Is it time for polygamy to be legalized?

[clairobscur]

@Sampiro

However, I don’t believe that more than one spouse should have spousal rights as afforded by law (the legal next of kin status that is essentially what advocates of gay marriage are seeking) as this would cause way too many problems.

Suppose Bill dies intestate. Should the estate be split 3 ways, equal amounts to each wife? This does not seem fair to Barb who was married to him longest and contributed more, nor does it seem fair to Margene who has 3 young children to support (Barb’s two oldest are almost grown).

Dunno. Here, the natural heirs, lacking a will, are the children, not the spouse, so this issue is moot. Not my fault if you have weird laws.

Not fair for the spouse who’s been married longer? If a spouse dies three days after the marriage, does s/he get a smaller part of the estate than if she had been married for 20 years under US law? Is this unfair, since she gets everything and contributed nothing?

Do wills exist, in the USA?

If you think it would be fairer for the estate to be shared according to the duration of the marriage, how complicated would it be to write this on a statute? If the population was massively supporting polygamous marriage, how long would it take to write and vote such a statute? Two weeks? Don’t tell me that it would be a major impediment for allowing such marriages. That’s just a lame pretext.

Bill receives major head injuries in a car accident and needs a high-risk major operation for which next-of-kin consent is needed. Barb says “do it”, Nikki says “don’t”, Margene says “I’ll go with what Barb and Nikki decide”. Who do you go with?

That’s a serious problem indeed. Imagine a society where people could have several children, and where spouses wouldn’t necessarily die exactly at the same time. In this weird society, several children might have to make a medical decision on behalf of their unconscious surviving mother/father. They might disagree. Obviously, it would impossible to find any solution to such a problem.

I can’t understand why this point is raised in every thread about polygamy, when it’s so obviously a non-issue (or rather, an already very common issue, that we somehow manage to deal with).

Bill goes to work for a major company (on the show he’s self employed but this is “for instance”). Is it fair for the company to have to provide full medical to three wives and 8 children? (True, it’s the same number as if a monogamist had 10 children, but a monogamist isn’t likely to have 10 more kids in the next few years or have 3 women needing annual mammograms and other gynecological procedures.)

Hmm… Is a company obligated to provide health coverage for the whole family of its employees? Can’t it implement different fees depending on the number of dependants? As you put it yourself, how is this situation currently handled when employee A has no children and employee B has seven children?

Again, essentially a non-issue.

—Bill finally has it up to his eyeballs with Nikki and has Tony Soprano clip her. Margene sees the whole thing. Does Margene have to testify?

Yes or no. Your pick. Again, I can’t see it as being a problem. Does a spouse have to testify when she witnesses her husband murdering their child? His brother? Her brother? Same thing with your example of the murder of a co-spouse. Again, a false/already existing and dealt with issue.

The biggest difference (of many) between gay marriage and polygamy is that gay marriage really doesn’t require rule rewrites.

As you can see, I’m unconvinced that he would require such a huge amount of “rule rewrites”, and besides, I don’t buy that it would be that difficult to rewrite those rules if the society at large was supporting polygamy. That’s a false problem, IMO. A pretext used to avoid considering the validity (or lack thereof) of the question.

Now, an interesting question : let’s assume that for some reason, allowing gay marriage would require an equal amount of “rule rewrites”. Would you support gay marriage or not in this situation?

Or the other way around : if we take as granted that polygamy ought to be allowed, would the burden of having to rewrite rules be a good enough reason not to do so? Is “it’s somewhat complicated because we would have to pass new statutes” generally a valid reason not to do the right thing? If you think that it is, then I guess you’re entitled to this opinion. If , on the other hand, you don’t, which is likely, you’ll have to come up with a reason why allowing polygamy isn’t the right thing instead of shielding behind this false “rule rewrites” issue.

[wsbenge]

Group marraige would drive the insurance companies nuts.

It is difficult for two people to be married, and make it continue. Can you imagine three, or more?

Lawyers would enjoy it, I fear.

[Sampiro]

@clairobscur

Dunno. Here, the natural heirs, lacking a will, are the children, not the spouse, so this issue is moot. Not my fault if you have weird laws.

Different states have different inheritance laws. In most the spouse comes first, which is a reform over when kids came first and a spouse could be all but disinherited.

@clairobscur

Do wills exist, in the USA?

