[sunnykerr]

Here you go, Jacob.

Now, standard rules apply: Stay on topic. And address one another with respect.

And, as ever, this thread will be shut down if it cannot be sustained while staying on topic or if it devolves into a total lack of civility.

[Gray Ghost]

Thanks.


I personally don't care if a human wants to have more than one spouse. I mean if all parties are mentally healthy and sane and not related and 18 years or older and give consent then why not? What's the big deal? Who is it gonna hurt?

[TheAngel]

Ah, the mentally healthy issue is where it comes into play. It's extremely difficult to have polygamous relationships where all parties involved are psychologically healthy. Most of the times, jealousy, manipulation, etc, rear their ugly heads. For example, in the US, there's nothing stopping polyamorous relationships. No, they can't get married, but most people choose, of their own free will, not to engage in them. And most of the polygamous relationships that are practiced now are done by conservative religious sects and involve a lot of alligations of abuse, neglect, etc.
So, lets say you do choose to allow polygamous marriage. Do you get tax cuts for each marriage, or just one for the household? What about children? Will all adults share custody or only the biological parents? If all adults share custody, will they have to undergo the adoption process just like gay parents will for non-biological children? There are a lot of issues here. Gay marriage is identical to heterosexual marriage in every aspect. Polygamous marriage is not. It's not as cut and dry.

[Avatar]

Oh, this strawman argument against gay marriage again... no, you shouldn't allow polygamous marriage, because marriage, at heart, is a legal contract. Having such a contract between more than two people is not feasible, as it will lead to chaos. What if your two spouses have different opinions on end-of-life care, for instance?

[sunnykerr]

I'm actually all in favour of legalizing polygamy, though I can obviously how problematic that would be.

Comparing it to same-sex marriage is pointless and inane because, as has already been said, same-sex marriage is between two people, not ten. Also, because, for the most part, polygamous sects don't want to see their marriage rights recognized by any government. The whole point/pretense, for them, is religious existence in defiance of government. So, having "illegal" marriages allows them, in the words of Warren Jeffs, "bleed the beast" since the women are all single mothers who can have mucho, mucho welfare benefits. So they get to live their life without so-called governmental interference and they get to live off taxpayer money all at the same time, thus destabilizing (in however big or small a way) the government's budget.

The reasons I would like to see polygamy legalized, in theory anyway, is so that this abuse of the welfare system (which occurs just as much, if not more, in the United States than in Canada) would stop and so that we could stop old men from marrying teenage girls.

Oh, and so we could better protect the young men who get abused and/or thrown out when they get to "marriageable" age.

And, you know, so we could teach these people that they have freedom of choice. And, if polygamy is their choice, I say "vaya con Dios" (under my legalized version) but, if it's not, they don't have to stay there.

[Gray Ghost]

For the record, I'm not an advocate for polygamy or plural marriage. I was just saying that if a man wants to get together with two women or a woman wants to get together with two men and make it legal, I'm not gonna stop them. Just like I'm not gonna stop two gay men getting together or two gay women getting together. At the same time, I'm not gonna be a protest or rally supporting it. Honestly, I'm not even sure I support the whole concept of marriage. I mean why do you have to have a piece of paper to say you are together with your lover or soulmate or whatever you call it?

[sunnykerr]

I think the paper comes in handy with the civil, political, parental, custody, inheritance, citizenship and "whatever taxation falls under" rights.

Which is, again, why so many polygamists don't pursue them.

[Gray Ghost]

So with that logic, you could say people abuse marriage to get benefits. Both straight and gay people use marriage to get benefits and improve their status in society. That's kind of sad when you think about it. Does it cheapen marriage?

[Vanora]

Perhaps polygamy has gotten a worse rep than it should have because it is often practiced by sects that also condone sexual abuse.

That said, there are some things that would make it problematic, especially when children are involved. Apart from jealousies between spouses, it could also create factions, in the case of polygyny (ever seen that many y's in a word? ) between mothers with their children, while paternity might cause problems in the case of divorce when there is polyandry.

In other societies, polygamy has sometimes had the positive effect of having a unit of people living, working and protecting each other, but there have also many cases of fighting over property and even killing in extreme cases.
It would be even more different in western society, which overwhelmingly expects and is build on and for monogamy.

Emotionally, I would support it if there is a clear case of consenting adults, but in practice it would be hard to enforce.

Also, if a man can have several wives, can those same women all have another husband? Who can also have multiple wives, who.... a whole town could get married to each other in this way. What would the limit be?

Interesting topic btw

[JohannafromIHJ]

I think polygamy should be legal, with a basic requirement that all members of the marriage should live in the same household.

I don't know if I'd have the energy for that sort of relationship myself, but I know a few polyamorous people and they seem to put more thought into the whole kids/house/assets/divorce stuff than most twosomes do, so it's not like it's impossible.

I find the whole sister-wives concept sort of iffy, though.

[sunnykerr]

Both straight and gay people use marriage to get benefits and improve their status in society. That's kind of sad when you think about it. Does it cheapen marriage?

Not unless someone's really twisted. Marriage gives you civil and political rights single people don't have. It's a fact of life. So, you know, maybe governments should give those rights to everyone whether they're married or not, but you can't argue with a couple making sure they have rights that only marriage will grant them, if they want those rights.

But this has nothing to do with polygamy.

So let's try to stay on topic.

So, to get back to topic, I would repeat that I would be all in favour of legalizing polygamy since pulling the veil of social alienation seems to me the only way to ensure that, indeed, only consenting adults can partake.

I do think it raises several issues. For instance, not that it's right, but a woman out west here took advantaged of a loophole in the law and sued her adult children for financial support when she had abandoned the family when they were small children. Now, obviously, she shouldn't be able to that. It's a really bad law if it allows her to have a red cent.

But imagine something like that in a polygamous situation. Would she be able to sue the sister-wives or brother-husbands? I mean, everyone's equally liable in a union, right? And what about custody rights when someone dies?

I may not be using great examples here (it is kinda late), but I'm just trying to say that I think it gets complicated, legally.

[Gray Ghost]

So you could say that marriage in a way gives married people more rights and a higher status than single people? Just think about the perceptions of being single and being married. If you are married, you are considered to be a responsible mature person. If you are single, you are considered to be not responsible and wild and immature. Intersting how no one ever says that.

[sunnykerr]

Legally speaking, marriage absolutely, 100% gives couples more rights than their single counterparts have. And that's not a quesiton of perception, it is a legal fact.

I've never heard anyone make assumptions that married people are more responsible, what with the fact that people are so different from one another to start off with that such generalizations don't really stand any sort of test.

But it is a legal fact that marriage automatically gives couples tax, custody, medical, citizenship and a variety of other rights that unmarried couples do not have.

[Gray Ghost]

But why does society do that? What makes married people more worthy of more benefits than single people?

[sunnykerr]

The benefits they have access to apply to two-people scenarios, so I don't think it's so much a matter of preference as it is of ... addressing the difference in situations.

I mean, marriage affects how you file you taxes because it takes into account the fact that it's a two-income (in theory) scenario. If you're single, that's not something you need to worry about, is it? Same with citizenship rights. When you marry an American... well, I don't think it automatically makes you an American citizen, but it obviously speeds up the process. If you're single... that's again not something you need to worry about.

But how do you make the connection between this and polygamy? Because I'm not seeing it.