Polygamy?

[Guest Agaib]

I don't think that the distinction of whether or not polygamy means one person with multiple spouses or a group of people who are all married together should really have an affect on whether or not it should be legal anyway. If one man wants to have multiple wives and he finds another willing partner that his first one consents to he should be allowed to marry her. The same going for a woman, or any person. The fact of the matter is that the government shouldn't be allowed to decide whether or not to allow something based on how easy it is to maintain. If someone enters a relationship like that and finds out they cant handle it, its the same as two people getting married who aren't ready. It was just foolishness on the person's end. The government shouldn't be taking responsibility for its citizens personal decisions. Having multiple spouses or having people marry each other as a group it doesn't matter. Doing something like that doesn't harm anyone beyond those who's job it is to consent to the relationship. For that reason its not the government's job to regulate it beyond ensuring consent.

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

I don't think that the distinction of whether or not polygamy means one person with multiple spouses or a group of people who are all married together should really have an affect on whether or not it should be legal anyway. If one man wants to have multiple wives and he finds another willing partner that his first one consents to he should be allowed to marry her. The same going for a woman, or any person. The fact of the matter is that the government shouldn't be allowed to decide whether or not to allow something based on how easy it is to maintain. If someone enters a relationship like that and finds out they cant handle it, its the same as two people getting married who aren't ready. It was just foolishness on the person's end. The government shouldn't be taking responsibility for its citizens personal decisions. Having multiple spouses or having people marry each other as a group it doesn't matter. Doing something like that doesn't harm anyone beyond those who's job it is to consent to the relationship. For that reason its not the government's job to regulate it beyond ensuring consent.

No one ever said that was the defining point as to whether or not it should be allowed. I was just pointing out that it was another way to consider it. So many people in the US only thing of it as a "A man with many wives" deal rather then "A group of people all married to each other" deal, which, realistically, decides whether or not people vote for it. With the most popular idea of polygamy (called polygyny, btw), many men may agree, but most women wont, which could cause a problem. I merely pointed out group marriage to broaden the perspectives of those reading and replying to this thread, not to offer a way in which it can be regulated.

In fact, what I was actually saying was that a "married to everyone in the group" deal would work better for all adults involved, and would be better for any children born from said union then from the "one man, many wives" deal for reasons already brought up by Nanaea, Eve and others. No where has anyone said that the government what kind of polygamy should be allowed. Everyone as also agreed that as long as there's consent, then it should be allowed.

I love the idea of a group marriage where everyone is taking care of each other's kids. When considering the idea of raising children, the lack of a support net to turn to is usually what stops me in my tracks. While I'm sure Cain's mother would always be willing to help, that's about it. I have a close friend who would love to help, but who's in school now, so no.

And that's it.

The idea of the group marriage where everyone loves each other and such is beautiful in that you never are in short supply of someone you care for to warm your bed, you always know someone you trust, who your kids love and who reciprocates that love ten fold is looking after them, and you always have someone to cuddle with or turn to when you're having a problem, or just need someone who cares. It's a reassuring thing to have. Your kids grow up with no short supply of playmates and loving parents, you never have to feel alone.

If everyone was open to a love and family like that, so many problems involving families and relationships in this day and age would be abolished.

[Guest Agaib]

True, because the thread was about whether or not the government should allow polygamy I just felt it necessary to clear that up.

I agree with you on your points.

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

Well, a bit of a thread-o-mancy is in order, I do believe.

Why? 'Cause I still wanna know who said "No" and why. If they're afraid of getting backlash from the group, don't be. Mostly nice folks here . If it was a mistake, okay. But I REALLY wanna know. I want a debate, mostly. ^__^ If whoever-it-is is still worried, thy COULD just send me a PM!

[StoryJunkie]

Think of the divorce rate, Pixagi. There would be more divorce lawyers than farmers if that were the case. Ideally, that would be nice. I could rely on one guy to work around the house, another to bring in the bread, a woman to clean another to cook and others to tend the children.

But everyone may not be satisfied with that. Who decides who gets the car and what kind of car, and what color the kitchen should be and ...well, we all have different tastes, and some people don't like security, they like risk-taking. Some are very independent and would rather be hermits....I could go on about the differences and all the moving factors that will rain on your parade. I've been through a couple of estate messes, and let me tell you, guys fight over extension cords. Even old guys.

The idea, though, of taking care of one another, now THAT is what we all yearn for. Some people have started whole entire communes regarding this sub-conscious need of ours to live communally. I'm afraid there are always going to be rules about such things, and well, there's an old saying: "You can please some of the people some of the time...." (Or is that "fool" some of the people....?) meh, I don't mean that to sound like an insult, I'm just wandering inside my head.