Yes, we’ve had them almost as long as we’ve had indoor plumbing (ca. 1992), but not everybody has one and I specifically said “supposed Bill dies intestate” (intestate means “to die without a valid will”). Plus, in America as in I would think every country, wills can be invalidated for any number of reasons (undue influence, mental incompetence, insolvent estate, etc.).

@clairobscur

If you think it would be fairer for the estate to be shared according to the duration of the marriage, how complicated would it be to write this on a statute? If the population was massively supporting polygamous marriage, how long would it take to write and vote such a statute? Two weeks? Don’t tell me that it would be a major impediment for allowing such marriages. That’s just a lame pretext.

I’m not a legislator and I think it would vary wildly from case to case as to what was fair. Add to this the fact that most polygamists probably die with very little (the direct consequence of supporting numerous wives and children).

Yes or no. Your pick. Again, I can’t see it as being a problem. Does a spouse have to testify when she witnesses her husband murdering their child?

In the U.S. a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse. This is not a right that extends to any other family members- a parent, child, sibling, or domestic partner can be compelled to take the stand. Hence if a man has 25 wives is it right that they should all be allowed to invoke this right?

As you can see, I’m unconvinced that he would require such a huge amount of “rule rewrites”, and besides

Meaning no personal disrespect and acknowledging completely my ignorance of French laws, if you are not familiar with the meaning of intestate or whether America has wills or American inheritance laws or death benefits or with such basic marital rights as the medical power of attorney or American death benefits or the pricing of health insurance or the right to not testify against a spouse or with how spousal benefits work in the U.S. then your opinion on the matter is probably not informed enough to be meaningful.

@clairobscur

Now, an interesting question : let’s assume that for some reason, allowing gay marriage would require an equal amount of “rule rewrites”. Would you support gay marriage or not in this situation?

Let us further assume that whales at the bottom of the ocean speak Swahili and come to Seattle twice a year to find wives and batteries, for it is as relevant and as apropos to the discussion. Gay marriage does not require the same amount of rewrites, it is just an extension of the two-partner system.

[tim-n-va]

I’m pretty much in favor of any combination of entities that can give legal, informed consent getting married any any combination they wish.

To me that means non-human animals, vegetation and inanimate objects are not candidates for marriage. Children too young to give legal consent are not candidates either.

Some rules structure like perhaps a “primary partner” concept so employers don’t get stuck paying benefits to an entire commune would be needed.

I also would probably prefer some term other than marriage, letting religious freedom be preserved by allowing churches to decided which unions they’ll sanction in a ceremony.

[Cheesesteak]

What I don’t like about polygamy is the seemingly inherent inequality of the relationships. It is not a marriage of multiple people, it is one person with multiple marriages. I would have much less of a problem if these marriages were structured as Spouse 1, Spouse 2, Spouse 3, without there being one central person on whom the whole thing rests.

[clairobscur]

@Sampiro

Meaning no personal disrespect and acknowledging completely my ignorance of French laws, if you are not familiar with the meaning of intestate or whether America has wills or American inheritance laws or death benefits or with such basic marital rights as the medical power of attorney or American death benefits or the pricing of health insurance or the right to not testify against a spouse or with how spousal benefits work in the U.S. then your opinion on the matter is probably not informed enough to be meaningful.

Of course, I know that there are wills in the USA, and I’ve read enough threads to know about medical power of attorney in the USA. These were only rhetorical questions. And besides, the issue isn’t significantly different in the USA and in other western countries.

What I meant is that the issues you’re raising either don’t require massive changes (like in the case of spouses testifying : either you just let the law as they currently are by adding an “s” to the word “spouse” or if you don’t like it, you remove this privilege) or are already dealt with on a regular basis in similar situations, like in the case of medical decisions made by relatives other than the spouse, or of people insured by their companies who have several children instead of only one, and so on.

Let us further assume that whales at the bottom of the ocean speak Swahili and come to Seattle twice a year to find wives and batteries, for it is as relevant and as apropos to the discussion. Gay marriage does not require the same amount of rewrites, it is just an extension of the two-partner system.

Should we implement policies only when they’re an extension of existing statutes because otherwise it’s too complicated?

It is extremely relevant, and I see that you just avoided the annoying questions : would you oppose gay marriage if it required a significant amount of rewrites, or more generally can having to rewrite laws be a good enough reason not to implement a change if this change is, in your opinion, right and justified? Would you oppose UHC, for instance, just because it would involve a lot of rewrites, without even considering the merits of implementing the system?

