Legalization of Polygamy?

[IshCong]

By your logic, it's unethical to let this beast exist at all, which is absurd.

Which is what I was getting at. Tell me why it's absurd, then?

Practicality.

[The Truth and Light]

Which is what I was getting at. Tell me why it's absurd, then?

Practicality.

It seems to me a situation where we'd have to pick the lesser of two evils. Marry and make drama, or don't marry and... don't enjoy the drama? Oh wait...

[Free Buccaneers]

Yes it should be legal, though i don't think having to live with two partners would be good for one's sanity.

[The Truth and Light]

Yes it should be legal, though i don't think having to live with two partners would be good for one's sanity.

Well, considering that they did it in the first place...

[IshCong]

Practicality.

It seems to me a situation where we'd have to pick the lesser of two evils. Marry and make drama, or don't marry and... don't enjoy the drama? Oh wait...

You think removing marriage as an institution won't result in drama?

[The Truth and Light]

It seems to me a situation where we'd have to pick the lesser of two evils. Marry and make drama, or don't marry and... don't enjoy the drama? Oh wait...

You think removing marriage as an institution won't result in drama?

Children always whine when you take away their pacifier.

[IshCong]

Yes it should be legal, though i don't think having to live with two partners would be good for one's sanity.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wom ... monogamous
It suggests we really aren't a monogamous species, despite societal indoctrination.

[IshCong]

You think removing marriage as an institution won't result in drama?

Children always whine when you take away their pacifier.

Institutions that go back millenia are not 'pacifiers'. They're representative of the interaction between adult Humans, any off-spring they may have, and how they mutually handle the real world.
Despite the current failure rates of marriage, there's a reason the institution existed in the first place, as Humans began to develop societal patterning. They're a rather vital method of interaction.

[The Truth and Light]

Children always whine when you take away their pacifier.

Institutions that go back millenia are not 'pacifiers'. They're representative of the interaction between adult Humans, any off-spring they may have, and how they mutually handle the real world.
Despite the current failure rates of marriage, there's a reason the institution existed in the first place, as Humans began to develop societal patterning. They're a rather vital method of interaction.

That reason being? Because I can have a great love life and even a family without marriage.

[Tuthina]

Institutions that go back millenia are not 'pacifiers'. They're representative of the interaction between adult Humans, any off-spring they may have, and how they mutually handle the real world.
Despite the current failure rates of marriage, there's a reason the institution existed in the first place, as Humans began to develop societal patterning. They're a rather vital method of interaction.

That reason being? Because I can have a great love life and even a family without marriage.

If I remember correctly, this system was first implemented by the Romans for... easier taxation and successionship of property. I believe we can do better now, though.

[IshCong]

Institutions that go back millenia are not 'pacifiers'. They're representative of the interaction between adult Humans, any off-spring they may have, and how they mutually handle the real world.
Despite the current failure rates of marriage, there's a reason the institution existed in the first place, as Humans began to develop societal patterning. They're a rather vital method of interaction.

That reason being? Because I can have a great love life and even a family without marriage.

The reason being a rather vital method of interaction, and producing and maturing young.
The anecdotal fallacy is still a thing, you know.

[IshCong]

That reason being? Because I can have a great love life and even a family without marriage.

If I remember correctly, this system was first implemented by the Romans for... easier taxation and successionship of property. I believe we can do better now, though.

Marriage? No, it predates Roman times. Pretty sure it dates back to caves, but I'm hitting the hay shortly, so I'll go dig for that source when I awaken.

Sorta found it.
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003531.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage Wiki mentions: "Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time."
It certainly predates Rome.

[The Truth and Light]

The reason being a rather vital method of interaction, and producing and maturing young.

I don't think it's vital. No, I think in Western culture we think it is, but in history marriage has been an economic union and nothing more. Nothing to do with interaction, since many partners would never speak face to face, and nothing to do with maturing young, since children could be given to consorts or governesses.

[Spiral Sun]

Institutions that go back millenia are not 'pacifiers'. They're representative of the interaction between adult Humans, any off-spring they may have, and how they mutually handle the real world.
Despite the current failure rates of marriage, there's a reason the institution existed in the first place, as Humans began to develop societal patterning. They're a rather vital method of interaction.

That reason being? Because I can have a great love life and even a family without marriage.

That's not the issue here, the issue is money.

[TableRase]

Polygamy I can't say I fully support, because quite often one party might get neglected, and generally humans aren't too adept at dividing romantic feelings, and at a certain point of people involved it would cease to be a true romantic relationship. That said, if they're consenting adults, I have no problem with it legally.

[The Truth and Light]

That reason being? Because I can have a great love life and even a family without marriage.

If I remember correctly, this system was first implemented by the Romans for... easier taxation and successionship of property. I believe we can do better now, though.

Women had little power politically or economically at the time and place. Marriage was how they elevated themselves, getting a bigger home and allowance. Now that the carreer has been invented, the Roman reason is moot.

[Bottle]

The reason being a rather vital method of interaction, and producing and maturing young.

I don't think it's vital. No, I think in Western culture we think it is, but in history marriage has been an economic union and nothing more. Nothing to do with interaction, since many partners would never speak face to face, and nothing to do with maturing young, since children could be given to consorts or governesses.

Your reference to "consorts and governesses" suggests that you think most people throughout history were members of the classes which had such things.

[The Truth and Light]

That reason being? Because I can have a great love life and even a family without marriage.

That's not the issue here, the issue is money.

Obviously. Something about taxes.