What if what you want to attain was possible but only at the price of something precious?

Ah, the premise of a wonderful story....

[Guest Agaib]

Whether or not its possible or a good idea for the participants really isn't important as to whether or not it should be legalized. If the government was concerned with whether or not things were good ideas there would be a number of aspects of society that would have to be more made illegal, such as smoking, drinking, eating excessively, oversleeping... etc.

Regarding the number of divorce lawyers, I don't think that legalizing polygamy would suddenly lead to a excessively large portion of the population getting involved in multiple marriages. There would probably be a small boom, but not a huge one.

[StoryJunkie]

Ah, yes, thanks for the focus, Agaib. You would be a formidable opponent in debate. I can't see it being legalized. But if anyone takes it to a higher court then, by all means. They may soon legalize prostitution in Canada. It was a reaction to all the murders in Vancouver. Canadian law allows it, but you cannot solicit it...but I digress. Law making is no fun, but I guess at one time, there wasn't that many restrictions. At other times, WAY too many. People change all the time.

[NinjaGaijin]

I voted yes, with consent. Then again, my cultural background tolerates polygamy...

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

I voted yes, with consent. Then again, my cultural background tolerates polygamy...

What's your background?

[NinjaGaijin]

What's your background?

A people whose culture and religion allows polygyny.

[madlodger]

NinjaGaijin -

A people whose culture and religion allows polygyny.

Wow, Ninja, you might be one of the few people on this board who have a first hand experience or have been around actual polyginiestic marriages. Do they actually work? How does it work for real? I am curious if a guy can manage more than one wife fairly in real life.

[Ginevra]

I'm probably weighing in a little late, but this thread caught my eye tonight.

Short version is: Yes, polygamy should be legal.

Long version is: Each group of people who wish to be "married" should be able to devise a legally binding contract that defines their relationship. Ex. How many spouses, how or can more be added, what is to be done if someone leaves etc. Whether it is "till death do us part" or for a year or five or until a certain child reaches adulthood, that sort of thing.

Do I think it would become the "norm" anytime soon? No. I do think after a while of sorting things out some types of marriage "contracts" would become pretty standard. I wouldn't really want to speculate on what exactly that would be.

I and my husband have participated in alternative lifestyles and have met people who live in poly households, though of course their arrangements can't be legalized.

I have participated in an open marraige and have taken a stab at living a polyamorous lifestyle. For a while my ex and I tried to work out an arrangement with another couple, but that turned into a power struggle of sorts. My ex wanted "her" to himself and was basically trying to get myself and the other husband to go off together and leave her to him.

After that, we kept our secondary relationships separate. That's how my current husband and I got together. He was my "beau" while I was still married to my ex. He was also my play partner in the BDSM scene.

There is a huge difference between "swinging" and having a "poly" arrangement. In swinging, it's all about the sex and emotional involvement is usually discouraged. Polyamory is about having multiple emotional relationships that may or may not be sexual. The problem is, out of every three people, there's a damn good chance that at least one of them will have "sharing" issues.

Personally, I would prefer to live in a poly household if I could find at least one more individual who was compatible with myself and my husband. It's not all that important to me whether the individual was male or female or if this individual was sexually interested in both of us. Though I think it would matter to my hubby. It's more the companionship and the extra hands to help around the house that is important to me. Or an extra paycheck. Hubby is disabled.

Of course, that's all theoretical at this point. There aren't any real prospects out there. And I can assure you, that carrying on a poly relationship and doing it right is work. And the work increases significantly with each additional partner. It is definitely not for everybody.

[Guest Rosemarius]

Sure, as long as all the ones involved are willing.

Here's another thing to wonder about: Would YOU be able to have a polygamous  relationship/marriage? This is assuming you and your significant other are both in love with, or at least attracted, to the same person who is also attracted/in love with you AND your significant other.

Well, I often fantasize about having a three-person relationship (with two other men or with a man and a woman), but I don't think it would be about "love" as much as of "friendship/attraction/closeness". Though I'd never marry someone for love, anyway, because love always comes to an end.

[Shinju]

Why do people make such a big deal out of outlawing things like gay marriage and polygamy? Is it because some people of certain backgrounds don't believe in separation of church and state? Isn't that the concept upon which this country is founded?