If I see that you can now marry your same-sex significant other, why couldn’t I argue that I should be allowed, by the same logic, to marry my two opposite sex significant other? Why do you want to deny us the basic right of marriage you claimed for yourself while vindicating people who didn’t want to change the traditional rules of marriage? Do you really think that “we’d need to rewrite laws” is a good enough reason?
I don’t buy that. Again, these arguments are IMO only pretexts to avoid addressing the issue of polygamy itself, or to avoid admitting that people who currently claim that changing the traditional definition of marriage would open the door for other changes (like polygamy) might have a point.

Because they do have a point. If marriage recognized by the state is a fundamental right that ought to be extended to people who have “alternate” forms of sexuality and relationships, then why should it be extended only to gays, but not to polyamorous people? You can’t just wawe the question away by saying : we would have to pass more laws. You need a good argument to oppose to people who will claim that there’s no reason to stick to an antiquated and arbitrary definition of marriage that made it solely monogamous and straight, and later changed the “straight” part while sticking to the “monogamous” part for no obvious reason.

[Chronos]

You’ve always got to look at things in terms of their cost and benefit. Even if we stipulate for the sake of argument that prohibiting polygamy is just as grave an injustice as prohibiting same-sex marriage, the fact that it’s easier to change the laws to allow gay marriage means that pursuing gay marriage rights should be a higher priority: There’s the same benefit, for a lesser cost. Once we have gay marriage taken care of, then we can look at what issue is next on the list in the cost-benefit analysis, which may or may not be polygamy.

[mswas]

@Sage_Rat

It always was.

But practically speaking? No, let’s worry about getting same-sex marriage in and then worry about polygamy. Adding on polygamy would just set things back, unfortunately.

:rolleyes: Translation: Lets worry about the special interests I care about and ignore the ones I don’t in the meantime.

[mswas]

@Nobody

I’m not saying that gay marriage leads to polygamy. My point is, the general consensus seemed to be that while legalizing gay marriages would be a good thing, other forms of non-traditional marriage would be a bad thing, at least would cause monetary and legal complications. Now in this thread, so far, most of the posters are saying that polygamy might be something worth exploring.

In other words, I’m sensing mixed signals here.

Gay marriage does kick in the door for plural marriage, it cannot be otherwise.

What’s interesting is that the idea of being on the verge of social acceptance of their minority sexual preference places them against another group with a different aberrant sexuality. As it always goes.

If gay marriage should be ok, then so should plural marriage be.

This is why we should eliminate marriage from the civic space completely. Civil Unions and Domestic incorporation should be the method by which marriage is handled by the government.

[Miller]

@Nobody

Before I make my comments, let me make perfectly clear that I have no problem with gay marriages, and that what I’m about to say is aimed at some of its proponents, not gay marriage itself.

I find it this thread very amusing, because of past discussions about gay marriage.

Gay marriage proponents: Gays deserve the right to get married.
Gay marriage opponents: But if you give them the right, where will it end? Next thing you know, you’ll be wanting people to have the right to marry animals, or have multiple spouses.
Gay marriage proponents: You’re an idiot. We’re not advocating any of those things. Don’t be ridiculous.

And now we have this thread.

What’s amusing is that this thread, which has nothing to do with gay marriage, is now about gay marriage. The point of the reply you’re paraphrasing there is that the arguments about gay marriage, and the arguments about polygamous marriage, are separate arguments. If we legalize one, there is no logical reason that we must therefore legalize the other.

[mswas]

@Bryan_Ekers

I’m personally unconvinced the motive is to protect marriage so much as it is to reiterate that gays are icky.

Silly, gays are only icky because they are seen as an affront to the continuation of the species. The motive is certainly to protect marriage. Conservatives are terrified that we’ll turn into a hedonistic nation along the European model and watch as our civilization collapses due to our inability to produce a future generation.

[Anne_Neville]

Here’s a problem with legalizing polygamy that I’ve never heard anyone else bring up, but I think would be a valid problem: What kind of polygamy do you legalize? You have basically two groups of people who might be in favor of legalizing polygamy, but if you look closely, they aren’t really in favor of the same thing.

