Polygamy

Atomic_Piggy

Newbie
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
6,485
Reaction score
2
In keeping with the sexuality/marriage themes going on here, I thought I would create this thread. The question is why is polygamy illegal? Naturally, polygamy conjures up images of men with four wives, who had no choice in the matter and are essentially slaves. But what I am talking about is consensual polygamy. We accept that two people of the same gender can love one another, but not more than two people?

Though children are an issue here, I don't think its quite as big as the incest one.

IMO, as long as all parties agree, why shouldn't we allow it? Its not harming anyone else.
 
Dey tuk er gerls!


Should be legal in my opinion.
 
^lol
Its illegial for the same reasons suicide is illegal..the bible doesn't allow it. Sorry its redudant I know especially around here where everyone spontaneously circle jerks to thoughts of dawkins..but its true.
 
the problem is that polygamy is rarely consensual; the overwhelming number of people who are in polygamous relationships do so out of religious convictions.

polygamy itself is contrary to any ideas of a consensual relationship because it implies one person is on top of the relationship food chain and all others are there to serve their needs. of course that's at it's most fundamental level. I'm sure there must be consenting adults who have other reasons but I'm willing to bet if you were to strip down their justification it might not be all that consensual


also I love how discussions on same sex marriage brings up the topic of someone getting married to __________ (cousin, sister, farm animal, inanimate object etc, take your pick)


WELL IF WE ALLOW ONE ABOMINATION WHY NOT ALLOW THEM ALL? *

<spoken with a high pitched shrill woman's voice>
 
I don't see why the government should have any role in marriage whatsoever.
 
If I thought I had to have more then one wife at a time I would end it all right now.
 
If you want to be in a polygamous relationship, that's cool. But the idea of being in one myself makes me horribly uncomfortable.
 
If you want to be in a polygamous relationship, that's cool. But the idea of being in one myself makes me horribly uncomfortable.

Fortunately no-one is likely to offer such a scenario.
 
Can't decide whether to go with BaDumTsh or ZING for that one.
 
Need a dispenser here.

I thought the whole point of marriage was to lock one man to one woman.
 
American law is EARTH LAW.
ants.jpg

Insect overlords will not be pleased.
 
the problem is that polygamy is rarely consensual; the overwhelming number of people who are in polygamous relationships do so out of religious convictions.

polygamy itself is contrary to any ideas of a consensual relationship because it implies one person is on top of the relationship food chain and all others are there to serve their needs. of course that's at it's most fundamental level. I'm sure there must be consenting adults who have other reasons but I'm willing to bet if you were to strip down their justification it might not be all that consensual

On the other hand since you still get these unofficial polygamous marriages happening in places anyway wouldn't it be better if they were official marriages?
That way a coerced partner would have legal recourse for escaping such a situation and have all the potential for compensation that a legal divorce entails.
 
On the other hand since you still get these unofficial polygamous marriages happening in places anyway wouldn't it be better if they were official marriages?
That way a coerced partner would have legal recourse for escaping such a situation and have all the potential for compensation that a legal divorce entails.

divorce isnt an option in the majority of polygamous relationships as they tend to occur in small repressive and isolated communities where women are treated as second class citizens to begin with. I personally know of a few catholics who would never dream of getting a divorce because it's against their religion, and these are moderate westerners not fundamentalist looneys


so I agree with you in principle but dont think it's feasible in practice
 
Even if it doesn't help the majority surely it will help some. Is it not therefore worth doing?
Also I'm sure more will try to get out of such situations if they have more reason to hope it would be successful.
 
Though children are an issue here, I don't think its quite as big as the incest one.
I've seen a TV show where someone spent time with a group of polygamists, and it doesn't work in the slightest. It's always a guy with more than one partner, and his women are always jealous of each other. If they had children, they'd be involved in a war between 2+ jealous women, which isn't a great environment.

I also don't think there's a way to be "in love" with someone and be happy when they spend time with someone else.
 
Even if it doesn't help the majority surely it will help some. Is it not therefore worth doing?

except you're legitimizing their abuse and treatment as second class citizens. Helping the odd consesual relationship isnt the job of the judicial system. their job is protecting the majority from abusive and repressive treatment

this kinda hits home bewcause canada has been somewhat of a safe haven from some of these runaways as well as having our own polygamist sect that's been in the media spotlight for the last few years. Also to be completely honest it just doesnt sit well with me that crazy religious people get their ****ing way again simply because legislating against religious practices is too taboo a subject for most

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun...d=f4ee01d3-f79d-4d25-a08e-69ff02c117fc&k=6251

Also I'm sure more will try to get out of such situations if they have more reason to hope it would be successful.

it could also have the opposite effect: legitimizing it means they're doing nothing wrong
 
Legitimizing it doesn't matter if they're doing it anyway, Stern, and if you're providing an escape for such women the net effect is positive.
 
legalising it doesnt give them an out as I pointed out earlier; divorce isnt even a consideration ...besides if it's not legally binding what difference does it make if they say they're married? if it's legal then they have to go through the legal channels to end their relationship whereas now it's simply (figuratively speaking) a matter of walking out the door


again I see your point but hell would have to freeze over before I support something which is essentailly and almost exclusively a religious tradition.
 
If they just 'walk out the door' they'd be essentially destitute. With a divorce they can get some compensation, a settlement.
 
how would they divide the estate? between all 10 wives and the husband? divorce would allow for child support but these people are fundamentalists ..even after they've run off they dont seek to annul their marriages because the institutions that married them in the first place do not recognise divorce
 
A civil institution would recognise such a divorce however. They would still be married in the eyes of God (lal), but a civil divorce would provide a fraction of the estate - which is better than just the clothes on ones back.
 
yes but the state cant force someone to get divorced ..in most of these people's eyes poverty is perferable to eternal damnantion
 
If their church doesn't recognise divorce a civil divorce is meaningless to 'God'. You should know that, weren't you raised a catholic?
 
Back
Top