Should polygamy be illegal?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wow... Dis, so if you make something illegal, only the unsavory types will want to do it? Amazing!

By that logic, you will continue the drug war indefinately into the future because you see what happens to crack heads.

[MrFun]

This thread is still live?

[Dis]

Originally posted by MrFun
This thread is still live?

as long as I live, this thread lives. . or until ming locks it.

[St Leo]

Polygamy legal
} More polygyny than polyandry or polyamory
} Rich, attractive males bogarting a plurality of the human females
} Masses of poor, unsociable, nerdy males single and desperate
} No dates for male Apolytoners (other than me)

If the self-interest angle doesn't appeal, then keep in mind that polygamy would make the work of social workers much harder. It would aggravate stalking and spousal abuse. It would also turn all existing marriage, custody, inheritance, and taxation laws on their heads, leading to unforeseen repercussions.

Finally, the only lobby for polygamy are the religious polygynists -- folk like the Patriarch Movement, some of the Christian Restorationist racist scumbags, ultraorthodox Mormons, ultraorthodox Muslims, etc. Secular polyamorists don't want it -- they can just cohabit. That makes the whole thing seem very fishy.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Where's the "I wish I were a polygamist" option?

Follow your dream. You'll be husband #5 some day.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Dis
or until ming locks it.

[Urban Ranger]

As far as I can tell, polygamy has nothing to do with sex (or love), but with social order, status, money, and various other kinds of social and legal issues. Because it is such a mess, polygamy should remain illegal.

[Sava]

I don't think the government should regulate marriage... period.

If two people, or a group of people, want to enter into a legal contract to share wealth or to have access to hospital records, power of attorney, or whatever privilages are currently associated with marriage. People should be able to enter into such contracts. It should have nothing to do with marriage, love, or any kind of social concerns.

It should be a purely legal matter.

Marriage should be seperated from the legal issues that it is currently associated with. If two people love each other and want to live together or whatever... go ahead. If they want to have some ceremony and say they are married... fine. They can even take the same name.

But if they want to have all the legal privilages associated with marriage, then they should go see a lawyer and work out a contract... Like a prenup.

This would make it so that the government has nothing to do with marriage at all... gay, hetero, or polygamous unions.

I also think it would simplify matters of divorce, too. Because it would be known that unless there is a contract stipulating terms of the union, there are no expectations as to the relationship or demands made on either party upon the end of that relationship.

That's my opinion. What do you guys think?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sava

I've been advocating that idea for quite a while now. Get the government out of marriage. Why should it be involved? Because it wants to promote having kids? If people want kids, they can have them. No need for the government to get involved.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sava
If two people, or a group of people, want to enter into a legal contract to share wealth or to have access to hospital records, power of attorney, or whatever privilages are currently associated with marriage. People should be able to enter into such contracts. It should have nothing to do with marriage, love, or any kind of social concerns.

It should be a purely legal matter.

Well, marriage is already pretty much a purely legal matter.

It's just that, right now, it's regulated by a law, and not by individual contracts.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Well, marriage is already pretty much a purely legal matter.

It seems as if you were just responding to the last sentence of the piece of the post that you quoted from me. Maybe if you took what I said in the entire context, you would understand my meaning... instead of splitting hairs over my exact wording of that sentence.

I think I described my position quite well. Do you require some sort of clarification? Or did you just feel like arguing semantics?

And if marriage is "pretty much a purely legal matter", then why is the gay marriage issue in America such a divisive one? Maybe because marriage ISN'T a purely legal matter and there are social and religious concerns as well.

Most of which, the government should not concern itself with, IMO.

[Vince278]

Polygamy takes alot of the variation out of the gene pool by limiting resources. Also, competition for mates could lead to violence. All very bad.

Now, allowing a woman to have multiple husbands would balance the scales somewhat. I wonder if there have been any cases of polygamy like this (outside of a commune at least)?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Vince278
Polygamy takes alot of the variation out of the gene pool by limiting resources. Also, competition for mates could lead to violence. All very bad.

Now, allowing a woman to have multiple husbands would balance the scales somewhat. I wonder if there have been any cases of polygamy like this (outside of a commune at least)?

Imran enlightened me on this recently; it's called polyandry, where one woman has multiple husbands.

But that does not change my opinion against polygamy or polyandry.

[Vince278]

I wonder if there are any cases of male or female same sex polygamy? I'm not even sure how polyandry would work. Too much of a paradigm shift for me.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Vince278
I wonder if there are any cases of male or female same sex polygamy? I'm not even sure how polyandry would work. Too much of a paradigm shift for me.

Wikipedia is your friend . . . .


that is what Imran used to explain polyandry to me.


Time to accept the reality of a paradigm shift, Vince.