Polygamy: time for it to be recognized?

[alexleighton]

Why anyone would actually want more than one wife (or husband) is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, i totally love my wife - we have a great relationship and she is my best friend, but two's company, three's a crowd. I just can't think of any logical reason why two wives are better than one.

Well really, I can't see any reason someone would want to get married at all. Legally binding yourself to someone who is likely going to stab you in the back at some point? No thanks.

But laws saying who you can or can't marry need to be scrapped, it's just stupidity. As long as all the people involved are adults and aren't being forced into it (just like any other legal contract), I say go for it.

 

[Liquid]

Why anyone would actually want more than one wife (or husband) is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, i totally love my wife - we have a great relationship and she is my best friend, but two's company, three's a crowd. I just can't think of any logical reason why two wives are better than one.

People of different cultures have different opinions. And they're entitled to them. For whatever reason they want more than one partner, why shouldn't they if all members are happy and in compliance?

 

[Danoff]

The government would have to make up a system of taxation for polygamals, and it's already a pain in the butt as it is.
Plus, there's always those who will find a way to abuse the system heh. I'm sure that minds will be blown at some point.

The government shouldn't tax married couples different than individuals (violates equal protection). So polygamy still isn't an issue.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Why anyone would actually want more than one wife (or husband) is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, i totally love my wife - we have a great relationship and she is my best friend, but two's company, three's a crowd. I just can't think of any logical reason why two wives are better than one.

Men can remain fertile into their 80s (considerably decreased levels, but still so). A woman's fertility is likely to end around the age of 50, though her ability to have healthy children may end in her 40s.

Historically giving birth is a very dangerous affair with the odds of a woman dying not being far off a woman suffering injury that may prevent her from giving birth again. Not to mention a lot of men desired male heirs, which they'd blame the woman for if not provided.

And anyway, if your house is big enough you can simply hide from them all

 

[TheCracker]

People of different cultures have different opinions. And they're entitled to them. For whatever reason they want more than one partner, why shouldn't they if all members are happy and in compliance?

This is what i'm getting at. What reasons are there for having more than one wife? Pick a good 'un in the first place and there's no logical arguement to have another. Unless it's just a religious fad.

Men can remain fertile into their 80s (considerably decreased levels, but still so). A woman's fertility is likely to end around the age of 50, though her ability to have healthy children may end in her 40s.

Historically giving birth is a very dangerous affair with the odds of a woman dying not being far off a woman suffering injury that may prevent her from giving birth again. Not to mention a lot of men desired male heirs, which they'd blame the woman for if not provided.

If fertility is the only reason for having multiple wives, then i'm sure fertility treatment would end up cheaper and less hit-and-miss than marrying another uterus.

 

[Liquid]

This is what i'm getting at. What reasons are there for having more than one wife? Pick a good 'un in the first place and there's no logical arguement to have another. Unless it's just a religious fad.

Different people to have sex with? More people whose company you can enjoy? More people with whom you can split the housework? These might sound like trivial reasons but we shouldn't dismiss them simply because we ourselves wouldn't pursue them.

Sure these could create their own problems over a monogamous relationship, but it's for the participants in the relationship to decide and live with.

 

[ExigeEvan]

If fertility is the only reason for having multiple wives, then i'm sure fertility treatment would end up cheaper and less hit-and-miss than marrying another uterus.

Fertility treatment still doesn't make it any easier on the mother to actually carry a child, or care for it.

 

[TheCracker]

Different people to have sex with? More people whose company you can enjoy? More people with whom you can split the housework? These might sound like trivial reasons why but we shouldn't dismiss them simply because we ourselves wouldn't pursue them.

Sure these could create their own problems over a monogamous relationship, but it's for the participants in the relationship to decide and live with.

There's nothing stopping those people just living together in the first place. It's called an open relationship.

Fertility treatment still doesn't make it any easier on the mother to actually carry a child, or care for it.

Polygamy doesn't make it any easier on the mother to carry a child either. That's something a second wife can't share. If caring for children is to be considered a valid reason for polygamy, then why not hire a nanny or a cleaner. Again, cheaper in the long run then marrying another woman.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Polygamy doesn't make it any easier on the mother to carry a child either. That's something a second wife can't share.

