Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm waiting for the Polygamists to start pushing for full legalization, and I don't say this jokingly. My daughter and nephew are good friends with children of polygamists and the kids from these arrangements don't see anything wrong with it and were quite open about the set up.
Any thoughts on this?

If people are happy in polygamous relationships then why not, it isn't hurting anyone else.

I don't think so, especially since they don't have the "equality" clause to get behind.

Two people have always been able to get married.

40 years ago I wouldn't have been able to marry my wife for the same arguments that are used today. "Interracial marriage is not biblical, it will ruin the children, society will crash and burn." But two people have been able to get married, so why shouldn't two different colored people?

Same-sex marriage is still about two people getting married, the basic structure remains the same and it is still just a question of "if those two, then why not those two?"

Maybe I am wrong, but that's why I don't see polygamy becomming a cause.

Personal anecdote about the DOMA ruling though (sorry if it is off-topic). I am personally in the "gay is a sin" camp, and fully in the "God is personal and not politics. For law Constitution trumps Bible" camp for my political and societal outlook.

I have a friend that I work with (Federal government job) who was happy about the ruling but still reserved about what it actually would mean in practice. He has been with his partner for many years, they wear wedding bands but have never married because there is no point to that in Oklahoma, own their house together. About a week after the ruling we got the email from the Office of Personal Management saying that the repeal of the DOMA means that all employees affected have X month to put their spouse on all their federal benefits.

I printed out the memo and handed it to him. And aside all the equality talk, and rights talk, and don't treat people like outlasts talk that was a focus for many, the look on his face when he realized that he can now actually provide health insurance to his partner (after they get married) and that they as a couple can now afford healthcare if something were to happen to him made me fully realize that it was the right decision beyond any doubt.

Polygamy would also be a legal nightmare for courts in case of dissolution. And child custody. *Shutters*

Also would be interesting in health care situation where the spouse often becomes the decision maker if no advance directives were filed.

Yeah. I mean I could see polygamy working but we'd have to rewrite so many laws to make it work in our system today, and I just don't see that many people wanting it right now.

Gay marriage was a comparatively simple legal fix. The laws on marriage haven't really changed, just who they're applied to.

 LordofHats wrote:
Polygamy would also be a legal nightmare for courts in case of dissolution. And child custody. *Shutters*

Not as much as you might think. The girl across the street my daughter plays with has a divorced mother. The split gave her custody, and the daughter goes every couple of weeks to stay with her dad a week. It seems like a smooth set up.

I dont see it either. Polygamy has plenty of issues to work through. The fact that the reason many polygamist marriage jut relegate women to breeding stock in the marriage for a man. The fact that it is many times more damaging for a women. Many of the religions that do advocate polygamy also relegate women to a subservient role. It would require severe re-working of laws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Polygamy would also be a legal nightmare for courts in case of dissolution. And child custody. *Shutters*

Not as much as you might think. The girl across the street my daughter plays with has a divorced mother. The split gave her custody, and the daughter goes every couple of weeks to stay with her dad a week. It seems like a smooth set up.

Think of it this way. A mother splits off from the marriage with her two daughters. But she actually went to work, leaving another mother ro raise her kid in the marriage. Who should gt custody? The mother, or the person the child thinks as a mother? Or what if the mother considers another child hers because she raised him/her?

I hope they do legalize it. I don't see how anyone who is pro-gay marriage could be against polygamy.

Yes, the legal issues would have to be cleared up, but it still boils down to the same thing as gay marriage: is it hurting anyone else? No, it is not.

It may actually hurt someone else. Many polygamist marriages are just male power houses where a man gets to control many women for the purpose of making babies, and unshamlessly bedding a younger women when he feels like it

Think of it this way. A mother splits off from the marriage with her two daughters. But she actually went to work, leaving another mother ro raise her kid in the marriage. Who should gt custody? The mother, or the person the child thinks as a mother? Or what if the mother considers another child hers because she raised him/her?

It's not really any different than a "normal" couple getting divorced I would think. If either spouse remarries (or stays married in this case) it would result in a non-biological parent raising the child at least part time. But step-mom doesn't get custody just because she married dad and cooks dinner, so I don't see an issue with another wife already present when it comes to custody.

Once you change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman together for life, then pretty much whatever you can think of is open to be made "legal." All it takes is long enough arguing for your "rights" to be "equal," and the good Ole US of A will give up and fold....

blah

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It may actually hurt someone else. Many polygamist marriages are just male power houses where a man gets to control many women for the purpose of making babies, and unshamlessly bedding a younger women when he feels like it

You might want to watch the stereotyping and attacks against polygamy before there is a red text...

Relapse wrote:
Not as much as you might think. The girl across the street my daughter plays with has a divorced mother. The split gave her custody, and the daughter goes every couple of weeks to stay with her dad a week. It seems like a smooth set up.

Now imagine that previous marriage involved two men and one women. Now you'd think the biological standard we currently use could easily be applied over but what if the mother doesn't know which of her husbands is the father? Do both have a responsibility or just the biological father? You could test them but what if one really doesn't want to pay child support and blocks any attempts to do any tests? What if all three parents want custody and constantly accuse each other of being unable to care for the child? Polygamy is like taking already contentious and vicious legal proceedings and turning them up to eleven.

