Plural Marriages

[Necroghastia]

Marriage is so last centuries. From a sentimental point of view, a private commitment ceremony works. From a legal view it’s a contract like any other. Most contracts are not usually exclusive. Personally I think having multiple spouses sounds very complicated and expensive, but if consenting adults want to, I’m fine with it. The question I have about marriage is: why do people still like to vow to stay together until death? How to reconcile that with divorce? I suggest parties should vow to be good to each other until we have irreconcilable differences and then respectfully dissolve the union with the assistance of professional mediators, if necessary.

That's... a lot less romantic, though. Kinda kills the mood.

[Thepeopl]

Seems like you're adding a lot more problems by getting rid of marriage, between the blood tests and the legal rights/responsibilities that you still haven't addressed.

What legal rights/ responsibilities are not addressed? Rape inside marriage is legal, children are presumed to be from both spouses inside the marriage. Child abuse / malnourishment is rampant in relationships/ marriages.

So, with abolishing marriage you can make a new set of rules.
We could start with communal care for children. All aspiring parents have to learn proper child care/ upbringing. All ppl receive free housing, education and health care. If you want to have a child with a partner, you both first have to proof that you can be responsible.

Why do we assume that once ppl are having children, they automatically know how to care for them? Why do we assume that once you get a child, you will love them?

I know of couples who have been unhappily married for decades, brought up children who now are all divorced because they never learned how a happy relationship should function.
Let's not pretend that the current system is perfect.

[Necroghastia]

Seems like you're adding a lot more problems by getting rid of marriage, between the blood tests and the legal rights/responsibilities that you still haven't addressed.

What legal rights/ responsibilities are not addressed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
That's a pretty good list.

Rape inside marriage is legal,

Certainly not everywhere, and in most places that it is, there's a movement to criminalize it.

children are presumed to be from both spouses inside the marriage. Child abuse / malnourishment is rampant in relationships/ marriages.

Not a problem with marriage in itself.

So, with abolishing marriage you can make a new set of rules.
We could start with communal care for children. All aspiring parents have to learn proper child care/ upbringing. All ppl receive free housing, education and health care.

I mean, all people should have that anyway tbqh.

If you want to have a child with a partner, you both first have to proof that you can be responsible.

Alright... how do you propose to regulate the oldest human pastime, then?

Why do we assume that once ppl are having children, they automatically know how to care for them? Why do we assume that once you get a child, you will love them?

I know of couples who have been unhappily married for decades, brought up children who now are all divorced because they never learned how a happy relationship should function.
Let's not pretend that the current system is perfect.

I don't think anyone is, but a lot of that I feel is more due to cultural pressures in regards to gender roles and the expectation that couples should have 2.5 kids rather than marriage itself.

[Thepeopl]

Wow! That are a lot of benefits in the American system.
In the Netherlands we have way less benefits.

By giving all ppl the basic necessities, the responsibility to care for your children and spouse; is no longer required.

The oldest pastime will have to be safe. Free condoms/ anti conception pills/ whatever the preferred method is (exception coitus interruptus; that is no anti conception), will be free and available for everyone. Sex education will be given from preschool. Of course fitting for their age. No need for std/ pregnancy education in preschool. But all children should know how babies are made and what STDs are before they are sexually active.
I would also like to educate the people how to communicate clearly and honestly. To have respect for all living beings and first aid. Not only physical but also mental.

[Abarri]

Marriage is so last centuries. From a sentimental point of view, a private commitment ceremony works. From a legal view it’s a contract like any other. Most contracts are not usually exclusive. Personally I think having multiple spouses sounds very complicated and expensive, but if consenting adults want to, I’m fine with it. The question I have about marriage is: why do people still like to vow to stay together until death? How to reconcile that with divorce? I suggest parties should vow to be good to each other until we have irreconcilable differences and then respectfully dissolve the union with the assistance of professional mediators, if necessary.

A private commitment ceremony is not legally binding.

[Cappuccina]

It would never work, people nowadays can't even manage a single partner marriage without running for divorce at the slightest issue.

[The New California Republic]

It would never work

Plural marriages can and do work actually.

people nowadays can't even manage a single partner marriage without running for divorce at the slightest issue.

Problems in monogamous marriage do not necessarily translate like-for-like across to polygamous marriage, due to polygamous marriages being substantially different in form.

[Abarri]

It would never work, people nowadays can't even manage a single partner marriage without running for divorce at the slightest issue.

Polygamy works for some.

[Cappuccina]

It would never work

Plural marriages can and do work actually.

people nowadays can't even manage a single partner marriage without running for divorce at the slightest issue.

Problems in monogamous marriage do not necessarily translate like-for-like across to polygamous marriage, due to polygamous marriages being substantially different in form.

The problems in multiple partner relationships aren't much different, you still have to put effort into the marriage, but with more people. It'd be unstable.