[foeofthelance]

Actually, Shinju, it tends to be more about the way it gets carried out. For right now the biggest proponents of polygamy in America are some very orthodox Mormon sects, which also tend to think the best age to marry a girl is around 13 or 14, even when her husband is in his mid to late 50s. If it was proposed by another group, one with out the Mormon's history, then I think it would likely pass, especially in today's modern world. We've already accepted gay rights. (Actually, the entire gay rights movement is, in my opinion bull. I was fairly we'd taken care of all that back when we passed the Civil Right's act of the sixties. What was the line again? "May not be discriminated against based on sex, race, age, or creed?" I'm sure we can define homosexuality based upon one of those... Either it's genetic, which makes it a sex, or its a personal choice, which makes it a creed...)

[Lore]

o.o I think in some ways it could work very well. While my characters don't count as real people, I once ended up writing about three characters that had somehow tangled themselves into being a happy couple of three. There was plenty of jealousy on some days, but in general, since all of them loved each other despite the awkwardness.. things pretty much worked out. There were a few ' I was first! ' arguments, but they smoothed out.

So, while fictional, who's to say such a situation couldn't really exist? Some people just love a little more than others and if that third person can worm their way into both peoples' hearts, I don't see why they shouldn't all be allowed to be happy together.

[Psychostorm]

I think marriage is obsolete anyway. Its like deciding to eat just one type of food for the rest of your life, or to only watch one TV show. There are a million fish in the sea, why tie yourself down to just one? I think polygamy is just skirting the real issue, no matter how many wives a guy has, he's always going to want to do other chicks.

[saucywench20]

If one had the consent of their other spouse(s) and the other party isn't being coerced into the marriage, then I don't see a reason to forbid it. It would be an entirely different matter if a potential extra spouse were being forced into it or if they were tricked or they were brainwashed or underage. Those are entirely different scenarios but if it's a matter between concenting adults then honestly, it's nobody's concern but those involved.

Now I don't think that this is something that would work for most people, with the jealousies and insecurities that being in a relationship can bring, but if three or more people wanted to spend the rest of their lives together and they were capable of doing it, then who is that really hurting? The answer: no one.

Really, polygamous (multiple wives) or polyandrous (multiple husbands) unions aren't going to destroy the foundation of society anymore than any other form of marriage between loving, consenting adults, so I don't get the big deal against it.

[Psychostorm]

Poligamy was the thing through out most of history, but now that women have equal rights i'm not so shure hhow viable this is. But seriolsy who gives as fuck, let 5 milloin motherfuckers get marired if they want.

[foeofthelance]

Look up Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. The Lunar society had polygamous couples, with a matriarchal bent. After all, you could always prove who a child's mother was, but the father could be anyone. (Not really, but close enough.) Adding a new member to the family was a joint decision, with the female side ruling. There's polygamy in a lot of Heinlein's stories, actually, but it generally comes down to "Why should we limit ourselves to one person when it comes to love?" rather than "Look at my five wife status symbol!"

[Remetan]

I voted "I Don't Know" before I read the thread, but I still think that's valid for me. My understanding of polygamy is as currently/historically practiced, and I am not a fan. I do, however, believe in polyamory. I have known several palyamorous tri's, one of which had fifteen years strong. So if we are talking about that sort of situation, then yes, I do think it can work.

However, marriage brings in a whole slew of cultural, religious and governmental issues that I think are very difficult. The gay marriage thing aside, I don't know how much I actually believe in marriage as either a religious entity or as something to be regulated and/or rewarded by the state. The status of my relationship with someone should be our business, and not need ceremony or legal paperwork or for god's sake blood tests to make it valid. Adding more people into the mix doesn't change that for me.

[Shunskitten]

id rather have one spouse i cant see loving another man if you already love one.

[Imasuky Lomae]

I think everyone should do what makes them happy and so long as no one gets hurt there's no problem with it.

[Shadowknight12]

Meh. Sure, why not, let 'em have it. I personally don't think I'd enjoy it myself, but I don't really think it's wrong (assuming all the myriad legal issues are dealt with). Obviously, I'd believe that all spouses should approve the induction of a new one, of course. Otherwise shit just gets zany.

[renegaderaine]

I think that polygamy should be legal as long as all involved consent. However there would need to be strict laws in place for things like insurance, as it pertains to a persons spouse. Also taxes, etc. would need regulations pertaining to polygamists.

I am in an open marriage. My husband has several girlfriends, and I have several boyfriends. We are both perfectly fine with this. The other relationships in no way detract from our relationship with each other. If anything, it makes it more enjoyable by removing some of the pressure to meet each others every need.

I do not harbor nay malice toward his girlfriends for taking his time, nor they me for being married to him. It's all about how mature one can be, and if they can set aside jealousy and status.