Polygamy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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:

That's a whole lotta heartache.

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.

Looks like FLDS jerks aren't the only ones using welfare to support their polygamous lifestyle:

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.