But youth does. I made age a very clear point.

If caring for children is to be considered a valid reason for polygamy, then why not hire a nanny or a cleaner. Again, cheaper in the long run then marrying another woman.

How is hiring a nanny cheaper than marrying another woman? You could marry another woman and provided your home was already big enough pay only for her basic cost of living. While a nanny who would be required full time would expect considerable expenses, and probably wouldn't let you have sex with her at that cost.

 

[Liquid]

There's nothing stopping those people just living together in the first place. It's called an open relationship.

But there are laws that prevent them from marrying. And that's what this thread asks; time for recognition and have it permissable for these people to marry?

If they so choose, let them. It's their choice and their lives.

 

[Danoff]

If fertility is the only reason for having multiple wives, then i'm sure fertility treatment would end up cheaper and less hit-and-miss than marrying another uterus.

Spoken like someone who has not had to use fertility treatment. We are still in the stone age as far as reproductive medicine goes, and it's expensive as hell. We have no options for women after menopause either (don't say egg donor).

 

[niky]

And then there's the danger of carrying that baby to term, which is signifcant for older mothers.

 

[TheCracker]

But there are laws that prevent them from marrying. And that's what this thread asks; time for recognition and have it permissable for these people to marry?

If they so choose, let them. It's their choice and their lives.

Which comes back to my original point of why multiple wives?

Spoken like someone who has not had to use fertility treatment. We are still in the stone age as far as reproductive medicine goes, and it's expensive as hell. We have no options for women after menopause either (don't say egg donor).

That's quite true, i've not had to use fertility treatment. Yet.

But marrying concurrent second, third or forth wifes still would never figure as a suitable, or even reasonable alternative to solving a fertility issue. I presume given the issues you and your wife have experienced in this respect, taking on a second wife was never considered?

 

[Liquid]

Which comes back to my original point of why multiple wives?

Who cares? It's their choice.

Why have a wife in the first place? For those of us who aren not religious, it's nothing more than a token ceremony where people get drunk.

But, partner A and partner B love each other very much. They want a ceremony that legally ratifies their love and companionship.

They can get married.

---

Partner 1 loves partner 2 and partner 3. Partner 2 doesn't have a problem with partner 3 and partner 3 doesn't have a problem with partner 2. They all get along well and are all happy with their relationship. Partner 1 thinks it's great; twice as many options for sex. Partners 2 and 3 have the security of a loving relationship, possibilities for sexual exploration and they don't have to try as hard to keep partner 1 entertained because partner 2 can pass him onto partner 3 and vice versa. All three of them are happy because the more people living under one roof, the lower the cost per person is.

Now they want a ceremony to legally confirm their love and commitment. They're not allowed. The law says that partner 1 is forbidden to marry both partner 2 and partner 3. But all three parties are satisfied with the terms of the relationship and they genuinely care about each other just as much as partner A and partner B care about each other. Why can't they get married? It's their choice.

---

I find it odd how a man can live and have sex with as many women as he wants and a woman can live and have sex with as many men as she wants but they're not allowed to settle down and commit. Very much in the same way that two gay people can live with each other, have as much sex as they want or be as dull and monotonous in a monogomous relationship as they want but they're not allowed to marry. Because it dilutes what marriage stands for? Rubbish. People want to commit and the law says they can't.

Just so you know, I'm not an advocate of polygamy. I don't think people should have two or more partners congruently. I'm not a fan of multiple but separate sexual partners per week. But if other people want to endulge in a polygamous manner and want to get married to each other, who are we to stop them?

 

[TheCracker]

I totally agree with what you're saying about legally people should be able to marry whoever they want (as long as all parties are happy with the arrangement) - What i am trying to get my head round is why they'd want to be part of a polygamist relationship.

Call me conventional, but to me a 'traditional' 1+1 marriage should be able to cover all needs. If it doesn't, why not just dissolve it and find another partner who does tick all the boxes.

 

[Liquid]

More/better sex.
Share the cost of living; cost per person is lower.
More people, more companionship.
Conversation between two people isn't as good as conversation between three people.

Those are some reasons off the top of my head. People shouldn't have to justify why they're in a polygamous relationship. If they find reasons, they find reasons.

