Polygamy versus other forms of relationships.

I’m with IWLN on this one… just the fact that women having many husbands is frowned upon and the opposite isn’t rings as wrong to me.

Then there is the issue that the first wife may have gotten married thinking she would be the only one.... or the first husband thinking he would be the only one.  Suddenly your husband/wife wants another person in his/her life as well as you. How does one legally coordinate this ? Can the 1st, 2nd spouse stop a new marriage from taking place ? 

In the end Polygamy will only be an excuse for wealthy men to bring in more women into his house using his money to attract them. Its a social model that was necessary in socieites with high death rates among males...  women will have more to lose in polygamic rules then men....

No I didn’t bring up exploitation and although I’m sure it can occur, I don’t think that is the normal situation. What I’m saying is that if you’re raised to think something is normal, if it is how it’s always been; then you have no problem with it. The way my mother raised me and her attitudes toward my father had a major impact on how I approached marriage. If my father would have had two wives, I would have expected something similar to that.

No. That one makes me smile. I deeply value and honor him. He’s too stubborn for me to own. I could not share him anymore than you could share your wives with another man.

Doesn’t it initially hurt the first wife’s feelings when you tell her you want a second wife? To me that would translate to my husband saying I wasn’t enough. I mean no disrepect. It’s just even with everyone agreeing it seems like there would be some hurt?

I am truly happy for you and even happier for your wives.:wink:

I only have a small amount of second hand knowledge on this, but from what I understood, very young girls were told it was their duty and given no choices. I don’t believe there are very many groups practicing poligamy now or if they are, it is very secret, since it violates our laws.

I’m sorry. In my country, we really have no true concept of poligamy other than past history and much of that was negative. So it is agreed on before you marry that you may take another wife if you wish? Or is it just understood because it is so common. Is it common? If I’ve asked you anything I shouldn’t have I apologize and you can tell me it’s none of my business.:cool:

You have a valid point with this. Of course in Islamic societies you would hear the defense that there is nothing said in Al Qur’an about multiple marriage for women while its commands describes very explicitely the regulations counting for men.
My argument against this is that what isn’t described can’t also be declared invalid or prohibited. Of course that is always a good point to come up with if you are looking for overheated debate. It was one of my favourites when I was very young and very innocent… :slight_smile:

That are points that should be regulated by law.

mmmmm… I must reflect on that one… Although I prefer of course the idea of women fighting for me because of my unique shining personality and charm.

This are some of the reasons polygamy is even mentioned in for example Al Qur’an.

Salaam. A

So what is then your argument against such a situation?

There are an abundance of situations where this happens and especially in cases as Rashak Mani came to mention.

There are also a lot of situations where it doesn’t.
For example in many rural societies where women come under such a workpressure that a second wife is welcomed as a very much needed help in the household, on the land, with the children.

A woman can stipulate in the marriage contract that whenever her husband chooses to marry a second wife she gets immediately a divorce without further discussion.

It depends of the country and even more on the personal situation of those involved.
Polygamy is not common in my family or in my circle of friends.
If I’ve asked you anything I shouldn’t have I apologize and you can tell me it’s none of my business.:cool: **
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I’m using a keyboard I’m not used to attack, so once again I touched the wrong button.

About your last remark:
Upto now I saw no reason to find your questions intrusive.
I exposed myself a bit to such mild interrogations, no?

Salaam. A

It seems to me that a few issues have become entangled with the one of whether or not we should be able to marry more than one person.

Firstly, exploitation of women. Assuming the marriage consent age wasn’t changed, there seems no reason to suppose that underage girls would be forced into marriage.

Secondly, legal considerations. Yes, it would be complicated, no question about it. But if people want to embroil themselves in such complications, then surely it’s up to them?

Thirdly, that of whether or not two men would be able to get married to one woman.

On the third point, all I’ll say is that, speaking as a polyamourous woman, all non-monogomous relationships are complicated. I’ve had two boyfriends at a time, two girlfriends at a time, and one of each, and it’s always been difficult at times. But, if you can make it work, why not make it legal? I really don’t think that in the Western world at least we would necessarily see vastly more two wife/one husband marriages than two husband/one wife marriages. Often, I think you would see two bisexual wives with a husband. Polyamoury has been, in general, pretty liberating for both men and women and I don’t see why being able to legalise it would make it any less so.

I don’t really have one. My only point was that it would generally not work here. Of course neither does marriage to one person work particularly well here, with 50% divorce rate.

I can understand that. Over here we tend to think first about the sexual side and not about the practical things. I honestly was thinking about hurt feelings.

That’s fair, although I don’t normally believe in solving problems with divorce. She should have the option.

Yes, you’ve been very nice. Thank you.

Yes, the “what’s yours is mine and what’s mine is yours” thing is pretty much standard. Of course, there are some who subscribe to the theory that “what’s yours is mine, and what’s mine is mine” but that’s a whole other issue, really.