Group A is your basic “live and let live” social libertarians, who say “anything that goes on among consenting adults is OK with us”. I am a member of this group. Group B is your religious fundamentalists of various types who want to legalize polygamy because their scriptures call for it.

I don’t see a fundamentalist who wants polygamy as it was in scriptures being OK with polyandry as well, and I would be against any legalized polygamy that didn’t include polyandry, because that’s just unfair. You have two groups of people who would be OK with some kind of polygamy, but not the same kind.

[Sage_Rat]

@mswas

:rolleyes: Translation: Lets worry about the special interests I care about and ignore the ones I don’t in the meantime.

Given that I’d personally be significantly more inclined to polygamy/polyamory than homosexuality, I’ll have to give a big negatory to your reading of my statement. I’d dearly love for both of these to be legal. People in love* who want to marry should be allowed to marry. If some asshole told me I couldn’t get married for stupid reasons that amount to “ick”, I’d kick him in the balls with a crowbar. Fortunately, I’m heterosexual and unlikely to ever enter a polygamous relationship.

But the point stands that it’s stupid to wait a hundred years for “all or nothing” when you could get halfway there now, and get the second part added on in a few decades as well.

• I.e. consenting adult humans.

[Miller]

@Sage_Rat

I’d kick him in the balls with a crowbar.

So, like… the crowbar would be tied to your shoe?

[Sage_Rat]

@Miller

So, like… the crowbar would be tied to your shoe?

Like stilts.

[fubarassociation]

@mswas

Silly, gays are only icky because they are seen as an affront to the continuation of the species. The motive is certainly to protect marriage. Conservatives are terrified that we’ll turn into a hedonistic nation along the European model and watch as our civilization collapses due to our inability to produce a future generation.

I must have missed the part in the marriage license where I promised to procreate by any means necessary. And I can just imagine a world where the purpose of marriage wasn’t officially procreation: Married Couples Gone Wild! See married men and women doing sexy things together merely for fun, with no plans to ever get her pregnant!

Not to mention that lesbian couples could still get pregnant; heck, they should get even more tax credits or something, since both of them could be pumping out babies!

[ITR_champion]

@Sage_Rat

There’s no requirement for this. In every society until modern day, women were property. In modern day, a woman could just as easily have two husbands as a man could have two wives. I’ll admit that it’s probably not as likely, but the key point is that the setup of modern day society is completely different from the days of yore.

First of all, your statement that “in every society until modern day, women were property” is completely incorrect.

On the issue of what would happen if polygamy were legalized and normalized, it’s still the case that men are more likely to sleep around than women. It doesn’t matter whether you look at a remote Amazon tribe, the ancient Greeks, or the most enlightened and progressive societies in the modern world. That fact remains the same.

And more importantly, so what if crime rises and everything?

I should hope that’s obvious. Any society is going to seek hold its own stability as a goal. It would be foolish and reckless to start altering fundamental rules without regard to consequences. We have sound research telling us what to expect when monogamy ceases to be the norm. Unless we want to practice flagrant anti-intellectualism, we need to use that research as our guide in this issue.

[LilShieste]

(Since SSM has already been brought up in this thread…)

If polygamous marriage is legalized, then wouldn’t same sex marriage automatically be legalized, as well? As soon as a third person enters into a marriage, doesn’t a same sex “mini-marriage” exist between 2 of the 3 partners?

[magellan01]

@LilShieste

If polygamous marriage is legalized, then wouldn’t same sex marriage automatically be legalized, as well? As soon as a third person enters into a marriage, doesn’t a same sex “mini-marriage” exist between 2 of the 3 partners?

It depends. For instance, the usual Mormon-type polygamous relationship has a male being married to several women, but those women (I think) have no bond to each other, except that they are all part of the same “family”. Though, if polygamy were to be legalized I’m sure the other type of relationship to which you allude could possible, too.

As far as an answer to the OP, I think it is a thoroughly bad idea. And a huge step backwards for women.

[aruvqan]

@Critical1

Bill Gates can afford 15 wives, the average schmoe down in Utah with multiple wives and kids all on welfare while his lazy ass is unemployed on the other hand…not so much.
that and its always guys with multiple wives, have you ever even heard of a woman with multiple husbands?

ooo I volunteer … then maybe the trash would get taken out without bitching him out about it=)
[i would consider doing it, but it is hard to carry trash on crutches … ]