What is polygamy?

[lawtonfogle]

Easy question, right?

Not really.

Abigail and Brittany Hensel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note, they have a one person's organs below the naval, thus one normal set of reproductive organs.

I know for many, there are reasonable exceptions to be made, and the below questions would be such exceptions, but for those who are extremely set against polygamy (such as those with religious reasons against it), I am interested in how you view this issue.

The twins expect to marry one day, so my questions are as follows...

Should they remain celibate?
If a man were to marry one sister, should the other remain celibate?
Would it be polygamy for the sisters to marry two different husbands? Would it be polygamy if they married (or wanted to) the same husband?

Assuming the two do have a child with their husband (or one of their husbands), who is considered, if it ever is called into legal question, the mother of the child?

And finally a question definitely of legal concern. If one consents to a sexual act, but the other does not, who gets the final say?

 

[savvy]

Man, I'm glad I'm not the only person who wonders about this stuff.

Well, if one of them wants to get married, I don't think the other can "be celibate" since, as you've pointed out, they share equipment.

I figure the question of motherhood/paternity could be settled between them. They are identical twins...it would be impossible to genetically determine who the "mother" was. Best approach would be that they decide beforehand who is going to be the parent of the child.

As for consent...if someone says no, that's it, isn't it? Can't force someone to have sex even if you share a body. I figure if one was protesting, any guy who went forward anyway could be charged with rape.

They are considered separate individuals. They have separate driver's licenses, birth certificates, etc. So legally they can each marry a different man.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I've wondered how things were going to work out for them. Its hard for me to view them as two separate entities, however since I have no problem with polygamy, I have no issue either way.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I've wondered how things were going to work out for them. Its hard for me to view them as two separate entities, however since I have no problem with polygamy, I have no issue either way.

But I'm interested in how those who view polygamy one stop short of a mortal sin (ok, so I'm exaggerating there) would view them?

For those concerned with the morals of sexuality, it does bring up some interesting questions.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

But I'm interested in how those who view polygamy one stop short of a mortal sin (ok, so I'm exaggerating there) would view them?

For those concerned with the morals of sexuality, it does bring up some interesting questions.

I suppose they would make the exception?

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Man, I'm glad I'm not the only person who wonders about this stuff.

Well, if one of them wants to get married, I don't think the other can "be celibate" since, as you've pointed out, they share equipment.

I figure the question of motherhood/paternity could be settled between them. They are identical twins...it would be impossible to genetically determine who the "mother" was. Best approach would be that they decide beforehand who is going to be the parent of the child.

As for consent...if someone says no, that's it, isn't it? Can't force someone to have sex even if you share a body. I figure if one was protesting, any guy who went forward anyway could be charged with rape.

They are considered separate individuals. They have separate driver's licenses, birth certificates, etc. So legally they can each marry a different man.

I have to wonder , how they do they walk? who is the one who controls the legs? they also have only one bladder too. Does one side control one leg and the other side the other leg? It would be hard to walk in conjunction with each other tho.

As far as reproduction and guess it would be whos egg becomes fertilized. Whether it be the eggs in the right or left fallopian tube.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I have to wonder , how they do they walk? who is the one who controls the legs? they also have only one bladder too. Does one side control one leg and the other side the other leg? It would be hard to walk in conjunction with each other tho.

As far as reproduction and guess it would be whos egg becomes fertilized. Whether it be the eggs in the right or left fallopian tube.

As far as I understand it they have one leg each. They've learned how to work together to walk.

 

[The Nihilist]

Easy question, right?

Not really.

Abigail and Brittany Hensel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note, they have a one person's organs below the naval, thus one normal set of reproductive organs.

I know for many, there are reasonable exceptions to be made, and the below questions would be such exceptions, but for those who are extremely set against polygamy (such as those with religious reasons against it), I am interested in how you view this issue.

The twins expect to marry one day, so my questions are as follows...

Should they remain celibate?
If a man were to marry one sister, should the other remain celibate?
Would it be polygamy for the sisters to marry two different husbands? Would it be polygamy if they married (or wanted to) the same husband?

