The Debate

[Rival]

Abuse and harm charges are also capable of being addressed.

This is not really simple. If the child who claims s/he has been abused and has 11 siblings, all 11 siblings will be classed as witnesses and will be interviewed. Say 4 say it happened, 5 say it didn't, and 2 have stories that are topsy-turvy, and the mother is clearly out to protect an accused husband, maybe the situation isn't exactly easy to deal with anymore.

All of this, combined with a divorce and finances will take years.

 

[Curious George]

This is not really simple. If the child who claims s/he has been abused and has 11 siblings, all 11 siblings will be classed as witnesses and will be interviewed. Say 4 say it happened, 5 say it didn't, and 2 have stories that are topsy-turvy, and the mother is clearly out to protect an accused husband, maybe the situation isn't exactly easy to deal with anymore.

All of this, combined with a divorce and finances will take years.

Yeah, again you are just saying big families are more complicated. That is not really an argument about any legal problem or law that would need to change. This is not a good rationale you are employing.

 

[Rival]

Yeah, again you are just saying big families are more complicated. That is not really an argument about any legal problem or law that would need to change. This is not a good rationale you are employing.

I am just saying that the process will be so long and tiresome, that legal changes may need to be made to ensure that they aren't going on for years and years, that the pool of potential guardians may become limited in order to simplify matters and so on.

 

[Curious George]

I am just saying that the process will be so long and tiresome, that legal changes may need to be made to ensure that they aren't going on for years and years, that the pool of potential guardians may become limited in order to simplify matters and so on.

The pool of potential guardians is not limited now.

 

[Rival]

The pool of potential guardians is not limited now.

Yes, that is what I said. It maybe have to become limited.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, that is what I said. It maybe have to become limited.

But it doesn't. The law is largely fine. While tweaks are needed still and this would even moreso be the case if we allowed for polygamy, no major overhaul is necessary. That is my only point. If you want to object to polygamy based on social consequences that is an entirely different beast.

The only way that a major legal overhaul would need to occur is if multiple marriages were incentivized the same. This would ripple through tax laws, property law, and administrative rules at a minimum.

I am not sure if this would be required under constitutional law. Arguments are certainly there. But if we could allow for polygamous marriage without providing the benefits of 2 person marriages, then i do not think we will have legal issues.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It should not be legal, because having to endure one wife is bad enough; no man should be forced into the cruel and unusual punishment of having more than one.

Ah, the 'Geneva Convention' argument.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I only support monogamous marriage. I draw the line at gay marriage. Plural marriage would require our laws to be completely overhauled to deal with children, inheritance, estates, divorce, etc. It would be a nightmare. That's not even getting into the social consequences. Polygamous societies are more violent and less stable according to studies. Women and children fare less better.

I agree; polygamous marriages generally lead to one party monopolising the majority of power and influence - especially when socially imposed gender roles i.e. husband as bread-winner & provider come into play.

Monogamous marriage was a boon for the rights of women since it promotes more equality between the spouses.

I disagree; monogamous marriage does not inherently promote more equality between spouses as compared to polygamy. For the vast majority of history women have had inferior rights compared to their husbands in societies with monogamy as a social norm. Going back as far as the ancient Greeks, Athenian women were seldom allowed to leave their homes, be seen in public or communicate with men other than their husband or household slaves.

Were it otherwise the rights of married women in monogamous societies would have been inherently & consistently better than those in societies where polygamy was a thing but they were not. Women have been treated as chattels and the property of their husband until as recently as just over a century ago in 'the West'. Look at how Victorian women were treated; their identity was effectively erased when they married.

Believe it or not, marital rape wasn't outlawed entirely on Great Britain until 1991 (in England & Wales; Scotland outlawed it in 1989).

I also think polygamy is morally inferior to monogamy because instead of one person as a life partner to grow old with, you have any number of people who you have to ration out your romantic and sexual love for. Romantic relationships take time and effort. One person is daunting enough, but multiple??? There's usually a primary partner and secondary ones. There's a system of favoritism. Someone is going to have to be satisfied with less and I don't think that's fair.

I also agree with this. While I'm not confident enough to say it's in the nature of humanity generally to be monogamous, I think it's simpler, involves less hassle and makes more sense socially to commit to a single partner.

