Polygamy

[InsaneApache]

I was reading a news item (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7900779.stm) about polygamy and got to wondering why it is taboo, at least in the West.

One of the people interviewed asked the question; what has it to do with the state, how, why and what I marry?

Is this a hangover from the days when the West was dominated by organised Christianity? Or is there another practical reason?

I'm currently undecided about it.

So, polygamy, a good or a bad thing and why?

[CountArach]

As long as everyone consents I don't see any problem with it - the state really has no place at all in marriage.

[LittleGrizzly]

The main downside i see is that it could leave to an uneven ratio of single men to single women, i now there is a disparity already (can't remember which way) but if a lot of men started taking more than one wife i think we could run into problems...

If men and women did it in equal measure i suppose that would solve that problem... the only issue then though would be the finest cuts taking by the biggest and best in society leaving the rest of us to fight over the scraps...

Outside of those two concerns i don't really have a moral issue with it...

[rory_20_uk]

What people get up to in their own home with everyone consenting is not the state's concern - as long as the state isn't having to pay for the consequences.

~:smoking:

[CountArach]

The main downside i see is that it could leave to an uneven ratio of single men to single women, i now there is a disparity already (can't remember which way) but if a lot of men started taking more than one wife i think we could run into problems...
I think most women and men would only be interested in monogamous marriages anyway. I wouldn't see that as a big issue.

[Fragony]

Fine with me as long as nobody is forced to do the procedure.

[Hooahguy]

my ancestors way back had it. why not now?

[LittleGrizzly]

I think most women and men would only be interested in monogamous marriages anyway. I wouldn't see that as a big issue.

I think women would be more likely too... I think most male millionaires could build up a fairly big collection wives without too much trouble... even those just outside the millionaire club could get quite a few as well, though i think your probably right, it's something that could become an issue but would likely not...

[Jolt]

I'm a supporter of it, both Male and Female polygamy. Monogamy is simply an imposition of Christianism on society. As long as it is consenting I'd support it. The problem would arise in terms of wills. The whole law concerning wills would have to be radically altered.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How many people should I put in power positions over me? I have trouble enough keeping up with the one....

[drone]

How many people should I put in power positions over me? I have trouble enough keeping up with the one....

No kidding. I'd never get any gaming in if I had to deal with more than one woman... :creep:

[caravel]

Well marriage is only a legal contract anyway, so really it's up to the individual as to how they choose to live. There was a particular case in the UK of a man with about three wives (one his "real" wife and two "common law") and a whole tribe of kids. At the end of the day if people want to live like that, they'll do so anyway; marriage or no marriage.

[InsaneApache]

Well marriage is only a legal contract anyway, so really it's up to the individual as to how they choose to live. There was a particular case in the UK of a man with about three wives (one his "real" wife and two "common law") and a whole tribe of kids. At the end of the day if people want to live like that, they'll do so anyway; marriage or no marriage.

Oh noes! That's torn it!













:laugh4:

[Adrian II]

I want more womens.

[Ronin]

As long as everyone consents I don't see any problem with it - the state really has no place at all in marriage.

QFT :book:

[Scurvy]

No reason other than sentiment/ cultural and religous hangover


immigration rules prevent a man from bringing more than one wife to settle with him in the UK.

this bit made me laugh - akward conversation or what

[Yoyoma1910]

It goes strictly against my anti marriage stance.

[Lemur]

I'm a supporter of it, both Male and Female polygamy.
Pardon me for being a stickler, but even though "polygamy" (polys (many) gamos (marriages)) ought to refer to both male and female arrangements, it's traditionally used to refer to one male + many females. The most rightest bestest word for one woman + many males is "polyandry."

[Yoyoma1910]

Pardon me for being a stickler, but even though "polygamy" (polys (many) gamos (marriages)) ought to refer to both male and female arrangements, it's traditionally used to refer to one male + many females. The most rightest bestest word for one woman + many males is "polyandry."

Personally, I like to refer to it as A bad idea.

[Don Corleone]

I'm with Seamus, and I'd like to take it a step further. Forget about how many people can be in power over you, I'd like to ask you all if you've thought of the effect of being WRONG that many times....

On a a more serious note, I believe that actually monogamy laws, like common law marraiges, were designed within the past 200 to 300 years to protect... women. It's not so much Christian zealousness as making sure what happened out in Northeastern Arizona with the fundamentalist mormons doesn't happen.... young females being objectified and traded as chattel with no rights. I'm not going to say 19th century America and Europe were particularly egalitarian to women by modern standards, but it was an effort, an all journeys begin with the first few steps.

Personally, I'd say the reason has come and gone, and so threrefore should the legal prohibitions. If some poor sob is delusional enough to take on that much heartache, then by all means, let him. It's not like there's enough of them out there to really tip the scales.