Assuming the two do have a child with their husband (or one of their husbands), who is considered, if it ever is called into legal question, the mother of the child?

And finally a question definitely of legal concern. If one consents to a sexual act, but the other does not, who gets the final say?

Those kinds of questions are not meaningful in this context, not because of a breakdown in morality, but because of a breakdown in what it means to be an individual human being. They are simultaneously two people and one person, and whatever decisions they do end up making in this regard will lie outside normal morality.

 

[underpressure]

Should they remain celibate?

Absolutely no reason I can see why they must remain celibate.

If a man were to marry one sister, should the other remain celibate?

One can't have sex while the other remains celibate, since they share the same sexual organs.

Would it be polygamy for the sisters to marry two different husbands?

If we're using the definition of polygamy as "form of marriage in which a person [has] more than one spouse at the same time" Polygamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and we are saying the sisters are regarded as two different persons, then no, it wouldn't be polygamy by these rules.

It is also perfectly legal for them to marry two different husbands, since they have two different birth certificates, two separate driving licenses etc.

Would it be polygamy if they married (or wanted to) the same husband?

By the same definitions as above, then yes, that would be regarded as polygamy, since the husband would have two wives.

This would not be legal for them to both marry the same man.

Assuming the two do have a child with their husband (or one of their husbands), who is considered, if it ever is called into legal question, the mother of the child?

My opinion is that they would both be regarded as the mother of the child. Who the father is and whether or not he is married to one, both or neither of the sisters is irrelevant here. If our legal system doesn't allow for two mothers, then this is a problem with the legal system which should be addressed especially as in the future there will probably be many cases of same sex adoption where you may have two mothers. Fortunately though, in this particular theoretical case, I don't see it as very likely that one will attempt to gain custody of the child!

And finally a question definitely of legal concern. If one consents to a sexual act, but the other does not, who gets the final say?

In my opinion, I think they would both have to consent to sex, if one says no then sex would have to be vetoed.


Incidentally, regarding my opinion of having more than one spouse (polygamy), I have nothing against this so wouldn't care how many husbands they or anyone else had. From a legal point of view though I don't think the laws can be changed really, unless you want to create even more of a legal nightmare than 'traditional' marriages cause when they end in divorce. That said, lawyers would probably love it though, as no doubt you would get some insanely complicated divorce cases, so more money for them!

 

[lawtonfogle]

Those kinds of questions are not meaningful in this context, not because of a breakdown in morality, but because of a breakdown in what it means to be an individual human being. They are simultaneously two people and one person, and whatever decisions they do end up making in this regard will lie outside normal morality.

I agree it lies outside the norm, but I want to find a complete, and for it to be complete, it must cover both normal and abnormal. Of course, in areas such as these, I haven't a clue as to where to begin, so hearing the thoughts of others, especially those who find some hint of turmoil, helps get the journey started.

 

[underpressure]

Just to add, even if they did have separate sexual organs, I think really you'd still need consent from both to have sex, since one can't simply walk out the room, not to mention the risk of STDs and pregnancy. I'm sure two sisters who are as close as they are wouldn't wish to make the other uncomfortable anyway.

 

[The Nihilist]

I agree it lies outside the norm, but I want to find a complete, and for it to be complete, it must cover both normal and abnormal. Of course, in areas such as these, I haven't a clue as to where to begin, so hearing the thoughts of others, especially those who find some hint of turmoil, helps get the journey started.

You're missing a word in there, but I'm going to assume that you're trying to find a complete ethical system. Each ethical system applies only to individuals who can make sound, rational judgments. For example, the insane are never counted among the unethical. At the same time, these two girls are not individuals, at least in the strictest sense. Neither can act alone, though they each have separate wills. The capacity for each for right action is inexorably bound to the capacity of the other.
As for marriage, it's a social institution, and this isn't a situation society really has to deal with. I'm confident that whatever compromise they produce will be generally accepted.