[The Truth and Light]

I don't think it's vital. No, I think in Western culture we think it is, but in history marriage has been an economic union and nothing more. Nothing to do with interaction, since many partners would never speak face to face, and nothing to do with maturing young, since children could be given to consorts or governesses.

Your reference to "consorts and governesses" suggests that you think most people throughout history were members of the classes which had such things.

I don't think nuclear families are as universal as we'd like to think, regardless.

[Kingdoms of Cal]

providing poligamy works both ways, not just men with multiple wives, I see no problem. Figuring out who's kids are who's would be tricky and the social structures would be complex if you have X husbands who have X wives who also have X husbands and so on.

Personally I would prefer if marrage was just a contract controlled by contract law and nothing special. But that's just me.

[Ashmoria]

the problem with the legalization of polygamy (outside of legitimizing the forced marriage of minor girls) is not matrimonial but legislative.

today we have the model of 2 people per marriage. that means they own everything together, are the sole parents of their children and if they split up they divide their assets 50/50. when they are divorced the marriage ceases to exist. (with the glitches of prenuptual agreements and stepchildren)

with polygamy--supposing that we will allow any number of men and women to marry in a group--the marriage exists outside of the willingness of one person to continue in it. it produces children who are not the children of every spouse. it makes the division of assets, child support, child custody, etc very complicated.

the point being that legalizing polygamy is not as easy as legalizing gay marriage.

the state has to decide whether or not to raise the minimum age of marriage so as to keep those creepy fundamentalist mormons from marrying off their 15 year old daughters to 80 year old men with no legal recourse.

the state has to decide whether or not to increase the number of legal parents a child has. if bob and mary have a baby but suzy spends 5 years as stay-at-home mom and primary caregiver should she have NO legal rights to that child?

the state has to decide a legal framework for one divorcing spouse to remove assets from an otherwise intact marriage. it has to decide whether or not everyone is married to everyone else--in mormon polygamy all the women are married to their husband not to each other, if he dies there is no more marriage. it has to decide if everyone has to agree when adding a new spouse. it has to decide whether or not each person is the locus of their own marriage -- bob, mary and sue are married to each other but sue is married to mary, bob and tom. tom is married to sue, frank, and george, on and on. (that would be a particularly bad idea)

[Ashmoria]

Polygamy I can't say I fully support, because quite often one party might get neglected, and generally humans aren't too adept at dividing romantic feelings, and at a certain point of people involved it would cease to be a true romantic relationship. That said, if they're consenting adults, I have no problem with it legally.

consenting adults find themselves in bad marriages on a regular basis. they get divorced. as long as divorce is cheap and easy polygamy is no more a problem than monogamy.

[Spiral Sun]

That's not the issue here, the issue is money.

Obviously. Something about taxes.

Not taxes so much as how the vast majority the American public would not want to be legally obligated to pay for that sort of lifestyle. Also would drain government and industrial coffers paying for all the spouses. Heck, a dozen people could all marry each other then later retire with twenty thousand dollars a month should they plan things right.

[Janlantis]

There are quite a number of reasonable arguments for and against the legalization of polygamy, some of which have already been raised here. While certain cultural and historical evidence does support the idea that polygamy has often been a male-centric agenda which often "transformed" the wives into something to be collected, I also feel that with the 21st century comes a better understanding of jurisdictions as well as a more developed sense of equality between the sexes. I can't really vote for or against it as far as reasonable judgment is concerned (personally I'm not in favor of its implementation, though not necessarily hostile to the idea), but perhaps this issue can be better understood through a more research-oriented approach. I would propose conducting long-term studies on the psychological, economic, and social conditions of individuals within polygamous relationships to see whether there are any significant positive or negative repercussions. From there, maybe we can decide whether we should or shouldn't legalize it.

I am not aware of any such study, but I would be very interested if any of you happen to come across any.

[Grinning Dragon]

the problem with the legalization of polygamy (outside of legitimizing the forced marriage of minor girls) is not matrimonial but legislative.

today we have the model of 2 people per marriage. that means they own everything together, are the sole parents of their children and if they split up they divide their assets 50/50. when they are divorced the marriage ceases to exist. (with the glitches of prenuptual agreements and stepchildren)

with polygamy--supposing that we will allow any number of men and women to marry in a group--the marriage exists outside of the willingness of one person to continue in it. it produces children who are not the children of every spouse. it makes the division of assets, child support, child custody, etc very complicated.

the point being that legalizing polygamy is not as easy as legalizing gay marriage.

the state has to decide whether or not to raise the minimum age of marriage so as to keep those creepy fundamentalist mormons from marrying off their 15 year old daughters to 80 year old men with no legal recourse.

the state has to decide whether or not to increase the number of legal parents a child has. if bob and mary have a baby but suzy spends 5 years as stay-at-home mom and primary caregiver should she have NO legal rights to that child?

the state has to decide a legal framework for one divorcing spouse to remove assets from an otherwise intact marriage. it has to decide whether or not everyone is married to everyone else--in mormon polygamy all the women are married to their husband not to each other, if he dies there is no more marriage. it has to decide if everyone has to agree when adding a new spouse. it has to decide whether or not each person is the locus of their own marriage -- bob, mary and sue are married to each other but sue is married to mary, bob and tom. tom is married to sue, frank, and george, on and on. (that would be a particularly bad idea)

I also had brought up that divorce would be a complicated mess in a thread I had started, about the pros and cons of polygamy here http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=174845
I had also wondered about common law marriages, in some states if a man and woman have been living together for 7yrs the state considers them married. So if a man has been living with 3 women for say 10yrs, can this be considered a polygamist marriage? And if so, shouldn't the state bear some of the responsibility, since they are the one that basically made the man a criminal?