.

For me that entirely depends on what society pursues with the institution marriage.
I´m not generally opposed to changes. Such changes just may come with a redefinition of the purposes for which society has such an institution.

 

[Braunwyn]

Polygamy certainly isn't something I'd be interested in. Although honestly I could see its appeal when you are having babies and there's no close family or friends to help with all the work of it.. I do have friends in a polyamorous family... they find it soooo much easier to pursue their individual interests because there are 2 or 3 out of the bunch working full time to support a household that doesn't cost much more (except for food) than a family with fewer adults.

I couldn't deal with it.. but sometimes I think it would be awfully nice to still have 2 incomes in the household while you start a new business or go back to school for the Phd

That's the first thing that came to mind, which is why I know the lifestyle wouldn't be for me. We live on one income while my husband is in school. It would be nice to have another working husband (already done with college) to help with finances lol.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Polygamy. Why should it be against the law?

It shouldn't.

 

[1TrueDisciple]

Polygamy being illegal has not succeeded in stopping the FLDS from exploiting and abusing young girls within a polygamous culture. I think decisions made by adults outside the context of a religious/cultural requirement should be respected and allowed by the state when the state claims a say in providing marriage rights.

If we're to use the ability of laws to stop the things they make illegal as the measure of whether we should have those laws, then we're treading into dangerous territory. Laws against rape, murder, and robbery have not stopped rapists, murderers, and bandits from committing their heinous acts.

The failure in the case of the FLDS wasn't the law, but the enforcement of the law. Note that none of the marriages in the FLDS compound were licensed by the State of Texas, which makes those marriages void and any sexual acts relating to the "married" minor women illegal.

 

[1TrueDisciple]

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

What an interesting idea! By the end of such a cycle everyone on earth could be related by marriage, and one could even end up being his own grandpa, as Ray Stevens once humorously sang about.

 

[wanderingone]

If we're to use the ability of laws to stop the things they make illegal as the measure of whether we should have those laws, then we're treading into dangerous territory. Laws against rape, murder, and robbery have not stopped rapists, murderers, and bandits from committing their heinous acts.

The failure in the case of the FLDS wasn't the law, but the enforcement of the law. Note that none of the marriages in the FLDS compound were licensed by the State of Texas, which makes those marriages void and any sexual acts relating to the "married" minor women illegal.

Obviously the marriages in the FLDS (which exists in several states not just in Texas) are not "legal" marriages That's why they aren't doing anything legally wrong by living with multiple partners. (Although generally the first wife in these communities does have legal status) The failure of what in the FLDS? The recent raid where child welfare workers removed children? That had nothing to do with polygamy or the failure of law enforcement- the children were allegedly abused, because of their distaste for polygamy and the FLDS child welfare authorities failed to handle the cases properly... feeding in the end the notion that they are a persecuted people and making it less likely that abuse victims in the FLDS will seek help.

There really is no law to enforce when it comes to the FLDS in regards to polygamy because they don't have plural marriage other than their religious version of marriage. They haven't sought state approval, and have not committed any fraudulent marriage.

The point is that your argument against polygamy is the human rights issues that exist around polygamous marriages.. making polygamy illegal does not prevent such human rights issues when it subcultures have abusive ways of maintaining their culture. Polygamy is not the cause of these cultures, it's a feature of them. In the FLDS polygamy is required - it's forced, it's not something that members of that community can opt out of. This is entirely different than something that all adults can legally choose to be a part of, but choose not to.

- as for your murderer, rapist examples, I just can't equate non coercive choices between adults to be the same as rapist and murders committing crimes against others in their community.

 

[BlackSabb]

Polygamy should be legal, but only as punishment.

ROFL. Yeah, I struggle with my one wife sometimes, I can't imagine having another 9. Man, all the things that annoy me. Here goes:

Not putting dirty clothes in the laundry basket when undressing in the bathroom, and leaving them on the floor. Right next to the $%## laundry basket!!

Having to put up watching crap on tv like "America's next top model" and the like.

Constantly asking me "can I put some makeup on you?" NO!!!, for the 100th time.

Having my stereo defiled with Michael Buble, Garbage (the band not the domestic material-oh wait a minute. Same thing), Madonna, Robbie Williams and the like. My poor poor stereo is one minute feeling alive with Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple etc and then gets the equivalent of a bad batch of electricity with my wife's music. I'm surprised it has broken down altogether.

Insisting all my foods and drink are "lite", sugar free, fat free, alcholol free, taste free, enjoyment and pleasure free. I occasionally stare at the cats food bowl and think, "you lucky creatures".

Having to be elegantly dressed complete with make up just for going down to the local corner shop to get some milk, (umm....let me clarify. That's her, not me).

I'm not allowed to go out and about in track pants anymore. Or thongs, (the ones you wear on your feet, not the ones you wear on your ......umm......you know).

I wasn't allowed to buy a station wagon. She said, (and this is for real), "you don't look elegant stepping out of a station wagon when going to a restaurant".

Keeping a tab on me on how many cups of tea I have during the day. She sometimes hides the tea and sugar so I can't have anymore.

She loves popping pimples on me, and particulary big juicy ones that go "POP". I don't understand her fascination with pimples, she'll even let me have a forbidden food or drink in exchange for popping a pimple.




Yeah, give me another 9 of these. I of course am a dream to live with.

 

[cantata]

It would, which I think would necessitate a law saying that any married person who shares a spouse with another cannot themselves have more than one spouse.

But then you would have a different group of people saying that that isn't fair either; namely, polyamorous people.

If I were in a committed 3-way relationship, would I be allowed to be married to both of my partners, and they to each other? Because two of us being married to the other one, but not to one another, would result in a disparity which would be inappropriate given the nature of our relationship.

 

[cantata]

What an interesting idea! By the end of such a cycle everyone on earth could be related by marriage, and one could even end up being his own grandpa, as Ray Stevens once humorously sang about.

I merely objected to your assumption that only men would be permitted multiple spouses.

 

[Washington]

But then you would have a different group of people saying that that isn't fair either; namely, polyamorous people.

If I were in a committed 3-way relationship, would I be allowed to be married to both of my partners, and they to each other? Because two of us being married to the other one, but not to one another, would result in a disparity which would be inappropriate given the nature of our relationship.

Under the law I suggested, no. And perhaps this dilemma, the net, as quatona described it, is a good objection to plural marriages. Where does one draw what looks like a necessary line without being arbitrary? (I really dislike arbitrary decisions.)

 

[cantata]

Under the law I suggested, no. And perhaps this dilemma, the net, as quatona described it, is a good objection to plural marriages. Where does one draw what looks like a necessary line without being arbitrary? (I really dislike arbitrary decisions.)

Yes, I feel inclined to agree.

To be honest, I'd be happier if marriage were just scrapped altogether.

 

[quatona]

What an interesting idea! By the end of such a cycle everyone on earth could be related by marriage, and one could even end up being his own grandpa, as Ray Stevens once humorously sang about.

It seems to me that you are conflating plural marriage and incest here.
I have spent a couple of minutes - a bit unsystematically though, I admit - to construct an example of someone ending up being his own grandpa in the scenario of plural marriage, but I didn´t succeed. Can you help me?

 

[BlackSabb]

If I were in a committed 3-way relationship...........

That is an oxymoron.