 

[Jumi]

Well I'm not opposed to it, but the potential for abuse is even greater than in monogamy.

 

[Trackdayguy]

Been living in a Poly relationship for the past 7 years with 3 women, my bi wife for 41 years, her girl friend and my girlfriend

Works wonderfully, initially strife for the fist year, but its got sorted.

I think the people in our condo struggle with it more than we do.

 

[Shiranui117]

And what about all the in-laws? It would be so complicated.

And God help us all if a divorce happens and we have to figure out all THAT stuff, along with alimony and child support.

EDIT: I see y'all've already gotten into that. But seriously, consider the financials of child support and alimony, too. Taking care of 6 wives and the kids AND doing alimony... Do the other wives contribute to alimony and child support for the divorced wife? Heck, does the divorced wife have to pay child support for the other not-divorced wives?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I disagree; monogamous marriage does not inherently promote more equality between spouses as compared to polygamy. For the vast majority of history women have had inferior rights compared to their husbands in societies with monogamy as a social norm. Going back as far as the ancient Greeks, Athenian women were seldom allowed to leave their homes, be seen in public or communicate with men other than their husband or household slaves.

Were it otherwise the rights of married women in monogamous societies would have been inherently & consistently better than those in societies where polygamy was a thing but they were not. Women have been treated as chattels and the property of their husband until as recently as just over a century ago in 'the West'. Look at how Victorian women were treated; their identity was effectively erased when they married.

Believe it or not, marital rape wasn't outlawed entirely on Great Britain until 1991 (in England & Wales; Scotland outlawed it in 1989).

Yet it was in monogamous cultures where women's rights emerged and a more egalitarian marriage system was established. This was has never happened in polygamous societies, even now. I recall that Celtic and Germanic women had far more rights than Greek and Roman women, too. They also practiced monogamous marriage.

This goes into detail: The puzzle of monogamous marriage

 

[Milton Platt]

So, we have two topics that have been debated to death: abortion and same-sex marriage. As these are beaten horses at this point, I've decided to start a thread on a debate that crops up somewhat, but not particularly often.

Welcome to the polygyny debate. Polygyny is defined as a man having more than one wife.

Do you agree that polygyny should be legal? Why? Why not?

@Saint Frankenstein @Shiranui117 @Deeje @RabbiO @SalixIncendium @Sunstone @icehorse @Ellen Brown

I think that that decision is one to be made by the partners involved as long all are of the age of consent. The government has no business in anyone’s bedroom.

 

[Father Heathen]

Sure, as long as everyone involved are consenting adults, because freedom.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I would imagine most atheists will be against polygyny, just on the grounds that it was condoned (2 Samuel 12:8) and in some cases commanded (Deuteronomy 25:5) by God.

Ewww...reactionaries confuse me.
I'm against it because I've only ever seen it in a patriarchal society and it creeped me out.

Not saying it's impossible to exist more equitably, just that my imagination isn't that good.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think that that decision is one to be made by the partners involved as long all are of the age of consent. The government has no business in anyone’s bedroom.

In their bedroom, no. But I don't think there are laws against multiple sexual partners. This is more in relation to marriage contracts, right?

 

[Lily Riekert]

Then why can a woman have many husbands. Why is it always seen from the mans point of view?

 

[BilliardsBall]

So, we have two topics that have been debated to death: abortion and same-sex marriage. As these are beaten horses at this point, I've decided to start a thread on a debate that crops up somewhat, but not particularly often.

Welcome to the polygyny debate. Polygyny is defined as a man having more than one wife.

Do you agree that polygyny should be legal? Why? Why not?

@Saint Frankenstein @Shiranui117 @Deeje @RabbiO @SalixIncendium @Sunstone @icehorse @Ellen Brown

Why are we asking what should be legal on a religious forum? Who cares?

 

[Rival]

Then why can a woman have many husbands. Why is it always seen from the mans point of view?

Polygyny has more historical precedent. Polyandry is very rare and not very useful from an evolutionary standpoint. One man can impregnate many women, but a woman, no matter how many men, can only have generally 1 or 2 kids at a time. Men can impregnate many women and have many children at once.

 

[Audie]

If one has two wives they can have the dishes and the laundry done at the same time!

Or closely supervise how you learn to do them.