And Grizz, the numbers are slight, very slight, but slightly ahead for men then women. The ratio of baby boys born to baby girls is 49.8 to 50.2. You add into that warfare and young men's more suicidal natures in general (like drag racing to impress girls) and you get the picture.

[rasoforos]

Firstly it is not a Christian thing. Us heathens are historically monogamous too.

I would not object to polygamy if:

a) It is symmetrical. Not just polyandry or polygyny (ooohh I am so excited using all these Greek words!) but both.

b) It is mentioned from the start in the marriage contract. So when a couple is to get married they decide whether they enter a monogamous marriage (where they are not allowed to marry other people) or a polygamous marriage. This should be established to protect against what I like to call the 'Anna Nicole Smith phenomenon'.

What makes me a bit reluctant about allowing polygamy is that:

a) It will be abused by religious groups. In a western society it will just allow Muslim men to be polygamous. No way they would accept polygyny. Consequently the rights of a Muslim female (severely restricted as they are by political correctness) will be abused further.

b) It will allow all those good-for-nothings (the ones who produce children to obtain social support and benefits) to pop kids out at an even faster rate. If Johny Whitetrash is currently :daisy: you off because he buys beer with your tax money (instead of feeding his 7 kids) imagine how he will :daisy: you off when he can easilly have 25 of them.




...



As for me. I would be strictly monogamous anyway. Not because a wife is so much trouble but because I feel that what you share with a lifetime partner (at the emotional level) is not worth losing just because you met a girl 20 years younger. As my wise ancestors said 'Ινα λυχνία σβησθήσει, πάσα γυνή ομοία !' <-- When the lantern is off, all women are the same' :greece: :medievalcheers:

[Lemur]

b) It will allow all those good-for-nothings (the ones who produce children to obtain social support and benefits) to pop kids out at an even faster rate. If Johny Whitetrash is currently :daisy: you off because he buys beer with your tax money (instead of feeding his 7 kids) imagine how he will :daisy: you off when he can easilly have 25 of them.
Disagree -- legalizing and recognizing polygamy would have the opposite effect.

Here in the U.S.A., welfare support increases on children 1 through 3. Then it stops. Any child you have after #3 results in no increase in support. However, polygamous groups get around this because each woman is technically a single mother, only one of whom is legally married to the daddy. So each wife can bring in welfare money for each clutch of broodlings.

Here's an article (http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy5.html) on how it works right now.

The biggest welfare frauds aren't baby mamas in the hood, or (Don's pet nightmare) twenty-something slackers who want to play Xbox all day. They're polygamous cultists.

Making polygamy legal would actually kick the legs out from under scum like this.

[rasoforos]

Lemur, I m not so knowledgeable about the US system.

I assume that the benefits increase by each additional child in most countries. Thanks for the link :2thumbsup:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

twenty-something slackers who want to play Xbox all day.
I wish.

[Don Corleone]

The biggest welfare frauds aren't baby mamas in the hood, or (Don's pet nightmare) twenty-something slackers who want to play Xbox all day. They're polygamous cultists..

You forgot dope-smoking... ~:smoking:

[Husar]

Pardon me for being a stickler, but even though "polygamy" (polys (many) gamos (marriages)) ought to refer to both male and female arrangements, it's traditionally used to refer to one male + many females. The most rightest bestest word for one woman + many males is "polyandry."

So that would be "polyandry" (polys(many) Andres(man)) then?

[Fragony]

So that would be "polyandry" (polys(many) Andres(man)) then?

Why wonder if you can tear everybody apart hard deep and unsafe.

[Lemur]

So that would be "polyandry" (polys(many) Andres(man)) then?
I know you're joking, but I can't hep myself (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=polyandry&searchmode=none) ...

Polyandry, 1780, from Late Gk. polyandria, from polys "many" (see poly-) + andr-, stem of aner "man, husband."

[Divinus Arma]

I always enoy a good Polygamy discussion, in part because I have such an unorthodox perspective of it.

Women may more easily pursue careers while still having children. Imagine a household of 2 women and one man. You may now have 2 adult incomes while one woman's "career" is the care of the children. That is a very comfortable living situation. A polygamous relationship where the women are bisexual is even more advantageous to the female. In fact, it would be even better for the entire relationship anyway. As long as sexual contact is restricted to those within the circle, so to speak, I see no reason why consenting adults should not be allowed to have an alternative lifestyle. The key is respect, love, communication, and cooperation just like any other relationship. If there is any jealousy involved that it can not work.


The real issue, however, is not cultural acceptance. The real issue is legal recognition of the bidning contract within an alternative family structure. There are real concerns of tax consequences when we start redefining marriage. What about a 3 man, 7 women marriage? What would be wrong with that? It starts to get silly. Marriage should be eliminated from government language. Marriage is a spiritual issue. Civil unions, or the question of property rights and asset distribution in the event of a dissolution, is what the government should only be concerned about.

