"Why not polygamous marriage?"

[Undesired Walrus]

When hearing debates about granting marriage to same sex couples (Something I'm firmly in favour of), I often hear "If you are redefining marriage, why not have polygamous ones?" from the conservative side. Now, for the record, I can't say I'm in favour of polygamous marriage, but at present I can't actually answer the above question satisfactorily. What's the answer?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

For me -- not enough data. Or rather, I know too little about the subject to form an opinion.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Perhaps because it's hard enough to keep one spouse happy, let alone a harem.

 

[Caper]

Why not just get rid of marriage?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, why not? I assume that is the next step, if it is not Caper's: If all is allowed, why have marriage at all?

Hans

 

[ponderingturtle]

The marriage laws and regulations are currently set up for only two people and changing the laws to account for more partners could effect everyones marriage.

Discrimination based on sex is very different from discrimination based on number.

It is legally much more complex. To have gay marriage you just stop discriminating based on sex, but hundreds of laws could need adjustment for poly marriage. For a start you need to clarify what you mean, is it being in more than one marriage or having more than two people in one marriage, or both?

So while I have no fundamental problem with recognizing poly relationships I would want to see the legal structure and its impacts before supporting any specific proposal.

 

[Mojo]

When hearing debates about granting marriage to same sex couples (Something I'm firmly in favour of), I often hear "If you are redefining marriage, why not have polygamous ones?" from the conservative side. Now, for the record, I can't say I'm in favour of polygamous marriage, but at present I can't actually answer the above question satisfactorily. What's the answer?

Multiple mothers-in-law.

 

[Fishstick]

In a perfect world, Polygamous marriages would be possible. Unfortunately there are usually some kind of legal benefits and tie-ins that come with marriage that work fine between two adults, but become increasingly complex when multiple spouses are involved. Who gets custody of the kids in a divorce between husband and wife #1, who gets how much in an inheritance, Who has visitation rights, how do you define a pre-nup in such a situation, etc...

 

[JJM 777]

I often hear "If you are redefining marriage, why not have polygamous ones?" from the conservative side.
(...)
What's the answer?

There are many answers:

1) Yes, why not? No problem.

2) Monogamous marriage is a redefined one. Ancient marriages were polygamous.

3) Actually people should have the liberty to enter and exit a relationship with any number of male and female participants. Many-to-many.

 

[3point14]

Why not. If three people want to be married, who the hell are we to tell them they can't be?


I've always thought it odd that having a wife and a mistress, or a husband and a lover (what's the male equivalent of 'mistress'?) is considered reprehensible, but isn't actually illegal (I think), but being upfront and honest about it and having two spouses is.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why not. If three people want to be married, who the hell are we to tell them they can't be?


I've always thought it odd that having a wife and a mistress, or a husband and a lover (what's the male equivalent of 'mistress'?) is considered reprehensible, but isn't actually illegal (I think), but being upfront and honest about it and having two spouses is.

It isn't. It is trying to have legal recognition for non binary relationships that is out.

So to start with show me your proposed immigration regulations to account for this.

 

[Strawberry]

And what happens when they divorce, (as some inevitably will)?

 

[erwinl]

I think the problem is that marriage is more than just two (or in this case more) people living together and taking care of the children (if there are any).

If that is all you wish in a relation, you can just live together (as more and more people do these days) and keep it that way. In that case nobody is going to stop you from living with more than one partner.

Marriage is more though. It gives benefits (tax and inheritance), obligations (taking care of the partner). There is more of course.

How would this be regulated if the law would allow you to be married to more than one partner at the same time? Who would pay the taxes? Or get the tax breaks? Who would inherit?
Mind that if you would allow people to be married to more than one person at the same time you could theoretically have the situation where A and B are married to eachother as are C and D. And then B and C can get married as well (I don't mean this as a slippery slope).
How do you protect peoples rights and obligations? For that is what I see as the true benefit of marriage.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

And what happens when they divorce

That's the whole point -- the high divorce rates mean you're less likely to become single the more spouses you have.

 

[erwinl]

That's the whole point -- the high divorce rates mean you're less likely to become single the more spouses you have.

Would you pay less alimony though if your ex partner has more partners?

 

[Strawberry]

And quite apart from the legal issues, how many people would actually accept their wife/husband having a second spouse? I think for most it would be an automatic deal breaker.

 

[3point14]

It isn't. It is trying to have legal recognition for non binary relationships that is out.

So to start with show me your proposed immigration regulations to account for this.

Where did you get the idea that I had some regulations in mind at all?

What did you think I was trying to say, because whatever it was, it sure as eggs wasn't what I was actually trying to say.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And quite apart from the legal issues, how many people would actually accept their wife/husband having a second spouse? I think for most it would be an automatic deal breaker.

Irrelevant. Most people do not want a partner of a different race, religion or same sex. Consent of existing spouses even if they are not in the new marriage is something that should be required. Now second degree spouses are an interesting point, can you veto a new marriage for your spouse's spouse?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Where did you get the idea that I had some regulations in mind at all?

What did you think I was trying to say, because whatever it was, it sure as eggs wasn't what I was actually trying to say.

This thread is about legal marriage not how people structure their life. Sure I agree that it is odd that Newt cheating for decades us no big deal but asking for an honest nonmonagamous relationship instead of his dishonest one being reprehensible is odd.

So you were just making off topic statements I guess.

 

[Strawberry]

Irrelevant. Most people do not want a partner of a different race, religion or same sex. Consent of existing spouses even if they are not in the new marriage is something that should be required. Now second degree spouses are an interesting point, can you veto a new marriage for your spouse's spouse?

Its not irrelevant at all. Gay marriage, where it has been legalised, has been at the request of gay people themselves. How many married people are calling for polygamy to be legalised?

This is just a BS response from ultra conservative homophobes who can't think of an argument against gay marriage on its own terms, and therefore try and scare people with a slippery slope argument instead.