[The New California Republic]

Plural marriages can and do work actually.


Problems in monogamous marriage do not necessarily translate like-for-like across to polygamous marriage, due to polygamous marriages being substantially different in form.

The problems in multiple partner relationships aren't much different

They are different, in that there is a group dynamic involved in them that is clearly not present in monogamous marriage.

It'd be unstable.

The existence of stable polygamous marriages says different I'm afraid.

[Cappuccina]

The problems in multiple partner relationships aren't much different

They are different, in that there is a group dynamic involved in them that is clearly not present in monogamous marriage.

It'd be unstable.

The existence of stable polygamous marriages says different I'm afraid.

Monogamous relationships are a group.......

Also, stable polygamy, impossible. The only reason it worked in other time periods is because the male had power over the wives, that doesn't exist now. In the modern era that would never be a stable system.

[The New California Republic]

They are different, in that there is a group dynamic involved in them that is clearly not present in monogamous marriage.

Monogamous relationships are a group.......

Monogamy involves a pairing, not a group. But let's not split hairs, you knew what I meant. At least I hope you did...

Also, stable polygamy, impossible.

Again the stable polygamous marriages out there prove you categorically wrong.

The only reason it worked in other time periods is...

Let me stop you right there. I'm talking about current polygamous marriages. I don't really give a shit about historical ones for the time being.

[Cappuccina]

Monogamous relationships are a group.......

Monogamy involves a pairing, not a group. But let's not split hairs, you knew what I meant. At least I hope you did...

Also, stable polygamy, impossible.

Again the stable polygamous marriages out there prove you categorically wrong.

The only reason it worked in other time periods is...

Let me stop you right there. I'm talking about current polygamous marriages. I don't really give a shit about historical ones for the time being.

I am talking about current ones in relation to historical ones. Modern polygamous relationships wouldn't work in the long-term, especially since they tend to coincide with the practice of "open relationships".

[The New California Republic]

I am talking about current ones in relation to historical ones.

I wasn't, but alright.

Modern polygamous relationships wouldn't work in the long-term

You still haven't provided even one iota of evidence to show this to be the case. Repeating the assertion over and over and over and over again doesn't negate the need for evidence to corroborate your claim; hence why I am dismissing the claim with such gusto.

especially since they tend to coincide with the practice of "open relationships".

And there is no evidence that this is the case either.

[Risottia]

Rape inside marriage is legal,

In what jurisdiction, exactly? Because I would guess that in non-utter-shithole-countries rape between spouses is quite illegal.

children are presumed to be from both spouses inside the marriage.

Nope, that's what child recognition is for.

Child abuse / malnourishment is rampant in relationships/ marriages.

I fail to see how that would be an effect of marriage and not of poverty and cruelty.

[Auze]

Polygamy should be outlawed tbh.

Already is in the US, and Utah specifically banned it in their constitution in order to become a state.

Who would take whose last name? Or would they just compound their last names into some kind of multi-barreled FrankenName? Or would they keep their own last names?

"Take the name"? What? Really, do people still lose their names upon marriage? Weird.

~98% do last I checked.

Like the XKCD strip, "Aren't you coming to bed?" "I can't, someone's wrong on the Internet."

link because we sadly don't have an xkcd bot

I'll be honest, if I learned enough coding and got the blessing of the mods that would have always been the first thing I would make for the forums. I have no idea how to make it, though.

[Cekoviu]

Polygamy should be outlawed tbh.

Already is in the US, and Utah specifically banned it in their constitution in order to become a state.

utah is the best state

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Said it before, I'll say it again: Polygyny should be allowed.

[Threlizdun]

Said it before, I'll say it again: Polygyny should be allowed.

Polyandry, group marriage, or same-sex plural marriage shouldn't though?

[Cekoviu]

Said it before, I'll say it again: Polygyny should be allowed.

Polyandry, group marriage, or same-sex plural marriage shouldn't though?

It's Kubumba, what do you think?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Said it before, I'll say it again: Polygyny should be allowed.

Polyandry, group marriage, or same-sex plural marriage shouldn't though?

Yes, only polygyny, not the other stuff. At least not for Muslims anyway.

[Cekoviu]

It's Kubumba, what do you think?

Yes, only polygyny, not the other stuff. At least not for Muslims anyway.

Such a wonderful and consistent ideology

[Aeritai]

While I am not fond of Poly relationships, if a man or a woman want to marry multiple people let them.

[Cekoviu]

While I am not fond of Poly relationships, if a man or a woman want to marry multiple people let them.

Why are nonbinary people specifically excluded?

[Diopolis]

While I am not fond of Poly relationships, if a man or a woman want to marry multiple people let them.

Why are nonbinary people specifically excluded?

There can only be one nonbinary aspect to a relationship. Either a nonbinary person marries one person, or binary people marry multiple.