[Whacker]

I've been a bit curious about this, mainly from the numbers Gay Marriage threads that have shown up here the past months.

A number of Orgahs have expressed the opinion that "the state should have nothing to do with marriage". I am more than a bit perplexed by this. Could a few folks who hold this view please expound on that, in detail? One of my main question is, how does one deal with inheritance and property laws? What about child custody? etc etc etc....

Edit - I believe this question to be in-line with the original topic at hand. If this gets too far off course I trust the OP and the mods will pull it back. Thanks.

[Banquo's Ghost]

A number of Orgahs have expressed the opinion that "the state should have nothing to do with marriage". I am more than a bit perplexed by this. Could a few folks who hold this view please expound on that, in detail? One of my main question is, how does one deal with inheritance and property laws? What about child custody? etc etc etc....

I think the genesis of the proposal that the state has naught to do with marriage has been in the several debates on the topic.

It is by no means universal, but a consensus seems to have arisen that marriage should be defined as a religious ceremony, whereas the state involvement is best termed as a civil contract. Thus, the legal elements you rise are still regulated through the state - but the term marriage is only applicable to religious affirmations.

This terminology attempts to avoid the concern that gay rights activists may seek to force churches to accept "gay marriage" whilst reconciling the idea that gay couples should have full access to civil rights via contract.

[Kralizec]

A number of Orgahs have expressed the opinion that "the state should have nothing to do with marriage". I am more than a bit perplexed by this. Could a few folks who hold this view please expound on that, in detail? One of my main question is, how does one deal with inheritance and property laws? What about child custody? etc etc etc....

Or parental responsibility for the kids- who's the daddy when there are several men in the marriage? What about alimony payments in the case of divorce? Etc...

...

The problem with polygamy is that marriage, at least in my book, is a bond between equal individuals (leaving gender aside). Both people are co-responsible for eachother and any children that they may have. Polygamy in practice is one guy with lots of wives, it's not one marriage but a series of marriages where the guy is permitted to take lots of wives but not vice versa. To support multiple wives and the crapload of kids that come with it you'd either have to be very rich or leech and/or cheat the welfare system- I seriously doubt that there are many women capable of supporting themselves financially who'd be willing to share one guy.
Polyandry would have different problems but it's so rare that I'll leave it- and I think it would continue being rare even after polygamy would be legal.

A one man, one woman relationship or more recently any two-spousal relationship is just the societal norm, it may or may not have had something to do with the bible or whatever originally but it has gotten independent standing since. It's not illegal to live with lots of women under one house, or having sex with all of them. The state just won't recognise more than one marriage or partnership at the time :juggle2:

[naut]

That's a whole lotta heartache.

[caravel]

Two conflicting issues: Religious vs civil. That's what I mean by it being a strictly "legal document". I'd say that in the legal sense, if people want to do it they should be allowed. If someone wants to instruct their solicitor to sign away their fortune to the local cattery, they can do so. The same goes for marriage, if an individual wants to marry multiple people then that's up to them. I don't see it harming the state, nor do I see many people rushing out to take advantage of this should it become law. The only issue will be the "moral outrage".

When it comes to religious ceremonies then that's up to the religion in question. The civil and religious marriages should remain separate. Religious organisations simply need to keep their own houses in order and run their own checks.

The "muslims will rejoice and proceed to take multiple wives" argument is flawed as well. If they were going to do this, they will do it anyway. Most of such marriages occur in muslim countries and always will mainly for cultural reasons. Besides there are very few muslims that would choose to take a second wife.

Personally I think the better solution is to do away with civil marriages. Marriage is a religious institution and should remain that way. There isn't really much point in non religious couples tying the knot in this day and age.

[Lemur]

Looks like FLDS jerks aren't the only ones using welfare to support their polygamous lifestyle (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1154789/Polygamy-UK-This-special-Mail-investigation-reveals-thousands-men-milking-benefits-support-wives.html):


A recent review by four Government departments—the Treasury, the Work and Pensions Department, the Inland Revenue and the Home Office—has concluded that 1,000 men in the United Kingdom are now polygamists, although some say the figure is higher.

What is more, the review found, a Muslim man can claim state support of more than £10,000 a year to keep his wives, if the wedding took place in one of those countries where polygamy is commonplace, such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia and across huge tracts of Africa.

For example, a man can receive &£92.80 a week in income support for wife number one, and a further £33.65p for each of his subsequent spouses.

Therefore, if he has four wives—the maximum permitted under Islamic teachings—he can claim nearly £800 a month from the British taxpayer.

Controversially, a polygamist is also entitled to more generous housing benefits and bigger council houses to reflect the large size of his family. He is also able to claim £1,000 a year in child benefit for each of his growing brood.