Do we really want a child to be in shared custody with five different 'parents?' That's kind of ridiculous. Having split parents with just two is chaotic enough.

It's not that simple. We'd need all new case law, all new procedures, all new everything.

 LordofHats wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Not as much as you might think. The girl across the street my daughter plays with has a divorced mother. The split gave her custody, and the daughter goes every couple of weeks to stay with her dad a week. It seems like a smooth set up.

Now imagine that previous marriage involved two men and one women. Now you'd think the biological standard we currently use could easily be applied over but what if the mother doesn't know which of her husbands is the father? Do both have a responsibility or just the biological father? You could test them but what if one really doesn't want to pay child support and blocks any attempts to do any tests? What if all three parents want custody and constantly accuse each other of being unable to care for the child? Polygamy is like taking already contentious and vicious legal proceedings and turning them up to eleven.

Do we really want a child to be in shared custody with five different 'parents?' That's kind of ridiculous. Having split parents with just two is chaotic enough.

It's not that simple. We'd need all new case law, all new procedures, all new everything.

The way it usually works here is that the child goes with the biological mother unless she is proven unfit.

 d-usa wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It may actually hurt someone else. Many polygamist marriages are just male power houses where a man gets to control many women for the purpose of making babies, and unshamlessly bedding a younger women when he feels like it

You might want to watch the stereotyping and attacks against polygamy before there is a red text...

In my research during my time studying it for my marriage and family class this typically is how polygamy works. I rarely see it the other way in the modern world. The only time a marriage involved 2 men/1 women was in india where brothers shared a wife because that is how it is.

That's how a lot of famous polygamy is showcased in the media but honestly I'm not sure enough research has been done to really predict the effects of polygamy in a modern society in that sense. It fills vital roles in many tribal societies due to the interconnecting of families for mutual support, but that's a benefit largely rendered moot when you're not a tribal society.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont see it either. Polygamy has plenty of issues to work through. The fact that the reason many polygamist marriage jut relegate women to breeding stock in the marriage for a man. The fact that it is many times more damaging for a women. Many of the religions that do advocate polygamy also relegate women to a subservient role. It would require severe re-working of laws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Polygamy would also be a legal nightmare for courts in case of dissolution. And child custody. *Shutters*

Not as much as you might think. The girl across the street my daughter plays with has a divorced mother. The split gave her custody, and the daughter goes every couple of weeks to stay with her dad a week. It seems like a smooth set up.

Think of it this way. A mother splits off from the marriage with her two daughters. But she actually went to work, leaving another mother ro raise her kid in the marriage. Who should gt custody? The mother, or the person the child thinks as a mother? Or what if the mother considers another child hers because she raised him/her?

You don't really have a good understanding of the majority of polygamist unions when you say it is a male power trip. I live right across the street from people involved in polygamy and the 11 year old daughter comes into my house and tells us all about it in the way an unguarded child talks about things. As my nephew discovered on the compound he used to go visit and we have learned, the media likes to sensationalize isolated occurances as compared to the general norm of a situation.

I think that is the reason it is dying. It really is a damaging system for many involved.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I think that is the reason it is dying. It really is a damaging system for many involved.

The marriage rate overall is dropping, is it a damaging system to those involved as well?

*no smart comments from the divorced guys in here!

 LordofHats wrote:

Do we really want a child to be in shared custody with five different 'parents?'

King Solomon would need to spend some time working at a Japanese steakhouse first.

I can give my own reason why the marriage rate is dropping.

 d-usa wrote:
The marriage rate overall is dropping, is it a damaging system to those involved as well?

I'd actually propose that once we get to polygamy marriage as a concept becomes somewhat useless. Might just be simpler to do away with it all together or completely reinvent it.

*no smart comments from the divorced guys in here!

Let's legalize polygamy. After all, misery loves company

 dogma wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Do we really want a child to be in shared custody with five different 'parents?'

King Solomon would need to spend some time working at a Japanese steakhouse first.

I've played Fruit Ninja, I got this.

 dogma wrote:
King Solomon would need to spend some time working at a Japanese steakhouse first.

There is no barrier now to legal polygamy. It is a matter of time before it is brought before the courts and it must be legalized now.

 SickSix wrote:
There is no barrier now to legal polygamy. It is a matter of time before it is brought before the courts and it must be legalized now.

Under what claim though?

Especially when socially I'm pretty sure there's still mass opposition to the idea. Things don't get legalized just because there's no legal barrier (especially since legal barriers tend to get thrown up ). Honestly you wiper snappers should have been there when gay marriage was illegal

 d-usa wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
There is no barrier now to legal polygamy. It is a matter of time before it is brought before the courts and it must be legalized now.

Under what claim though?

Tell me how you would stop it?

To stop polygamy you have to define marriage. Well where are you going to get your definition from? Can't use religion.

Polygamy has to be legal. You cannot logically deny it now that there is same sex marriage.

(Personally I believe government has no place in defining/regulating/legislating marriage.)

From the current laws on marriage that deal with marriage solely as monogamous and the numerous laws banning someone from being married to multiple people at once? Most states have a law against polygamy.