And for what it’s worth, I wouldn’t dream of getting married under the traditions you describe, so I guess we’re even. :slight_smile:

Generally speaking, if you start a business during the marriage, it’s considered a marital asset. If the business fails, the spouse is going to suffer the financial consequences of that failure, so it’s only fair that the spouse reap the financial rewards if the business succeeds. Besides, most businesses lose money for a while when they first start up; if your spouse is the only one bringing in money during this time or you’re both living off savings, that’s considered a real contribution to the start-up, as is emotional support.

The same goes for one spouse starting a new career, or going to medical or law school during the marriage. If it’s accrued during the legal partnership (marriage), it belongs to both partners. When divorce rates started going up, there were apparently a lot of cases where men had gotten married during college, gone to med school while his wife supported him both financially and emotionally, and after 20 years decided to trade her in for a younger model. The men were arguing that they’d been the ones building up the money-making careers, so they were entitled to keep the money they’d earned. The courts essentially said, “Sorry, chuckles, we’re not falling for that one. Write the lady a check.”

I think inheiritances are often special cases, but that varies by state. That’s the thing about discussing legalities in the US; every state is it’s own jurisdiction and has its own set of marriage and divorce laws.

Oh, and it also goes for the bad stuff in a marriage. If one partner runs up a lot of debt during the marriage, it’s considered a shared debt.

And while we’re at it, Alde, you wouldn’t believe the proportion of Americans (or heck, Westerners in general) of both genders to whom the very idea of a Prenuptial (or Pre-Nuptial) Agreement stating division of property is considered an insult to the core of their very souls! (look up the term in threads from the last year and you’ll find one in which even I got into a fight!)

Now, in complex modern societies, it helps if there’s a “default” in the law for those cases where the individuals did not make preparations. Thus if you die w/o leaving a will, the Law states the order of your kin’s access to your estate. If you do not enter into a PNA before marriage, in most countries using the British Common Law system or the Napoleonic/Roman Civil law system (meaning thus all the Americas, much of Europe, and a lot of the former colonies worldwide) your marriage papers place you automatically under whatever is the Law On Marriage and the Family of the jurisdiction you live in. Which tend towards being biased towards the “traditional” marriage, under Community Property and all that. (And really, this was not arbitrary. As Western societies developed, they had their own historic reasons to establish that as the preferred system for transferring property from generation to generation and stabilizing inter-family relations. That this may be obsolete is not something we can just decide upon instantly.)
So you may have a point in that if Polymarriage is established in the West, it may be the case that a PreNup would have to be absolutely mandatory.

JR,

I know all about regulations such as you describe which are also present in for example Belgian Law. The rule there is: If no other legal contract is made it means that your marriage falls under the common property setting. But if I recall well (courses on Belgian Law lies 13 years back in my school curriculum) one can decide to change the marriage contract any time during the marriage.

The lack of interest in the USA in making a legal contract that stipulates other terms surprizes me.
And in my opinion is should be mandatory in any case everywhere.

Salaam. A

Why? What’s the benefit of dividing up the children before you’ve conceived them, the money before you’ve made it, and the property before you’ve even considered buying it? Nobody knows what the future will bring, and every big life change would involve another trip to the frigging lawyer to update to contract. Unless you go into it with something to protect, why go to all the bother and expense of planning an escape hatch you have no intention of using?

CCL

Exactly. Nobody knows the future. So to secure some of it in this easy way it is the best thing one can do. And why should it be necessary to “update” if you have written out everything in detail the first time?

Salaam. A

A lot of the marriage contract issue has to do with differing views on what marriage is supposed to be. In most modern Western cultures, it is tied with romantic love and devotion, not simply a family contract.
My wife and I don’t have a pre-nup. I love her, and she loves me…and the idea of divorcing her leaves me feeling ill. She fulfills a need in my life that transcends any physical needs, and frankly, if she were to leave, the state of my assets would be the least of my worries. The same holds true for her.

Silly? maybe. Naive? Sure. But would I rather it be different? Nope.

So maybe where we’re missing each other is in our definitions and expectation of marriage itself.

I’m absolutely certain that all my relatives from mother’s side who all are pure blood “Westerners” with all the expectations of marriage you describe, have a marriage contract.
I think it is more a question of being familiar with this or not.

Salaam. A

Well it appears to almost be a requirement of Belgium law

Though I find it interesting that Belgium consular officers are not competent to draw up a contract between a Belgium woman and a foreign man. So in Belgium you do not need a contract as there is blanket legal coverage unless the spouse to be is not a national.

In Canada a pre-nuptial would basically cover the following:

Honestly to my mind part of it seems covered by actually speaking with my wife and the other seems to be covered in my will. Besides I entered my marriage expecting a pooling of resources and obligations.

Now should I have entered into my marriage with umpteen dollars vs. my wife’s meager possessions I suppose a pre-nuptial might be in order, but between normal people, why would you bother?

Grey,

Consular offices are situated outside the Belgian territory.
I have no clue why only a marriage between a Belgian man and a foreign woman is mentioned, I would need to look at the original text instead of a translation.

And a contract other then what is provided by the legal settings is certainly something I would recommend, also between two Belgians, any time any place.

Salaam. A

The text stipulating that either bride or groom must be Belgian to be able to be married on a consular post.

Salaam. A