I'm against marriage in the sense that I think it's outdated, archaic and less worthwhile thanks to common law 'marriages'. But I'm not against other people getting married. That really is for them to decide.

 

[killer tiller]

. Why can't they get married? It's their choice.

Well technically it's the governments choice, they are the ones who make all the rules.

I agree with everything you've said though, if everyone is happy then I don't see why they can't get married, same goes with the gay community. Unfortunately we are at the mercy of our governments and until they change their outlooks on certain subjects, there's not a thing we can do about it

 

[TheCracker]

More/better sex.
Share the cost of living; cost per person is lower.
More people, more companionship.
Conversation between two people isn't as good as conversation between three people.

Those are some reasons off the top of my head. People shouldn't have to justify why they're in a polygamous relationship. If they find reasons, they find reasons.

More/better sex. - No reason to believe that would be true
Share the cost of living; cost per person is lower. - Get a lodger
More people, more companionship. - Get a lodger or a dog
Conversation between two people isn't as good as conversation between three people.- Get a lodger or have a better social life

For all the possible plus points, i can see many more possible minus aspects of a polygamous set-up, mostly revolving around arguments over sharing ratios. Whether that's about sleeping arrangements, house work, money, child care etc. These issues can be major obstacles in a normal 1+1 marriage, add another equal partner into the mix and the possibilities and probabilities of more confrontation gets much much greater. I just can't see how the good would out-weigh the bad - so why put yourself through it?

Where do you draw the line between what constitutes a Polygamous marriage and what is just a weird cult?

When we mention Polygamy, we probably think of a man with multiple wives. But what about a woman with multiple husbands? What about a bisexual man with a wife and a husband? or a bisexual man with a bisexual wife who has a a bisexual husband with a gay husband? - are these still to be considered marriages?

If these relationships are granted legal classification as marriages - then surely this opens legal loop-holes for taxation fudging? What's to stop a group of people simply getting together for the sole purpose of getting around certain income, inheritance or some other tax breaks?

 

[Liquid]

More/better sex. - No reason to believe that would be true
Share the cost of living; cost per person is lower. - Get a lodger
More people, more companionship. - Get a lodger or a dog
Conversation between two people isn't as good as conversation between three people.- Get a lodger or have a better social life

For all the possible plus points, i can see many more possible minus aspects of a polygamous set-up, mostly revolving around arguments over sharing ratios. Whether that's about sleeping arrangements, house work, money, child care etc. These issues can be major obstacles in a normal 1+1 marriage, add another equal partner into the mix and the possibilities and probabilities of more confrontation gets much much greater. I just can't see how the good would out-weigh the bad - so why put yourself through it?

Just because you can't see any benefits, doesn't mean other people can't or won't. I can't see any reason why somebody would buy a Prius thinking it actually saves the environment. But if people want to buy a Prius, it's their choice.

Where do you draw the line between what constitutes a Polygamous marriage and what is just a weird cult?

Being married to two people has absolutley nothing to do with religious beliefs or beliefs in general. Plenty of people who dance around graves covered in chicken blood are as monogomous as you and me.

When we mention Polygamy, we probably think of a man with multiple wives. But what about a woman with multiple husbands? What about a bisexual man with a wife and a husband? or a bisexual man with a bisexual wife who has a a bisexual husband with a gay husband? - are these still to be considered marriages?

Spot on. Women can sleep with whomever they want, as can men. Why can't they marry if that's what they feel shows their commitment?

If these relationships are granted legal classification as marriages - then surely this opens legal loop-holes for taxation fudging? What's to stop a group of people simply getting together for the sole purpose of getting around certain income, inheritance or some other tax breaks?

We have this problem with monogomous marriages already. And people marrying for passports. Should we cut our losses and prohibit monogomous marriages then?

I agree, taxation would be a problem, but it's not something that would be impossible to solve. Considering how deep and exhaustive tax returns are already, I'm sure they could conjure something up.

I've bolded their choice several times in this thread because in theory it really is as simple as that; the decision of the persons involved. Unfortunately it's not as easy in practice.

 

[JJ72]

Which comes back to my original point of why multiple wives?

Same can be asked about people who DON'T marry.

Why have no wives?

I don't think there's a default answer rather than being a relic of our religious root. Life is about fulfillment imo, and it wouldn't surprise me that three or more people would found themselves perfectly compatible, just as some people find being alone perfectly fine.

 

[TheCracker]

Same can be asked about people who DON'T marry.

Why have no wives?

I don't think there's a default answer rather than being a relic of our religious root. Life is about fulfillment imo, and it wouldn't surprise me that three or more people would found themselves perfectly compatible, just as some people find being alone perfectly fine.

A polygamist marriage can never be equal. If someone is willing to settle for less, then that's up to them i guess.

 

[Liquid]

It's also said that no relationship is equal. Someone always wears the trousers.

 

[JJ72]

A polygamist marriage can never be equal. If someone is willing to settle for less, then that's up to them i guess.

you don't need marriage to have companions, there are things called girl friends.

Your maths must be pretty bad because you can divide by three just as well as divide by two. and who say relationship between 2 people must be equal? more often or not they ain't.

 

[TheCracker]

you don't need marriage to have companions, there are things called girl friends.

Precisely. So why have a polygamist marriage?

Your maths must be pretty bad because you can divide by three just as well as divide by two. and who say relationship between 2 people must be equal? more often or not they ain't.

Like i said, if someone is willing to settle for less, then that's up to them.

It's also said that no relationship is equal. Someone always wears the trousers.

That's just not true. it is possible to have an equal relationship. It is the ideal that marriage should strive to achieve.

 

[JJ72]

Precisely. So why have a polygamist marriage?

because some people might want to? people want different things, it's called options.

Like i said, if someone is willing to settle for less, then that's up to them.

so having three party in a marriage isn't a problem about fairness then.

That's just not true. it is possible to have an equal relationship. It is the ideal that marriage should strive to achieve.

Nothing can be absolutely equal, and many relationship contains one active and one passive party in the real world, even in the most traditional families. It can be your personal goal and not necessarily others. It is also near impossible to quantify what is equality.

 

[TheCracker]

because some people might want to? people want different things, it's called options.

It's called settling for less (than what could be achieved through a traditional 1+1 union)

so having three party is a marriage isn't a problem about fairness then.

I don't understand your point?

Nothing can be absolutely equal, and many relationship contains one active and one passive party in the real world, even in the most traditional families. It can be your personal goal and not necessarily others. It is also near impossible to quantify what is equality.

Again, if someone's happy to settle for inequality then that's fine.

At least in a 1+1 you can achieve equality or what's perceived as equality. In a 1+2 (or more) that equality is impossible. Person 1 gets what they would in a 1+1 relationship and maybe more. Persons 2a and 2b can only get a percentage of what person 1 gives.

 

[Ibonibo]

about the fertility page back, you don't need a wife or marriage status to hump your way around town.

About equal loving of a party of more than 2: ever had multiple dogs, cats, friends, they are not all equal, you may love and cherish them all, but never equally.
it's the same when a mother says she loves all her children equally. that is not possible, you always have a tendency for one rather than the other.
To achieve that equal feeling, you would need clones.

As mazda said : if they are all happy, free willing,... then sure no problem, but history has showed us that polygamist relationship are nearly only a male thing (1 men, multiple wifes) and the wifes are not put equally (arab, first wife has more rights), and often not married because of free will.
And when in theory, each party is ok and equally loved, why would they need a legal document to prove it? Than all they would want is really a tax deduction?

In my country, gay marriage is still not administrative available, though they are talking about it, but that doesn't hinder a gay couple to pax together, which gives them fiscally the same rights as a married couple, just the connotation is another, it's not called married and you don't have that paper and rings, that's all.

 

[TankAss95]

No, just... this isn't a good idea.

 

[Liquid]

No, just... this isn't a good idea.

Elaborate.

And I'm not trying to belittle your beliefs, but don't say "It's against God's wishes". Eating pork, getting a tattoo and displaying iconography is against God's wishes, and plenty of Christians do that.

 

[TankAss95]

"It's against God's wishes"

Of course...

But think of the children involved. Think of divorces. I'm sorry guys but I'm just against this. However you look at it marriage should be between two.